ANOTHER EUROVISION, MORE NOISE.

And so the Eurovision Song Contest was true to its traditional political approach. The appalling noise from Ukraine won, while the UK's awful entry came second, surely due to the UK being seen as Ukraine's most vocal supporter in its battle with Russia.

While songs from the past by groups such as ABBA, Brotherhood of Man and Buck's Fizz are still remembered and played, and entries from the likes of Cliff Richard, Lulu, Sandie Shore and many others still bring at least a smile of recognition to the faces of even older listeners, last night's two top entries will surely be forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history before the year is out, only ever to reappear when the BBC does its occasional trawal through that very dustbin. In short, both entries almost defy belief.

Stripping away the flashy sets, flashy outfits and flashing lights what was left other than NOISE ? Any resemblance to music was purely coincidental, quite possibly accidental, as it was all about the show rather than the words or music. Not that this was anything unusual, for Eurovision has evolved over the years form a competition designed to select the best song to one designed to select a performance which catches the eye, modified by the application of political or nationalistic preferences. In other words it now turns out tripe.

"Boom Bang-a-Bang", "Waterloo", "Puppet on a String", "Making your Mind Up", "All kinds of Everything", "Save your kisses for Me" and a few others all had staying power. More recent entries have almost all vanished from sight. 

Thank God for small mercies.

WILL CRICKET'S MANDARINS EVER GET IT RIGHT ?

Onve again, those who control English cricket have got it wrong. Having rid themselves of 'Managing Director' Giles and coach Silverwood, followed by the resignation of captain Root, all following a dismal period of Test Match failure, one might have hoped for some realism. Perhaps a real Managing Director, a real coach and a captain in the mould of Illingworth, Brearley or Vaughan. Sadly, the early signs are that it's "business as usual".

While the positions of coach and captain remain up for grabs, the top job, the one which will be responsible for appointing the others, has been given to Robert Key, a former player who was, to be fair, a decent batsman, though never quite good enough to nail down a permanent place in the England team as such. That said, the same applied to Brearley although his abilities as a manager and captain were outstanding, which probably cannot be said of Key. In fact, Brearley has the best record of any England captian who played more than 30 matches in that role, followed by Illingworth and Vaughan, then Strauss, May, Dexter and Hussain, bfore Root arrives in the list. 

While Root is undoubtedly a very good batsman, a very useful spin bowler and a fine fielder, he was no great captain. He did oversee a record number of 27 victories, but he also captained in 25 defeats, also a record. His demeanour on the field was frequently one of frustrated onlooker rather than of a captain in control of events. He was far too much "one of the lads" and a "mate" to the rest of the team, and far too rarely the man truly in charge. When it came to laying down the law to the likes of Anderson, Broad and Stokes, did he dare ? How often did he really control events, rather than being controlled by them ? To what extent do England's current problems result from his reluctance to bat at the number 3 position and to rely on a battery of seam bowlers, with himself as the principal spin bowling support ? 

As for the hierarchy which appointed a gaggle of old boys, from Giles at the top to Silverwood and Root, it's the same old story. Let's keep things "in house", let's not "rock the boat", indeed, let's "go with the obvious choice". In terms of the captaincy, Root was the obvious choice, in schoolboy terms, as he was the best batsman in the team so had to be captain, too. That may work in a team of  15 year olds but such an approach at the very highest level is nonsensical. Captaincy of a group of highly talented, highly motivated and often highly egotistical individuals requires rather more than being the best batsman; it needs real leadership ability.

Perhaps Key has the necessary ability to lead English cricket to a better future but he has no track record of any such qualities. In fact, it's suggested that he is seen as being a welcome appointment by the bulk of England's cricketing elite as he's an approachable and friendly face. He's never been seen as being someone who would do anything to "upset the apple cart", which is exctly the shake up English domestic cricket needs. The effective destruction of the county championship, the only 'real' cricket still played, must be reversed, the shocking financial reliance on ever shorter versions of limited overs cricket also. Is it truly beyond the wit of the 'powers that be' to revitalise the championship, to make it what it was in previous years, when crowds flocked in their tens of thousands ? Does it really have to be abandoned and exiled to the outer reaches of the frozen and dark days of late March and early October ? 

