WILL Ukip WIN THE LOCAL ELECTIONS ?

By this time next week, we will know the outcome of most of the local elections scheduled to be held on Thursday. These elections will principally involving county councils and the so-called 'unitary authorities' and will give some indication as to the current mood and thinking of the electorate.

 

Opinion polls tell us that Labour are some distance ahead of the Conservatives, while Ukip is nip-and-tuck with the Liberal Democrats, though a long way behind the 2 main parties. However, opinion polls are not always reliable and, in any case, these are local elections and will not change very much at all; consequently, turnouts will be low and people may decide to vote rather differently from the way they would vote in a general election.

 

For myself, I've voted at most of the elections held over the last 40 years or so and, frankly, have had more than enough of the time-serving and self-serving career politicians with whom we've been saddled for most of this period. Liberal, Labour or Tory - take your pick, they're all social democrats with barely a cigarette paper between them. None of them has the balls to make the serious and effective changes that are needed in order to bring the 'Great' back into 'Great Britain' and the only leader who did in recent times, Margaret Thatcher, is vilified by many including those who have no idea as to what she actually did.

 

I doubt very much that Ukip would do any better but they can hardly do any worse. Ever since Mrs Thatcher left office, things have deteriorated; slowly under the government of John Major and increasingly rapidly under the disastrous administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. We are now in such a mess that the current coalition government has no real idea of what to do or, if it does, it's terrified of doing it for fear of ruining its chances at the 2015 general election. In fact, the position is even worse as the Conservative side of the coalition is hog-tied by their Liberal partners and unable to do most of what they would probably like to do, if they had the courage. 

 

My area, which has a Conservative county council and Liberal district council is a disaster; neither side of this equation seems to have been of any use for as many years as anyone can remember. Actually, the Liberals have failed in their primary aim of developing the local town, even though plans have been on the table repeatedly over 3 or 4 decades; consequently, the town is now dying on its feet while there is massive housebuilding everywhere, with resulting traffic congestion as the roads simply can't cope with the additional bodies, cars, and lorries.

 

Whether or not they have any chance or will make any difference, I'll be voting Ukip, partly as a protest against the others and partly because the others have simply failed to deliver anything useful or positive for years. I'll also be voting Ukip in next year's European elections and also in the 2015 general election and I'd like to think that I won't be alone in following this path. Here's hoping.

SALMOND LOSES THE PLOT AGAIN.

One would have thought that an intelligent politician would think twice before making a pig's ear of a major announcement, but not so Alex Salmond and his Scottish Nationalist pals.

 

A few months ago, Mr Salmond told us all that, should the Scottish people vote for independence, this would not afect their membership of international organisations such as the European Union and NATO; it was his assertion that Scotland would retain memberships as a 'successor' state. It wasn't long before various senior figures made it extremely clear that this was rubbish and that a newly independent Scotland would, in fact, have to apply for membership of these bodies. Salmond and his friends were made to look like incompetent fools.

 

Despite their previous experience, they've now been at it again. An independent Scotland would continue to use the pound sterling in a 'currency union' with the remainder of the United Kingdom, claim Salmond and his Finance Minister, John Swinney; "Oh no they won't !", came the resounding response from the UK's Treasury and even from Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. It seems that Mr Salmond has put his foot in it again.

 

Salmond is obviously keen to convince his fellow Scots that voting for independence would have little real impact on these critical areas of their lives, while the truth may be very different. Of course, an independent Scotland may well be successful with its applications to join the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth and so on, but they would have to join on the current terms on offer to new members and would not enjoy the status which the United Kingdom now has. They could also continue to use the pound sterling but they would have no control over it; they would be entirely bound to the policies of the Bank of England and UK government in its management and could even be required to follow the practice in the EU of having to have their annual budget approved by the bankers and government of what would then be a foreign country.

