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 The truth is more likely that the Conservative party no longer represents the people that it did 30 or more years ago; it has become a 'middle-of-the-road' and mildly socialist group which has little or no connection with its roots.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.