HONESTY IS NO LONGER THE BEST POLICY.

Horror of Horrors !

Her Majesty the Queen is someone who is rarely caught out but it seems that a snooping reporter picked up a conversation in which she said something about Chinese visitors being rude to an ambassador. Within a short space of time, David Cameron was overheard saying that Nigeria and Afghanistan were 'fantastically corrupt' countries, coincidentally in a conversation with the very same Queen.

That Cameron's comment was undoubtedly correct and the Queen's remark a statement of her perception of a simple fact has made no difference to the media storm which has been created. It seems that, when it comes to relations between nations. the one thing that can't be spoken is the truth; instead, countries like the UK have to kowtow to tin-pot dictators and despots, corrupt regimes and their crooked leaders.

Everyone knows that Nigeria is a country in which corruption is rife, as it is in most of the countries of the African continent. Places like Afghanistan are fanatically tribal with all that that implies, tribal leaders cheating and bribing anyone and everyone in order to maintain their power. Shockingly, we are supposed to keep quiet about such things and pretend that we really rather like the representatives from these nations, who aren't such bad chaps after all. This is not too dissimilar to the way in which the world tiptoes around issues to do with Israel, whatever atrocities are perpetrated by their government. What a load of bu****it.

Along the same lines, Germany actually has a law which prohibits individuals from making fun of foreign leaders and dignitaries and has recently invoked it against a comedian who's dared to recite a somewhat rude poem about the overly-sensitive president of Turkey, Mr Erdogan. Erdogan seems to have few redeeming features and yet Germany, and consequently most of the rest of the EU, is falling over itself backwards to do his bidding.

Why can't our politicians be honest for a change ? Why can't they say what they really think, without fear of causing international incidents ? In business, senior managers are expected to be ruthless and to be brutally honest in the interests of their companies; why is it that politicians are only ruthless and honest in pursuit of their own career ambitions ?

What a sad, sick and corrupt world we live in.

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 !

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.

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.

KNIGHTHOOD FOR MURRAY WILL DEVALUE HONOURS.

There can be no doubt that today's politicians will use any opportunity to try to achieve political advantage. The latest example is the appalling way in which Andy Murray's Wimbledon triumph has been hijacked by these egregious creatures.

 

Throughout Sunday's final match, Alex Salmond could be seen clapping, seal-like, behind the equally excited figure of David Cameroon, though his clapping was more normal. At the very moment of Murray's triumph, the fanatical Salmond unfurled a Scottish saltire almost over Cameroon's head, despite such exhibitions having been specifically forbidden by the Wimbledon authorities. However, this was only the prelude to yesterday's lunacy.

 

Murray was invited to a reception at 10 Downing Street at which an assortment of political figures were present, although Salmond was inexplicably unable to be there due to 'diary commitments'. It's difficult to believe that this was anything other than a political manoeuvre by this maniacal Scot as he must have known when the Wimbledon final was, that it was quite likely that Murray would be involved and that he could well win; surely he would have ensured that he was available in the event of a triumphal political party being held. No doubt, he will have issued his own invitation for Murray to attend some form of gathering in Scotland, an invitation that Murray would be well advised to avoid at all cost, or else become little more than a pawn in the political shenanigans being perpetrated by Salmond and his pals.

 

However, the party was far from being the most ridiculous element of yesterday's proceedings. In recent years, it's become the norm for any sporting success to be leapt upon by political leaders as an opportunity to gain public kudos, to demonstrate to the plebs how like us they are and to show solidarity with us by applauding and rewarding our heroes. Consequently, we now have the lunacy of an ever increasing horde of sporting knights and dames; people who have been utterly self-obsessed and single-minded in the pursuit of gold medals and glory for themselves have been rewarded as if they had done their great deeds with only the good of the nation in mind. This madness reached new heights yesterday when Cameroon announced that, although it was not up to him, no one deserved a knighthood more than Murray; Cameroon, of course, knows very well that his views on such matters carry enormous weight.

 

No one can deny that Murray has worked tirelessly to scale the heights in his chosen sport of tennis. He has been totally single-minded in his determination to be the best player he could possibly be and, if possible, to win the Wimbledon title. In doing so, he has become very wealthy and will now become enormously rich, none of this success having anything to do with any desire to help the nation or his fellow citizens; in fact, he probably spends most of his time outside of Britain and I doubt that he gives his home country much thought other than when Wimbledon is on the Horizon. Indeed, what is his home country ? A few years ago, he was quoted as saying that he was not British or English, he was Scottish, and that he would support anyone who was playing against England in a sporting contest; his about-face on Sunday when he referred to a 'British' winner of Wimbledon was quite clearly a result of the hostile reaction to his earlier remarks.

