TOMMY WHO ?

With the news coverage of someone called Tommy Sheridan, one could be forgiven for thinking this is a man of some importance.

In fact, he's a member of an inconsequential Scottish political party who's been found guilty of lying. Shock, horror - a Politician who tells lies !

Is this story really of sufficient significance to be the main item on the BBC News ?

"IT'S THE 'TELEGRAPH' NOT ME", SAYS VINCE

Vince Cable's new outburst, blaming the 'Daily Telegraph' for his party's recent embarrassments, is a hopeless smokescreen.

Mr Cable seems to think it is the newspaper that is at fault for daring to expose the duplicity of him and his colleagues; what rot. Cable and his friends pretend one thing for public consumption and say another behind closed doors; the people should know this and understand how dishonest they are being. In the pursuit of power, they are prepared to pretend anything, but their true beliefs now cause them discomfort.

If the coalition is to survive, both sides must stop sniping at each other. Senior figures such as Mr Cable and those implicated in today's story should realise that they have a responsibility to be 100% supportive of the Government of which they are part, regardless of which party they are members. If they cannot do this, they should resign.

VINCE ISN'T ALONE.

So, following in Vince Cable's footsteps, several senior LibDems, Government Ministers all, have been caught making unguarded and derogatory remarks about their Tory colleagues - apparently, Cameron can't be trusted and Osborne's out of touch with ordinary people.

It's not that these comments are inaccurate, indeed I suspect most of us would agree whole-heartedly, but the gaping chasm between the coalition partners is now in danger of swallowing both sides. In any normal time, the guilty ministers would have been sacked, but these are not normal times and so they simply apologise and stay in office.

How ridiculous. This house of cards, built on the shakiest of foundations, is surely now in danger of imminent collapse.

GAFFE PRONE VINCE A DEAD DUCK.

When the LibDems were simply the second opposition party, Vince Cable's words of wisdom, not to mention his twinkling feet, shone through the gloom like a beacon of hope. Vince sounded as if he knew what he was talking about, and the tune he was dancing to, and became the darling of the Nation.

Now, in a senior Government post, he is proving an embarrassment to everyone. First the "I may not vote for my own policy" fiasco, and now caught making naive, unguarded and wholly inappropriate comments about the role he might play in Government decision making and more.

Mr Cable may be academically strong but he has demonstrated a serious lack of political judgement in recent weeks. A few months ago, his position was unassailable as the most high profile LibDem and a man whose expertise had struck a chord with the populace of a beleaguered nation; now he has shown himself as being politically unsuited to high office. He should go, and would if the Government was not quite so weak.

ANTHONY HOWARD

I see that Anthony Howard, the political journalist and commentator has died.

I didn't always agree with his views but he was an astute and shrewd observer of the political world. There have not been too many of his ilk and he will be missed.

EUROPEAN MADNESS.

I read that the European Union parliament has voted itself a budget for next year of €126.5bn., an amount equivalent to £107bn., that is £107,000,000,000. It also seems that the MEPs are not really very happy with this sum as it represents a budget increase of 'only' 2.9% over last year; they want greater powers to determine their budget independently in future years.

Let's be clear. The EU is an organisation that is, effectively, a super QUANGO though with greater powers, and perhaps we need to invent a new acronym in recognition of its multinational nature; perhaps ISGO - Irrelevant Supra-Governmental Organisation might be appropriate. It does not provide any of the usual governmental services such as health, social services, education, defence, transport etc., etc. What it does have are TWO parliament buildings which it uses alternately and a vast bureaucracy to support its separate, and non-elected, Commission as well as the Parliament; the Members and Commissioners exist on huge salaries and claim vast expenses, generally without being required to provide any proof of the expenses. And it plans to spend £107,000,000,000 next year.

£107,000,000,000 is enough to pay the wages of almost 5,000,000 people on UK national average earnings. How can it be that this organisation can be such a consumer of financial resources ? It is crewed by hordes of essentially faceless politicians, most of whom have never been heard of, even in their own countries; many of them have previously been kicked out of office in their own countries, but been rescued by their polictical friends and sent to Brussels. These self-serving and irrelevant people represent no one but themselves, in pursuit of a goal that no one outside of a political elite wants.

