BEWARE LABOUR'S PROMISES !

With the Labour Party's annual conference getting underway in Brighton, it's already very clear that a future Labour government would take our country back to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the Party's two ultra-socialist dinosaurs, have plans that would tax and borrow to a degree not seen since Harold Wilson's time, when tax at 98% hit some people. Both Corbyn and McDonnell are careful not to say much about this side of their plans concentrating instead on the giveaways to younger people which they hope will bring them into power.

Abolishing university tuition fees is obviously very attractive to some, but would cast the country tens of billions of pounds that it does not have; the answer, of course, would be more borrowing. A huge programme of nationalisation of industries such as rail, water and energy may also sound attractive but would be paid for by the printing of money, dressed up as 'Government Bonds', which would be handed out to the shareholders whose investments were affected. Additionally, it seems that Corbyn and Co. would not compensate the holders of shares in these companies for the actual market value but only for a figure to be determined by a future Labour government, certainly to be a lesser sum. This would adversely affect the pensions of millions while still incurring a new vast debt for the country. Nothing has yet been said about how these new bonds would operate, what interest rate they would carry nor what redemption date they would have, leaving savers with much to ponder.

Taking an assortment of industries back into public ownership would, say Corbyn and MacDonnell, allow the government to run them more efficiently and to invest in them. I think we all know how efficient government management is at the best of times, let alone the efficiency of a bureaucratic and highly ideological socialist monolith; as for future investment, that simply means still more borrowing and still government debt that has to be serviced and eventually repaid. It all adds up to more taxes to pay for it..

Corbyn always sounds so reasonable and McDonnell so fervent, and one can easily understand why it is that so many younger people, idealists themselves, fall for their ideology and promises. Older generations that have lived through all this before are less sanguine. The government owned industries of the past, railways, energy, water, telecoms, steel and, above all, car making, were disasters. Badly managed, far too little investment, inefficient, and constantly on the point of collapse; there was a time when the UK had a thriving car industry but the trades unions got rid of that, as they did ship building, coal mining and steel making, all with the connivance of Labour governments. Don't be conned into thinking that it was 'Maggie' who did away with coal or anything else; all she did was to clear up the mess left by Wilson and Callaghan.

However charming, appealing and fervent the old unreconstructed leaders of the Labour Party sound, never forget that these are men on a mission to destroy how country. Ideology is all very well but idealism rarely works and never in politics or government. A future Labour government overseen by Corbyn, McDonnell and their acolytes would be a disaster with control, snooping, monitoring, taxation and debt at hitherto unimaginable levels.

Beware - you have been warned !

BARCLAYS BANK : AVOID AT ALL COSTS !!!!!!!!!

I have always regarded Barclays as a really solid, well organised and managed bank. How wrong I am.

I have never banked with them but have used their stockbroking service for many years, not that I have much to invest. The service has always been first class, until now. Just under a month ago, the bank transferred my account from a truly excellent service to something they call 'Smart Investor'. 'Smart Investor' costs twice as much as before and the service, system and everything else is abysmal. I know that I'm far from being the only customer who has suffered the same painful experience but Barclays has kept very quiet and denied that there are any real problems. What else would one expect ?

Today, I've heard a news story about a 94 year old woman who has been fleeced, that's the only way to describe it, of £640,000 by no one else but Barclays. This poor, unsuspecting and obviously trusting lady borrowed £42,000 from the bank against the value of her home some 20 years ago in order to carry out some home improvements. The money was leant under a type of mortgage loan that survived for only a couple of years and was offered by only 2 banks, Barclays and Bank of Scotland. Under the agreement, rather than pay interest on the amount borrowed, the bank would take a share of the eventual increase in the value of the property when it was sold; in this particular case, it was 3 times the proportionate increase in value which amounts to £640,000.It has been suggested that this equates to an annual percentage rate for the loan of around 15% over the 19 years that the loan lasted.  Barclays has taken it's profit without apology or any apparent embarrassment and has refused to vary the terms of the original agreement in the light of its vast profit. The bank claims that the lady, in her mid-70s when the loan was arranged, was in full possession of all of the facts about the loan etc etc, and has no responsibility for the situation that arose.

I also heard today and on the same programme, the excellent 'Money Box', that a 'Smart Investor' victim had suffered having his entire life savings made inaccessible by the bank until 'Money Box' had intervened on his behalf. Even so, only half of his investment of some half a million pounds had yet been freed up; this is after the transfer to the 'Smart Investor' service which began on 25th August. Barclays have apologised, made the usual noises and insisted that only 'a handful' of investors have experienced problems with their new service. HA HA ! One has only to type 'Smart Investor into Google to be directed to many stories about the utter disaster that is 'Smart Investor.

Now, another story. An acquaintance in a rented property paid their monthly rent from a Barclays account; the payment went astray and, when it was realised, they contacted the bank. After some umming and arring, the bank agreed to put a trace on the payment, saying that it could take up to 20 working days to recover the payment but it should be quicker. Today, some 31 working days on, nothing has yet happened and the landlord is becoming impatient. The bank simply ignores the potential problems and my acquaintance could end up losing their home. Does Barclays care ?