 

Murray won Wimbledon for himself. He did not win it for the people or for any country. He did not win it as part of a fight against famine, poverty or global warming. For Cameroon to claim that he is deserving of a knighthood for this utterly selfish act is ludicrous and only provides more evidence for those who see the idiot Prime Minister as nothing more than a political opportunist who will do anything in the hope that it will gain him a few votes. How sad, how pathetic, and how this devalues the honours awarded in bygone times to people who genuinely deserved them.

USA ESCALATES SYRIAN CONFLICT.

With the civil war in Syria becoming ever-more nasty, that most democratic and peace-loving of nations, the United States of America, has announced that it is now going to provide direct military support to the so-called 'rebels'. This move has, of course, been inevitable and it was only a matter of time before the assorted 'hawks', including our very own 'Boy David', convinced the US President that this action was essential. How the situation develops over the coming days and months has now become the question.

 

The West invaded Iraq because, according to reliable intelligence reports, Saddam Hussein had nuclear capabilities; Tony Blair was all for it but, on that occasion, it was the US President, George W Bush, who led the way as the people of the UK weren't so keen. Although subsequent events proved the people to have been right, our leaders took us into a protracted war which ended up with thousands dead and the overthrow of a dictator, which is what Bush and Blair had wanted from the beginning. That Saddam had, in fact, not had any nuclear capability and the intelligence was either mistaken or deliberately falsified has never been satisfactorily resolved. Saddam ended his days, dangling ignominiously at the end of a rope.

 

With the smell of cordite in their nostrils, the west, led by the USA and UK, then rounded on another of their 'hate figures', Muammar Gaddafi, in Libya. This started as a civil war with western support and ended up with the West supplying arms and bombing Libyan targets; fortunately, western troops were spared from real conflict but the aim of getting rid of Gaddafi was achieved. He was butchered on camera and the West celebrated.

 

Now we have Syria, another Islamic dictatorship though one which has, historically, not been particularly opposed to the West. However, for reasons of their own, many of the Syrian people have become unhappy with their leader, Bashar-al-Assad, and have launched a civil war. The West, in its wisdom, has decided that Assad is the villain and also decided that he must go; they may be right but is it actually any of their business ? The Russians, for reasons of their own, don't like this western attitude and have been supporting Assad but, again, is it any of their business either ?

 

The 'opposition' in Syria seems to be disparate groups of rebels, each with their own axe to grind; which, if any, is capable of forming a government or leading a united country is open to question. The US government has now determined that the Syrian government forces have been using chemical weapons, a conclusion which they say is based on undeniable evidence; are we back to the world of "dodgy dossiers", I wonder. Whatever the evidence, the USA is using it as grounds for a significant increase in its military involvement in Syria's internecine conflict, though exactly what the involvement will be has yet to be stated. Will they simply arm the rebels and if so, which rebels ? Will they launch assaults from outside of Syria or will they actually send in troops ? The only thing we can be sure of is that we're in for yet more bloodshed and Assad's will be in there somewhere.

 

What will 'Boy David' do now that he appears to have got his way ? Can we expect British troops to be deployed ? Will our cash-strapped nation spend more money that it doesn't have on supporting Syria's opposition ? Having tasted 'Victory' in Libya, is Cameroon now convinced that being a 'war-time' Prime Minister is his passport to re-election in 2015 ? If so, he is surely horribly mistaken.

 

Assuming that Assad does go, what will replace his regime ? The opposition groups include some allied to Islamic terrorists such as Al-Qaeda while others have their own specific battles to fight; the chances must be that any future government will be no more stable than the current dictatorship and, quite probably, less amenable to the West. As with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan changing the ruling junta is unlikely to do much to improve the lot of the people or to create pro-western nations; the blatant imperialist approach of the self-righteous western powers must, in fact, be much more likely to achieve the opposite outcomes.

 

Given the recent history of western involvement in the Middle East, yet more sabre-rattling is something of which we should all be fearful. The trouble is that without a major war to fight somewhere, the more militaristic nations are constantly on the lookout for anywhere where they can send their forces to get a bit of practice, or to undertake a 'proxy war' between each other. For the last couple of decades, this has been the fate of the Middle East as East and West have vied for control; where will it all end ?

AVOIDING TAX IS GOOD, NOT EVIL.

Cameroon has his knickers in a twist over tax, again. According to him, some of the world's largest companies don't pay enough tax and, according to Margaret Hodge, chairman of the House of Commons 'Public Accounts Committee', the internet company 'Google' are 'evil', as a result of this.

