POOFTAHS OF THE WORLD UNITE !

A Ukip candidate has resigned because he's been guilty, apparently, of using "homophobic and racist" language. What a load of politically correct tosh.

In an age when nudity and simulated sex scenes are commonplace, almost obligatory, on our screens and radio, television and films are littered with the most crude, vulgar, offensive and disgusting language, using the word 'pooftah' has been deemed to be so bad that an ordinary man cannot remain as a parliamentary candidate.

It may be news to the politically correct liberal elite who rule our poor nation, but such a word is not homophobic; it is an old fashioned expression, possibly a little distasteful but no more, which was used alongside others such as brown-hatter, queer, shirt-lifter, homo and many more. If the speaker intended offence, it would have been in the manner of speech rather than in the words themselves.

How 'pooftah' can be deemed utterly unacceptable when the egregious 'fuck', and 'cunt' appear with ever-increasing frequency escapes me. In the past, I've known more than a few old 'pooftahs' who had no trouble with those who used the vernacular to describe them, but would have been equally as unhappy as I at the use of much of today's disgusting language.

It's high time that we got back to calling a spade a spade and a homosexual a pooftah, instead of this awful 'gay' nonsense. Hijacking perfectly good words and perverting our language for political causes can never be a good idea and is what we should be fighting against.

UKIP's SUCCESS MEANS MISERY FOR OTHERS.

UKIP's success in Thursday's by-elections has certainly stirred things up.

In Clacton, it was always expected that the former sitting MP, Douglas Carswell, would win after switching his allegiance from the Conservative party to UKIP. What wasn't quite expected was that he'd increase his share of the vote and gain the support of almost 60% of voters, nor that the Liberal Democrats would be all-but wiped out, receiving only a miserly 483 votes.

In the Manchester constituency of Heywood and Middleton, a seat previously held with a comfortable majority by Labour, UKIP were expected to do well and, perhaps, get as much as 30% of the vote. In the event, they gained very nearly 40% and almost won the seat; Labour held on by their finger tips with a majority of just 617. To add to Labour's concerns, this constituency was held with a majority of over 11,000 in 2005 , a figure which reduced to 6,000 in 2010 and has now all-but disappeared.

Inevitably, all 3 main parties have done their usual 'head-in-the-sand' act and explained UKIP's success away as a blip or nothing to worry about. They remind us that this was 'only a by-election', that 'turn-out was low' or that 'there were special circumstances'. Who do they think they're kidding ? For the Conservatives, 'Dave' maintains a stance of telling us that a vote for UKIP is really a vote for Miliband, hoping that this thought will deter Tories from defecting. He also refuses, point-blank, to alter his own course or contemplate any sort of deal with his bete noire. 

Labour have always believed that UKIP were a threat to the Tories and, probably, of benefit to themselves; they've simply ignored the perceived right wing interlopers. However, a few recent by-elections and now the Heywood result have woken them up to the truth - that UKIP are a threat to any sitting MP who has failed to represent his or her constituency effectively or has simply 'toed the party line'.

As for the LibDems, UKIP are no direct threat to them. However, the LibDem vote has already been severely damaged by their coalition with the Conservatives and now an upswell in support for UKIP, seen as the 'anti-politics party', might well see their share of the vote fall to levels last experienced decades ago.

Immediately following the results Miliband minor has come under criticism for his leadership, or lack of it. Indeed, there's now renewed chatter about whether or not he's the right man for the job and whether the public see him as a potential Prime Minister. The strongly expressed opinion is that they do not. However, replacing him at this late stage in the Parliament is almost impossible, so Labour are stuck with him, like it or not, and the best that they might achieve is to bring in one or 2 old senior figures to bolster their front line.

Clegg is also untouchable, for now, as leader of the LibDems and it's difficult to see what he, or any alternative leader, could do that would make much difference to their short-term prospects. They are simply bracing themselves for a shocking result in next May's General Election and must contemplate losing many, perhaps half, of their current Parliamentary strength.

Which leaves the Conservatives and their incumbent, 'Dave'. They have another serious test to face in November when the electors of the Rochester and Strood constituency in Kent go to the polls. This is a seat previously held by another Tory defector, Mark Reckless, and it's likely to provide more pain for the Conservatives. Labour and the LibDems are likely to make little effort to win the seat and will leave it to Conservatives and UKIP to fight over, which may make life even more problematic for the Tories. Defeat for the Conservatives will ring alarm bells at Tory Central and will bring more and louder calls for the party hierarchy to respond to the UKIP threat. Recent polling suggests that UKIP will, indeed, win this seat as well though whether they'll hold it at the General Election is a different matter. Nonetheless, while 'Dave's position is not currently under threat, defeat in Rochester and failure to respond to the clamour from his back benches may well see him overthrown after May's elections.

Interestingly, all three main parties may well have new leaders by this time next year. There are jolly times ahead !

LIBDEMS SHOW TRUE SOCIALIST COLOURS.

So Nick Clegg and his 'LibDems' have shown their true colours at last.

The Party Conference currently in progress has seen announcements of yet more tax and spend, yet more socialist claptrap and yet more bullshit. Any future 'LibDem' involvement in government will now see them pushing for higher taxes on what they term 'the better off', without any indication as to what' better off' might mean. They propose to restrict payment of the winter fuel allowance to 'wealthier pensioners' - what does that mean ? They still want a 'mansion tax', albeit dressed up as additional council tax bands, and are apparently considering ways of hitting already hard-pressed savers by an attack on dividend payments.

On the other side of the coin, they want to avoid the freeze on benefit payments proposed by the Conservatives and plan to abolish what they and Labour choose to call the 'bedroom tax'. How this last proposal can be considered fair is beyond me; all that it has been done is to bring council and housing association tenants onto the same footing as those in privately rented properties, which is hardly unreasonable. Somehow, and despite rowing back on these particular money saving schemes, they still propose to tackle the remaining vast deficit in our national accounts.

The 'LibDem' may not be quite the party of sandal-wearing, tree-hugging nuts that they used to be (that distinction now belongs to the Greens) but they are still a bunch of privileged socialists who want to take from those who have as a result of working hard and give to the idle and workshy scroungers who so populate our island. The real answer to our country's malaise is to cut benefits and taxes, so that all those who are able to work are strongly encouraged to do so; there can be no reason why anyone who is able cannot be employed, if necessary by the state on community service projects until other opportunities arise. The utter nonsense of paying substantial amounts of tax credits and other benefits to anyone working 24 hours, in such a way that they are wholly discouraged from working longer, is farcical and must end.

As it stands, only the Conservatives have anything like the right approach, even UKIP indicating that they're in favour of abolishing the 'bedroom tax'. How it will all play out over the 7 months up to next May's election is anyone's guess.

ALAN HENNING

Whatever Alan Henning thought he was achieving in wherever it is he actually was, his brutal murder by a gang of vicious thugs has to be condemned.

Exactly why Henning had decided to leave his family and travel to a part of the world known to be extremely dangerous escapes me. Talk of him being a wonderful caring man makes little sense to me when he's left a widow and teenaged children behind. Who's been caring for them during his ordeal and who will care for them now ? Nonetheless, no one deserves to end up like him, in the hands of butchers.

The sooner Cameron and Co. fulfil their promises to hunt down the murderers the better.

UKIP MAKE MORE RECKLESS INROADS.

So another Tory MP has defected to UKIP. Mark Reckless has announced his defection and resignation from his seat on the eve of the Conservatives' conference in Birmingham.

The Tory leadership just carry on as usual and tell us that this is simply a disloyal member picking his moment to cause maximum damage to the party. The truth is more likely that the Conservative party no longer represents the people that it did 30 or more years ago; it has become a 'middle-of-the-road' and mildly socialist group which has little or no connection with its roots. Oh, yes, it will claim 'grass roots' support but that is from a tiny number of party members; in reality, it has lost the support of large numbers of its traditional voters who are now turning to the only real alternative, UKIP.

UKIP is the new Conservative party. It isn't run by a bunch of public school rich boys; it is not an elitist party and it does have policies which reflect the views of a significant proportion of the population. Unless the Conservative party realises that they cannot continue to ignore the real concerns and desires of the people who have supported them over the years, and actually do something about them rather than to simply spout platitudes, dogma and more worthless promises, they are dead in the water.