£107,000,000,000 is a huge amount of money. For many years, the accounts of this organisation have been subject to severe qualification by their auditors and yet no one has done anything about it. When one Chief Accountant refused to sign off the accounts on the grounds that there was insufficient supporting evidence for much of the expenditure and she could not vouch for their accuracy, she was suspended by her boss, Neil Kinnock, and subsequently sacked. That she was entirely justified in her behaviour was subsequently accepted by a tribunal, but the accounts were not changed.

£107,000,000,000 : simply remember this number and be under no illusions. The budget will expand, the corruption, waste and inefficiency will not be tackled, and we will become increasingly subservient to this organisation. The EU has little or nor real use. It is vastly expensive and grossly inefficient. It is utterly corrupt. It is entirely unnecessary.

Is it not time that this ISGO was gone ?

KEEP TAKING THE TABLETS ?

Former Minister Bob Ainsworth wants to legalise all drugs as he believes existing policies have failed and this is the only way to introduce control in this area. Various organisations already put enormous pressure on Government aimed at making alcohol and nicotine less accessible, not more; Mr Ainsworth's approach seems to fly in the face of this pressure.

At first glance, part of Mr Ainsworth's thesis may look to be at least partly valid. He believes that legalisation will rid us of the criminal gangs who currently rule the drugs underworld and there could be some truth in this,

however, will it rid us of the mindless morons who take to using drugs in the first place ? Would the drugs be provided free of charge ? What would be the cost to the nation of this policy ? If 'drugs on prescription' is made dependent on users embarking on a course of treatment designed to wean them away from their substance of choice, what will be done if they stop the treatment or simply fail to respond ? Would drugs such as ecstasy be available under the scheme and, if so, on what basis and for what reasons ?

The more I think about this, the more I am forced to the conclusion that Ainsworth is well-meaning, but naive and muddled. Those who control the current drugs' trade are far too unpleasant and devious to allow a little thing like legalisation to stand in their way. New and more exciting drugs will be manufactured; vicious punishments will be meted out to those who try to move to legal channels; many of those already 'hooked' will be unable or unwilling to stop; there will always be a new trade of younger people to be enticed, and so on. Will we be dishing out drugs, willy-nilly, to prisoners, all paid for by the State ?

The real way to deal with this problem is to crack down very hard on both dealers and users. In the same way that traffic accidents considered to have been aggravated by drug or alcohol use attract harsher penalties, so should other crimes that are similarly induced. Possession of hard drugs, should, once again, be treated as a serious offence, and dealers and suppliers should be imprisoned for lengthy periods.

It is only by making the trade sufficiently unattractive to all of those involved that it will be curtailed, not by namby-pamby, socially conscious and, effectively, defeatest actions such as suggested by Mr Ainsworth.

BOAT PEOPLE

Having read that a boat load of potential asylum seekers has foundered off Christmas Island, I have to wonder what it was doing there. As I understand it, the people were refugees from Iran and Iraq; what on earth were they doing near Christmas Island ?

Under international law, asylum seekers are required to seek help in the first available safe haven, so what was going on ? These people have caused a huge amount of trouble to residents of Christmas Island, many of whom risked their lives in order to try to save passengers from the sea. Their irresponsible behaviour should be condemned and they should be returned from whence they came in order to deter similar lunacy in the future.

Of course, I don't expect many people to agree with me, but then the modern world has become so soft and fluffy that we're all expected to express nothing but caring words. Well, I think it's time we woke up and got real so don't expect caring words from me.

NHS WILL GO TO HELL

When it was founded in 1948, the National Health Service was intended to be exactly that - a Service that improved the health of the Nation to such an extent that costs would actually fall as the people became healthier. Oh, how stupidly naive were those who started the ball rolling !