 

Salmond is a man who is hell bent on separating his country from the rest of the United Kingdom and will tell his people anything in order to get them to vote his way. His recent claims about international memberships and currency clearly show that he is now also a desperate man and must be fearing the worst when Scots go to the polls next year; a 'NO' vote will almost certainly signal the end of his career as a senior figure in Scottish politics. Can't happen too soon, I say.

FANATICAL HATRED FOR LADY THATCHER OVERFLOWS.

There is a move afoot to try to make a song from 1939 become the number 1 selling record this week. It is Judy Garland's "Ding Dong ! The Witch is Dead" from the magical film "The Wizard of Oz"

 

Those behind the internet drive to achieve this are individuals of left wing views who hated Margaret Thatcher and continue to hate her memory. It is a campaign built on, and driven by, pure hatred. As such, if the object of their bile was black, Jewish, homosexual or disabled the perpetrators would themselves be vilified for their disgusting behaviour; if the object of their hatred was still living, it would be ajudged a 'hate crime'.

 

To all intents and purposes, the perpetrators are guilty of a 'hate crime' and yet the BBC appears to be condoning it; it is likely that the record will be played on air within the next few days. The good old left wing BBC still has its own knives out for Mrs T.

 

A few days ago I wrote my thoughts about the nonsensical addition of the notion of the term 'hate crime' to various acts simply because the victim was from a particular background. Given the appalling lack of decency and respect being shown towards one of the greatest figures in our nation's recent history, can we now expect this notion to be extended to cover acts aimed at living politicians ?

 

I despise what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did to our country and I will never forgive the lies that Ted Heath told in order to get us into the Common Market. I will never forgive what Harold Wilson did to us in the 1960s when he sowed the seeds for the devastation of the 1970s and 1980s. I hate them all and I hate the very sight and sound of many of today's lot, mostly the self serving and fanatical women of the left but a fair few in the centre and on the right too. Do I run the risk of committing a 'hate crime' ?

 

In truth, I would not dream of being so ignorant and insensitive as to behave in the way that some are over the death of Lady Thatcher. These people are a disgrace. They are bigots and fanatics of the worst sort and should be utterly condemned, not feted.

PARIS BROWN : UNDONE BY HER TWEETS.

A moronic Police and Crime Commissioner in Kent, Ann Barnes, ws stupid enough to think that she needed a youth commissioner to help her communicate with younger people in her area. She appointed a 17 year old, Paris Brown, though exactly why she chose this particular child has not been publicised.

 

Ms Brown seems to be a very voluble young woman, unfortunately for her. It now transpires that she has a history of 'tweeting', a particularly modern and pointless pastime, and her past 'tweets' have now come back to haunt both her and her boss. For some time, it seems that she made a number of 'tweets' which were of a possibly racist or anti-gay nature.

 

After initally ignoring calls for her to resign or be sacked, Ms Brown has finally grapsed the nettle and decided to step down, one assumes not without the odd shove from the woman who appointed her and whose own position must now be in serious question. Ms Barnes has reportedly said that it is 'a very sad day'.

 

One might hope that the people of Kent not only believe today to be a sad day but also that they now deeply regret electing such a stupid person in the first place. Perhaps when these utterly unnecessary posts come up for election in the future, the electorate will head for the shops, pub or anywhere else that isn't a polling station and that the message will be conveyed loud and clear - "STOP WASTING OUR MONEY !"

LEGAL AID PROPOSALS ARE WRONG AND UNJUST.

The Government is launching a consultation on plans to limit legal aid to defendants in criminal cases. Its proposals include a plan to prevent anyone with disposable income of more than £37,500 from being automatically entitled to receive assistance with their costs and also to 'curb' the rights of prisoners who seek legal aid.

 

That these proposals are shockingly wrong should be obvious to anyone who believes in justice. Criminal cases are prosecuted by the state in the guise of the Crown Prosecution Service; investigations into suspected offences are conducted by the police and associated bodies which have access to the most modern and sophisticated tecnologies. Effectively, the prosecution has unlimited resources.