Barclays is an example of a truly awful bank. It has one aim - maximise profits, sod the customers. AVOID AT ALL COSTS !

POLITICS IS BACK AND SO IS THE GRIPING.

With the summer break over, our prancing politicians are at it again.

Over the last few days, Boris Johnson has hit the news with his views and claims about the benefits of Brexit, widely seen by some as preparation for a leadership bid, and Michael Gove has, again, not supported him. Amber Rudd has appeared on television and actually performed quite well in an interview with Andrew Marr, though Marr is not exactly a Rottweiler when it comes to interviews. Theresa May is off to Canada to discuss possible post-Brexit trade arrangements and her guard dog, Damian Green, has been providing a degree of support for her in the media.

At the same time, those grizzled old Europhiles, Paddy Ashdown (remember him ?) and Vince Cable, have also been hawking around their latest ideas for stopping Brexit in its tracks. It seems the new scheme is to have a second referendum which would allow the people to 'get it right' by voting for an "Exit to Brexit". Of course, neither of these two old pseudo-Liberals will admit that this is simply a way of rejecting the original democratic vote of the electorate but dress it up as some sort of addition to the democratic process by letting us decide 'once all the facts are known'.

It really is just the same old tripe rehashed. The people voted in 2016 and the answer was unequivocal. Do we re-run General election results just because some don't like the outcome or the outcome is close ? No.

When the Welsh voted to have their own Parliamentary Assembly by a few thousand votes, did we say they needed to have another vote because the first was so close  and the people might have made a mistake ? No.

So why should we have a second referendum about leaving the European Union ? The people made their choice last year and that should be that. Politicians of all persuasions, if they believe at all in democracy, should now rally behind the Government and do their level best to ensure that the United Kingdom and the European Union go their separate ways, preferably amicably but if not, so be it. Let's just get on with getting out.

TERRORISTS SHOULD BE UTTERLY CONDEMNED.

Yesterday's attempt to murder people on a London train shows the depths to which terrorists will sink. The victims of this outrage were ordinary people going about their daily routine; they weren't soldiers or politicians, they were office and shop workers, health workers and children.

Thirty or forty years ago, the murdering bastards were members of the IRA, today they are animals who claim membership of groups that simply hate anyone who doesn't follow their fanatical beliefs. Forget the names of these groups, they are, in truth, irreligious and bigoted organisations which deserve nothing but utter condemnation.

It was nothing but fortuitous that no one died in yesterday's assault on our society, though many were injured and many more may well have mental scares that will affect their future lives. Those responsible have yet to be caught but, when they are, I hope they are shown no mercy. If it was up to me, they'd be shot on sight and their bodies hung up and left to rot.

They are scum and should be treated as such.

PERCEPTIONS OF ANTI-SEMITISM ARE NONSENSE.

Something called 'The Institute for Jewish Policy Research' reckons that some 30% of British people hold at least one 'anti-Semitic' view. The study which produced this result used 5,466 'observations' across Great Britain and appears to define anti-Semitism as 'ideas that are commonly perceived by Jews to be anti-Semitic'.

This study used 2,003 'face-to-face' interviews of people 'randomly' selected; we all know how unreliable such polling can be. Additionally, there were 2,002 online observations obtained from a self-selecting group of individuals who have previously volunteered to be available to undertake market research surveys. The report states that some sub-groups of the population were also, 'boosted', which seems to mean that additional subjects were interviewed, these individuals being exclusively in the groups most expected to harbour anti-Semitic views; there were 1,461 of these, both face-to-face and online.

While the report contains much analysis and many tables, it does not include a copy of the survey questionnaire, making it impossible to judge exactly how unbiased and unambiguous it was. However, the tables of responses suggest that there was an inbuilt element of ambiguity by asking repeatedly for attitudes to 'Jews' and not including an option of 'some Jews'. An interviewee confronted with a question, for example, about Jews exploiting Holocaust victims for their own purposes, and believing that some may well do although the majority do not, might therefore, be left wondering how to answer. 

As with most such surveys, this one set out with preconceived notions and it produced the desired results, supporting its sponsors. I have little doubt that a similar report could be produced to show that Britons hate Jews or love Jews, hate Muslims or love Muslims, love curry or hate curry and so on ad infinitum. Our society is riddled with views which could be perceived to be misogynistic, misandrist, racist, ageist, ableist, and bigoted in all manor of ways by anyone who wishes so to do. I'm sure I could produce a case to support my perception that the world is biased against me, if I chose, but what's the point ?  

Personally, I have no ill-will towards Jews as a whole and, for the vast majority, I doubt whether I would recognize a Jew as such any more than I would a Christian. Nonetheless, I do get pretty fed up hearing about the historical horrors perpetrated upon them and the way in which SOME do use this as a way of eliciting sympathy for their cause. I find the lunatic antics of SOME, nodding their heads at the 'Wailing Wall' or wearing silly clothes or hairstyles, ridiculous but it's their choice and as long as they don't bother me, I don't worry about it.

