MIGHT SAVING THE EURO LEAD TO WAR ?

As the crisis in the European economies steams on towards it ultimate arrival at the buffers, one wonders more and more at the shocking incompetence of the politicians who have brought us to this dire situation.

Following the second world war, there was a drive to find a mechanism that would make a further major European conflict impossible. The political solution was to create a 'United States of Europe' through a gradual incorporation of more and more European nations into a single political entity. While the Soviet Union endured, this project was limited to the western and southern European states and remained a largely economic entity, with political edges. Since the freeing of the Eastern Europeans from Soviet tyrrany, things have changed dramatically.

Beginning with the reunification of Germany, a process that brought huge pain to the former West Germans, eastern European states have been welcomed into the rapidly expanded European Union. Most of these were hitherto poor nations which had no prospect of competing with their new western friends and so a mechanism had to be found that would resolve this problem. Lo and behold, the Euro became the answer.

If everyone used the same currency under a single set of fiscal and monetary rules then everyone would benefit, was the theory, as well as this approach bringing the ultimate aim of a unified European state much closer. In effect, however, all that was happening was that the newer entrants were replacing Soviet tyrrany with tyrrany of a different sort; some of the other participants in the Euro debacle were also surrendering their own financial autonomy in the hope of receiving a huge boost in their economic performance.

That this was all 'pie in the sky' should have been apparent to anyone with half a brain cell. That an economic union was driven by purely political motives was, itself, daft and never likely to succeed. Trying to force many countries with disparate cultures, histories, economies and aspirations together under one financial regime was idiotic and always doomed to failure. Worst of all, the political kudos involved in this project, and the loss of face involved in its failure, have made it all but impossible for the politicians to consider anything but its continuation, whatever the ultimate costs to their elecorates.

With Greece now tottering on the brink of total financial ruin and threatening to drag the rest of Europe down with it, David Cameron seems to have finally come out with something meaningful; apparently he is urging the leaders of the Euro-zone economies to pull their fingers out and take quick, final and decisive action. He has not, though, expressed a clear view as to what that action should be and it seems unlikely that anyone will take much notice of him anyway. Maintaining the Euro has already cost its member states, and others, a vast amount of money and it's set to cost them vastly more over the next few years, whatever solution is found to the current malaise.The real question is "when will the peoples of the stronger countries finally cry 'Enough !' ?"

That the Euro can, and will, survive, is a certainty. That it will survive in its current form and with its current membership is impossible. Greece will leave or the rules under which the Euro is managed will be changed to accommodate countries at different stages of development; in effect, there will be a Greek Euro separate from the German Euro. Given that the introduction of special rules for Greece would almost certainly precipitate similar and unmanageable demands from other countries such as Portugal, Spain and Ireland, departure has to be the answer even though a Greek exit could easily lead to others leaving the shared currency.

Economically, there is no alternative to Greece leaving the Euro and, probably, several other countries too. Politically, there is huge pressure to maintain the currency bloc at all cost. If the politicians don't 'give', the tensions created by these divergent forces could very easily lead to a total negation of the original intention of the founders of the European Union, that is, the prevention of another pan-European war.

HAGUE BASHES THE MANAGERS - AGAIN.

William Hague, the man who really ought to be Prime Minister, says he wants managers to work harder in order to revitalize the UK economy. Who his comments are directed at is unclear, but I suspect that many managers who already put in vastly excessive hours will be rather put out by these naive remarks.

When I worked for the NHS, which I did for many years, I never restricted my working hours to what my contract said. In the early years, there was. at least, the carrot of overtime payments, though I rarely claimed them. As I progressed through the ranks, overtime became a necessity of the job and was simply expected. By the end, when I had reached the exalted status of Director, it was unusual if I didn't put in at least 60 hours a week and nearer 70 was probably more common; all this while receiving a salary that was a fraction of what could be earned in similar posts in the private sector.

I strongly resent the implication of Mr Hague's remarks that 'managers' do not put in enough hours. Many, perhaps even most, voluntarily work many more hours than their staff and with little or no direct reward. To add to the insult, those who dare to earn a significant salary are now assailed by prohibitive tax rates due to the revised rules for allowances recently introduced by the government. Frankly, why would anyone put themselves out in such an environment ? Their unionised staff rarely put themselves out in similar fashion. In my experience, this can be extended to many senior medical staff who would regularly refuse to work beyond their contracted hours without additional, and sometime exorbitant, additional pay. So much for the 'caring professions' that are so beloved of government.