As Managing Director of Cricket, Key will be responsible for dealing with such matters as well as for appointing the next coach and captain of the England Test team; as one of the cricketing elite, another insider who's a "pal" to the current team and entirely unthreatening to the next generation, what chance is there that he'll do anything other than "go with the flow" and appoint Ben Stokes as the next captain or, if Stokes has the sense to turn the job down, the likes of Stuart Broad as an interim until either Stokes changes his mind or another "obvious" candidate appears ? As for the abominable mess that is the domestic cricketing calendar, what will he do other than listen to the voices of the accountants who will tell him that he tinkers at his, and English cricket's, peril ? (btw, I'm an accountant who knows better, and a cricket fan who first went to Lord's in 1962, long befor the current crop of 'experts' were born)

What is needed is real leadership and the courage to look outside of the "obvious". The England team needs real management and leadership, not the pal-ship of one of the current bunch who are all far too closely knit to ever take real control. It's like one of a group of drinking buddies taking over as landlord of their local pub - can it really work ?

I have no idea who the potential candidates might be but I am sure that an effective England captain will only be found from outside of the current extended squads. I doubt that there is a Brearley or Illingworth out there, too many counties have used their captaincy as a a lure for foreign one year imports, but there must be someone. It's the job of Robert Key and whomever he appoints as the next coach, to find that person. If he does that, he'll have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. If he doesn't, he'll just be another of the failures of the English cricketing establishment.

I have my hopes, but they're not high.

WOKE WELBY'S SELECTIVE CHRISTIANITY.

So the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, thinks that the Government's plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda is "unGodly".

This seems to be another example of Welby's selective Christianity. This is a man who has no difficulty with, indeed he promotes, the utterly "unGodly" lunacy of marriage between 2 men or 2 womern, while denying the Bible's prohibition on homosexuality. In addition, he appears to ignore the Bible's teaching which says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created he them" (Genesis 1:27). There are, of course, further references to men and women in the Bible, not least that God created a woman from Adam's rib, but nowhere does it mention that sex, or gender, is changeable, something which the "woke" Welby seems to find acceptable. The truth is that male is male and female is female, unless, of course, you are a "trans" activist or utterly "unGodly" Church of England priest. 

Welby falls over himself backwards to prove his liberal "woke" credentials, while ignoring his principal duty which is to promote Christian teaching in line with the Christian Bible, not some politically correct interpretation of the modern mania for supposed 'equality, diversity and inclusion'. While the Church over which he presides slides evermore into obscurity, Welby does his best to hasten its decline by rejecting traditional Christain teachings in favour of some misguided appeal to the masses, an approach which simply discourages the few who still believe in his Church.

Welby was a political appointee, an Old Etonian with serious connections to a wide assortment of the rich and powerful; his uncle was 'Rab' Butler, deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and more, under Prime Ministers from Churchill to Douglas-Home. His ancestry even includes descent from an illegitimate son of King Charles II. He was always a man who was going places, although he was originally rejected for ordination in the Church of England for being too evangelical though he finally became a priest in 1993. He then gained numerous promotions until being installed as the Bisjop of Durham in November 2011, before his extraordinarily rapid elevation to the See of Canterbury was announced less than a year later. For comparison, his predecessor, Rowna Williams, had spent 8 years as Bishop of Monmouth before his promotion to the Archbishopric of Wales and it was a further 3 years before his elevantion to Canterbury. In contrast, the speed of Welby's rise to the highest position in the Anglican clergy was meteoric and even suggestive of a degree of political interference. 

Welby now regularly criticises the UK's Government for its Conservative values and actions and generally makes pronouncements on political issues. He is clearly a man of the liberal-left who uses his position to promote views from that quarter, while his Church crumbles around him. He's been in office for over 9 years - it's surely time for him to go, before the damage he's doing becomes irreversible.

