WILL TONY BLAIR NEVER GO AWAY ?

Will Tony Blair never realise that no one cares what he thinks and bugger off ?

In the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic, Blair has had nothing helpful or useful to say but, nonetheless, insisted on sharing his egotistical wisdom with the rest of we poor mortals. Today, he's emerged from his political grave to tell us that the UK government must up its game and deliver 5 million vaccinations a week in order to avoid another national lockdown; apparently the current plan for 1 million, rising to 2 million isn't adequate and "if he was Prime Minister" today, he'd be doing things very differently.

How easy it is to sit on the sidelines, criticise and suggest alternative strategies when he has no power and no responsibility, when he has no control over the actual production of the vaccine doses. In like manner, I could no doubt claim that if I was Prime Minister, we'd be vaccinating the whole population of the UK by the end of January, indeed, why stop there ? Let's make it the total population of the world - easy if I was Prime Minister. Not so easy in a real world in which vaccine production is limited, and will remain limited, by factors such as the availability of suitable laboratories, appropriate staff, relevant testing facilities, sterile media and packaging, adequate distribution, appropriate vaccination facilities and staff, to mention but a few. Then, of course, we have to remember that the laboratories currently engaged on vaccine production have orders from much of the world and not just the UK. Blair happily ignores all such matters when he shares his wisdom with us today, as he did in the past.

The fact is that Blair is NOT prime Minister and hasn't been for 12 years. When he was Prime Minister he supported Gordon Brown's creation of a client state, with millions dependant on ever more generous government hand-outs and with banks encouraged to offer loans with little evidence that the security offered was adequate; the result from such a world-wide and utterly misguided approach was the financial crisis of 2008 from which the world had barely recovered before COVID struck. Despite this monumental failure of his own policy, Blair now expects us to believe that he has it right on this occasion.

Well, for this member of the general public, Blair always was a man far stronger in style than substance. He's a man who climbed over all comers in his pursuit of the top job, while actually having none of the necessary attributes other than a winning smile. His behaviour over the Iraq war and his laughable strutting beside then US President George W Bush, showed him up for what he was. His ambition to continue to influence British, European and even World affairs continues unabated - thankfully, no one really seems to be listening to this jumped up little twerp any more.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Postscript :

And now Blair's latest wild eyed successor, SIR Keir Starmer, is demanding that we suffer a National Lockdown, to be imposed within the next 24 hours.

Starmer can't lose on this one. If the government ignores him, as it should, and COVID numbers continue to rise, he can claim that he was right and that victims of the virus have the government to blame, regardless of any carefree and selfish actions of their own. If numbers don't rise any further and even begin to fall, he can claim that he was simply taking the cautious and sensible approach. Given that the chances are that excessive mixing over Christmas and the New Year has yet to be picked up by the latest statistics, Starmer will probably be shown to be on the right side of the numbers in the next 3 or 4 weeks, though for purely political reasons. The latest restrictions will almost certainly mean that numbers are falling rapidly by the beginning of February, National Lockdown or not.

What is needed is consistency, not political point scoring. Where Boris Johnson's government have so far failed is in consistency; their messages have often been less than clear and, while trying to adopt a positive bent, they have often been overly optimistic. Consequently, they have found themselves under pressure to change tack on numerous occasions, pressure to which they have ultimately had no alternative but to yield.

The latest issue, prior to Starmer's demands of today, have involved the opening, or otherwise, of schools after the Christmas break. Gavin Williamson, surely a dead man walking in his role as Secretary of State for Education, has been a disaster in his presentation of government policy on all matters to do with schools and is now under attack from councils and unions. For Johnson to resolve the current crisis and regain some control, he has no choice but to replace Williamson; if he does not, he will find himself under yet more pressure that may prove terminal.

Johnson must regain control and be seen to have done so. Williamson must go and the question of an immediate National Lockdown be dealt with. Otherwise, we are more than likely to have a new Prime Minister by the autumn, and quite possibly not a Conservative one.

TELEVISION EVEN WORSE THAN USUAL

Am I alone in believing that television offerings over the Christmas period have been even worse than usual ?

