WILD EYED CUMMINGS THREATENS MAYHEM - AGAIN.

 As the government and country gets on with dealing with the COVID epidemic, Dominic Cummings continues to believe that he is the real centre of everyone's world.

Whatever the truth about his dramatic departure from Downing Street last year, Cummings' behaviour in the last few months has been nothing but self-centred. His latest attacks on the government, and especially his former boss and close colleague Boris Johnson, are bordering on the manic. Erratic tweets, blog-o-sphere diatribes and a general wild-eyed manner all contribute to the appearance of a man on the edge of sanity. 

Cummings is threatening to wreak all sorts of havoc when he appears before a House of Commons' committee in a few days time but one wonders what effect he will have in the real world, the one outside of the "Westminster Bubble". Surely the more fanatical he appears, the more fantastical any claims he makes will seem. After all, he has clearly declared war on the Prime Minister which must throw doubt on the veracity of any claims or accusations that he makes.

Cummings was obviously badly hurt by his Downing Street departure but his actions since are those of a man purely out for revenge, which is hardly the behaviour of a supposedly highly intelligent political mastermind. Perhaps he was badly treated, perhaps his advice was ignored but does he consider himself to be such a genius that he is always right ? 

Maybe that's the way a man with an ego the size of Mount Everest actually thinks but it's hard to believe that others will see things the same way, other than those who have their own political agendas for doing so.

STARMER'S RESHUFFLE - WILL ANYONE REALLY NOTICE ?

Following fairly disastrous election results, Keir Starmer has carried out a minor reshuffle of what is laughably referred to as his "Top Team". Will anyone really notice ?

The initial headline was the removal of Angela Rayner from her role as Party Chairman which was greeted with bemusement by most. If, as he repeatedly claimed, Starmer took full responsibility for the failings of his party's election campaign, why was he then apparently making Rayner a scapegoat ? To demonstrate the actual weakness of his own position, Rayner was then rapidly recycled into assorted roles including as Michael Gove's shadow, a senior position.

Less fortunate was the ineffectual Anneliese Dodds who has been almost invisible during her tenure as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Dodds has gone, to be replaced by the egregious harridan, Rachel Reeves, whose main ability seems to be to speak over, under and round all and sundry while rudely ignoring their right of reply. Dodds herself has been retained in the role of Party Chairman, though why is an unanswered question. If the gobby Rayner couldn't succeed in it, how on earth will the mouse-like Dodds ?

Other changes seem to be cosmetic rather than substantial. the long serving Nick Brown has received the order of the boot and been replaced as Chief Whip by his deputy, Alan Campbell. Shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, sister of the disgraced Keith, has been replaced by Thangam Debbonaire. Finally, one Shabana Mahmood has been given the job of Campaigns' Coordinator, a role previously held by Rayner, and Wes Streeting (who ?) has become something to do with child poverty.

There can be no doubt that Ms Reeves will make more of a splash than did her predecessor though the rest seem to be simply the replacement of one bunch of virtual unknowns by another. That the reshuffle wasn't more extensive appears to indicate that Starmer's own position is now very weak and there has already been talk of a leadership challenge, although this seems unlikely to materialise just yet. 

The Labour Party is in turmoil, virtually leaderless, certainly directionless. It's credibility will be sorely tested by the forthcoming By-election if the constituency of Batley & Spen, vacated by the newly elected Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, and where a Labour majority of 6,000 in 2015 had already been reduced to 3,500 by 2019. Losing this seat, once in the possession of the murdered Jo Cox, would surely place the spotlight very firmly on Starmer's leadership and could well be sufficient to bring about a leadership election.

Then there would be the question of who, out of the innumerable available nonentities, would replace him. Fun times ahead.

STURGEON STEAMS ON, BUT TO WHERE ?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1707, following agreement between the governments of England (including Wales) and Scotland, and the passing of relevant Acts in the parliaments of both countries. In 1801, this union was superceded by further Acts which united Great Britain with Ireland and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All three nations had previously shared the same monarch from 1603 when James VI of Scotland had become James 1 of England, the Kingship of Ireland having been already taken on by Henry VIII of England in 1541.