What is now obvious is that, given an ageing population, a widening of what is considered to come under the remit of the Service and ever more rapid advances in medical knowledge and technology, costs will rise ever more swiftly. Of course, every Government wants to have close control over this enormous element of public spending but no Government wants to be the one that ultimately cries 'Enough !'. One of the results is that there has been an exponential growth in the number of administrators involved in monitoring roles of every type, and frequent reorganisations designed to convince the populace that something is being done while, in fact, the Service is actually completely out of control; add to this the increasing penchant for litigation over every possible injustice and the amount of time and money wasted by unnecessary administration has also grown disproportionately.

Handing financial control to GPs, the latest Government wheeze and, essentially, a throw-back to the days of GP Fundholding in the early 1990s, is ludicrous. All those employed in the NHS have their own roles to fill and trying to pretend that doctors have some magical ability to manage an organisation this complex is so daft as to make one shudder in disbelief. Doctors know about medicine and, of course, they should make the medical decisions about their patients without interference from others, but managing large and complex organisations is also a professional skill, and it requires professional managers to do it. Doctors must have a strong voice in this process but they should not be the final arbiters; they do not have the management expertise.

The population has come to expect the NHS to solve all of its medical issues, whether ones of real health or more of social desire. This is a major part of the funding problem that now exists and the Government should resolve the problem by returning the NHS to its original function - dealing with illness and debility. There are many conditions and procedures that the NHS should not involve itself with and these should be dropped from the canon. I refer to procedures and services that are essentially life-style choices, such as abortion, the provision of free contraceptive services, including male and female sterilizations (and their reversals), cosmetic surgery including trans-gender procedures, so-called 'alternative therapies' except where they are of genuinely proven worth, the enormous array of psychological and other counselling services that didn't exist a few years ago, and so on and so on. At the same time, the administrative burden that has appeared over the last 30 years must be removed; there are many staff now engaged in all manner of duties that have been invented in recent times but that are essentially pointless. This is not to say that these staff are not working hard and to the best of their abilities, but the problem is that their jobs are unnecessary or, at least, an unnecessary adornment in these times of financial stringency.  

Once reformed in this way, services outside the scope of the 'new' NHS should be funded from personal resources, insurance or charitable sources, they should not be a charge on the taxpayer. We also have to come terms with the concept of old age and death. We do not have any divine right to pass on our accumulated wealth, if we have any, to our children and the State should not be expected to provide for us in our old age except for when there is genuine medical need; we have to accept that we will all become less able as we grow older and we should make our own provision for this. The notion that the State should pay for us all to spend our last years in residential or nursing homes is entirely unsustainable and wrong-headed. It is also wrong that immigrants arriving in this country, who have never contributed anything to the State, are automatically entitled to the same level of NHS care as long-standing residents; as the number of immigrants has risen, the burden placed on various parts of the Service has also risen, again disproportionately, and this must be addressed.

The NHS has to return to its roots and go back to dealing with illness and debility. It cannot continue to be a cure-all for every perceived bodily malfunction and anyone who turns up; there has already been movement in this direction with charges for some optical and dental services and for prescriptions, but now is the time to take this approach much further. If we do not address and resolve these issues quickly, the NHS WILL, indeed, GO TO HELL.

BURNING THE KORAN

So a mad US religious fanatic wants to visit Britain, make some crazy speeches and stir up some of the more stupid natives. Frankly, who cares except for other religious fanatics and the more stupid natives.

Religion is a blight on this planet and on the human race. The sooner we all grow up and realise that believing in gods we can't see, hear or touch is utterly nonsensical, the better. 'Pastor' Terry Jones, the mad man in question whose approach to Christianity appears to be to show absolute intolerance to others, in diametric opposition to Christian teaching, should be sent packing as soon as he tries to arrive. The same applies to lunatic preachers of every religion, while the stupid natives will destroy themselves without anyone else having to raise a finger.

YOBS MUST BE RESISTED

The disgraceful scenes in London yesterday leave nothing but a feeling of repugnance.

To claim, as some NUS leaders seem to be doing, that the protests are justified because students have been 'disenfranchised', and that some damage is 'inevitable' is simply unsupportable. The 'franchise' is the right to vote, it is not the right to have everything as you want it and, with a coalition Government, compromise means that some manifesto promises have to be abandoned. To claim that the protesters only reacted against police actions is risible.