 

Set against this, defendants have little chance unless their own costs are met in similar fashion. Disposable income of £37,500 may sound like a lot of money but, when barristers' charges can be measured in thousands of pounds an hour, it's a drop in the ocean. It's an utterly unreasonable proposal that will deny any chance of justice to many.

 

Of course, it may be right to levy costs against wealthy defendants once they've been proven guilty, but to deprive anyone of the means of defending themselves in the first place is entirely immoral. In like fashion, it would be wrong to deny convicted prisoners the means of launching appeals once the grounds for appeal have been accepted. Access to justice should be precisely the same for all citizens and not determined by status or wealth.

 

The Government needs to be told where to put these wrong-headed and unjust proposals; the answer to the consultation should be 'NO WAY !'

PAY BENEFITS TO THE RICH, NOT THE POOR, SAYS LIAM BYRNE !

Oh dear ! It seems that the Labour party is in disarray again.

 

Liam Byrne, the man who left a note when he departed from the Treasury in 2010, apologising for the fact that there was no money left, is now reported to have come up with a crackpot plan for improving the benefits system. He wants to "strengthen the old principle of contribution" and has said that many people "feel they pay an awful lot more in than they ever get back".

 

Poor Mr Byrne. He clearly hs no understanding of the workings of an insurance system. He also seems to be becoming a Conservative.

 

His first point, about better-linking of benefits to contributions, is basic; only those who pay in should get anything out. This would, of course, remove many thousands of Labour voters from the receipt of Government largesse and, no doubt, would also result in their votes going elsewhere. Those who are permanently unemployed or otherwise financially disadvantaged would get nothing while those who complete a full working life would be eligible for maximum Government handouts.

 

The second point is another 'statement of the bleedin' obvious', but is also a necessary fact of life in any insurance system. Some of us always end up paying more than we get back - just think of car and house insurance; some people pay in year after year and never make a claim while others claim with painful regularity. When we consider the welfare and benefits system in this country, it is the wealthiest who pay most in and who mostly get very little, if anything, back; it is the poorest who pay in little, if anything, and take the most out. This is, actually, how the system was designed to work and, with some amendment, the way it should work.

 

Mr Byrne is an idiot but we already knew that. The Deputy Leader of his party, Harriet Harman, pointedly declined to support his silly utterances on television this morning, and one has to assume that his proposals will be binned very swiftly indeed. In the past, he might then have been able to consider crossing the floor of the House to join the Conservatives, but today's Conservative Party is at least as socialist as his own Labour mob. It looks as though Mr Byrne is on his own.

HBOS THREE CAUSE POLITICAL OUTRAGE FOR CABLE.

Why do our political masters repeatedly react to specific situations by making high-profile noises about shock and outrage ?

 

Today it's being reported that the left-wing Secretary of State in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (there's an Orwellian bit of newspeak for you !) has been outraged, all of a sudden it would appear, by the findings of a report which was published last Friday. The report focused on the collapse of the banking company 'HBOS' and found that three of the company's senior management were principally to blame; these were its Chairman and the 2 men who occupied the Chief Executive's chair between 2001 and 2008.

 

Although it must have been obvious to everyone who was involved in these matters, and also to anyone who had later knowledge of them, that there were serious failures in the bank's management, it's only now that Vince Cable has decided to become 'outraged'. Not only is he 'outraged' but he wants to find ways of sanctioning the three men and, no doubt, will even look at introducing retrospective legislation if that is the only way that his socialist 'outrage' can be assuaged.

 

The 'HBOS Three' were undoubtedly guilty of managing their bank poorly and are probably rightly blamed for its ultimate failure just as Fred Goodwin was blamed for the collapse of RBS. However, for the Government to engage itself in a witch hunt for individuals is entirely wrong-headed. Government sets the agenda and the environment, it is for others to decide what sanctions should be applied to specific individuals.