Mr Hague needs to get off of his high horse and have a look at what actually goes on in the real world, rather than the imaginary one inhabited by politicians. He also needs to stop insulting and alienating the people who would normally be his natural supporters, even though this seems to be current Tory policy.

HUNT SHOT DOWN BY RED MOP.

Recent events including yesterday's appearance at the Leveson Committee by Rebekah Brooks, she of the red mop, have done nothing for the future prospects of Jeremy Hunt, the coalition Government's Secretary of State for Culture.

Hunt has clearly got questions to answer regarding his connections with, and attitude towards, Ms Brooks and her erstwhile colleagues at News International. If this was not enough, Hunt is also another of the rich and provileged kids who dominate our society and seem to believe whole-heartedly in the adage 'do as I say, not as I do'.

As Government members repeatedly decry tax avoidance and, particularly, those who enter into complex schemes and transactions in order to avoid paying tax, Hunt himself has history in this regard. Apparently, in 2010 and shortly before changes in the law would have made him and his business partner liable to a substantial tax bill, they entered into a scheme to be paid a dividend from their company in the form of a building; this was then leased back to their company and they now receive an annual rental. This arrangement apparently produced a saving of around £200,000 for Hunt and his partner.

The above was not illegal and, no doubt, others did the same, but should a member of the Government really be seen to behave in this way when the same Government is so hell-bent on branding all such avoidance measures as anti-social and evil ?

Yet again, a Government minister has been caught, if not with his trousers down, at least with his dirty sticky fingers in the till. The devious, back-handed, dubious, disingenuous and, potentially corrupt, behaviour of far too many politicians is a blight on our society and it's time it stopped. If it was up to me, I'd shoot the lot of them, bar very few.

WHEN RACIAL CRIME ISN'T RACIAL CRIME.

Nine Asian men in the northwest of England are going to be sentenced later today for their roles in the drugging, trafficking, sexual abuse and rape of numerous young white girls over a protraced period of time. One can hope that the sentences handed down will be long and definite and that any of the offenders who can be, will be deported once they are freed.

Since this case became headline news in the last couple of days, a succession of political and other public figures have queued up on radio and television to assure us that the offences were 'not racially motivated' and we should not be misled by the calls of that villain of the extreme right, the BNP, into believing that race played any part in these horrific and disgusting crimes.

Now, if the crimes had been committed by white men against Asian girls, it seems highly likely that they would automatically have been branded as 'race-hate crimes' and it seems highly unlikely that any such interventions by 'the great and the good' would have been made. The offenders' sentences would have been enhanced due to the racist nature of the crimes and the media, particularly the BBC, would have welcomed the wholly justified actions of the court.

How it can be that white crime against coloured, or other, immigrants is almost always considered as 'race hatred', while the opposite is excused from such an epithet in any way possible, is a mystery to me. How many Asians or Blacks have been found guilty of these so-called 'race-hate' crimes ? How many Whites have sufferred the same fate ? I am personally aware of a local case in which a white man with mental health problems attacked another, an Asian, because he thought he was being laughed at; he actually kicked the man a few times in the backside. He was arrested, charged with a racially motivated assault and given a 2 year prison sentence. This man wasn't capable of making a decision based on the colour of his supposed tormentor but it was a simple case of White attacking Coloured, therefore it was 'race-hate'.

As long as the white population of the UK is subjected to such a grossly distorted approach by our legal system, the BNP will win. Keith Vaz and his ilk can bleat all they like but it will make no difference; there is no equality under the law in this country and such situations lead to trouble on the streets, wherever they occur. Of course what happened in Manchester was a racial crime, if any such thing truly exists, and the sooner it's seen as such, the better.

"NO TO AUSTERITY", CRY THE TURKEYS !

It appears that the populations of France and Greece have voted for 'an end to austerity,, which is somewhat akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. This is, perhaps, an analogy which is a little unfair to the turkeys.

The financial woes currently besetting much of the western world are largely a result of the unrestrained supply of credit that was made available to both governments and individuals over many years, but at a vastly accelerating rate in the decade leading up to the crash of 2008. We therefore have far too much money available compared to the real value of the assets which this money is supposedly based on. In short, the people of the western world have been living the high life on a huge mountain of debt, and this had to come to an end.

