MARIA MILLER GOES, BUT FOR HOW LONG ?

So, after several days of hanging on by her fingernails, Maria Miller has gone.

That she didn't go at the outset is testament to the way in which MPs try to cling to power and privilege at the expense of all else. Even now, Miller has put her supposed resignation, which is more likely to have been an effective sacking, down to the distraction caused by events rather than admitting that she did anything wrong. She has shown no contrition and her apology in the Commons was nothing short of a farce.

Shockingly, Cameron has already intimated that she may well return to high office before long, another indication of the appalling arrogance of our political masters. The only way we, the people, can show our disgust is at the ballot box. Whatever our individual political beliefs we should all use the Richard Prior approach and vote for "None of the Above" when it comes to the next General Election. That way, these arrogant crooks might finally get the message.

MARIA MILLER : ANOTHER DODGY MP.

The so-called 'Culture Secretary', Maria Miller, is someone of whom I'd never heard before she was hoisted from obscurity to a seat in the Cabinet.

While in her job, she has done nothing of note other than upset the newspaper industry. Now it transpires that she'd also been fiddling the MPs expenses system for all it was worth over a protracted period, getting the taxpayers to cough up for the mortgage on a house inhabited by her parents before selling the same house for a mere £1m profit. When caught, her MP colleagues reduced the independently determined punishment to almost nothing and Miller's apology in the House of Commons was an exhibition in arrogance and lack of sincerity. For reasons known only to himself, David Cameron has supported her throughout this shameful episode and now refuses to sack her.

If I'd been caught doing anything similar in my career, I'd have been sacked, probably had my pension withheld and quite possibly gone to prison. Why are MPs treated so differently ?

STATISTICS DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS.

In recent days we've been told that Governments must do various intrusive things in order to save our lives. Amongst these has been the proposed banning of smoking in cars in which children are travelling, a suggestion that e-cigarettes should be banned or, at least, controlled, and a plan to make cigarette manufacturers use a generic form of packaging smothered in nasty pictures and slogans. In support of all of these measures, our political masters claim that hundreds, if not thousands of lives will be saved.

When I was a young squab, I was taught the old adage that "there's lies, damned lies and statistics". Sadly, today's politicians bombard us with statistics in their misguided efforts to bamboozle us all into accepting their paternalistic approach to government. With no real supporting evidence, they merrily claim that killing all badgers will save 100 lives or that banning cars will save a million. They are, of course, merely spouting the bogus statistics provided to them by compliant supporters of whatever measure they want to impose on us and those opposed to the plans can quite easily produce contrary figures to support their side of the argument. All-in-all, it is all nonsense.

Time and again, we are forced to accept restrictions on our freedoms by the government's use of manufactured statistics. People are frightened into accepting bans on everything and anything by the torrent of worthless numbers thrown at them. Over a period of years and decades, the people have been worn down and now seem to accept almost every restriction that governments of whatever hue wish to impose. Theoretically, our country is a democracy but, in reality we have no freedom and our democracy is a sham; come what may, the main political parties will have things their way, whatever the people really want, believe or would believe if they had the true facts. Of course, they are never allowed to see the true facts unless these support the objectives of the party in question and, even then, the facts may well be dressed up to put the best possible gloss on them.

Why is it that we let this happen ? Why do the people not stand up and fight ? The simple answer is that in this poor, tired old country, now rapidly filling up with hordes of foreigners, we can't be bothered. Anyone who can still be bothered has their own simple answer - VOTE Ukip.

FARAGE CLOBBERS CLEGG ; WHAT DOES IT MEAN ?

Pro-European Union Nick Clegg must be rueing his decision to enter into a debate with Anti-EU Nigel Farage after his mauling in the second meeting of the two last night.

After the first debate, opinion polls gave Farage a win on the night by around 55% to 35%; the second debate saw Farage increase his vote to close to 70% while Clegg's sank to around 30%.  Obviously, such polls are largely self-selecting and their accuracy can be debateable but the message does seem clear - Farage won by a margin.

Whether the result of this will affect anything in the world inhabited by those who actually decide things on our behalf is questionable. Sadly, Farage is the only even remotely serious political leader in this country who is in favour of a withdrawal from the EU. Clegg is 100% committed to the EU come what may, Cameron has no real intention of doing anything that would lead to us withdrawing and Miliband will do whatever he believes will get him into 10 Downing Street. While Farage may reflect the views of the a majority of the people of this country, our relationship with the EU will be decided by one or more of the other three.