The usual repeats of classical favourites from Morecambe and Wise to Ben Hur may appeal to those few who have never before seen them but to anyone old enough to have seen the originals, now several dozen times, they are no longer the attraction they once were. Indeed, that such programmes continue to be re-broadcast year after year surely only serves to demonstrate how poor more modern programming has become.

This year, the Queen's Christmas Message has been the most watched programme in the UK with a little over 8 million reported viewers; long gone are the days when Her Majesty commanded at least twice that number of adherents, while Morecambe and Wise came close to 3 times as many. While it has to be admitted that times have changed along with viewing habits, does no one at the now hundreds of television channels not realise that their diet of cheap thrills, 'reality shows' and repeats appeals to a smaller audience every year ? Do none of them consider that there might be an alternative ?

Much of modern television seems to be aimed at children - is this an attempt to use the old Jesuit approach of "give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" - while modern comedy is almost entirely aimed at an audience of children and others of a puerile mind set, with an emphasis on crudity and bodily functions. Modern drama is aimed at those who favour crudity, nudity, overt displays of sexual activity and foul language in preference to solid storylines, real acting and proper scripts. Modern documentaries are top heavy with the most recent left wing fad, be it issues of supposed equality, discrimination, racial injustice. gender, or God knows what else. Is it any surprise that the majority of the population have turned away from mainstream television ?

I find myself hunting through hundreds of channels in search of something to watch and almost inevitably end up watching something I recorded previously, often weeks, months or even years ago. As someone who has paid his television licence dutifully and without fail for many decades, I find it galling that my likes are now superceded by vast quantities of animated tripe served up to satisfy hordes of children whose parents should be taking the trouble to entertain them rather than dumping them in front of a television and telling them to watch and shut up.

This year's offerings seem to have been even more limited. Yes, we've had the usual 'great' films - Ben Hur, Spartacus, It's a Wonderful Life (all of which I love but have seen many times), etc., but what else has there been? The simple answer is "Very little". With so many of us effectively housebound and isolated, could those to whom we pay licence fees and subscriptions not have come up with something better, at least for this most difficult of years ? Could Sky and the like not have foregone some small part of their massive profits to provide something more attractive and greater appeal ? Could not the BBC have done something to advance the cause of real television rather than broadcasting nothing but their usual offering of repeats of Morecambe and Wise, the same old films, assorted cookery programmes and the drivel that is claimed to be 'reality' ? Have I watched the BBC over the last 2 days ? I think not, at all, which is a shocking indictment when I would once have watched nothing else.

Some modern 'progressives' love to refer to things and services as being 'broken'; they will tell us minions that the immigration system, Home Office, benefits system or whatever else is broken or 'not fit for purpose'; how about adding that the BBC and overall broadcasting services in this country are on that list and even lead it ?

LEWIS HAMILTON - GREAT CHAMPION OR JUST A CAR DRIVER ?

 To be clear.

When Lewis Hamilton first appeared on the scene, I was a great supporter. He was a breath of fresh air and a tremendous talent, promising to be an attraction for years to come. Sadly, his subsequent behaviour has turned me away from him.

Yes, he has now won multiple world championships but then he has been driving what has undoubtedly been the best car of the last 6 or 7 years; the way in which George Russell, a reserve driver who has never before even led a race, so easily led and kept his lead until misfortune overtook him in Bahrain, came so close to winning suggests that Hamilton's achievements may be at least as due to car as to man. 

Today, Hamilton was a distant third in Abu Dhabi, the last race of a disjointed 2020 season in which he has again been crowned champion, as has his team. However, rather than be magnanimous in defeat, Hamilton has preferred to dwell upon his lack of full fitness, due to his experience with the COVID-19 virus, than acknowledge that he was well and truly beaten. Would Fangio or Moss, Senna or Prost, ever have blamed defeat on illness ? Instead, Hamilton parades his success and wealth in an almost offensive manor, while feigning humility; neither Michael Schumacher nor Sebastian Vettel, his most recent and closest rivals for accolades, has behaved in such a way.