For anyone to suggest that we should now borrow even more to 'create jobs and growth' is lunacy. What we, France, Greece and all the rest have to recognise is that we are not as well off as we believed; we have to accept that there needs to be a redressing of the balance and we must all accept being poorer than hitherto.

The consequences aren't nice but they are inevitable. One way or another, austerity is the answer and trying to argue otherwise is sticking one's head in the sand. There is only one choice - austerity and hard times now, or a major depression in 5 years time; it seems that Greece and France may be heading for the second option, but let's hope the rest of Europe, including ourselves, doesn't follow them.

ELECTIONS AS BORING AND POINTLESS AS EVER.

I suppose one sign of advancing years is that I can no longer get very excited about election results. Even worse, watching some of the news coverage of yesterday's events, with victorious candidiates behaving as if they'd just won Olympic Gold, and listening to the trite, practised words of senior party officials, almost made me sick.

Mid-term local elections almost always go badly for the party, or parties, in power, and yesterday was no exception. This time it was the turn of the Conservatives and Liberals to take a kicking and for Labour to claim that the people had had enough of this evil coalition and were now moving back to the path of righteousness. That these were local elections of little real significance was, as usual, ignored. The last time the same seats were contested, it was Labour who sufferred a drubbing so, in fact, all that was really happening was a 'rebalancing', to use one of the terms currently in vogue. Perhaps what is most worrying is that local elections are nearly always fought on national issues; listening to some of the comments of ordinary voters made one despair for their understanding of who does what and where responsibilities actually lie.

Given the mess the country is in and the measures being taken by the Government, it's probably a surprise that Labour didn't actually do much better than they eventually did; even dear old Ken failed to dislodge bumbling Boris from the Mayoralty of London, which must have been quite a disappointment to many, though an equally bright spot to others.

What actually happened across the parts of the country where elections were held was that the Conservative vote held up fairly well, while the Liberal vote collapsed. The disillusioned Conservatives either migrated to UKIP or stayed at home (the turnout was abysmally low) while the disillusioned Liberals turned to Labour. Somehow, these left-leaning morons have forgotten that it was Labour, with 'eerie-Ed' Miliband and his creepy side-kick, Ed 'beastie-boy' Balls, who were key players in creating the appalling situation that we now find ourselves in; now, they seem eager to embrace the Miliband/Balls solution to our problems - borrow and spend even more to rid ourselves of past debts. What planet do these idiots live on ?

Today, Labour are celebrating a success that they seem to believe will help to propel Miliband and his friends into Downing Street in 2015. The Conservatives are being fairly pragmatic and the Liberals are probably fearing total meltdown in the near future, though not, of course, expressing any such fears in public. The real situation is that it is still 3 years to the next general election, by when what happened in 2012 will be no more than a distant memory and of no relevance whatsoever. By 2015, things will be very different; the Liberals may well be decimated but Tory voters will turn out and Labour's passed misdemeanours will return to haunt them. The Tories will win a dramatic victory, while Miliband will find himself replaced, quite possibly by Mrs Balls, whom, it is rumoured, has a bigger one than her husband. 

TIME FOR LORDS TO BE RETIRED.

Once again, reform of the House of Lords is in the news.

The UK is probably unique in having a massive 'upper house' to its legislature that is entirely unelected. The House of Lords is also unusual, to say the least, in having no fixed number of members, some whose place is a birthright, and others who are there by virtue of their religious affiliations. The majority are time-serving ex-members of the House of Commons whose reward for 'toeing the party line' over many years is to be 'elevated' to the upper house. All of these are created 'Life Peers', entitling them to be addressed as 'Lord' or 'Lady', a form of address originally intended to be reserved for what I would call 'genuine' peers of the realm.

The evolution of this House to its current state of chaos has taken many years and a vast amount of effort from policians with an assortment of vested interests. The kudos to be gained by becoming, for instance, Lord Prescott or Lady Castle, would surely be more than adequate incentive to encourage many MPs to wish to maintain a system that could provide such a reward. At the same time, the natural envy and jealousy of many politicians on the left eventually did away with most of the hereditary peers, to leave us with a house dominated by far too many political appointees, often of dubious ability.

