POLITICAL BRIBES ABOUND.

With the General Election campaigns getting into full swing, the 3 main parties are busy trying to buy our votes.

The Conservatives have made noises about immigration numbers and most recently, have issued a promise to 'cap' energy prices. Labour are offering to shell out loads of money on higher wages and benefits, and more spending on public services, while increasing taxes for what they call 'the rich' and the Liberal Democrats keep banging on about 'Brexit' and how unfair it all is.

This is all 'par for the course' and is the usual meaningless rhetoric that is trotted out at every election. Labour knows it can promise anything it can dream up as it has no chance of winning and the same goes for the Liberal Democrats. Both would be disastrous for the country anyway, with utter confusion over our relationship with the European Union and / or economic meltdown.

However, the Conservatives are treading on thin ice with their promises on immigration and energy prices. They will win the election, at least that's what the opinion polls strongly  predict, so they will have to act on their pledges. Having failed to have any effect on immigration over the last 7 years, it seems most unlikely that they will be able to make any real progress in the next 5, thus making the whole matter a hostage to fortune. Regarding energy prices, imposing a statutory control over these smacks of the type of price control beloved of Socialists and that was imposed by Labour in the 1960s and 1970s. It may also be a wholly unproductive policy, leading the energy suppliers to increase all of their uncontrolled prices in order to make up the shortfall resulting from the controls on their standard tariffs. Just as the regulation of railway prices has had unforeseen consequences, so would the regulation of energy prices and, while some would see their costs capped, others would see them rise dramatically.

Wouldn't it be nice if our political parties could be honest with the electorate for a change and not simply use our money to try to bribe us to vote for them.

LABOUR TAX PLEDGES HIDE THE TRUTH.

In their efforts to convince the populace to vote for them in June, the Labour party is 'pledging' not to raise income tax for those earning less than £80,000 per annum. In addition, they're saying that they won't increase employees national insurance or the rates of VAT currently in place. However, they are saying that the 'top 5%' of earners will pay more, though how much more isn't stated.

Allowing that they have also promised to spend several hundreds of billions of pounds more on public services, this implies enormous increases in the taxes which they don't promise to freeze, and also a huge increase in government borrowing. Back in the 1960s, some 'top earners' found themselves paying an eye-watering rate of income tax of 98% on part of their income - is this where Corbyn and McDonnell are heading ? What about a straightforward 'wealth tax' to rob those who have anything, or a vast increase in inheritance tax ?

They've been careful to say nothing about employers' national insurance - watch out all those providing jobs ! Keeping the rates of VAT the same doesn't preclude extending the scope of this iniquitous tax - might we find that currently exempt items, such as lottery tickets, museum entrance charges, burial and cremation costs, hospital and care home charges, school fees and much more - are suddenly made subject to it ? There are also a myriad of other taxes and duties which can be dreamt up or increased and no doubt this would also happen.

Together with massive increases in taxation, the vast increase in public sector borrowing would lead to a collapse in investment, higher prices, a dramatic surge in both inflation and interest rates and a collapse in the value of the pound. Within 12 months the UK would be back where it was in the 1970s when Chancellor of the Exchequer Dennis Healey was obliged to go, cap in hand, to the IMF for vital financial support.

Don't be conned. Labour's pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on if, indeed, they're written down at all. After Ed Miliband's 'Edstone' fiasco, they may well decide to avoid putting pen to paper on this economic nonsense.

JUNCKER : A SMALL-MINDED AND FOOLISH MAN.

Some of the petty bureaucrats of the European Union seem to be dead set on making petty little digs at the UK.

Today, one of the 'Giants' of the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker, made a wholly unnecessary and utterly spurious remark about the English language before he very pointedly made a speech in French. He commented that English was "losing importance in Europe", clearly not understanding that English is the language of choice for virtually all major international communications. While English is an almost mandatory second language for the vast majority of the world, French is spoken by the French plus a handful of third world nations, and almost no one else.

Juncker is a man of enormous self-importance, having been Prime Minister and Finance Minister of that great world power, Luxemburg, before his elevation to various positions in the European Union. Now, it seems, he is determined to make a name for himself by gaining as many negative 'Brexit' headlines as he can and, perhaps, making the process of negotiation as uncomfortable as possible.