Would anyone with a brain really vote for Cameron, Osborne and co., any more than they'd vote for the other lot led by the equally elitist Miliband, Balls and their lot ? Surely not.

MILIBAND AND BALLS RETURN TO LABOUR'S ROOTS.

Good old Labour.

In traditional fashion and ignoring the horrors of their last period in government, Balls, Miliband and the rest are in the processing of setting out a few policies for their next term if, indeed, the people are silly enough to vote for them. At their conference in Manchester, Balls has already said that they'd increase taxation, 'reverse the cuts in housing benefit' and increase the minimum wage to £8 per hour, while Miliband is, apparently, going to announce the introduction of a 'mansion tax' and that they'll throw yet more money at the NHS.

All of this is, of course, just electioneering. Miliband & Co. are well aware that these so-called policies will appeal to their traditional voters and they really don't care what anyone else thinks; this is simply all about pursuing their basic policy of taking from those with anything in order to provide hand-outs for those with less.

Increasing taxation, whether only on the so-called rich or not, would be counter-productive as it always is. Increasing the minimum wage will achieve little as this would be accompanied by consequential reductions in the payment of tax credits, housing and council tax benefits and so on. It would, in effect, shift costs from government to business and the end result would be higher prices for consumers.

The claimed 'cuts' in housing benefit which Balls has pledged to reverse, are nothing of the sort. The current government has not cut housing benefit, it has brought the benefits paid to tenants in local authority or housing association properties into line with the benefits paid to those in privately rented accommodation. What Balls is proposing is to return to the utterly unfair system which previously existed, something which simply cannot be justified.

Miliband's 'mansion tax' is just another policy popular with his envious supporters. The majority of people who would be affected by it live in the south east of England and he cares not about losing their votes - most don't vote for his lot anyway. Many of those who would be affected have paid for their homes out of previously heavily taxed income greatly and the value of their homes has increased greatly since they were bought; many would be pensioners on limited incomes who are 'property rich and cash poor'. At least some of these people would be forced to sell their homes as they would not be able to pay the tax. In the end, the only people living in the south east of England would be the super-rich, those for whom the tax is meaningless and who, quite possibly, would find ways of avoiding it altogether.

As for throwing more money at the NHS, there is no logic in this. Ever since its inception, the NHS has consumed increasing amounts of resources and, if unreformed, it will eventually consume the entire national budget. What is needed is real reform and an acceptance that it cannot continue in its current form; what the vast majority of people want is a service which deals quickly and efficiently with their everyday problems, not an all-encompassing service which provides whatever is demanded. A move to a service part-funded by the state and topped-up by insurance has to be the way forward and the sooner people realise this, the better.

Whether we'll be faced with a Miliband government next May has yet to be decided but one thing is certain; if they do make it to number 10, we can expect more tax, more profligacy and, ultimately, a poorer and less efficient nation with a more and more doctrinaire approach to everything. Labour simply have no answer to the issues of today, being stuck as they are in the class struggles of the past.

ENGLISH DEVOLUTION NEXT.

As debate over the consequences of the Scottish referendum rages on, it's becoming increasingly clear that the constitutional implications are extensive.

It is now very clear that there must be an English parliament. There cannot be separate legislative bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland while denying the same to England and attempting to do so will result in enormous unrest within the UK's principal member. Also, the position of the House of Lords must now be under serious question as it does not scrutinise devolved matters and, with an increasingly devolved nation, it's role will be reduced to almost nothing.

David Cameron has put forward some very broad proposals aimed mainly, it seems, at discomfiting his Labour opponents and wrong-footing UKIP. Miliband has made it clear that he wants everything to do with an English parliament and the UK government subjected to a constitutional review; in other words, he wants the whole notion of further reform dumped. Clegg doesn't seem to have said all that much yet, but it's likely that whatever he does say will be largely ignored by everyone. Regardless of who's said what, the truth is that we now have an almighty mess on our hands.

The solution is, to my mind, relatively obvious. An English parliament has to be created, preferably elected in the traditional way but with fewer members than the present House of Commons. There are currently 59 Scottish MPs, 40 Welsh and 18 from Northern Ireland out of a total of 650; thus, an English-only body should have no more than 533 and preferably a good few less. Personally,

I'd settle for 450 which would be approximately 1 for every 120,000 of the population though those in power may not like it.

In addition to this we should reduce the existing House of Commons to a 'rump', serving only to deal with those matters which cannot be devolved, principally top-level finance, defence, foreign affairs, and other issues with nation-wide effects such as major infra-structure projects. This revised House, the United Kingdom Parliament, would continue to be the over-arching government of the nation and would be its representative body overseas. In order for this House to be considered genuinely representative, it's membership would need to be elected on a proportional representation basis; ideally, I'd see, possibly, 2 representatives from each current county or similar local authority area across the 4 countries of the UK with the Prime Minister leading this body. At the same time, the House of Lords should be reduced to a relative handful of elected members, perhaps 100 or so, or, even, abolished altogether, given that the extent of its scrutiny of legislation would be substantially less than now.

While all of this seems perfectly right and proper to me, the actual outcome will be subject to the partisan whims and fears of the major players. Labour will fear losing power at Westminster for ever while the Tories hate PR. All sides love the idea of putting on ermine robes and 'lording' it in the House of Lords; enthusiasm for an elected upper chamber is limited and the idea of reducing its size has been regularly pushed to the back of the queue. Above all, the 2015 General Election is looming large in their minds.

One has to wonder whether the future will bring much at all other than more in-fighting, back-biting, recriminations, finger-pointing and broken promises.

SALMOND RESIGNS JUST IN TIME.

Alex Salmond's resignation as leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party was a little unexpected, at least in terms of its timing. However, it may be that this crafty old politician could have been very clever in getting out while the going is still relatively good.

His successor, be it Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else, will have the unenviable task of negotiating the promised devolution of more powers to the Scottish government and, worse, implementing them. Those at Westminster will know only too well that, whatever Cameron, Clegg and Miliband might have said, this is going to be a massive issue with some huge hurdles to get over before it's completed. Indeed, it's quite probable that the eventual result will be a mish-mash, a mess that causes mayhem for decades to come, and Salmond will have had nothing to do with it. He will remain a Scottish hero while his successor will become a pariah; he might even find himself recalled to duty as an 'elder-statesman', tasked with creating order out of chaos.

Salmond has shown himself, once again, to be a very crafty old fox; don't write-off the prospect of a return.

SCOTTISH 'NO' VOTE MEANS MORE CHAOS FOR ENGLAND.

And so, after an increasingly frenetic few weeks, the people of Scotland have rejected the idea of full independence. The pollsters who told us that the vote was 'neck-and-neck' have, once again, got it horribly wrong and Alex Salmond's dream has been dashed at least for now. By 55.3% to 44.7%, the United Kingdom will remain united for a few more years.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of our problems. Despite saying that he accepts the verdict and that the independence debate is now closed for a generation, or even a lifetime, it's a racing certainty that many of his colleagues won't see it that way; the likelihood of another referendum within a decade or so has to be very high. Even before that, we're now faced with fulfilling the assorted promises made by Cameron, Miliband and Clegg and trying to make sense of these not only for Scotland but also for the rest of the country. The 'West Lothian' question has already come dramatically to the fore with many people now asking how Scotland can be granted virtual independence within the Union while the same privilege is denied to England; the implications for the future of the UK constitution and Parliament are mind-boggling.

Cameron has said that everything should be resolved by the time of the General Election in May of next year. This is clearly nothing other than political bravado as he tries to pretend that he's in control; the simple truth is that he and the other main party leaders panicked and made a raft of stupid promises without having any idea as to how they would be fulfilled or what effect they would have elsewhere. Once reality is restored, there'll be rapid realisation that what we actually have is a nightmare situation which will take years to resolve if, indeed, resolution is possible.

All the main parties are focussed on next year's election and, as the date approaches, they'll become more and more terrified. The winners, certainly in England, may well be UKIP who should be able to profit from the total disarray of the rest allied to an upsurge of English nationalism. Oh, what fun it's all going to be !

SCOTLAND ON THE BRINK.

As we move into the last week of the Scottish Independence campaign, it is increasingly apparent that the result will be very close. Whichever way it goes, the implications for the whole of the UK will be significant and, quite probably, traumatic.