The necessity of giving people titles in order for them to sit in this House is a nonsense; why they can't be called senators is a mystery, at least to me. Why they aren't elected is another mystery, as the only people who seem to be vehemently opposed to election are members of the current House, who might see their perks disappearing, and members of the House of Commons who see the chances of their own future 'ennoblement' diminishing. Why an assortment of 26 Church of England bishops should have places reserved for them is another archaic piece of nonsense as, in reality, is the continued presence of the 92 members who owe their positions to the exploits of distant ancestors.

The answer to this mess is to sweep away the whole of the existing system and to replace it with a modern, wholly elected, senate with powers defined so as to retain the existing separation between Commons and 'Lords'. While we have over 600 members of the House of Commons, it should be unnecessary to have more than half this number in the upper house; 300 should be more than enough. Elected on the basis of proportional representation and with membership linked, perhaps, to counties - one representative per 200,000 of population or thereabouts; and let this House be free of the iniquitous 'whipping' that requires members of political parties to vote according to party wishes rather than their own beliefs.

Many will, of course, fight tooth-and-nail, to prevent any such reform from occurring but, given the already vast array of representative bodies that exist - from parish councils to borough, district, county and metropolitan councils as well as the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies - why do we need any more sitting in splendour in Westminster's two Houses ? Let us finally get on with this reform and bring the British Parliament into the modern world.

GOVERNMENT AT ROCK BOTTOM.

What on earth is going on in our Government ?

The last few weeks have seen a succession of shambolic affairs, culminating in yesterday's ludicrous mess over the murderous Jordanian, Abu Qatada. How a competent senior minister, indeed a Secretary of State, could make such a horlicks of such a straightforward issue must be a mystery to everyone with half a GCSE.

Theresa May's discomfort follows the disastrous reception of an assortment of measures flowing from George Osborne's ridiculous budget and seems to be running alongside a piece of nonsense being claimed by Ken Clarke, that he has made 'progress' in his pursuit of a degree of reform to the European Court of Human Rights.

Today, we appear to have yet another example of a Government in chaos as Tory MPs are making it clear that they are opposeed to the House of Lords reform being proposed by their Liberal Democrat partners.

The consequence of all of this has been a dramatic surge in support, as measured by opinion polls, for the Labour party and UKIP. With local elections, including that for the next London Mayor, due within the next couple of weeks, both the Tories and the LibDems must be shaking in their shoes; they are both heading for catastrophic results which could well lead to some serious rethinking within both parties. It's not yet too late in this parliament for challenges to be mounted to both David Cameron and Nick Clegg; Clegg is probably more vulnerable though a significant showing from UKIP in the local electiosn could push many Tories into wondering what the future holds for them while Cameron, Osborne, May and the rest are at the helm.

One thing that's for sure is that things can hardly get worse for this Government that no one wanted nor thought could possibly happen. This surely is rock-bottom.

PUT SOCIALIST GARBAGE WHERE IT BELONGS - IN THE BIN.

It seems that the 'Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, who is, in reality, no such thing, has been spouting about wanting a new tax on the rich.

This socialist claptrap, and I certainly count the Liberal Democrats as socialists, has become such a mantra of the lefties that most of them probably believe all the nonsense that goes along with it. What they won't hear, and what the political proponents won't say, is that a very small proportion of our population, 'the rich', already pay a huge proportion of the total taxes paid by our population, far more than might be considered 'fair' in any sane world.

Because their salaries and other income are high, they pay vastly more income tax and VAT than do the bulk of the population; because their houses are large, they pay the highest council taxes and they also pay more in VAT partly due to the costs of maintaining these larger properties and partly because they simply spend more on consumer goods. When they move home, they pay ludicrous amounts of stamp duty on the transactions. In short, they already pay substantially more than any reasonable person could call 'fair', and they also tend to get far less back from the state; they do not claim welfare benefits, they probably send their children to private schools and they have private health insurance, thus relieving the state of the burden of their existence.

However, in the socialist world this is simply not enough. Socialists are, by nature, hell bent on depriving the better off of whatever they have so that the state can waste it on the indigent 'poor'. The ways in which socialists define 'rich' and 'poor' is, of course, arbitrary and can be changed so that the wealthy socialists can be left out of the mix; so-called socialists such as Tony Blair and his wife, are far richer than most who will be targeted by Clegg's attack but have probably already made sure their tax arrangements will exclude them from bearing any sugnificant burden. Clegg himself is wealthy as are others in both the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, and yet they only ever talk of 'Tory fat-cats'; why is this ?