The only hope is that Farage's showing in these debates will encourage many more people to vote for Ukip in the European and Council elections in May. There seems to be a good chance that Ukip will come top in the European polls and this is what is needed; last time, in 2009, Ukip came a good second in the polls with 16.5% but were still a long way behind the Conservatives with 27.7%. If Ukip can reverse these positions it would send a strong message to the main parties and leave Labour and the Liberal Democrats well behind.

In the council elections we can expect the three main parties to dominate but if Ukip can improve from their performance of last year when they gained 23% of the vote they could start to make a real impact in domestic politics by winning a significant number of seats and, even, one or two councils. Such a performance would certainly improve their chances of doing well in next year's General Election.

Nigel Farage is the only serious political figure in this country who is making progress. If the people give him the chance, he may be able to help the whole country to progress. VOTE Ukip !

SALMOND'S PLANS UNRAVEL.

As the debate over Scottish independence gathers pace, it's clear that the plans of megalomaniac Alex Salmond are unravelling.

Last week, George Osborne made it clear that an independent Scotland would be just that - independent. He ruled out Salmond's plan for a sterling currency union and was backed up in this stance by the principle financial representatives of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties as well as by the top civil servant in the Treasury.

Next, the current president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, appeared on television on Sunday and stated fairly categorically that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU but could well be disappointed. Oh, Lordy, Lordy !

A cornerstone of Salmond's attempt to become Prime Minister, President or even King, of Scotland has been his constant claim that independence would change very little; the only real change would be to free it from the unwanted and hated attentions of the government in Westminster. According to Salmond, an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state (though no mention of what would happen once she is gone), would retain sterling as its currency in a currency union with the remains of the UK, and would still be a member of the EU. It is now clear that at least 2 of these claims have 'feet of clay'.

Whatever the people who live in Scotland, for they are the only ones with a vote, decide in September there'll be ructions. If it's a vote for independence, expect a lot of whingeing and whining from the people once they realise the true implications of their choice; if it's a vote to remain in the UK, expect Salmond and his mates to be back arguing for the so-called 'Devo-max', in other words, effective independence within the UK. The second of these would undoubtedly lead to considerable unhappiness in England as Scottish members of the Westminster parliament would continue to tell the English what to do while Scotland was not affected by their decisions.

Ho-hum ! Exciting times ahead.

VINCENT NICHOLS : CARDINAL IDIOT.

Following the comments of Archbishop Welby a few months ago, another holier-than-thou prelate has decided to take issue with the government's financial policy. This time, it's the Cardinal-designate Vincent Nichols and his remarks are equally wrong and inappropriate.

Nichols believes that the government's social reforms are a disgrace and are leaving people 'facing destitution'. He claims that the 'basic safety net' for the poorest families has been 'torn apart' and that there is now a 'real dramatic crisis'.

As a representative of one of the richest organisations in the world, Nichols lives in palatial style. His organisation, the Roman Catholic church, purposely keeps many millions of its supporters in poverty and ignorance in order to maintain its vice-like grip on their lives; it denies the realities of today's world and does its best to ensure that its members remain rooted in out-dated tradition, flummery and mysticism. That he can criticise any government while supporting the world-wide activities of his church defies logic.

As well as the basic incongruity of his position, Nichols is also so factually wrong in his remarks that they become meaningless. The current government has done very little by way of 'social reform', other than introducing its perfectly sensible and fair reform to eliminate the 'spare room subsidy' previously enjoyed by many council tenants. Other than this, it has increased the basic personal allowance for income tax and kept interest rates at historically low levels, both policies which strongly benefit the less well-off, while seriously disadvantaging the better-off by the manner of their operation. Unemployment is falling dramatically and employment is at levels never before seen; exactly what is Archbishop Nichols wittering about ? Does he believe that the idle should be allowed to remain idle, or that the workshy should not be encouraged back into work ? If he does, he is in a serious minority.

The 'basic safety net' remains in place for those who need it, while those who are able to look after themselves are being made to do so. This is nothing but social justice. No one in this country, barring those who choose to be, can be called destitute and true poverty has been unknown here for at least the last 60 years. True poverty in the world exists only in countries dominated by religions, such as his.