However, soon after Juncker's pathetic jibe, another Eurocrat, Michel Barnier indicated a degree of unhappiness with his colleague's remarks by very pointedly making a speech in English. Barnier is the EU's chief Brexit negotiator and he, at least, seems to want to avoid the petty vindictiveness of Juncker and his ilk. It is good to know that at least some of the EU hierarchy know how to behave and appear to want to have a positive and productive negotiation. Barnier has, of course, served in a number of senior positions in governments of a proper country, France, so perhaps does not feel the same sense of inferiority as does Juncker and is consequently less prone to feel a need to grab the headlines with silly comments.

Juncker is an egotistical fool while Barnier seems to be a man of much greater substance and political ability. Fingers crossed that it's Barnier who really does hold sway.

EU DOOM-MONGERS STILL TRYING TO SCARE US.

With the UK's General Election campaigns beginning to get into their stride, one or two of the unelected bureaucrats of the European Union appear to be doing their best to scare British voters with various stories about the difficulties associated with Brexit.

Suggestions include that the negotiations will be far from easy, that the UK will not get a good deal and even that the 'bill' for leaving could be as much as €100bn. Political giants such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier have issued carefully worded statements while there have also been assorted leaks of supposed information, all aimed at telling British voters that leaving the EU is not a good idea. Presumably the hope is that it will encourage voters to think again about whether to support Theresa May.

In reality, continual interference by EU officials, however its done, will only serve to have the opposite effect. The British voted to leave the EU partly because that body is interfering and dictatorial, wastes money in truck loads and is a bureaucratic nightmare; the recent interventions demonstrate all of this, and more, and can only backfire on the doom-mongers who delivered the messages.

Ignore the nonsense and keep the faith.

SO WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE MCCANN ?

Madeleine McCann vanished from her room in a holiday apartment 10 years ago. At the time of her disappearance it's said that the not quite 4 year old Madeleine and her 2 year old twin brother and sister were alone in their apartment as their parents had trotted off to have a meal with a group of friends.

Theories about Madeleine's disappearance have abounded but, despite occasional excitement in the media, there has never been any proven siting of her, no remains have been found, no clear suspects or motives have been identified and the case continues to be completely unresolved. Huge amounts of police resources, from both the Portuguese and British services, have been utilised to no effect.

Of course, people sometimes go missing for no apparent reason and sometimes these people are never found. However, such cases almost invariably involve adults, or older children, who are mobile and have access to money, or relate to abduction and probable murder. In Madeleine's case, the first option is an obvious impossibility, leaving the second as the principal likelihood, but is it really likely that someone entered the apartment and removed a 4 year old child, without fuss ? If this did happen, is it really likely that Madeleine is alive and well somewhere, having forgotten all about her birth family ?

If Madeleine was abducted, it must be almost certain that she was murdered soon afterwards and her body disposed of. However, in such a case, the criminal underworld would quite probably have known and passed their knowledge to the police; no one likes child abusers. If Madeleine had been abducted for trafficking and was subsequently sold to a family in some other country, would she not, by now, have been discovered ?

There are surely only 2 possible conclusions. Either Madeleine was not actually in the apartment at the time of the supposed abduction or she was abducted and trafficked but is now dead. It's quite a conundrum.

PUNISH THE DRUG CHEATS, DON'T FIDDLE WITH RECORDS

It's well known that many athletics' world records set in the 1970s and 1980s were fuelled by illegitimate means. In particular, athletes from the Soviet Union and an assortment of eastern European countries achieved results that were not matched for many, many years, if they ever have been. It's certainly true that athletes from other parts of the world also used doubtful methods to achieve their aims and there has to be a doubt over many of the performances from that period.

Currently, there are a number of world records for women which date back to the 1980s :

100m - Florence Griffith-Joyner - USA - 1988

200m - Florence Griffith-Joyner - USA - 1988

400m - Marita Koch - East Germany - 1985

800m - Jarmila Kratochvilova - Czechoslovakia - 1983

High Jump - Stefka Kostadinova - Bulgaria - 1987

Long Jump - Galina Chistyakova - Soviet Union - 1988

Shot Put - Natalya Lisovskaya - Soviet Union - 1987 

Discus - Gabriele Reinsch - East Germany - 1988

Heptathlon - Jackie Joyner-Kersee - USA - 1988

4 x 400m Relay - Soviet Union - 1988

There's also a 3000m record of dubious nature which dates back to 1993 and is held by a Chinese athlete, records for the 1000m and Mile set by Russia's Svetlana Masterkova in 1996. Other more recent records have been thrown into doubt by the improved drug testing methods now available and a significant number of athletes previously thought to be 'clean' have been found to have been using illicit methods to achieve records and medals.