If Scotland votes 'Yes', it raises questions about the future of Sterling and the national debt, the financial services industry, many of our major institutions and businesses, our defence forces, and many, many more areas. It raises possible questions about next year's General Election and what will be done about the 59 Scottish MPs who may then be returned to a Parliament in which they will have no more than a couple of years service. In Scotland itself, decisions will have to be made about the currency, membership of international organisations such as the EU, NATO and the UN, border controls, defence, and so on. It may be many years before all of the questions are resolved.

If the vote is 'No', Scotland will be given much greater control over it's own finances and services and many of the same questions arise. The granting of much greater autonomy to the Scots will lead to an upsurge in demands for similar treatment for Wales and, perhaps, the more remote English regions; there will be questions raised about the future of the 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster and demands for an 'English only' parliament. Worse still, a narrow 'No' vote will almost certainly mean a further referendum within a decade or so, one which will almost certainly result in a 'Yes' vote.

One way or another, Scotland will almost certainly gain independence within the not very distant future and we will have to deal with the issues outlined above, plus many others. Currently, our political masters claim to have made no contingency plans and are panicking greatly. No doubt there are some contingency plans somewhere but it may be that we should hope for a 'No' vote next week in order for there to be some more comprehensive planning for the future. It would also give Alex Salmond and his mates time to work out some proper plans for the management of an independent Scotland, though this would probably not be in their interests as proper plans are the last thing people relying on emotion would want.

Roll on next Friday, Scotland's 'D-day'.

ASHYA KING : A SHOCKING STORY.

The grotesque reaction of assorted authorities to parents deciding to take their child out of hospital has been a 'wake-up' call to the whole of the UK's population.

Brett and Naghmeh King made a perfectly reasonable and logical decision to remove their son, Ashya, from Southampton General Hospital in order to take him abroad for medical treatment not available in this country. In doing this, they did nothing wrong or illegal; their son was their responsibility and was not under the care of Social Services or the courts.

The appalling reaction of the NHS, Hampshire police and the local council was to seek, and be granted, an emergency court order and launch a Europe-wide hunt for the family under cover of a 'European Arrest Warrant'. Brett, Naghmeh and their children were found in Spain; the parents were arrested and imprisoned; Ashya was taken away from them and placed in a Spanish hospital, while his siblings were held elsewhere. All of this effectively because a mish-mash of officials and 'experts' in England disliked having their authority and expertise challenged.

Thankfully, this shocking state of affairs lasted for only a few days before order was restored. The arrest warrant has now been rescinded and the family reunited. Senior figures in various English institutions will now face serious questions and, with any luck, some will lose their jobs; there can be no doubt that they deserve to.

One wonders whether this will turn out to have been an isolated incident or presages a major change in the relationship between state and people. Who is it that has presumed authority over our children - is it the parents or the state ? If parents refuse the advice of the hordes of self-proclaimed 'professionals' and 'experts' who infest our world, will they find themselves pursued and imprisoned as with the King family ? Is it now mandatory to accept the advice of those whom the state employs ?

It is time for the people of this country to cry "Enough !" If we do not, we will be forever subservient to those who lie, cheat and bribe their way to positions of power and authority over us and then claim levels of knowledge and understanding which the rest of us supposedly lack. Freedom will be a mere memory, something to tell the grandchildren stories about but that, like the Dodo, no longer exists.

CLIFF RICHARD POLICE CHIEF MUST BE SACKED.

Today's pathetic appearance by the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire police before the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, was overdue and showed what a shower his force are. Sadly, it probably showed how appalling our police are, generally, and what a depth our law enforcement services have sunk to.

South Yorkshire police entered into a deal of sorts with the BBC when they searched a home owned by Cliff Richard; basically, they told the Beeb what they were doing, told them where and when they were doing it and collaborated in a shocking act of utter injustice.

Richard was, apparently, unaware of what was happening, while the BBC and other media knew all about it. After the event, the police attempted to deny the truth of what had happened and they and the BBC blamed each other for the mess they'd jointly created. However, while the BBC has much to answer for, it is the police who are almost entirely to blame for the publicising of a search based on an unsubstantiated claim that Richard had assaulted a young man some 30 years ago, a claim that Richard vehemently denies.

Whether or not Richard did anything wrong is not the point. The actions of the South Yorkshire police in colluding with the BBC to publicise their search were utterly wrong and totally ignore the time honoured principal of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Their behaviour was disgraceful and their Chief Constable, the man ultimately responsible, must be sacked, along with whoever was involved in discussing their proposed actions with the media.

Have neither the police nor the media learnt anything from past events ?

"IS" TERRORISTS HAVE TO BE STOPPED.

The brutal murder of a second American hostage by a gang of thugs somewhere in Syria or Iraq is an appalling event. It requires a response of some strength.

Some people say that the killing is an attempt to draw 'The West' into the conflict in the area in order to escalate the current fight into one between Islam and 'The West'. The same people follow this argument with a suggestion that 'The West' must, therefore, resist being too heavy handed in its response. Bollocks.

It may well be that the first part of the proposition is true, but the second is nonsense. While western nations may be somewhat fed up with problems in the middle east and thereabouts, they simply cannot ignore the actions of these vicious murderers. To their credit, most important Islamic figures have condemned the actions of the thugs and made it clear that what they have done has no religious basis; it is no more than terrorist behaviour. It is now time for 'The West' and the rest of the civilized world to follow up with serious action.

One has to wonder where the United Nations is in all of this but, in the absence of them being able to come to any sort of decision on decisive action, it is time for the US, the UK, France and anyone else who cares to join in, to go to war. It is clear that the governments of Syria and Iraq can do nothing effective and so it is up to the real powers in the world to act. There can be no doubt that the location of the terrorists is known and they can be destroyed.

Send in the troops, with real intent, and sort them out, once and for all.

HOSPITAL FOOD IS DISGUSTING !

Yet again, the government has responded to an issue by announcing new guidelines, rules and 'legally binding' contracts. Yet again, this is piffle, balderdash and eyewash and will do nothing to resolve the underlying problem.

Hospital food, as served to patients, has been pretty poor, and sometimes downright disgusting, for as long as the NHS has existed. When served up from heated trolleys by disinterested staff it is almost always unappetising, often not what the patient asked for and frequently going cold. While some patients manage to swallow it, those who are the sickest and most in need of nourishment often don't; they are either too ill to be bothered or are unable to make the effort due to their frail condition. The worst served in this respect are the elderly who, in my own experience, see the food arrive and, an hour or so later, see it taken away with no sign of any concern that the plates remain untouched. Ward staff dutifully fill in record sheets that purport to show that Mrs X or Mr Y have had their fill of food and drink, and move on the next patient.

Now the Health secretary, I forget who it is just now, has said that there will be "new standards" which will focus on quality, choice and promoting a healthy diet for patients and staff. These standards will, apparently, be enforced through "legally binding NHS contracts", though how the government can have a legally binding contract with an arm of itself, which the NHS remains, is anyone's guess.

How many times have we heard this type of drivel from politicians ? In my experience, the meals available to NHS staff have been vastly superior to those provided to patients for several decades; there is no need to worry about this side of the coin. Also, it is neither choice nor healthy eating which patients need, it is simple edible and appealing food. The issues of choice and health are, actually, wholly incompatible when it comes to the diktats of government; if I, the patient, WANT loads of salt, sugar, carbohydrates, red meat and fat, I will be firmly put in  my place and told that I CAN'T have them. The argument will be that these things aren't healthy and so I will be forced to eat piles of fish, vegetables and fruit. Where is the choice in that ?

Rather than concentrating on treating the patient's medical condition, hospitals are now acting as quasi-social workers, doing what nanny thinks is best for her charges while ignoring the simple fact that most of the charges are more than old enough to make up their own minds about what they do. Instead of co-operating with the patients in the treatment of their illnesses, hospital staff often exacerbate problems, and the failure to ensure that patients have enough food to eat, regardless of its supposed healthy properties, is a major area of concern.

To my mind, a happy patient will do much better than an unhappy one. A well fed patient, even if they have eaten burger and chips every day, will recover far more quickly than one fed on a couple of ounces of cold fish and a few bits of cabbage. Why, in heaven's name, can no one in authority see this ?