One can only assume that, with his elevation to the College of Cardinals due to take place on 22nd February, Nichols felt the need to draw attention to himself. That he has done so is certain, as is the fact that he's made an idiot of himself.

BAN DOGS, NOT SMOKING IN CARS !

Today it's been reported that yet another child has been attacked and killed by a dog. This time, an 11 month old girl has been mauled to death in her bed by a supposed pet, which has since been destroyed.

Yesterday, our political masters voted to introduce a ban on smoking in any car in which a child is travelling. Today, the government has made it clear that such a ban, almost entirely unenforced and unenforceable, will be brought into effect in the near future and that contravention will be treated as criminal activity.

One has to wonder why it is that our politicians prefer to involve themselves in controlling the most minor aspects of our lives while ignoring far more serious issues. While cigarette smoke may be unhealthy and even lead to some irritation of the airways, no child has ever knowingly died from its effects; indeed, other than the contentious case of Roy Castle, no one has ever been known to die as a consequence of so-called 'passive smoking'.

Conversely, many people are attacked by dogs every year and some, mostly children, are killed. Our politicians have made half-hearted efforts to control so-called 'dangerous dogs', while ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that ALL dogs are potentially dangerous. They are basically wild animals which live by hunting, killing and eating other animals; they can, and do, carry an assortment of nasty diseases. We forget these facts at our peril.

So there we have it. While dangerous, and sometimes lethal, animals are allowed, and even encouraged, to roam freely amongst us, the government proposes to make criminals of anyone who dares to smoke in a car carrying children, an offence of no proven threat to life at all. Is it any wonder that the electorate are disenchanted with politics and politicians ?

BHUTTO A STORM IN A TEA CUP.

The idiotic fuss being made about some criminal who has, apparently, managed to be a member of both the Conservative and UKIP over the years is a fine example of the way in the which the media makes mountains out of mole-hills.

Mujeeb Bhutto has a fairly chequered history including being imprisoned for kidnapping. Obviously, such a person is a poor choice to be a political spokesman and one has to assume that those who granted him party memberships were unaware of his background, but then why should they have been ? He would hardly be the first member of a political party, or party spokesman, to have been found to be a crook.

One has only to consider the long list of MPs caught out fiddling their expenses, several of whom have been sent to prison, to realise that Bhutto is pretty far down the chain when it comes to criminality and political status. Politicians have lied and cheated for centuries - Chris Huhne, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken and John Stonehouse all served prison sentences in recent years while many others from days gone by probably avoided such ignominy only because of powerful friends.

Bhutto does not bare comparison with these people and has only been in the news because of his association with UKIP, a party feared by all of the 'Big 3'; for Labour and the Liberals it's also manna from heaven that he's been shown to have been a one-time member of the Conservatives. In truth, it's all a storm in a teacup. 

VOTE UKIP.

CORRUPTION RIFE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Today's BBC television news has been dominated by stories which have little merit or are anti-government. Top of the list was the supposed row about Michael Gove's activities as Secretary of State for Education, closely followed by the ongoing, and now rather tired, story about flooding, the death of some American actor of whom I've never heard, the trial of a Coronation Street actor, and so on. No mention of the single most significant story of the day so far, but then the BBC is a fervent supporter of the European Union, so why would it highlight the shortcomings of this dreadful organisation ? Indeed, this story is  even rapidly falling down the list of news items on the current version of what I still refer to as 'Teletext'.

While the EU's Home Affairs Commissioner has presented a report detailing the 'breathtaking' corruption which exists in the Union, the BBC news reported on a small 'sinkhole' opening up in High Wycombe; apparently the loss of a woman's car down this hole was considered more important than the identification of corruption within the EU amounting to £100,000,000,000 annually - that's £100 billion pounds, by the way, pretty much the budget of the entire NHS.

The commissioner, Cecilia Malmstroem, has gone even further than this and said that she believes the true cost of corruption within the Union to be 'much more' based on a survey conducted for the report but, presumably, £100bn was all she felt fully confident of reporting. Thus far, there does not seem to have been any reaction to this appalling news from any British, or EU, politicians.

One has to wonder why anyone, except those benefiting from the corruption, would want to belong to such an organisation. The sooner we leave it, the better. VOTE UKIP.