Men's records have tended to be rewritten more frequently, however, there remain two that have survived since the 1980s :

Discus - Jurgen Schult - East Germany - 1986

Hammer - Yuriy Sedykh - Soviet Union - 1986

In addition, a number date back to the 1990s, including :

1500m -  Hicham el Guerrouj - Morocco - 1998

One Mile - Hicham el Guerrouj - Morocco - 1999

400m Hurdles - Kevin Young - USA - 1992,

High Jump - Javier Sotomayor - Cuba - 1993 *

Long Jump - Mike Powell - USA - 1991

Triple Jump -  Jonathan Edwards - UK - 1995

Shot put - Randy Barnes - USA - 1990 *

Javelin - Jan Zelezny - Czech Republic - 1996

4 x 400m Relay - USA - 1993

* Known drug cheats

As with the women's records, there have been more recent dubious entries and some athletes have been 'caught out' by improved testing methods though it seems that fewer high-profile men than women have fallen foul of these.

It has to be recognized that longevity does not, of itself, indicate anything untoward and many of these records may well be perfectly valid. However, it's also the case that there is clear evidence that at least some of the record holders were using illicit drugs or other methods for enhancing their performances and there have been well-publicized cases of supposedly 'clean' athletes being shown to be cheating;  high profile examples include Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Butch Reynolds, Asafa Powell, Justin Gatlin, Dwain Chambers, Linford Christie and Tyson Gay, but there have been many hundreds more. Others from the 1970s and 1980s, such as Al Oerter, Heike Drechsler and Ruth Fuchs, have made self-admissions, making it evermore clear that drug taking in athletics has been endemic for many years.

As a possible way of dealing with the anomalies that drug taking has caused, it's now being suggested that all records set before 2005 should be expunged. It appears that the proposal has gained favour with the IAAF but been less well received by some of the athletes whose records my disappear, such as Mike Powell and Paula Radcliffe. Thinking about it, I have to say that I come down on the side of Powell and Radcliffe and against what is, after all, a sledgehammer approach to the issue.

Expunging all records set before any particular date makes little sense and raises many questions. 2005 has been suggested as this is from when test samples began to be kept, but should the validity of all records really be dependent on an administrative change ? If world records are to be reset, will that also apply to national, continental and Olympic records ? Will the medals awarded at national and international competitions, including the Olympics, be rescinded ? Will lists of World and Olympic champions be withdrawn ? To date, athletes have only suffered post-event disqualifications if found to have been in breach of the rules at the time of the relevant event through the subsequent testing of a sample taken at or near the relevant time. To effectively disqualify athletes for no other reason than that they competed before 2005 would be ridiculous. 

That athletics has a drugs' problem is a sad fact, but the proposed approach is not right. By all means introduce a new set of records starting in 2005, but let it sit alongside the existing set, not replace it altogether. Allied to much more stringent testing and the very severest penalties for athletes, coaches and national associations, the problem may gradually be overcome, while tinkering with past performances and records will achieve nothing whatsoever.

Ban cheating athletes AND their coaches for 5 years for a first offence and life for a second; fine their national associations $10m for every athlete caught cheating. Any association that doesn't pay should have an automatic ban, covering all of their registered athletes, from all international competition until they comply. Forget tinkering with records, bring in some real punishments for the cheats who are threatening to destroy the sport.

ABBOTT GOT IT WRONG

Politicians rarely, if ever, admit to being wrong about anything. Instead, they waffle, ignore questions, change the subject or, their most recent wheeze, claim that they 'misspoke'.

Diane Abbott got herself in an awful muddle during an interview on the radio this morning when talking about the cost of one of Labour's latest election pledges. Questioned about the cost of putting an additional 10,000 police officers into action, she said the cost would be £300,000 over 4 years, and then, as she struggled to sort her words out, changed this to £80m; later, it was confirmed that the cost as estimated by the Labour party is £300m.

Putting aside any questions about the details and accuracy of this pledge, Abbott got her facts wrong. However, rather than admit this, she has insisted that she had got the facts right in other interviews and that she 'misspoke' during this particular radio interview.

'Misspoke' ? Checking in my Collins Dictionary, there doesn't appear to be any such word; in other words, it's been invented in order to allow certain people to avoid admitting being wrong. Abbott gave misleading facts to an audience of several million; that isn't 'misspeaking', it's getting things wrong. Why won't she, and others of her ilk, ever use the 'w' word ?