CARSWELL DROPS UKIP BOMBSHELL !

On the day when Tory MP Douglas Carswell has announced that he's resigning his seat, switching to UKIP and will stand in the consequent by-election for his new party, it's also been announced that the government has failed miserably in its efforts to exert any control over net immigration.

Largely in response to the perceived threat from UKIP, and what seems like years ago, Cameron and his cronies told us that controlling immigration was a 'number 1' priority. They promised that they'd reduce the annual figure from hundreds of thousands to mere tens of thousands by the end of the current parliament. Needless to say they are destined to miss their target by the proverbial 'country mile'. In fact, the latest figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that immigration in the 2013/14 year actually increased by some 40%, rising to 243,000 from 175,000 in the previous year. Apparently, two-thirds of the increase is attributable to EU citizens including thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians; we were, of course, previously told that fears of an influx from these countries were unfounded - more government lies and propaganda. Worse still, it's also been reported that over 25% of births in England and Wales in the same year were to mothers who were themselves born overseas.

Cameron and his like have, and are, presiding over a shocking and frightening change in our nation. Immigration in recent years has resulted in parts of our country now being predominantly foreign, with a huge number of people now living here who have no allegiance to the country or its culture; many of these either cannot speak English at all or use it only when they have no choice. The rapid rise in the number of such people, which will very soon be quite independent of immigrant numbers, will lead, in the near future to permanent changes which seemed inconceivable only a handful of years ago.

Is it any wonder that Mr Carswell has said that he's had enough of the Conservative Party and its leader ? Today, he's said that he did not believe that Cameron was "serious about the change we need" in Europe; can anyone deny that he is 100% correct in his assessment ? Exactly what Cameron and his pals, in all 3 of the main parties, think they've been doing in recent times, the truth is that they've been destroying a once great nation. Whether UKIP would be able to make any difference is a moot point but it must be worth giving them a chance; they can't make things any worse and they might just make them better.

SWINNEY ISSUES STERLING THREAT.

John Swinney, the man who sees himself as Scotland's 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' is in a real panic, so much so that he's now issuing threats against the UK government.

All 3 main UK political parties have made clear that, should the Scots vote for independence in September, they will not enter into a currency union with the newly independent nation. While they acknowledge that Scotland could continue to make use of sterling as its currency, there would be no formal agreement and the pound would continue to be managed from London as now. Swinney and his pals in the SNP don't like this and so are now threatening that no currency union would mean Scotland refusing to accept its share of the UK's national debt, currently estimated to be about £100bn.

Exactly what planet Swinney is living on is a bit of a mystery though it clearly isn't the same one inhabited by the rest of us. Why does he think that Scotland, having rejected its place in the United Kingdom, should be entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits of its old currency in a formal currency union ? Why does he think there is a link between using the currency and national debt ? Why does he think that the government of the rest of the UK doesn't have plenty of routes by which it could take back the £100bn if it chooses to ?

The SNP wants Scotland to be independent and yet is madly trying to reassure its troubled population that nothing will change if it achieves its goal EXCEPT that everything will be much better than now. Poppycock.

If an independent country does not control its own currency it has no financial freedom whatsoever. As a minor partner in a currency union it would have little power and would almost certainly have to submit its budget to the UK Treasury; in an informal arrangement it would have no control whatsoever over the value of the currency and exchange rates as well as interest rates, little control over tax rates and would be entirely at the mercy of the economy of the remaining, and much larger, part of the UK. It would not have its own 'central bank' and would not be able to borrow independently; it would be no more than a vassal state.

With all of these restrictions, why on earth does Swinney want to keep the pound ? The simple answer is that he has no choice as the only alternative for Scotland if it wants to be a member of the EU is the Euro. An independent Scotland would almost certainly have to apply to become a member of the EU and the rules of that egregious organisation require new members to adopt their benighted currency and all the restrictions that go with it. Swinney and his mates in the SNP see sterling as their way out, giving them a degree of bargaining power when it comes to EU membership.

For Scottish voters it's a case of 'the devil you know or the devil you don't'. Swinney, Salmond and the rest know that their people would shy away in their millions if the Euro was the currency of choice, so they've gone for the pound. Sadly for them, the people who represent the nations they want to reject don't like the idea one jot and have issued a resounding 'NO WAY !'. Whether any of this matters will become clear with September's vote, though any Scot with financial sense will surely say 'No' also.

GOVERNMENT ROBS US BLIND.

It is quite astonishing how the Government picks our pockets at every opportunity while no one seems to notice.

The release of the latest inflation figures coincides with the determination of the next rise in rail fares. In accordance with a formula decided some time ago, regulated fares are increased by the rate of retail price inflation (the 'RPI') plus 1%; this means that fares will rise by 'RPI' of 2.5% plus 1% = 3.5% next January. At the same time, the consumer prices index (the 'CPI') rose by only 1.6%, and this is the measure used, in part, to uprate public sector pensions and benefits, albeit the figure relating to September's inflation though this is unlikely to be very different form the July figure released today.

Given that incomes are subject to income tax, this all adds up to pay rising by around 1.3% while costs such as rail fares rise by 2 or 3 times as much. How the Government can justify using one measure for incomes and another for costs defeats me. On the one hand they claim that the 'RPI' is a flawed measure and on the other they merrily use it to rob the people; they say that the 'CPI' is the better measure and then ignore it when it suits them.

How is this just ? Why do the people not make much more fuss about this blatant thievery ?

CLIFF RICHARD POLICE OUT OF CONTROL.

We are in the middle of a period of hysteria about supposed paedophiles and other sexual predators. Hot on the heels of the revelations about the egregious Jimmy Savile, we've had a rash of arrests, charges and trials; some of these have resulted in high-profile convictions, others in acquittals. Regardless of the outcomes, the police and Crown Prosecution Service have insisted that they've acted in the public interest; regardless of the outcomes, the prosecuted have suffered huge media exposure and, in the case of those acquitted, enormous and everlasting damage to their reputations and careers.

Last week, the hysteria reached new heights with the police search of a property in Sunningdale, Berkshire, owned by Cliff Richard. After receiving a complaint from an unnamed man who claimed to have been the victim of an assault in the 1980s, the police not only searched Richard's property but also made sure that the media knew it was happening. Worse, according to the accused, no one bothered to tell him the search was going to occur. Today, the same police have accused the BBC of being in the wrong by acting on what they've now termed a 'leak'. Talk about the 'pot calling the kettle black' !

I don't particularly like Richard, but I'll defend his right to proper justice until the end of time. That his name is splashed across the media while his accuser remains anonymous is utterly wrong; that he was not told about the search equally so. That the BBC and other media appear to have been informed in advance of the police action, specifically to see if it encouraged other accusers crawled out of the woodwork, is appalling. This was no more nor less than a 'fishing expedition' that has left the reputations of both the South Yorkshire Police and Sir Cliff Richard on the line.

Whether or not Richard committed the offence with which he has been accused is not the issue. What does matter is the manner in which the police have acted and the fact that the names of the accused in such cases are publicized widely while those of their accusers remain hidden. Hysteria is resulting in the police being out of control and the innocent being subjected to public condemnation, as in the case of landlord Christopher Jefferies in 2010. That shocking case should have led to lessons being learnt but, sadly, it appears not.

Whoever 'leaked' the Cliff Richard story to the media needs to be sacked, be it some lowly clerk or the Chief Constable and our country needs to come to its senses or there will no longer be any justice for anyone.

CAMERON PREPARES FOR WAR !

As if the West hadn't made a sufficient mess of the Middle East already, it appears to be moving inevitably towards yet another involvement in a conflict which is nothing to do with them.

Already, warmongering noises have been emanating from Washington and Paris and now it's the turn of David Cameron to show the world what a strong leader he is. In what is clearly an attempt to prepare the nation for entry into a nebulous conflict which crosses the border between Syria and Iraq, he's issued a 'warning' to the effect that, unless action is taken, "Islamic State militants could grow strong enough to target people on the streets of Britain". He's gone on to say that a humanitarian response is not enough and a "firm security response" is needed.