Now, after more than 300 years of unity, Nicola Sturgeon wants to impose her fanatical desire for Scottish independence on both the people of her nation and also those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Kingdom has already been reduced by the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and the secession of a large part of the island of Ireland although this owed as much to religion as to politics. Sturgeon's plans have nothing to do with religion and are all about politics and her desire to be 'free' of what she sees as the malign influence of the UK's government in Westminster.

Back in 2014, David Cameron allowed the Scots to conduct a referendum on the simple question of whether or not they wanted to become an independent nation once again. The result was a reasonable clear one - they did not. The promoters of the referendum, the Scottish National Party, were very clear that this was a 'once in a generation' opportunity for Scots to make such a choice, and they still rejected the idea. Ever since, Sturgeon and her pals have used every excuse under the sun to claim that another referendum should be held rather more quickly than was previously suggested; actually, they want one within a year or two.

Before the current round of elections, Sturgeon was saying that if her SNP gained an absolute majority in the Holyrood parliament, she would see that as a mandate to demand a second referendum. Now seeing that the likelihood of an SNP majority is not great, she's changed her tune - now it's a majority of pro-Independence parties in the new parliament that will be sufficient, which takes advantage of the Green Party being in favour of separating from the United Kingdom.

Of course, Sturgeon only talks about the issues which support her position and ignores all else. Even if it's accepted that all SNP voters support independence (which is far from certain), that's only around 48% of the 63% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Adding in those who voted for the Green Party makes little real difference and with all other major parties opposed to another referendum, we're left with something like 30% of the electorate supporting pro-independence parties; for Sturgeon to claim that this gives her a mandate for another referendum is risible, regardless of the number of seats held in the parliament.

If she did actually get her way, held and won a referendum, what would that mean for both Scotland and the rest of the then former United Kingdom ?

Sturgeon has always claimed that the head of state would still be the Queen, but would hold for any future monarchs, or would Scots be looking for a Presidential system ? It has also been claimed that Scotland would retain use of the British currency and there would be no problems over borders or trading arrangements. In fact, as far as Sturgeon is concerned, life for Scots would be almost as it is now, with the single exception that she would be the boss; she glosses over the issues which would arise from her plan to take an independent Scotland back into the European Union.

Despite Sturgeon's optimism, an independent Scotland, especially one that is a very small and insignificant member of the European Union, would not have it so easy. The Queen may well be happy to remain as head of state but what about the future ? Might we see Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, even George Galloway, standing in a Presidential election ? What a horror show !

Continuing to use the pound sterling would only be possible if agreed by the parliament in Westminster and would leave the Scots tied to financial decisions made by Westminster and the Bank of England. Joining the European Union would, of course, require Scotland to adopt the Euro as their currency while there would also be the small matter of the border with England which would then become a border between England and the European Union; given the ongoing issues over Brexit and the position in Ireland, this could be a major problem. Would we have border posts along Hadrian's Wall, or some other line of EU defence, or would there be calls for England to accept EU rules in order to avoid such nonsense ? 

What would happen as the economies of the 2 nations diverged, as seems inevitable, has been ignored. Scotland has a large budget deficit and there has been considerable criticism of many of the services provided by the SNP administration; EU rules would mean tight financial controls would have to be imposed and the impact of these could be dramatic. Adoption of the Euro as the national currency would place Scotland under the control of the European Central Bank, rather than the Bank of England, and Scotland would then be required to follow whatever fiscal rules the ECB imposes. Scotland would also be tied to whatever fate awaits the Euro and the rest of the highly protectionist European Union. Trade with England could be significantly damaged as EU rules on borders, the single market and customs' union could well mean the imposition of tariffs and other border controls. Anyone living on one side of the border and working on the other may have unwanted issues to deal with as well.

By contrast, England would fare quite well. The financial support given to Scotland would cease to the benefit of taxpayers in the rest of the former union. Exports to Scotland are relatively minor, while disruption to imports from Scotland (principally whisky ?) would hardly be life threatening. England would surely care very little about the border issues which would be a major problem for Scotland and the EU. Indeed, would the EU even baulk at the very idea of Scotland joining them because of this ?

Sturgeon is a fanatic who will steam ahead regardless. One can only hope that the Scottish people would have more sense than to follow her down the road to disaster if, or when, given another opportunity to express a view about potentially breaking up a union which has existed for over 300 years to the substantial benefit of all concerned, in favour of surrendering their sovereignty to a different union of which their nation would be a tiny and wholly insignificant member, lying across the sea and attached to a serious trade competitor. The chances are that the European Union would turn out to be a much less supportive 'friend' than the United Kingdom has been for centuries.