 

Andy Hornby, Sir James Crosby and Lord Stevenson have now been branded and, unless it is shown that they broke laws or other specific codes of conduct, it is for others, and not the Government or judiciary, to determine whether and how they might be sanctioned. Fred Goodwin left RBS under circumstances which ensure that he will never find similar employment again, having been hounded out by the prress; he is now facing the prospect of being sued for his failings. Eric Daniels, the American who almost destroyed Lloyds through his failure to impose proper 'due diligence' on his bank's merger with HBOS,  has yet to be seriously pursued by anyone; one wonders why.

 

Cable is an ambitious man who has his eyes on Nick Clegg's job. Positioning himself as the champion of the poor against these evil bankers won't do his case any harm, even if nothing comes of it.

HATE CRIME : AN INDEFINABLE CONCEPT.

The leaders of the Greater Manchester Police Force have decided to widen the scope of what are moronically called 'hate crimes'. In future, they will designate crimes against an assortment of sub-groups, such as 'goths' and 'emos' (whatever they may be), as 'hate crimes' and will dedicate additional resources towards the capture and prosecution of the associated offenders.

 

To designate offences against particular people in our society as being automatically more serious than those against other people is, itself, fraught with danger; it is also ludicrous. To now propose that crimes against a range of weird and largely indefinable sub-groups should also be added to the list of those requirning special attention  is imbecilic. The very idea that anyone who may be perceived as being a member of such a group can only be targeted as a result of some hatred of their group is idiotic.

 

When a nasty little yob beats someone up in order to steal their purse, wallet or mobile phone he does not worry about which group they belong to; ridiculously, however, if he beats up an elderly Asian he will almost certainly receive a much harsher sentence than if he beats up a middle aged white man, regardless of his real motivation. In future, will the fact that I belong to a 'sub-class' of older middle aged white men who speak reasonable English, wear unfashionable clothes and sometimes a 'funny' hat, provide me with the comfort of knowing that anyone who assaults me, vandalises my car or burgles my home, will be treated as having perpetrated a 'hate crime' ? Of course not. My skin colour, religion and gender, as well as the fact that I am not disabled, render me immune from any such consideration.

 

The very notion of 'hate crime' is an invention of the lunatic left and it is a shocking condemnation of our entire politcial elite that they have all embraced it. It is quite frightening that our police services are now trying to extend this ridiculous notion still further. I hate it. In fact, I hate it so much that if I was to kick a police officer, would I be 'done' for a 'hate crime' as well as for assaulting an officer ?

KOREAN TENSIONS MOUNT AS US DEPLOYS ITS DEFENCES.

As the USA begins to 'square-up' to North Korea, one wonders when, if ever, the world will be free of conflict.

 

The Korean peninsula has been the home of conflict since the 1940s, a place where China could flex its muscles against the Americans. That said, the Korean War ended over 60 years ago even if no official peace treaty was ever signed and the bellicose utterings of the leaders of the northern side have continued to drift over the airways. However, today seems to be a little different.

 

Following in the footsteps of his mad father and grandfather, the latest North Korean dictator, a fat little man called Kim Jong Un, seems determined to make a name for himself. In response to what has to be seen as a certain amount of provocation form the South, he's now threatening potential nuclear war; the Americans have promptly announced that they'll be deploying certain 'defensive measures' in the western Pacific.

 

North Korea is not and can never be a threat to the USA. The ridiculous noises emanating from their leadership would be better ignored but, of course, the paranoid Yanks don't work like that. They take every supposed threat, however laughable, seriously and go into full militrary deployment mode. Surprisingly, the only voice of sanity in this situation comes from China.

 

Previous escalations in the tension between North and South Korea have eventually died down without any serious consequences but some experts believe this occasion may be a little different. With new leaderships in both North Korea and China allied to the usual over-reaction of the US, could we actually be headed towards real war ?