The current troubles in that part of the world are, in significant part, a consequence of previous western interventions over the last 25 years or so and date back to the creation of countries by the drawing of lines in the sand nearly a century ago. Yes, there are religious fanatics in the world who are capable of inflicting damage on us, but these aren't just Muslims. There are plenty of mad Christians and conflict between Catholics and Protestants is never far away, as we know only too well. The fanatical Jews who govern Israel and inflict shocking hardship on their Palestinians brothers on an almost daily basis are every bit as much of a threat to world peace as are the 'militant' Muslim 'extremists' of northern Iraq and Syria. It seems that the addition of the words 'militant' and 'extremist' is all that is needed to stir up fear, and yet are not the ruling clique in Israel both of these ? Why then, are we not in mortal dread of them ?

Cameron refers to a security response when what he means is a military response though, being a politician, he find himself quite unable to call a spade a spade. The UK is heading, inexorably, towards involvement in yet another Middle-East conflict, more because it suits the needs of politicians and Generals than for of any other reason. How deeply involved we become has yet to be determined but we can be absolutely certain of the eventual outcome - still more pain and suffering, more death and less stability in that part of the world, and absolutely no resolution of the basic issues.

And, by the way, where is the United Nations while all of this is going on ?

SOCIAL SECURTIY BENEFITS FOR THE CHOP.

Today I've heard some suggestion that social benefits should be cut further in order to help to balance the nation's accounts. Good, I say, until I hear more details. Then, I simply scream.

One suggestion is that child benefit, currently £20.50 per week for the first child and £13.55 for any others, should be limited to no more than 4 children. At these rates, a family of 4 or more children would receive nearly £3,200 per year plus, of course, further lumps in tax credits which can amount to many thousands. When I was a child, there were no tax credits and child benefit wasn't even paid for the first child at all; it was only available for subsequent children and then at a fairly insignificant rate of a few shillings a week.

Why this benefit is paid at all in what is now an affluent society is a bit of a mystery, but limiting it to just the first 4 children seems eminently justifiable; indeed, why not limit it to the first 3, which is all that society actually needs for sustainability ? The only ones to 'suffer' would be those who cannot control their animal urges sufficiently to avoid multiple pregnancies, something which should hardly be beyond the wit of even the most stupid in our society, given the easy availability of contraception.

Next on the list of potential savings is a proposal that the so-called 'benefit cap' should be reduced for those living outside of the more expensive south east corner of our country. WHAT !?

Already, those who live in London and large parts of the south east enjoy far higher incomes than those who live elsewhere. Already, those who live in the south east can afford to move to anywhere else in the country while those who live elsewhere can only dream of ever moving south east. London and the south east enjoys the best of everything; it has the best transport infrastructure, museums, galleries and theatres. It is where all power resides, both governmental and business. Now, the Treasury wants to make this corner of our country even more exclusive, even more 'off-limits', to the rest of us.  

I say "NO, a thousand times NO !" By all means, control and reduce social benefits but not at the expense of making our capital even less accessible to most of the people, while further enriching those who already live and work there. The government must find other ways of managing the spiralling costs of living in the south east and not just chuck ever greater sums of cash at the people who live there. This is the type of challenge that real government is about and that real leaders can manage; sadly, I doubt that our current crop are anywhere near good enough to meet it.

WARSI MAKES A MARK AT LAST.

Sayeeda Warsi's rise from total obscurity to a number of senior posts within the Conservative party and government seems to have been more a consequence of her sex, ethnic origins and religion than any innate abilities or qualities. David Cameron, in a mad scramble to appear 'inclusive', simply grabbed hold of the first passing Muslim woman and promoted her with very little consideration as to where his actions might lead.

Yesterday, Ms. Warsi, whom Cameron unaccountably elevated to the House of Lords in 2007, resigned from her government posts of 'Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' and 'Minister of State for Faith and Communities' in protest at the government's miserable failure to say or do anything meaningful about the disgusting behaviour of Israel in the current conflict in Gaza. Surely, no decent and unbiased person could disagree with her action though, of course, Cameron and others in positions of power did.

Warsi is no superstar of British politics and will probably now fade into history. Her previous performance as Co-Chairman of the Conservative party was somewhat  less than awe-inspiring and her more recent roles have hardly seen her make headlines, until her resignation. The kick in the 'privates' she's now delivered to her former boss is probably the most meaningful political act of her life and may well have repercussions throughout the British establishment. Cameron's idiotic excursion into the silly world of 'inclusivity' has come back to bite him on the arse, big time.

What Cameron and his ilk forget is that some people do, ultimately, have principles and morals, unlike them. Eventually, the unprincipled and immoral are found out and brought to book. Well done, Ms. Warsi.

ENGLISH DEVOLUTION A STEP NEARER.

The "Curly, Larry and Moe" of British politics have set themselves up for another right constitutional mess with their latest self-serving pronouncement about Scotland. All 3 of these stooges have committed to devolving more power to the Scottish parliament in the event of a 'No' vote in next month's independence referendum while giving no apparent thought to the implications for the Westminster parliament or, indeed, for England.

It's now being proposed that the Scottish mob will be granted extensive tax raising powers plus some serious autonomy with regard to social security provision. It won't be long before all of the major issues, except for defence and some of the Treasury's higher responsibilities, have been devolved, leaving one wondering what on earth a raft of Scottish MPs will be doing in the House of Commons. It also raises, yet again, the infamous 'West Lothian' question - if Scotland has a large dollop of autonomy, why should their representatives have any say at all over devolved matters when it comes to discussion in the House of Commons ?

Whether or not the Scots vote for independence, it is surely time for this issue to be resolved. It is ludicrous to allow Scottish MPs at Westminster to vote on matters which do not concern Scotland while denying English MPs a similar say on Scottish matters. For that matter, the same applies, though currently to a lesser degree, to the Welsh. In all of this, the English are in danger of being ruled by the votes of Scottish and Welsh socialist MPs at Westminster, while themselves being largely excluded from the government of Scotland and Wales.

This is not right and must be resolved.

PUTIN, NETANYAHU AND WORLD WAR 3.

What is going on in the world ?

In the middle east, we have the Israelis launching the full might of their considerable military strength against a hugely inferior Palestinian force and killing hundreds of civilians in the process, all in the pursuit of what they claim to be 'protecting their citizens'. In the Ukraine, we have a civilian aeroplane shot down and almost 300 people killed; the Russian President, the dictator Putin, claims that the fault lies with the Ukrainian authorities while he's also been backing and supplying the Ukrainian rebels who probably shot down the craft.

The rest of the world makes noises but does nothing of real note. Benjamin Netanyahu, the war mongering and viciously anti-Palestinian Israeli president seems to do whatever he wants with no one prepared to really challenge him; he carries the badge of the historic NAZI atrocities on his arm as a protective shield that no one feels able to breach. The world is terrified of offending the Jews for fear of being accused of being racist, anti-Semitic and like the NAZIs. The Jews exploit this reticence and attack their 'enemies' at will and without fear of any real condemnation or even anything much more than a mild rebuke.

As for Putin, he does have real power but he also has real vulnerabilities, and yet the UN and others just let him carry on. They rebuke him and impose sanctions, but they do very little that will actually stop him. This  man is a monster, every bit as evil as his Soviet era predecessors, and we largely ignore his atrocities. While the days of the 'Iron Curtain' and 'Berlin Wall' are behind us, it seems that a new 'Cold War' is brewing as Russia vies with the western powers for control of eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Will Putin actually goes as far as to invade another country ? If he did, what would the West do about it ? The answer is 'Probably nothing', for fear of what might then happen. Meanwhile, Putin exploits the weakness of Western leaders and does what he likes, exactly as the butcher Netanyahu does in Israel.

Roll on World War 3. At least that might rid us of these disgusting individuals and allow the few who remain to start the human race over again. If no one's left, does it matter ? The earth would undoubtedly be better off without us.

TREDINNICK : LET'S HAVE ASTROLOGY ON THE NHS !

I have read with some astonishment that David Tredinnick, the Conservative Member of Parliament for the Bosworth constituency in which I live, has spoken today of his belief in astrology. Tredinnick is a member of both the Health and Science and Technology Committees of the House of Commons and has not only said that he believes in this tripe but also that he wants it to be made use of in the NHS. He's been quoted as saying "There is no logic in attacking something that has a proven track record".