Wouldn't it be great to see a race with Hamilton in a Williams and Russell in a Mercedes. then we would see whether Hamilton really is the superstar that he believes himself to be, or whether he's just a good driver in an exceptional car. One wonders what a Fangio, Moss, Clark or Senna would have done in this generation and where Hamilton would have fitted in. I suspect he would have been well down the grid from the true dare-devils of the track. 

Nonetheless, 'Arise Sir Lewis' is inevitable, as is a further devaluing of the honours' system.

DOES BORIS HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY "NO DEAL" ?

The evidence suggests that the UK and EU will eventually cobble together some sort of 'deal', with both sides claiming 'victory'. The truth will be that whatever is agreed will be to the satisfaction of neither party and will be so full of holes as to be open to infinite future challenges.

When Boris Johnson first set a 'final deadline' it seemed an unlikely target. The 'absolutely final deadline' of today (Sunday 13th December) was clearly nothing but yet another political gambit that both sides have now ignored.

It is equally clear that unless the UK agrees, in some way or other, to abiding by EU regulations and accepting that EU trawlers will continue to have unfettered access to British waters, there will be no deal. Given that these are 2 red lines on which the EU will not give way, the outcome seems clear.

Despite all of the rhetoric, the Johnson government will most probably find a fudge that is an effective surrender. Oh yes, it will be dressed up in such a way as to be presented as a victory but it will, in truth, be an agreement which gives everlasting power to the EU and reduces the UK to the level of a client state. Forget the claimed notions of sovereignty, we will be in hock to the EU, really meaning Germany and France, forever.

Of course, Boris may surprise us all and finally tell the EU that it is 'No Deal', but does anyone really believe that is going to happen ? My vote in future elections hangs in the balance - will Boris prove that he has the balls to earn it or will he cave in, just as so many of the liberal elite have done so often in the past ?

How many millions will be having similar thoughts ? How many millions might be looking for a new standard bearer in January ? Oh, unless of course the 'negotiations' are somehow carried on for a further indeterminate period, which is the obvious third option, God help us. The EU would like nothing more than to drag this issue out for another 3 or 4 years in the hope that either the British will become so fed up that they give up, or that a new government in 2024 calls a halt to the whole Brexit idea.

Anyone who thought that the 2016 referendum was the end of this saga was sadly mistaken. This is a true 'make or break' moment for those who truly believe in the democratic process. To make it personal, my last 2 cars have been German and I've recently been under pressure from a dealer to buy another; quite simply, unless there is a realistic deal that truly recognizes UK sovereignty, my next car will not be German, French, Italian or even Swedish. It will be Japanese, Korean, Malaysian or even American. That will be a good £30k plus that will not go to an EU nation or its UK outlets. Yes, that means that UK employees could miss out but then perhaps they should be considering for whom they work. 

Boris, show some true mettle, otherwise you and your party are history.

TIME FOR TRUMP TO GO GRACEFULLY

 What does Donald Trump think he's achieving ?

4 years ago he effectively bought the Presidency of the United States, something that, in itself, is nothing unusual. Rich families, think the Kennedy and Bush clans for starters, have habitually attempted to buy power in that, and most other supposed democracies, but Trump is one of the few to have achieved his goal while not being a member of the political elite. In fact, Trump wasn't even a politician of any sort and yet he still convinced the Republican party to back him and enough states to vote for him.

However, in 2020, it seems that his charisma, money, or whatever else earned support in 2016, has deserted him and he's now joined the ranks of the 'one-term Presidents', except he doesn't see it that way. In Trump's mind, he actually won the Presidential election but has been denied his just victory by various nefarious manoeuvres on the part of his opponent, Joe Biden. He has challenged the results in several states but despite finding that even Republican legislators will not support his claims, he has continued to refuse to accept the overall result. The consequence is that the usual smooth handover of authority from one administration to the next is being imperilled. 

It's been suggested that Donald Trump or one of his children may run for the Presidency at the next opportunity in 2024. Surely they must realise that the present situation makes any such ambitions untenable. No democracy is perfect and voting systems can be subject to abuse but President Trump's continued refusal to accept the result of an election in one of the world's premier democracies is akin to that of some dictator in a third world nation. His behaviour has done nothing but bring him into ridicule and to make any further political ambitions either he or his family members may have subject to the closest scrutiny.