When it comes to tax we all know one thing; governments will take whatever they can from us in order to throw much of it down the drain on useless schemes. To my mind, paying as little tax as we can get away with is a public good, and in no way evil. However, governments inevitably see these things very differently, particularly when they're run by multi-millionaires whose affairs are managed most carefully by squadrons of expert tax lawyers and accountants; whatever rules they introduce to stop other people from avoiding paying tax, they won't be affected.

Both Cameroon and Hodge come from wealthy backgrounds, Hodge, despite being a committed socialist, being a shareholder in her family business which is one of the largest privately owned UK companies; she is clearly very rich. Cameroon is descended from an illegitimate child of King William IV and his family has many aristocratic and wealthy connections; he, too, is far from being poor.

 

Neither Cameroon nor Hodge has ever had to work for a living and both find it very convenient to conflate the concepts of 'avoidance' and evasion' when it comes to tax; they've eagerly latched onto the newly created concept of 'aggressive avoidance' and both seem determined to muddy the waters to such an extent that the man in the street will have no idea that there's actually any difference between these 3 quite different actions.

 

Before going on, let's just be clear that whether or not tax is paid, the money doesn't disappear. If tax is paid, then governments get hold of it and use it for whatever purpose suits their current political aims; this will almost certainly include the employment of hordes of faceless bureaucrats carrying out pointless and worthless tasks in pursuit of political ambitions, and with no real chance of success. It will quite likely include wasting billions of pounds on information technology which never works or fulfils its purpose and will certainly include spending huge sums on enquiries and consultations about anything and everything. Lawyers, of whom many are MPs, make money and the rest of us pay.

 

If tax is not paid, then the money is available for either individuals or companies to spend and invest as they see fit. Individuals with more money in their pockets are inclined to spend it on new cars, home appliances and so on, the increased demand boosting economic growth. Companies may actually distribute some of any such money as dividends to shareholders who, in turn, spend it as individuals, or they may invest in new premises, plant or projects, boosting employment and the economy. Far from being a negative feature, not paying tax is almost certainly better for the economy than paying it. It creates real jobs that are needed, not make believe jobs that simply keep the unemployment figures down.

 

When it comes to the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, this is very simple. Evasion is against the law as it entails lies and deceit; the taxpayer deliberately falsifies their figures in order to defraud the authorities and this is clearly wrong. Avoidance, on the other hand, is perfectly legal and entails working to the letter of the law in one's tax affairs; governments have, in fact, introduced many avoidance measures over the years including personal allowances, ISAs, SIPPs, tax-free National Savings certificates and so on. Companies can benefit from a variety of special schemes and allowances designed to help them expand and most of these involve some form of escape from taxation. These assorted approaches have been introduced because governments have understood the need for people and companies to be able to have control of, and benefit from, as much of their own resources as possible. Sadly, the current economic crisis has caused them to think again and they're now looking for ways to deprive us all of as much of our own money as they can.

 

In creating the concept of 'aggressive avoidance' government has now tried to move the goalposts and to make it appear that avoidance and evasion are really the same thing. While it is true that some taxpayers may well employ specialists to dissect every line of tax legislation in order to discover previously unknown loopholes, this is still perfectly legal and no court in this country would disagree. If legislation is poorly constructed, it cannot be right for the victim to be held guilty when they exploit this fact. Governments may well try to argue that it is wrong, even immoral or, as Mrs Hodge says, 'evil', to work to the letter rather than the spirit of the law but this is nonsense; the law is the law and is not adjustable to suit the whim of anyone who dislikes its application.

 

If Cameroon, Hodge and their pals are so sure of the rectitude of their position, why don't they join forces and enact new legislation to outlaw tax avoidance ? The simple answer is because they know it wouldn't gain acceptance and would create more problems than it's worth. Instead, they bleat on about 'aggressive avoidance' and berate and vilify large corporations which are acting quite legally. In this whole sorry saga, it is not the companies who are at fault, it is the politicians who bring themselves into disrepute.

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BILL CONSUMMATED BY COMMONS.

Why on earth is David Cameron so wedded to the concept of marriage between homosexuals ?

 

This is not a policy that has appeared in the manifesto of any political party, nor has it been included in any 'Queen's Speech'; the bill currently making its way, not without difficulty, through Parliament has not been properly debated and is not supported by a large section of the Conservative party, in fact, it only passed the latest hurdles thanks to the support of Liberal and Labour MPs.