TODAY'S "POOR" NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD !

I am sick to death of hearing the whinges of the so-called 'poor' in our country. Viewers and listeners are treated to the regular whining of single mothers with umpteen children, ill-matched couples in council houses or pensioners bemoaning their lack of income. None of these people, or those who interview them, ever remind these moaners that, regardless of what they may think, they are all infinitely better off than were their forebears even as recently as 60 or 70 years ago, Additionally, interviewers don't dare to ask questions about the paternity of children and location of absent fathers.

As recently as the 1950s, few homes in the UK had fridges or freezers; even washing machines were almost a luxury for many, while dish washers were all but unknown. Few families had a car, many did not have a television; the main source of entertainment was the radio, with just 1 or 2 BBC channels available and reception often problematic. The best alternative was a trip to the local cinema or, for children, to go on a bike ride or play with friends in the local park.

Most homes did not have a telephone, landline only of course, and those that did probably shared it with a neighbour; most had to use the telephone box at the corner of a nearby street, if there was one and if it wasn't already in use. Mobile 'phones, 'tablets', laptops, and all the other technological paraphernalia had not yet been thought of. Children sitting alone playing computer games was a nightmare for the future.

There was no such thing as the internet, while 'online shopping' and home delivery had yet to be invented. Foreign holidays were a luxury reserved for the genuinely wealthy. For most, clothes were handed down from generation to generation, designer clothes were for the rich and 'fast fashion' a thing of the future, as was fast food, excepting fish and chips. Eating out meant a pint and pie at lunchtime; family outings to restaurants were unheard of, again except for the rich. No one but the wealthy drank wine, for most men it was beer while their ladies drank gin or port on the rare occasions on which they went out to the local public house. 

Men went to work from the age of 15, as did the women until they married, after which they'd stay at home, clean, cook and look after the children. Young men aged 17 to 21 were required to undertake a period of service in the armed forces, between 18 months and 2 years followed by 4 years, or 3½ years, as reservists. For good or bad, fathers provided for their families and didn't leave women to bring up their children alone or with vast handouts from the state.

Despite all of these deficiencies, trials and tribulations, people got on with their lives and accepted their lot, while striving for better days. Listening to the continual gripes of today's generation, mollycoddled as they are, weighed down with sack loads of state benefits and every 'mod con' imaginable, tripping off to foreign parts for their annual holidays (it was Southend or Blackpool in the 1950s), and dolled up in their fancy outfits, makes me see these pampered prats as the utterly self serving and self obsessed morons they are.

And these are the people who will choose our next government, lead our country forward through this century and into the next. God Help Us.

PUTIN IS A SYMPTOM OF A DEEPER MALAISE.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be in some trouble as the Ukrainian population is putting up rather more of a fight than Vladimir Putin had bargained for. Despite the destruction of its towns and cities and the emigration of millions of its women, children and older citizens, Ukraine refuses to surrender to the brutality of Putin's military assault.

Putin has clearly miscalculated and there are reports that he's sacked a number of senior army officers for failing to get the job done. Apparently, the advance of his forces on a number of fronts have all but ground to a halt and he's resorted to mass bombing of civilian targets in an attempt to terrify the population into surrendering. Even worse, it is suggested that he may be on the point of deploying chemical or biological weapons, something which is outlawed and reviled by all civilized nations, not to mention assorted international bodies and treaties. Would Putin even go further and use small scale nuclear weapons, thereby risking an escalation of his limited attack on Ukraine into a full blown European, or even World, War ?

Putin is a monster, a tyrannical and despotic ruler in the mould of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong. For years, the Western world appeased him and became increasingly reliant on his exports of oil, gas, coal and other natural resources. In truth, much of Europe has been appallingly let down by its political leaders who have sort cheap products while ignoring the potential danger from a despotic and expansionist regime. In similar fashion, the West, led by political elites with utterly misconceived priorities, have allowed themselves to become reliant on China, various states in the Middle East, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and assorted other countries in the 'Third World' for supplies of all sorts, ranging from oil and gas to foodstuffs and clothing, our mobile 'phones and laptops, even the production of drugs and vaccines. In short, the West has outsourced control over its own economies and is now subject to the whims of a whole assortment of countries, all of which can now set the terms of trade to suit themselves and at least some of which are potentially hostile.