This has not been a close fought election, Joe Biden has won decisively. It's not a 'hanging chads' moment, it's a clear cut result. If Donald Trump is to salvage any semblance of respect from what has become a debacle, he needs to acknowledge this result very quickly; otherwise he will go down in history as the least democratic of all Presidents as well as being remembered much more for the manner of his exit than his entrance and achievements. 

WE NEED MORE LIKE PRITI PATEL !

 Home Secretary Priti Patel is at the centre of a political row about bullying. It's claimed that she bullied various individuals in various departments of government in which she's worked in recent years and the Labour Party sees this as an opportunity to berate the Prime Minister. However .....

Exactly what is 'bullying' ? A few years ago, bullying was principally seen as being a physical offence, that is, bullies physically assaulted their victims. Today, that definition has been gradually extended so that now bullying encompasses all manner of highly subjective activity, much of it 'in the eye of the beholder'. Basically, bullying occurs whenever the supposed victim says it does, in similar manner to the ludicrous 'hate crimes' with which we have now been lumbered.

It seems that Ms Patel may be the type of manager who expects her staff to do what she tells them and expects results; when things don't go according to plan, she may have, on occasion, become angry and shouted or otherwise expressed her displeasure. When I was somewhat younger, this would have been perfectly usual and the failing staff member would have been contrite and done their best to put things right; the matter would have ended there. 

Today, the recipients of such behaviour seem to collapse in tears, shaking with fear and claiming that they've been 'bullied'; accepting responsibility for their failings never seems to occur to them. These poor delicate little flowers have to be cosseted for fear that they may be unable to cope with the nasty world of reality.

Frankly, most such claims are nothing but bullshit, though the environment in which we all now live is one that supports the supposed victim over and above all others; in essence, we live in a culture in which victimhood dominates while responsibility is ignored.

If Ms Patel did, indeed, shout at a few overblown and self important civil servants, so what ? I say "Good on her !" Surely it's about time that these time-serving mandarins accepted that they are 'servants', not masters, pulled their socks up and did what they're told, rather than finding every possible means, in the style of Sir Humphrey, to frustrate their Minister's policies.

BIDEN VICTORY OPENS WAY FOR REPUBLICANS IN 2024.

Well, the American population has voted but the question now is "What have they really voted for ?" Indeed, have they voted FOR anything at all or has this been more about voting against the outsider, Donald Trump ?

Despite the almost universal vilification, lampooning and virtual demonization of Donald Trump, many millions more cast their votes in his favour than did so 4 years ago. However, many more also cast their votes for his opponent, Joe Biden, than voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 and it seems that it will be Biden who is sworn in as President in January. 

It may be relevant that, although Trump was elected as the official candidate of the Republican Party and stood again in that capacity, the Party has been remarkably quiet throughout the campaign - basically, it doesn't like Trump who is not, and has never been, a member of the political elite. It may even be that the 'Grand Old Party' will be quite happy to see the back of a man whom they despise and perfectly willing to accept 4 years of a Democrat in the White House as the price they have to pay. After all, things will be very different come 2024.

Biden will be 78 in a few days time and surely will be a one-term President; no one can believe that he will consider remaining in office until the age of 86, or that voters would want him to. Consequently, the Democrats have almost certainly already selected their candidate for next time around - Biden's Vice-President Kamala Harris. 

Harris's political experience is limited to say the least; she has been District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General for California, neither post being truly representative, and has been a junior member of the Senate for only 4 years. Her selection as Biden's running mate also seems to owe more to her sex and ethnicity than political background. As the candidate in 2024, Harris is likely to be another highly divisive figure, with many Americans strongly opposed to her left of centre approach. 

In truth, the Republican Party must surely be preparing itself already to regain power with what it will see as a 'true' Republican in 2024. It knows its probable opponent and has 4 years to find and promote suitable high profile and high calibre candidates for the primaries of that year well in advance of any voting. 

 If it fails to discover a winner it will have only itself to blame.