The animals who attacked the police, defaced and damaged important public buildings, and attacked the car carrying the Prince of Wales, can attract no sympathy whatever. These thugs were not normal protesters and, I suspect, most were not true students. Seeing some of those interviewed on television last night, it was clear that at least some were barely able to construct a sentence, let alone gain a degree.

This was not a student protest, it was near anarchy stirred up by political activists of the extreme left. It must be resisted at all cost, the ring leaders rounded up and jailed.

REVOLTING STUDENTS

One has to wonder how it is that all the thousands of protesting students can take so much time away from their University courses. Is it that the courses are, effectively, part time, or are they so easy that missing a few lectures makes no difference ? Of course it may also be that most of those involved in the demonstrations are not real students at all, but 'political activists'.

Personally, I find the whole fees debate mystifying.

Student goes to school, chooses a career path and picks a relevant degree course, gets the necessary 'A' levels and trots off to University. The Government pays all the bills up-front with the student taking on loans for a proportion of the costs. Once the student leaves University and achieves a certain level of income, he/she starts to repay the loans. What is unfair about this ?

If anything, it is unfair to those who choose more expensive and useful courses as they will almost certainly achieve a reasonable salary and have to repay their loans, while those who choose useless courses will never achieve a good income and will never pay back their loans. It seems to me that this methodolgy will encourage more students to take useless courses and simply waste 3 years of their lives 'bumming around'. And then there are the questions as to what happens to the loans of students who eventually emigrate and of those who 'drop out' ?

Why do we have so many people going to University at all ? When degrees, per se, were relatively rare they had value; now they are commonplace, their value is determined by the name of the Institution that awards them and the traditional Universities are, inevitably, held in higher esteem. Is a degree in Art from Chichester University of any value ? Is it comparable to a degree from Oxford or Cambridge, or Leeds or Bristol ? Of course not and everyone knows it.

Let's stop being ridiculous pretending that everyone can benefit from a University education. Return to the former system in which most school leavers took relevant vocational courses at their local Technical college, many supported by employers. That is the way to resolve this mess.

WIKILIES ?

It seems a little coincidental that Julian Assange, the founder of WIKILEAKS, is being sought over allegations of rape when he has just so upset several Governments, not least the US authorities. Although the allegations go back to August, one has to wonder why a case that was initially dropped after only a day's investigation, was resurrected a month later and is now being pursued with such vigour.

Could it be that the allegations are mere fabrications or, alternatively, are simply a fortuitous event upon which politicians have seized in order to silence this man ?

Good lord, how could anyone think such a thing ?!

LIBERAL CONFUSION

How depressing to watch the unfolding mess that is the Liberal Democrats. For decades, this lot, including in their previous incarnation as 'Liberals', have proposed every possible policy in an attempt to gain power.

Now they are in Government and can't even agree to vote for their Government's own policy. That the policy in question has been put forward by their own 'darling', Vince Cable, seems not to matter. Even Vince has vacillated over whether or not to vote for his own policy, showing himself to be a total prat.

The truth is that the Liberal Democrats are neither Liberal nor Democrats; they are a rag-bag of do-gooding lefties, desperate for Office but unfit to hold it. As junior partner in a coalition, they find themselves completely unable to come to terms with the responsibility that goes with power.

And we have to put up with this until 2015 !

WIKILEAKS FOR EVER !

Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. All these 'secrets' being leaked to the world's media are such a problem, at least for America's back-stabbing, double-dealing, self serving politicians.

If politician's were more honest in their dealings, this would never have happened, let alone been a problem. The problem only arises because of the paranoid nature of US politics and the extraordinary way in which the US deals with other nations.

Politicians and other civil servants are the servants of the people and have no right to expect their dealings to be kept secret except when secrecy is really necessary. Much of the material which has appeared through Wikileaks has no need for secrecy; it may be embarrassing for the US that some functionary considers Prince Andrew to be 'rude', but it can hardly be considered a state secret.

Let's have a bit of realism. No doubt some of the leaked material is genuinely sensitive and could lead to difficulties, but most simply confirms what most people already know - Politicians talk with forked tongues.