Pardon me for choking on my lunch but where is the proof that astrology is anything but a load of tosh which gives an occasional bit of amusement to some while sometimes being used to con gullible others ? Astrology is a hangover from primitive times when humans knew nothing of science and believed that the lights in the sky represented gods and other 'heavenly' creatures. No one with any intelligence has believed in this rubbish for many years.

Tredinnick is well to the left of the Conservative Party and has a reputation for rather outlandish beliefs; he has also expressed belief in the nonsense of homeopathy, and has suggested that surgeons should not operate at the time of a full moon due to its influence on on blood clotting, but this latest comment really takes the biscuit. He rarely makes any meaningful appearances in the Commons chamber; although he's nearly always there at Prime Minister's Questions, I've only heard him ask a question once and that was nothing to do with his constituency or, indeed, anything else of either interest or relevance. Having been an MP for more than 27 years, during which his contributions on behalf of his constituents have been minimal, it must now be time for him to go.

Perhaps, after this latest outburst of insanity, the local party will finally get the message that this man is an idiot and useless, and look for someone else to represent them next year. If they don't, it must be likely that voters will desert them in droves in a search for someone who lives on the same planet as they do.

CAMERON DUMPS OLD MEN FOR INEXPERIENCED WOMEN.

In his desperate, unseemly and ludicrous pursuit of 'equality', David Cameron has reshuffled his cards and come up with some right royal nonsense.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, Kenneth Clarke, a man just past 74 years of age, has gone and some might say it's about time. A little bit of a surprise is the departure of William Hague from the Foreign Office and, next year, from Parliament altogether; in the meantime, he'll take on the role of Leader of the House of Commons though it's clear he really wants out. Hague gives every impression of a man thoroughly disillusioned with his career and he'll be replaced as Foreign Secretary by the immensely wealthy Philip Hammond whose one saving grace is the extent of his Euro-scepticism.

A real surprise is the departure of Michael Gove from the Education department, while the name of his replacement takes some believing. Gove has upset many while in his role which surely is a mark of the success he's had in attempting to breathe some life into our moribund schools' system, beset as it is with trendy, lefty teachers and educational theories. It seems that Cameron simply doesn't have the stomach for the fight and, no doubt egged on by Gove's cabinet rivals, Osborne and May, has despatched poor Michael to the office of the Chief Whip, a position which carries a reduced salary and is not even a full member of the cabinet. His replacement is the wide-eyed Nicky Morgan, who qualified as a solicitor in 1994 and worked as a corporate lawyer while trying to get into Parliament. She eventually managed this in 2010, after years of lower level politicking, but her rise since has been staggeringly fast; whether or not the is the 'man for the job' as the new Education Secretary may be debatable but it seems unlikely that she'll be as forceful or abrasive as Gove. Of course, she does have one outstanding attribute as far as Cameron is concerned - she's a woman.

Another man to bite the dust is Owen Paterson, now the former Environment Secretary. Paterson hardly distinguished himself during last year's floods and must have known that his time was likely to be up but, again, the name of his replacement makes one wince somewhat. Liz Truss, for that is she, first stood for Parliament in 2001 but only gained entry in 2010. As with Morgan, her rise since has been eye-wateringly fast; she became an Education minister after little more than 2 years and now, at not quite 39, she's to be Environment Secretary. While she appears to have particular interests in and knowledge of the education sphere, what she knows about the environment has yet to become clear though, as with Morgan, her greatest attribute in Cameron's eyes is her gender which is undoubtedly female.

Elsewhere, Cameron has somewhat unceremoniously dumped Sir George Young, Andrew Lansley, Alan Duncan, David Willetts and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, all of whom appear to have been seen as being too middle aged and too male. They may, of course, also have needed to be sacked but such a sweeping clear-out carries the danger of being seen as an attempt to be trendy and modern regardless of any other considerations. When allied to the influx of pretty young women the changes appear to be much more about appearance and perception than anything else. In addition to the 2 new cabinet appointments, former television performer, Esther McVey, will now 'attend cabinet' whatever that means, Penny Mordaunt, who made a spectacle of herself on some silly television game show, becomes a junior minister as does Amber Rudd; all three have been Members of Parliament only since 2010, raising questions about their readiness for such rapid advancement. Yet another former television presenter, Anna Soubry, who was already a minister, has been promoted as has Claire Perry, both of whom also entered the House only in 2010. Are all these women really properly qualified to take decisions on behalf of the nation ?

Notwithstanding all this advance of equality, what actually matters is the competence of those in the cabinet. Before she became leader, Margaret Thatcher was Education Secretary and was not particularly highly rated. We all know where that one ended. The trouble with the women Cameron's now promoting is that the main reason for their promotion is his belief that there should be more women in government and in cabinet, almost regardless of their abilities. It is an adherence to a horribly misguided notion that institutions such as Parliament should 'reflect' the population at large which is, of course, ridiculous. Everyone has different talents and abilities as well as ambitions and drives. Should our hospitals be staffed by equal numbers of male and female nurses ? Of course not, most men don't really want to be nurses any more than most women don't want to be company directors or members of Parliament, but we are plagued with nonsensical plans to bring about 'equality' in these spheres anyway. The result is the elevation of a lot of women to jobs for which they are may well not be suited, while very able men are pushed aside. This is not to say that men should be preferred over women but that jobs should be awarded strictly on merit and not on other spurious criteria such as gender, age, race, religion, disability or any other basis that can be dreamt up.

Where the manic drive for 'equality' will eventually lead is anyone's guess, but my guess is that the result won't be good.

ISRAELI FANATICS AT IT AGAIN.

The murder of 3 Israeli teenagers whose bodies were found on Sunday was a shocking thing, but no more shocking than the reaction of the Israeli authorities.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the fanatical Israeli Prime Minister, has announced immediately that the Palestinian organisation 'Hamas' is to blame and that they will be made to pay for the atrocity. That there is no evidence to link Hamas with the killings seems to be of no interest to Netanyahu who now appears to have started up another round of government sponsored violence against the Palestinian Arabs whom he sees as infesting his country. At the time of writing, the abduction and brutal killing of a Palestinian teenager, presumably in response to the earlier event, has drawn a somewhat lesser condemnation from the Israeli government and no promise to apprehend the perpetrators or make anyone 'pay'.

Netanyahu and his ilk operate a regime which is every bit as ghastly as that which used to exist in South Africa under apartheid, while professing a degree of religiosity which surely makes decent people vomit. Hiding behind the cloak created by the NAZI's treatment of the Jews, they have persecuted the Arab population, the original inhabitants of the land, for decades, treating them with utter disdain and contempt. Anyone who dares criticise them is branded racist and anti-Semitic, and shouted down; they are untouchable, whatever they do. 

That the rest of the world has allowed this shameful situation to persist has to be one of the most disgraceful failings of modern times.

DITCH EUROPE AND JOIN THE WORLD.

And so the European Union has given the green light to the appointment of Jean Claude Juncker as head of the something or other. The trouble with this convoluted organisation is that it has so many branches and arms that it's impossible for any ordinary person to understand who does what or what actual power any of them really have. Juncker, sadly, will have considerable power though 'Why ?' is unclear.

Cameron was absolutely right to oppose the election of Juncker to whatever post he now, or soon will, have, but his opposition was always pointless. This essentially socialist conglomeration of nations doesn't want strong-minded leadership and certainly doesn't want to be subjected to 'reform'; what it wants is more of the same destructive, protectionist policies that have served it well for the last 50 years, or so it thinks. The trouble is that the world has actually changed in that time, as has the Union, but its leaders refuse to acknowledge this.

The egregious Juncker is going to be 'top dog' because he is the leader of the "European Peoples' Party" or "EPP". Amazingly, there is no such party in any sense that ordinary electors would recognize; it is merely an amalgamation of the representatives of a number of parties from various countries, all of whom share broadly similar ambitions. Somehow Juncker, a man of little importance and from the almost mythical country called Luxemburg, has become the leader of this grouping; perhaps his rise to prominence is even due to his insignificance. Unfortunately, even an insignificant man can become significant if given a large enough hat.

Juncker is seen by almost everyone as a man who is steeped in the European Union and its past; reforming it is something that is alien to him. Even though many nations appear to share the British view that reform is essential, they still supported his election to what is, effectively, the top job. Why they did this only they can tell, but it leaves the British with a simplified problem. Do we want to be a member of this inward-looking and backward-looking club, or do we want to go out and explore the world ?