GOVE HITS SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND PUPILS WHERE IT HURTS !

While most of the Tory members of the Cabinet are namby-pamby wets, one stands out as a go-getting hardliner - Michael Gove.

Already facing criticism from the left wing, egalitarian liberals who infest our society, over his decision not to reappoint one Baroness Morgan as the head of 'OFSTED', he's now announced that he wants our schools to bring back 'traditional punishments' as  response to bad behaviour by their pupils. Gove sees this as meaning the return of proper detentions, lines and more community-based sanctions such as cleaning classrooms or weeding school grounds.

Baroness Morgan is a Labour life peer and a former adviser to Tony Blair; it can hardly be a surprise that a Tory-led administration would want to bring in a more like-minded head for such an important QUANGO, but that hasn't stopped Gove's deputy, the expenses fiddling Liberal David Laws, from being reported as being 'furious' with his boss over the matter. Gove simply says that he feels it is time to refresh the leadership of OFSTED; what's wrong with that ?

As for classroom discipline, it's surely about time that teachers were given the power to exert some genuine control over the louts whom they are often called upon to educate. Unsurprisingly, teachers unions, all predominantly left-wing bodies, are jumping up and down in their usual hysterical fashion but without actually saying anything very meaningful; effectively, they're just carrying out their normal activity of opposing anything which a right wing government attempt to do to improve our failed education system.

Listening to Gove on today's 'Andrew Marr show' on the BBC, he's now chucked in another little bomb, suggesting that it's high time the little darlings worked a bit harder by having longer school days. In my time at school, we worked from 9-4 with a lunch break and a short morning break; now, it seems, that the school day is more like 9-3 with frequent 'free' periods in between and, of course, an emphasis on a plethora of 'life style' subjects aimed at indoctrinating children in areas such as equality and diversity, personal relationships and so on. My own knowledge from teenagers of my acquaintance is that they do very little at school which is of any use to them and that there's very little in the way of sanctions for bad behaviour. One 'A'- level pupil, whom I know, spends no more than a handful of hours at school plus a few more at a placement; her actual effort is minimal and yet she expects to gain the equivalent of 4 'A'-levels in due course and then go on to university. When I was at school, she'd have been lucky to get on an 'A'-level course, let alone go to university.

It's well passed the time for a radical overhaul of our education system and Gove may well be the man to do it, if he's given long enough at the job. That, of course, is the issue, as always in British politics. Unless the Conservatives win the next election he'll be out of a job by May next year and that will be that.

CYCLISTS MUST WEAR HELMETS, SAYS ASA.

It isn't only the Labour Party that loves to ban things "for our own good".

The organisation 'Cycling Scotland' (a ridiculous name, I might add) has produced a television advertisement designed to promote driver awareness of cyclists; apparently it shows a cyclist and encourages drivers to give such road users the same amount of space as they would a horse. Pretty simple and pretty obvious, one might think, but not to the autocrats at the Advertising Standards Authority.

The problem seems to be that the cyclist in the film is not wearing a helmet. Although wearing a helmet is not a legal requirement, the ASA has ruled that that not wearing one is, in their words, "socially irresponsible" and they've ruled that the advertisement must not be shown again.

I have no idea who are the members of the ASA but it's clear that they are another bunch of left-leaning liberals who are determined to impose their social standards on the rest of us. Their role is to ensure that advertising is fair, honest and legal, not to rule as to its "social responsibility". Given the nature of many of the advertisements which pass scrutiny with no problem - I think particularly of the many highly irresponsible ones for 'Pay day Loans', not to mention the utterly corrupt 'Insurance for the over-50s market' - one has to wonder, in any case, how the ASA determines what is and what is not "socially responsible".

Of all of the reasons for Scots to vote for independence in September, removing themselves from the ambit of this interfering organisation must be one of the most compelling.

BAN SMOKING !!

Representatives of the Labour Party, and many others who believe that they know best and should set the rules that the rest of us must follow, are at it again.

It's reported today that Labour Peers in the House of Lords are to table an amendment to the "Children and Families Bill" which would make it illegal for anyone to smoke in a car in which children are also travelling. The Labour Party has also said that if the amendment is not supported, they will include such a proposal in their manifesto for the next election.

