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.