 

Marriage between people of the opposite sex is something that has occurred, in one form or another, for as long s there is recorded human history; it has usually been associated with religious rites and is something that, until 1836, was overseen in the UK by church authorities only. Since that time, the concept of 'civil marriage' has been available and all marriages have been sanctioned by the state through a system of local registrars. Nonetheless, marriage in the UK has remained an arrangement between a man and a woman and the basis of every marriage has continued to be in accordance with, though not necessarily officially blessed by, the rules of one religion or another.

 

Now Cameroon and his Eton buddies are intent on changing all of this. They say it is because they're so enthusiastic about the concept of marriage that they want everyone to be able to enjoy its benefits, so that, clearly, cannot be the real reason for their mania. Spreading 'equality theory' seems far more likely a reason but in doing this, they're actually giving homosexuals (and I include lesbians with this all-encompassing word) greater rights than are enjoyed by heterosexuals; additionally, in order to bring about 'homosexual marriage' they're having to redefine the whole concept of marriage, consummation and divorce. What is 'consummation' within a homosexual marriage ? What are the grounds for divorce ? Will heterosexual couples be granted the same rights as homosexuals in these respects ? How will homosexuality be determined or will any same-sex couple be able to 'marry' with no questions asked ? If so, will single heterosexual people marry some friend simply in order to avoid, perfectly legally, inheritance tax when their time comes ?

 

The more one digs into this quagmire, the more problems arise and the more one has to question Cameroon's motives. Is he under pressure as a result of some schoolboy indiscretion ? Is he being unduly cajoled by the cadre of homosexuals in Parliament, of whom there seem to be more every time one looks ? Does he simply want to destroy the Conservative party and turn it into another 'middle-of-the-road' home for wishy-washy social democrats ? (Don't forget that 'Middle of the Road' was a pop group many moons ago, which gave us one of the most banal of all pop songs 'Chirpy, chirpy, cheep, cheep' - do we really want more of that ?)

 

Whatever the reasons for this mad policy, he will win very few, if any, votes by this measure and will almost certainly lose a great deal. Many grassroots Conservatives have already expressed great unhappiness at this leftie policy which runs wholly counter to their political and religious beliefs, and many have already defected to the only political home left for them - Ukip. Many more may well follow.

 

The latest opinion polls show Ukip running almost neck-and-neck with the Conservatives and informed voices are increasingly convinced that Ukip will come out top in next year's European elections. If that happens, and the Conservatives come third as is quite possible, what price then a Conservative victory in the 2015 General Election ? What price Cameroon still being party leader by that time ?

QUEEN GETS TOUGH ON IMMIGRANTS !

The 'Queen's Speech', unlike the 'King's Speech', was an event of great theatricality but with no real purpose or result. While King George VI struggled manfully to get his own words out, Queen Elizabeth had little difficulty in mouthing the usual rubbish provided for her by successive governments over a period of 60 years.

 

One has to wonder what Her Majesty thinks of the drivel and endless platitudes that her Prime Ministers force her to read out and put her name to. As a rule, much of it announces measures to curb our freedoms still further, much is about 'saving us from ourselves' and the rest is about purely political issues designed to help whoever is in power today to win the next election.

 

This year's speech was little different but did include a novel idea - individuals in the community such as landlords and GPs will now be required to carry out the role of 'immigration police', checking the origins of everyone with whom they come into contact and reporting those they believe to be illegal immigrants to the authorities. How this will work, if it can be made to do so, hasn't been explained.

 

For decades, the NHS has been expected to identify those who are not eligible for free care and to charge them accordingly. Hospitals have established vast and complicated procedures that have, by and large, been a pointless waste of money. Even if chargeable individuals have been identified and billed, they usually disappear without trace after being discharged; little money is ever forthcoming. Inexplicably, this government seems to be oblivious to this and has said that they will introduce new measures to ensure that short-term migrants will pay for their NHS care; furthermore, landlords will have to check the 'immigration status' of potential tenants though, again, how they will do this hasn't been set out. Most astonishing of all, illegal immigrants will not be allowed to have driving licences; pardon me, but are they saying that such people are allowed to hold driving licences at the moment ? Surely one fundamental feature of being an 'illegal immigrant' must be that the state does not know who they are; are they not outside of the 'system' and, hence, automatically denied such things ?

 

In truth, none of this will work and it's clear that all the rhetoric about being tough on immigration and illegal immigrants is no more than an attempt to con people into voting Conservative at the next general election. Neither this government nor any other likely one has any intention of doing anything that will really deal with the issues that face our country. Vastly excessive immigration and the creation of largely separate 'immigrant communities' is but one, though a major one, of these issues, but there is no chance whatsoever of our leaders dealing with it; it's all far too political and difficult and they have their futures as overpaid international ambassadors and statesmen to think about.