Our answer to this question over the last 500 and more years has been very simple. Let's go 'Out There !' Why should it be any different now ?

JUNCKER SIGNALS TIME TO LEAVE FOR UK.

I have yet to find anyone who voted for the 'European People's Party' though it seems that this was the winner of the recent European Union elections. As a result, the leader of this unknown party is expected to become President of the European Commission in the near future.

Jean-Claude Juncker is a career politician from Luxembourg who wants closer union between the member states; in fact, he'd probably be happiest with the creation of a United States of Europe. Shockingly, it seems that most national leaders support the election of this man to the 'top job' on the spurious bases that his 'Party' 'won' the election and the European Parliament has proposed him. Almost no one seems to want to dig a bit deeper.

There is actually no such thing as the 'European People's Party', it is simply a collection of national parties which have come together for the purpose of having a degree of power in the European Parliament. NO ONE voted for the EPP or, outside of Luxembourg, for its leader, Juncker, and yet he, from nowhere, is the man with the power. If Juncker gets the job, the chance of any meaningful reform of this backward looking and moribund socialist experiment in mediocrity is pretty well zero.

For once, David Cameron is doing what he should and is opposing this lunacy, though his chances of success are small. Already, a mix of national leaders, including the all-powerful Mrs Merkel, have expressed support for Juncker, which surely should tell us which way the European wind is blowing. Most European leaders want more integration, regardless of the wishes of their populations, and will push the project forward come what may. For Cameron and the few who share his views, as well as for the millions who voted for anti-EU parties in May, it's a 2-fingered salute.

Undoubtedly, the time has come. Whatever the other states do, the United Kingdom should now start to withdraw from this bureaucratic nightmare. The reforms which Cameron says he wants, and will negotiate for, will never come and the only route left is the door marked 'Exit'. Merkel, Juncker and their friends don't believe this is either a probable or possible outcome and so are pressing ahead with their federalisation agenda; Cameron's trump card is that he could, at least, suspend elements of British membership, withdrawing from key European activities until the rest see sense. If they prefer not to, then the next steps would be obvious and inevitable. Get out and leave them to their own devices.

PROUD TO BE BRITISH ?

David Cameron, the posh and privileged rich boy who pretends to be running the country, wants us all to be more proud of being British. This is, of course, all to do with the success of UKIP in the recent elections and is an attempt to make us all believe that he's 'on our side' when it comes to the issues around Europe and immigration. The simple fact is that he's on his own side, desperately trying to find a way to win next year's general election.

As a politician, Cameron is more than happy to throw over the orthodoxy of years and even decades in order to gain power. The orthodoxy in question in this case is the notion that ever greater immigration coupled with the egregious 'multi-culturalism' is good for our nation. Once upon a time, immigration, within limits, was undoubtedly a good thing but the almost uncontrolled influx in more recent years is proving disastrous; allied to the fact that many immigrants have been allowed to form largely distinct sub-communities within our major towns and cities in which they live much as they did in their home countries, it is catastrophic.

The potential for problems arising from this policy was enunciated by the subsequently vilified Enoch Powell in 1968. That he was, in fact, correct, is something that no modern-day politician will ever admit though Cameron's words come close to recognising this by implication. The trouble is that he and his ilk are far too late in accepting the truth and have no idea what, if anything, can be done to prevent a backlash from the indigenous and largely Anglo-Saxon population.

There will be trouble, the only questions are how much and how soon.

BLAIR'S SELF-JUSTIFYING BULLSHIT.

Tony Blair believes that the invasion of Iraq, lead by George W Bush and himself, is not responsible for the mess that exists in that country today. Bullshit.

Blair, with his pseudo-Christian fanaticism, simply hates the fact that the great scheme to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and bring about western-style democracy in Iraq has failed. In fact, he now wants the western powers to invade Syria in order to have another go at creating mayhem in this part of the world. He denies absolutely that he is a warmonger but appears to be convinced that invasion is the only answer to the perceived problems of the middle east.

Blair is obviously attempting to find arguments in support of his disastrous actions and policies of yester-year, while refusing to consider that other options may have been available both then and now. Countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on are not real; they were created by diplomats drawing lines on a map almost 100 years ago, without taking any account of the peoples of the region, their culture, religion or ethnicity. Pretending that these 'nations' can be forced into accepting westernised political systems and lifestyles is naïve in the extreme, as is the belief that toppling a dictator or two will achieve anything much at all. Blair clearly fails to understand this and consequently gives no thought to the obvious immediate solution to the problems that exist today. The truth is that the actions of the western world, led by the USA and UK over many decades, have done nothing but create increased upheaval in countries from Libya to Iran. Where is there peace and harmony in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Israel ?

The one solution is to redraw the boundaries of these countries. The United Nations should convene a special conference between the interested parties and determine where the national boundaries really should be, without worrying about where they are now. At a time when we are fast approaching a referendum to determine whether or not Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom, why should the Kurds not be allowed the same opportunity to create an independent state ? After all, the Jews have been permitted to define the boundaries of their own state even though this has also meant the subjugation and expulsion of many indigenous Muslims; why should the Kurds and others not be treated in the same way as the Jews ? Why should Sunnis and Shias be made to share nations if they really don't want to ? Why should western-style democracy be imposed on these essentially medieval peoples ?

Once such action has been taken only then will it be time to consider other issues. If one of the results was to be the formation of aggressive and extremist states action would have to be considered, but it would be in a very different environment from that which exists today. 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION INTERFERES ONCE MORE.

On a day when the economy of the Eurozone countries has sunk into an even bigger hole, the abomination that is the European Commission has had the temerity to give advice to the UK government supposedly aimed at helping us to achieve long term sustainable growth.

Inflation in the Eurozone has now fallen to its lowest level yet, at 0.5%, indicating that the economy is close to disaster. The European Central Bank will now be expected to try to boost growth and counter the threat of deflation, but evidence from past performance suggests it is unlikely to achieve very much. Meanwhile, The Commission has said that the UK should raise taxes on higher value properties and adjust the 'Help to Buy' scheme in order to address the recent rapid rise in house prices in the London area. They want the UK to revalue the council tax bands, something which would undoubtedly increase the tax for many homes.

While these remarks have caused a degree of anger amongst many Tory MPs, Vince Cable has actually come out of his box and agreed that we can do without the advice of the EC. He's acknowledged that there is an issue with house price inflation but added that "we don't need the EU to tell us what's going on here".

If ever there was clear evidence of the uselessness of much of what comes out of Brussels, surely this is it. While they preside over the mess of the Eurozone, they dare to tell the UK, one of the few European economies currently prospering, what to do. Bring on the referendum and let's leave this appalling, overblown, spendthrift and corrupt organisation as soon as possible.

RAPE, MURDER AND MAYHEM.

The gang-rape and murder of 2 teenage girls in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is the latest in a long line of bestial acts by people who can barely be called human. It comes hot on the heels of the stoning to death of a woman outside a court house in Lahore and the condemning to death of a pregnant woman for daring to become a Christian, supposedly having been born a Muslim, in Sudan.

That these events have happened is bad enough but it seems that neither the Indian nor Pakistani authorities did anything to intervene in those which occurred on their soil while the Sudanese case was an act was actually committed by state authorities. It is also the case that these are far from being isolated instances of primitive brutality, with hundreds, if not thousands, of so-called 'honour killings' being carried out every year, the rape of young girls in India being so common as to be almost a national sport and the increasing lunacy of Islamic courts in various countries surely giving rise to the greatest concern throughout the civilized world. 

Many will claim that the events on the sub-continent are not common, but they are deluded. These events are part of the normal lives of millions of people who live in genuine poverty and squalor, are uneducated and locked into societies in which class and religion is all that matters. Worryingly, such cases now also occur with increasing frequency in our own country as immigrants not only bring themselves here but also import their own ways and customs. More and more we will be pressed to allow the introduction of elements of 'Sharia' law, and more and more we will find that parts of our society simply do not share our traditional values.

The events in India, Pakistan and Sudan are the tip of a medieval iceberg. These countries still exist in a primitive, almost Stonehenge, fashion and many of their people know no better. How they can be considered to be the same as the peoples of the civilized western world defeats me; the same species, buy far from the same.