This is a consequence of the failure of a smug political elite over a period of several decades, an elite which has been far more interested in gaining election and winning power than in worrying about the future. Today, our country along with the rest of Europe is on the edge of a precipice but, shockingly, there does not seem to be a single political leader who is prepared to admit the situation they have brought us all to, nor who is prepared to begin the task of reversing our decline. In fact, they seem more interested in controlling us, through various legislation which has its origins in George Orwell's nightmare novels "1984" and "Animal Farm".

Nero famously fiddled while Rome burned. Our leaders have done just the same, only the conflagration has taken longer to take hold and even to be discovered. What is needed now are some real leaders who will cut through the red tape and utter lunacy of 'wokeish' ideology, who will begin the process of regenerating our manufacturing base and ending the reliance on others. 

What chance ?

WHY IS THE WEST SO ARROGANT ?

Many countries around the world have cultures and behaviours which we, of the 'civilized' West disapprove. Such countries are frequently critiicized for their 'barbaric' treatment of an assortment of miscreants, as well as of people whose views, attitudes, behaviours or cultures they simply dislike or disapprove of.

There is logic in this but also a degree of arrogance. How can anyone define terms such as 'civilized' or 'barbaric' ? Indeed, not many centuries ago, the very things which we now find unbelievably awful were common practice in our own country, in fact we did even worse. While the Saudis cut off hands, feet or heads, we habitually burnt people at the stake or sentenced them to be 'hanged, drawn and quartered', a fate which involved partial hanging, castration, disembowelment and finally cutting into 4 pieces. Has anyone ever invented a more barbaric means of execution ? No doubt there are other contenders for the most abominable method of  execution but I think this serves to demonstrate that we 'civilized' people are not far removed from similar atrocities.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently visited Saudi Arabia in pursuit of an improved arrangement for the supply of oil and gas from a kingdom which is overflowing with these necessities of modern life. Given that an increase in supplies from the Saudi kingdom would be matched by a reduction on reliance on the abomination which is Russia under Putin, this seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. However, Saudi Arabia does not share the West's attitudes to many things. As a Muslim nation, it takes it's direction from its reading of the Muslim bible, the Koran. Of this, many in the West, do not approve and yet ......... .

Why is the 'West' so dogmatic in its view ? Why is it so certain of its rectitude ? Of course, much of this arrogance is based on its belief that Christianity is, effectively, the one and only true religion, which is quite obviously the most appalling example of arrogance ever visited upon any human population anywhere. However, there are also other factors such as belief in individual freedom and to what extent this should be over-riding, listened to, or even tolerated. On this subject, the West has generally worked on the basis that countries are governed according to the supposed 'will of the people' as exercised through 'free and fair' elections.

More poppycock. Elections in the 'West' are as fixed as they are in supposedly less democratic countries, they're just fixed in a different way. The rich and powerful still gain dominance, whether they espouse politics of the left or right, and they still impose their will on a largely docile population. In the West, governments do not resort to terror in order to control their people, instead they are rather more subtle - they use the media to spread stories, however true, debatable or entirely fictitious, which tend to push a largely ignorant and suggestible populace in the desired direction.

That this has nothing to do with democracy is obvious; that it is devious, likewise. In the United Kingdom, a democratic vote of the entire population which produced a majority in favour of leaving the European Union was met with massive and still ongoing opposition from the defeated elitist  minority, who continue to look for ways of overturning the will of the democratic majority. Have this minority not heard about democracy or do they simply have an arrogant belief that 'they know better' ?  While a democratic majority would almost certainly vote for the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, those in power will never allow a vote on such a subject, as they themselves disapprove. Where is the democracy in this ? The goal of 'net zero', a highly nebulous concept which relies mostly on exporting our production of carbon dioxide to third world countries, is implemented with very little public consultation and even less consideration of its consequences; the costs are entirely unknown but we, the people, will pay for it. The rich and powerful who decided to pursue this ludicrous cause and, of course, run the country, will find the costs of no concern, the rest of us will have to choose between heating and eating.