 

If I believed in a God, I'd be saying 'God, help us !', but I don't and I'm afraid we're on our own.

LET'S ALL MARRY A GAY HOODIE !

David Cameron wants us all to 'Hug a Gay' or 'Marry a Hoodie' or have I got that wrong ? Is it, perhaps, that he wants us all to marry a gay hoodie or hug a hoodie gay ? Whatever, he's a moron.

 

It was suggested that the Cameroon and his pals would try to placate those in his own party who object to his plans for 'Gay Marriage' by coming up with some sort of tax breaks for proper married people in the forthcoming budget, but apparently this has been ruled out. It seems that while Cameroon is all in favour of marriage, he's not prepared to put his (or our) money where his mouth is, while expecting us all to fall over backwards in support of his other weird and wonderful neo-conservatist (=socialist) nonsense.

 

Cameroon is typical of those of his ilk - while professing one allegiance he actully pursues another. He pretends to be a Conservative while really being a Liberal, in much the same way as did Anthony Charles Lynton Blair - who in god's name calls their child 'Lynton' ?. Blair was, of course, no more a socialist than am I, and neither is Cameroon, but neither are either anything but self-serving politicians; neither has any belief other than what will, hopefully, win them the next election.

 

Cameroon's mad and utterly incomprehensible pursuit of 'Gay Marriage' is beginning to throw up problems; what grounds for the divorce of a pair of queers might be acceptable, for instance ? What will count as 'consumation' of a homosexual or lesbian relationship ? As with so much. Cameroon and his leftie entourage have charged forward with ill-thought out ideas that are now beginning to fight back. Another is the wholly politically correct notion that inheritance of the crown should go to the first born child, male or female, rather than following the old-fashioned idea of primogeniture. Laudable, in some ways, that the proposal may be, the wider implications are only just beginning to surface.

 

Cameroon is a perfect example of a well educated idiot, a person who has all the education and none of the knowledge of the real world. His family have been isolated from reality for decades at the very least and he has no idea whatsoever of ordinary life; he also has no idea of what ordinary people think or fell about anything. He has never had to worry about whether or not he would be able to find a job or feed his family; he is, in fact, a highly abnormal representative of our society.

 

Sadly for us, most of our representatives fall into exactly the same group as Cameroon, hence we get such vast amounts of government action directed at things which the people either have no interest in or any desire for. 'Gay Marriage' is one such. Those who oppose it will be labelled as backward thinking or, worse, homophobic, regardless of their reasoning, by all 'right-thinking' (=politically correct) people. The fact that it is simply a nonsense has already been skipped over by the intellectuals who inhabit the 'centre ground', wherever that may be.

 

Cameroon is an idiot but so are the others in high political office, at least in terms of running the country. In their own terms and in pursuit of their own greater glory they are the enlightened and the ones who have been tasked with leading the plebs out of the darkness and into the promised land; they are certainly the ones with the money so perhaps they aren't so stupid after all . 

 

What we need is recuing from them but since no one else is likely to do this, GOD HELP US !

THE PRESS MUST BE FREE BUT RESPONSIBLE.

David Cameron's failure to embrace the Leveson Report with any enthusiasm demonstrates just how much our political classes run in fear of the press. In turn, this clearly shows that it is long passed time that the media had its wings clipped.

 

This is not to say that I'm in favour of the government taking control of the press but it is clear that the current 'self-regulation' has failed miserably; any replacement self-regulatory arrangement is likely to be every bit as useless and impotent. that What is needed is a framework established by law which guarantees the freedom of the press while also making sure that it behaves in an acceptably civilized fashion. There is no reason at all why there should not be a wholly independent body in place of the discredited 'Press Council' and which can properly respond to complaints from those whom the press abuses. Such a body could be set up, chiared by a retired judge and with, perhaps, 2 representatives from the media and 2 from the public; the Press would, of course, foot the bill as they do now, but they would have far less ability to sweep things under the carpet.

 

There can be no doubt that some elements of the media are out of control and feel themselves to be beyond the reach of the law. The 'phone hacking scandal was merely the tip of a very nasty iceberg, the submerged parts of which include all of the grubby bits of journalism - the manufactured stories for pure sensationalist value, long range pictures of well known people living their lives, every type of intrusion into peoples' privacy for the purpose of making money alone. Most of these activities, all of which have usually been justified on the basis of 'the public interest', have been the mark of a dysfunctional press reacting to the salacious appetites of an uneducated and ignorant public.

 

It is time for a change.