How all this will play out is anyone's guess.

PROMISES, PROMISES, BUT WE ALL END UP POORER.

Listening to Sir Keir Starmer on the radio and television this morning has left me wondering what is the point of politicians.

Year after year, leader after leader, election after election, political figures emerge from their comfortable homes and offices to promise voters the world. Better education, more jobs, better healthcare, better welfare provision, better policing, better air quality, greater 'diversity', 'equality' and 'opportunity' (whatever any of that means), better housing; you name it, they'll promise it. In truth it's the same nonsense every time and none of it is ever delivered.

What we get is higher taxes, more surveillance, poorer education, more street crime and drug dealing, roads with more pot holes than tarmac, millions waiting to see a doctor or get necessary treatment, worse public transport, less and less freedom of speech and action, more and more immigration and far less integration, more warehousing and industrial units despoiling our countryside, more lorries clogging up our roads and ever-increasing congestion, more and more rules and regulations to control our lives. 

This is not characteristic of any one party but is a phenomenon common to all. The headlines are always the promises, designed to win our votes and put whichever mob it is into the most powerful offices in the land. The downsides, if they're ever spoken of, are dressed up in impenetrable gobbledegook or hidden under mountains of promised 'extra cash' which never actually materialises. The 'drip drip' approach of the assorted encroachments on our quality of life, freedoms and general wellbeing goes on unabated until, suddenly, our village has become an industrial town, our park a vast warehouse and our wallets are empty.

Starmer is an oily weasel, but so are the other high profile politicians. All have only one thing in mind and that is to gain, or retain, power for themselves. Not one of them gives two figs for the common people whom they just see as cash cows, there to be sucked dry to satisfy whatever is the latest whim, fad or fancy.

Come Thursday 6th May, I will vote but only in an effort to keep the worst of these parasites out, not because I trust any of them or really want my life controlled by any of them. That said, I certainly won't be voting for any 'Police and Crime Commissioner', a job created by politicians, for politicians and with no purpose whatsoever other than to politicize law and order. 

I believe it was the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham (aka Quintin Hogg) who said that we did not really have a democracy in this country, it was an elective dictatorship. Every few years we, the common people, are given the chance to vote for whichever party we want to dominate us for the next few years; the choice is usually very limited and it makes little difference which lot wins. 

While on the surface, things might seem better at times, underneath, the country slides inevitably downhill and will continue to do so until either we get some real leadership and a return to what are now seen as old fashioned values, or there is a revolution. I won't be holding my breath to see which it is.

SELF DRIVING CARS - ANOTHER HORROR COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

Not very long ago, our country was introduced to so-called "Smart Motorways", a system in which the previous hard shoulders are automatically changed to 'running lanes' at times of congestion. It was claimed that this would ease the congestion and was entirely safe for road users. Today, we know that there have been numerous accidents and deaths arising directly from the lack of a safe refuge for drivers whose vehicles have broken down. The system is being reviewed further deployments are, I believe, suspended.

Despite this  serious failure of technology it's now proposed to allow so-called self driving vehicles onto our motorways. Why anyone would want a self-driving vehicle is a question that that has yet to be asked, let alone answered, but the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, simply claims that we cannot be left behind and must employ such technological advances. One wonders how many accidents and deaths there will have to be before this nonsense will also be dumped back where it belongs, on the rubbish heap with all the other failed "if it can be, it must be" projects.

However, there is another aspect to this latest suggestion which might just keep it going. By introducing 'self-driving' vehicles, governments may be taking us down a road that leads to total control of our movements. For a vehicle to be truly 'self driving' it has to be controlled; what better way to ensure this than to have some form of enhanced GPS doing the job ? All the driver would need to do would be to tell the vehicle where he, or she, wanted to go and the vehicle would do the rest, all under the control of some unseen hand. Speeding and jumping traffic lights would no longer be a problem; if any driver or passenger had the tiniest whiff of alcohol about them, the vehicle would refuse to move. 