However, I have similar feelings about many other groups. The daft behaviour of most religious groups - Christians, Muslims, Hindus and the rest - with their costumes, chants, imagery and flummery is inexplicable to me but, as long as they don't come knocking on my door I'm happy to let them get on with it. Those who do knock on my door, accost me in the street or otherwise try to force their views on me are unwelcome, annoying and draw my total disapproval. Anyone who attempts to argue a political or ethical point or tries to justify their actions by resorting to their religious beliefs drives me mad and the continuation of religious disputes such as that between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland both sickens me and drives me to despise both sides.

The historical persecution of Protestants by Catholics and Catholics by Protestants, Hindus and Muslims by Christians and vice-versa; the appalling religious bigotry of medieval times and the fanatical, and often brutal, treatment of 'pagan' natives by missionaries are rarely mentioned, while persecution of the Jews is forever in the news. Jews are, of course, a more close knit group than the others, seemingly obsessed with their past, their right to a 'homeland' and their consequent identification with the somewhat extremist state of Israel.

Perhaps the whole issue would simply fade away if those Jews who shout loudest lowered their voices a bit and stopped complaining about how much everyone hates them. For the present, the perceived negative views about them may well be a consequence of  familiarity breeding contempt and people reacting badly to the frequent cries of 'Wolf !'.

ANDREW NEIL : VICTIM OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ?

Oh dear, he we go again.

For many years I've been a regular viewer of the 2 best politics programmes on television, 'The Daily Politics' and 'The Sunday Politics', both usually presented by the country's best political journalist, Andrew Neil. In more recent times, Neil seems to have withdrawn from an increasing number of 'Daily Politics' programmes, often leaving this to the hugely inferior Jo Coburn; this week, he hasn't appeared at all. I now discover that he's given up 'The Sunday Politics' altogether and is to be replaced by a Sarah Smith, presumably the BBC pursuing it's politically correct equality drive.

When I watch a politics programme I want adult political discussion, not politically correct drivel. I don't want to be presented with discussion that centre on so-called equality issues, women's issues, or whether the next statue in Parliament Square should be a man or a woman. Such nonsense is covered by BBC television's version of their radio horror, 'Woman's Hour', the egregious 'Victoria Derbyshire'. Sadly, it now seems that the BBC considers we need more of this tripe and so is to give us more shrill women discussing their knitting, children or whatever else they usually discuss amongst themselves.

To be clear, I have no problem with female presenters but I do have a problem with them being thrust at viewers for the wrong reasons; in the case of the BBC this is an insane determination to meet 'equality targets'. Rather than use the best presenters, they use the most appealing female presenters, which is simply not right.

For me, 'The Sunday Politics' was a must; well presented, serious discussion and an all-in-all top-notch programme. 'The Daily Politics', when Andrew Neil is at the helm, is likewise. While I'm prepared to give Ms Smith a chance, I suspect that 'The Sunday Politics' will soon disappear from my viewing schedule. As for 'The Daily Politics', I watch when Neil is in charge and ignore it otherwise, it simply isn't remotely as good without him.

The lefty-driven Beeb has ruined things again.

TIME FOR UK TO WALK AWAY FROM BREXIT TALKS.

Today it's reported that the European Union wants the UK to find a "unique solution" to the issues surrounding the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will, of course, be the only land border between the UK and EU once Brexit has become a reality and has been put forward as a matter of critical importance.

However, the EU's stance is really little more than a continuation of its overall approach to the Brexit negotiations. At every turn, the EU negotiators have thrown up issues and then demanded that the UK produce the solutions; the 'divorce bill', migration and now the Northern Ireland border are just three such issues. By taking this approach, the EU is attempting to put itself on the moral high ground, effectively saying that the UK has offended and must now atone by finding all of the answers to all of the questions. It also means that the EU can wait to see what the UK is prepared to offer and then claim that whatever is offered is insufficient and that more is required; this way, the EU will remain in total control unless the UK government adopts a much harder line.

Surely it is for the EU to tell the UK what terms it is prepared to offer the UK and not the other way round. If I leave an organisation but say I would like to stay connected, it is the organisation which sets the agenda, not I. It is the organisation which sets out how I may stay connected and under what conditions, it is not I who tells it what I'm prepared to offer. The UK government has made clear that it wants to continue to have a close relationship with the EU while withdrawing from its legal oversight; it is now for the EU to set out the terms under which such an arrangement might be reached.

Thus far, it has been intransigent, insisting on terms which would effectively mean that while no longer being a member of the EU, the UK would have to abide by the majority of its laws, rules and diktats. It also expects the UK to make a financial offer, something which is utterly inappropriate. Given this stance, the UK's negotiator's should simply walk away, pay nothing and leave the EU to stew in its own juice.