KNIVES OUT FOR CLEGG.

It seems that Nick Clegg now has a bit of a fight on his hands if he's to remain leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister.

After their catastrophic showing in both the Local and European elections, a few voices have been raised suggesting that it's time for Clegg to depart. Yesterday, one of the more significant Lib Dems, Lord Oakeshott, published polling data which indicates that the meltdown in Liberal support is such that even Clegg is likely to lose his parliamentary seat at next year's general election. That this polling was conducted without the support of the party hierarchy and certainly published without it seems obvious, though Oakeshott has claimed differently. He states that his big buddy, Vince Cable, not only knew but supported his actions wholeheartedly; unsurprisingly, Cable, caught somewhat on the hop, has denied this with some vehemence.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, truths, lies, half-truths and general dissembling, Oakeshott's intervention has caused a pretty big headache for Clegg. There can be no doubt that he's in trouble within his party and that the likes of Cable would love to replace him. As a former Labour party member, as was Oakeshott, Cable can have little love for many of the policies of the coalition government; he'd surely be much happier in a Lib-Lab coalition. The man behind all the trouble, Oakeshott, is now being painted as a rather irritating figure who has been causing problems for the party for years; he has, of course, resigned his membership and will, presumably, resurface elsewhere before long. He is another who seems unhappy with the marginal rightward movement of the Liberal Democrats in recent years and would almost certainly prefer to return to his more socialist starting point.

In the midst of all of this turmoil, Clegg has carried on apparently oblivious to the storm raging around him. Cable has felt obliged to offer seemingly firm support for his boss and several other leading LibDems have done likewise. However, there can be no doubt that this is a very unhappy party and there's still a long summer and a party conference to get through before the election in May 2015.

Harold Wilson famously said that "a week is a long time in politics"; for Nick Clegg and his party, the next year is going to seem like an eternity.

WHAT IS IT TO BE RACIST ?

An organisation called 'NatCen' has conducted a survey on British attitudes to race and apparently discovered that the people of these islands are now more 'racist' than they were 30 years ago. This result has been publicised widely, notably by the BBC which finds it most exciting, but without really explaining anything much about the nature of the survey.

'NatCen' calls itself "Britain's largest independent social research agency" and goes on to say "By really understanding the complexity of people's lives and attitudes we give the public a powerful role in shaping decisions and services that makes a difference to everyone". So there we have it. They're another agency which spouts meaningless twaddle.

In support of this conclusion, the racism survey is a prime example. This survey has reportedly relied on interviewees to state whether they consider themselves to be very or a little bit 'racist'. Exactly what being 'racist' is hasn't been defined and there seems to be no explanation as to what criteria people used in order to arrive at their conclusions about themselves. On the face of it, this research is nothing of the sort and its conclusions are utterly useless.

My dictionary gives 2 definitions for the words 'racialism' and 'racism' :

1) The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority, and

2) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

I suspect that very few of those questioned by 'NatCen' know either of these definitions, and I doubt that 'NatCen' enlightened them. Basically, I suspect that people were simply asked whether or not they were racist, which is a pointless question unless the meaning of the word is known and understood. Not liking to have your once white Anglo-Saxon home town turned into an Asian ghetto that resembles the slums of Calcutta does not make anyone racist; it makes them protective of their own history, origins and heritage. Not liking the family next door because they are scruffy, dirty and foul-mouthed does not make one a snob whatever colour or race the neighbours are but, according to the approach adopted by 'NatCen', it probably does make one a racist if the family happens to be from a different country. This has to be ridiculous and dangerous nonsense.

I am not a racist but I do have serious concerns over the scale of immigration into this country over the last 40 or 50 years. Not only has the rate of influx been so great as to make effective assimilation almost impossible, but we have also been assailed by the forces of 'multi-culturalism' which have allowed immigrants to take over large parts of many of our towns and cities to such an extent that these no longer appear to be British. This is wrong. Everyone coming to this country should be required to adopt at least an outward display of Britishness and should certainly be able to speak our language. They should obey our laws without question and should, by-and-large, adopt our customs; if they do not wish to do this, they should not come here.

This is not 'racism', it is common sense. Britons traveling to foreign parts are expected to obey the laws and customs of the countries they are visiting; why is it not the same for those coming to this country ? Years ago, Enoch Powell predicted that the immigration policies of the then government would lead to trouble and he was roundly condemned by all and sundry; in the intervening years matters have become far worse as the views and actions of successive governments have heaped coal on to the fire. Inevitably, the flames are beginning to come through.

Only now are the intelligentsia waking up to the fact that Powell was right and they and their predecessors have been horribly wrong. Let's hope it's not too late to prevent the catastrophe that he foresaw.

UKIP "NASTY AND UNPLEASANT" SAYS BLAIR.

Now Tony Blair has decided to enter the fray, denigrating UKIP in various ways.

Blair, a man who espouses socialist views while having enjoyed a private education and amassed a vast fortune at the expense of taxpayers, must have the hide of a rhinoceros. Having presided over 11 years of Labour government which culminated in the catastrophic financial meltdown of 2008 and gave our country an immigration crisis, he now claims that UKIP has "no solutions to the problems of the 21st century"; such nebulous and grandiose sounding phrases are meat  and drink to Blair and his ilk, while purposely being utterly meaningless.

He also said, when questioned, that Labour must "confront and expose" parties like UKIP and ended with a portentous "You look underneath that UKIP façade and you see something pretty nasty and unpleasant".

None of this rhetoric means much, if anything, but it all sounds very 'statesmanlike', which is what Blair wants. It makes him sound like an older and much wiser figure, sharing his great intellect with the world. In truth, it's just more political double speak. If I look under Labour's façade, I can find criminality, corruption and deceit; likewise with both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Is this any more nasty and unpleasant than what Blair claims is hidden beneath the façade of UKIP ? Indeed, his comment about UKIP is no more than a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' to voters, suggesting that UKIP is little more than the BNP in disguise, without actually saying it. As such, he can later claim that the remark meant anything that he then wants it to and can deny any interpretation that doesn't then hold water.

What is interesting is that Blair has suddenly emerged from the shadows to denounce UKIP and provide advice to the Labour party's leadership, as well as to the leaders of the EU. One wonders what is in it for him, for it is fairly certain that he hasn't come forward just for the fun of it.

UKIP TOP THE POLLS !

Now that nearly all of the results are in, we can finally see the effect that UKIP have had in the elections for the European Parliament.

Really rather astonishingly, this party, which has been called a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" by our beloved Leader, has come top of the polls; does this then brand more than a quarter of the population that voted as such ? Across England, outside of London, UKIP actually polled over 31% of the vote; this figure was dragged down by the huge Labour bias in London, and by the SNP/Labour axis in Scotland but, even so, it demonstrates enormous disquiet amongst the electorate.

The response of the 3 traditional parties to this earthquake has been pathetic. They're all relying on voters returning to the fold at next year's General Election so, while telling us that they've "listened" or "will address the voters' issues", or "understand the voters' concerns", they've basically sat on their hands and swallowed hard. They really do not 'get it'.

No doubt, many voters will go back to their roots next year, but many will not. UKIP may win a few seats in the UK Parliament, or they may not. However, for a party to come from nowhere to be top of any national election is phenomenal. In 2009, they gained 16.5% of the vote and now that has risen to 27.5%; this is not the usual swings and roundabouts between Labour and Conservatives, it is something far more fundamental.

The insults, abuse and  brickbats that have been hurled at Nigel Farage and his party over recent months have failed to deter voters from expressing their unhappiness; unless the other main parties mend their ways and start really listening to the electorate, next year's election may not be quite so spectacular but they will find it most challenging. UKIP has a whole year in which to build on its successes and build they will. The Parliamentary by-election in Newark, due to be held on 5th June, will be their first opportunity to show just how significant is their following and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could even win it.

It is high time that the 3 old parties were shaken out of their complacency and UKIP might just be the lot to do it. The only problem is that once they gain seats in the House of Commons, they'll start to become part of the establishment; will they then continue to be a force to be reckoned with, or will they just become another bunch of career politicians with snouts in the trough and paying little or no attention to their voters ? Only time will tell.