I am no supporter of smoking, which I see as being a dirty, smelly, addictive and unhealthy habit. If it was truly banned tomorrow, so be it, but the way in which governments keep tinkering with the law surrounding it is pointless and stupid. Should the Labour Lords get their way with this latest piece of nonsense, it will introduce yet another largely unenforced and unenforceable law into the vast array of madcap social legislation which already exists. How on earth will the police monitor offenders ? How many offenders will ever be caught ? What penalties will they suffer ? Will this be another money making scheme for local councils to exploit, with excessive fixed penalties for the handful of miscreants who are captured, while the vast majority of offenders go unnoticed and unpunished ?

When we have so many much more pressing problems, how is it that our masters can find so much time for the pursuit of such nonsense ?

MIDDLE CLASS TO PAY EXTRA FOR STATE SCHOOLS ?

Anthony Seldon, headmaster of the innovative 'Wellington College' has a new idea; he wants to stop those with a bit of money from accessing state education for free.


Notwithstanding that anyone earning much more than £40,000 a year already has 42% of the excess stolen by the government at source, Seldon now wants higher earners, whom he defines as families with an income of over £80,000 a year, to have to pay if their children go to the 'most popular' state schools; presumably this would be regardless of whether the school in question was simply the local school. He believes that such an approach would break what he sees as the 'middle class stranglehold on top state schools' and would provide funds for reinvestment in other areas of education. As an aside, he also says that 'poorer pupils' should fill a quarter of private school places.


Seldon’s views have been published in a report he’s produced for the left-of-centre ‘Social Market Foundation’ and are another attack on everyone who has anything. Conflating the ‘most popular’ schools with the ‘best’ would hand socialist councillors and ministers a heaven-sent opportunity to milk the so-called rich wherever they live. The reference to a ‘middle class stranglehold’ is so nebulous as to be useless in any arena other than that patrolled by the left wing politicians who hate anyone seen to be ‘middle class’.


I haven't read the report, only the media reports of it, but there is no indication that Seldon has taken any account of the variation of earnings across the country or, indeed, the variation in schools and educational standards across the nation. He doesn't appear to have paid attention to the aspirations of those of 'middle class' who want to get the best for their children from the assorted, and significant, taxes that they already pay. His approach seems to be focused on money rather than education and it would be the children of the middle classes, those on whom the future of the country depends, who would suffer.


In all honesty, if I was younger and with children, I'd be booking my tickets and leaving this benighted country. As John Betjeman once said of Slough 'It isn't fit for humans now'.

MIKAEEL KULAR CASE HAS ECHOES OF MADELEINE McCANN.

The discovery of a body thought to be that of the missing child, Mikaeel Kular, can be no more than was expected.

The disappearance of the 3 year old a couple of days ago was always suspicious and his mother's suggestion that he must have got up in the middle of the night, dressed himself and somehow got out of his home unaided was always going to test the credulity of more intelligent people. The supposed 'sightings' of the boy wandering around on his own were no more than the usual demonstration of the extent to which some crave attention; if, indeed, people had seen a small child on his own, why hadn't they done more than simply tell the police ?

As is so often the case when small children go missing, it looks as though the culprits were close to home. Despite the hue and cry, the local police must have known this from the beginning and will undoubtedly have been watching the family closely throughout. The only people who seem not to have accepted the probable truth were the Kular family's neighbours, perhaps understandably, and the media, most specifically the BBC, which, as usual, milked this tragic story for all it was worth.  

One's thoughts return to the story of Madeleine McCann, another 3 year old who went missing and who has been sought high and low, far and wide, while the media, and others, have profited from the story. What happened to her ?

SAME OLD LABOUR, SAME OLD INTERFERENCE.

Having committed to interfering with the energy industry should his party win the next general election, Ed Miliband is now threatening to get involved in the banks.

No one can support overcharging by the energy companies or profligacy in the banks, but one suspects that the truth of both issues is nowhere near what Miliband would have us believe. The banking crisis was, undoubtedly, a partial consequence of the actions of those banks, though it's also the case that the Labour government had its greasy and grubby hands deep in that particular mire too. As for the energy companies, I'm far from convinced that they do overcharge to the extent that is claimed, though they certainly do make their tariffs and bills as confusing as they can.

Whatever the shortcomings of these major industries, the one thing that would be guaranteed to make them less efficient, less commercial and less reliable would be more government interference in their running.

Same old Labour, same old meddling and same old mess.