In time, such technology could even be deployed to decide that our journey was not necessary, was inappropriate or would add to already unacceptable levels of congestion or crowding somewhere along our route or at our destination. Our trip to Blackpool might be turned into one to Southend at the whim of a soul-less but all powerful computer and all in the cause of safety. Personal wants and desires, self will even the right to be wrong sometimes would be lost; the serendipitous finding of some unknown wonder while trying desperately to get back to the 'right road', would be a thing of the past.

There are things that technology can achieve that should be firmly rejected, and self-driving cars are right there at the top of my list of such horrors. In the words of Mrs Thatcher "no, No, NO !!".

LABOUR SLEAZE AND CORRUPTION - WHO CAN FORGET IT ?

Does anyone know what the Labour Party's policies are ahead of next week's elections for local councillors, mayors and police commissioners ? 

I've certainly heard very little in the media about the subject, Labour's entire electioneering campaign seemingly being focused on trying to demonise Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Allegations of 'sleaze' abound, although whether there is any real truth or relevance in them is, to say the least, unclear. 

Who paid for the redecoration of the Prime Minister's Downing Street flat ? In truth, does anyone care so long as whatever it cost did not come out of the public purse. Labour seems to have forgotten about the grotesque expenditure of Lord 'Derry' Irvine when his former pupil, Tony Blair, appointed him to the role of Lord Chancellor. Irvine splashed a reported £650,000 (more than 20 years ago and substantially more in today's terms), including around £60,000 on wallpaper alone, on redecorating his residence at Westminster, every penny being paid for out of public funds. 

While England's Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, holds shares in a company which gained a contract from the Welsh government can this really be considered 'sleaze' ? In Liverpool, the Labour mayor and several of his cronies have been arrested on charges of corruption; Joe Anderson, the now former mayor, wants the city council to pay for his legal costs. Who is the real crook here - Tory Matt Hancock or Labour's Joe Anderson ?

When he was Prime Minister, Tony Blair clearly misled Parliament and the country with his 'dodgy dossier' and claims that Iraq had to be invaded due to its supposed stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction". Again, Keir Starmer's Labour Party seems to have forgotten all about Blair's duplicity and. instead, trots out the egregious Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves and John Ashworth to voice their unsubstantiated and fanatical diatribes against Mr Johnson and others in the Cabinet. Interestingly, Starmer himself seems to stay fairly clear of the fray, except fro his appearances at Prime Minister's questions when, regardless of how clever he may be, he comes across as a grey man in a grey suit.

Have we all so quickly forgotten about Keith Vaz, rent boys and cocaine in 2017, or about Labour's Fiona Onasanya, imprisoned for perverting the course of justice in 2018 and then refusing to resign her parliamentary seat ? Further back there was "Jowellgate" a financial scandal that involved Tessa Jowell, her husband, David Mills and had links to the highly suspect Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. There was also the little matter of Ron Davies, 'cottaging' on Clapham Common and a later resignation due to allegations of illicit sexual activity. 

Of course, sleaze, corruption and downright 'naughtiness' have never been the property of just one party. In 2010, the Liberal Democrat David Laws was caught wrongly claiming expenses of £40,000 and in 2012, Chris Huhne and his wife were both sent to prison for perverting the course of justice over a speeding offence.

None of the above absolves current political figures from responsibility for their actions and there have been plenty of Conservatives who went every bit as wrong as their Labour and Liberal opponents, but Labour's current strategy appears to be to throw as much mud as possible in an effort to discredit a popular Prime Minister, rather than to put forward much in the way of alternative policies.  Is this really what is needed ? Does the Labour Party have any actual policies ?

The people will make clear, on Thursday 6th May, what they think of Labour's approach as set against dramatic Conservative success in tackling the real issue of a viral epidemic.

H.R.H. THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH

HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was a man who experienced great difficulties and even serious danger during his long life and yet he never wavered. Not for him trips to counsellors, psychologists, therapists and the like; no, he took what life threw at him shrugged his shoulders and got on with things.

An old fashioned attitude, full of the 'stiff upper lip' mentality of his generation, and one that is so absent amongst today's frail and cosseted little darlings. At the same time, he was a moderniser and a man who believed passionately in moving forward at all times through innovation and invention. 

The Duke also truly understood duty and service, fulfilling his role as the Queen's consort for almost 70 years, gaining a reputation for being 'his own man' while also supporting his wife unreservedly.

His contributions to his family, his country and the world are immeasurable. He will be missed.