To be clear. I have no more time for the appalling and barbaric behaviour of countries such as Saudi Arabia than I do for the Russian bombing of helpless civilians in Ukraine. At the same time, I deplore the appalling activities of 'militias', 'freedom fighters', 'guerrillas' or any other pseudo-military groups which have reigned terror around the world in recent years and yet largely avoided any significant attention. Far too often the West has seemed reluctant to take sides against such groups, for fear of 'picking the wrong side' or supporting the 'wrong cause'. 'Wrong' of course, meaning whatever didn't sit comfortably with western ideals or economic ambitions, rather than any more fundamental definition of right and wrong. The West set itself against the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the Taliban and determined to remove them from power by force; only partial success has left behind little more than chaos, with several countries decimated. Now that Vladimir Putin has taken a similar approach towards achieving his goal of bringing Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, he is vilified. Of course invading a sovereign nation is wrong, destroying its towns and cities, ruining its economy and killing thousands of its citizens is wrong, but why was it apparently acceptable when the West was doing the same to numerous middle eastern nations ?

The Soviet Union, under Stalin and then Khrushchev, perpetrated a tyranny over their own nation as well as over all of eastern Europe. Yet we, the civilized peoples of the West, backed away and allowed these tyrants to rule, for fear of the consequences of confronting them. Instead we launched our assaults against easier targets, and continued to do so as the Soviet tyranny was replaced by a Russian one. At the same time, we said little about the 'barbarity' of many other regimes around the world, with which we continued to trade and count as 'friends'. 

Today, we are reaping the rewards of this ambivalent and basically selfish attitude towards life, one which has been practiced by Western political leaders for decades, in pursuit of popularity, electoral success and power.

BERCOW - HOW THE MIGHTY ARE FALLEN

I will admit that I always thought John Bercow, former Speaker of the House of Commons, was a rather pompous, arrogant and unpleasant little man. That he also used his position as Speaker to try to advance the cause of the 'Remainers' during the Brexit debate was obvious and another reason for my dislike of him. His abuse of his position was palpable and shocking. However, having no direct personal knowledge of the man, I had no idea just how nasty he really was.

Yesterday, a report by an independent committee revealed that they had found Bercow to be a serial bully and serial liar. For someone who had ambitions to be appointed to the House of Lords, as has been usual for retired Speakers for centuries, and to go down in history as a 'Great Speaker', this determination is crucifying. Bercow had already left his erstwhile home in the Conservative Party and joined Labour, largely in pursuit of a seat in the Lords; it had become clear that the Conservatives were never going to put him forward for such an honour so what else was he to do ? For a man blinded by ambition and his own self importance, there was no choice but to forget whatever beliefs he had ever held and simply sign up with anyone who might, just, give him what he wanted. Jeremy Corbyn, a man whose political views could not have been further removed from those of any Conservative, eventually did propose him for a peerage but the nomination was blocked due to the investigation into his behaviour.

Now, and following the release of the utterly damning report, Bercow has found himself on the point of being kicked out of the Labour Party and ostracized by the entire political establishment. The report says that, were he still a sitting Member of Parliament, the committee would recommend that he be expelled by resolution of the House, and recommends that Bercow never be allowed a Parliamentary pass again, effectively banning him from ever being promoted to the House of Lords and barring him from being anything more than a public visitor to the Palace of Westminster in the future. 

To compound his dishonour, Bercow has thrown scorn on the report, calling it amateurish, unjust and a travesty of justice. Rather than acknowledging any wrongdoing and apologising, Bercow has denied all the allegations against him, decried those who made the allegations and criticised those who spent some 22 months going through the evidence in minute detail.

Never has any Speaker so defiled this great office of state. What a nasty little man he is.