I'm sick to death of being preached at by these hypocrites of the left and being taxed to exhaustion by governments of all hues, who are equally lacking in any finacial acumen. The answer to our current financial malaise is to cut government spending - 'cut, cut, cut', to borrow from Tony Blair, not to 'tax, tax, tax'. Governments waste vast amounts of money on all manner of pet projects and, whatever they say to get elected, none of them has ever really reduced the bureaucratic waste of the horrible state systems that we have had foisted on us over many years.

The United Kingdom is one country, so why do we need the expense of separate parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ? Why do we need the shockingly complex rules that govern taxation and state benefits ? We have a maze of local government bodies and a vast number of quangos, so why do we need 650 MPs plus another 7 or 800 in the Lords ? Why do we need the European parliament and the huge waste created there ? Why do we need to spend £10bn on the Olympics ?

What we have is a grotesquely inefficient system, public transport, health and educations services that are, to use the current 'in vogue' phrase, not fit for purpose. To fund these, and all the other rubbish, we have excessively high taxes coupled with excessively high prices. While politicians clamber over each other to be the next to 'bash the bankers' and other perceived 'fat cats', they also use their powerful positions to feather their own nests, sometimes criminally.

Cut spending, cut taxes and really reduce bureaucracy. Why not ? Because so many people now either work for the state or are dependent on it that politicians are terrified of the resultant unemployment, poverty and likely criminality if they did this. Regardless, they need to bite the bullet and get on with it. There is no other long-term solution.

TODAY BRAZIL, TOMORROW ??

Today's news carried an item reporting the fact that Brazil is expected to be confirmed as the 6th largest economy in the world, overtaking the UK.

Not many years ago, the UK was one of the top 2 or 3 in the list, and now we are 7th; as other developing countries grow, we will inevitably slip further down. Although we remain individually more wealthy than the Chinese and Brazilians, our overall economic importance is diminishing; individually, we will also gradually become poorer when compared with peoples in the developing nations.

How long will it be before we start to realise the truth of our situation ?

1984 IS ALIVE AND WELL, JUST 30 OR 40 YEARS LATE.

I find the indication that we may soon have private security firms patrolling our streets with police powers terrifying.

The truth of this story has yet to be fully revealed but it seems that some police forces are actively pursuing arrangements that would see private companies taking on some police duties. This simply cannot be acceptable or right.

The police are servants of the people; private security staff are servants of their pay packets and their companies are servants of their owners. In the latter case, where is the guarantee of a service that will deliver any confidence to the public at large ? How can private employees be tasked with public order duties ?

We all know that 'big business' is what really runs the world; politicians daren't do anything of any significance that affects such orgainisations without having gained their agreement in advance. To now be considering handing over police functions to these people is surely the height of stupidity. Give them police powers today, and it will be military powers tomorrow; the obvious outcome will be a state run, overtly, by the multinationals, with ordinary people sidelined and downtrodden.

I'm well aware that this sounds like impossible fantasy. Just watch it happen.

I SAY, I SAY, I SAY, EXCEPT I CAN'T.

Seeing the excessively rotund Eric Pickles on television just now makes me wonder just how far 'causing offence' might stretch.

Might someone commenting on Mr Pickles' size be stopped and questioned due to being 'fatist' ? What about the lad in the pub who makes remarks about my approaching baldness or age ? Might I complain and have him detained for his offensive 'baldism' or ageism' ?

Where might such nonsense stop ? If I disagree with someone's choice of food, music, or car, in such a way that they can claim to have been offended, might I wind up in chokey ? What if I'm overheard saying that they're 'common' or 'snooty' ?

If I must be careful of what I say in case someone is of a particular religion or set of beliefs, or in case I might cause offense, is that not the end of freedom of speech ? How long before the myriad of spy cameras in our streets start listening to us, as well as just watching us ? How long before a passing comment in the high street results in arrest and imprisonment ?

How long before this lunacy is stamped out ?

I'M OFFENDED; YOU'RE A RACIST.

There are times when I really do think we live in a world that's gone completely mad.

This morning's 'Today' programme carried a story about a man who was detained at Gatwick airport because he offended someone. He wasn't rude, didn't lose his temper or storm around; he wasn't carrying a weapon and didn't have anything dubious in his luggage. He offended someone.

What he apparently did was to make a remark, on the spur of the moment, that a security guard considered to be offensive. On going through the security channel and having his belongings X-rayed, this man was required to remove a scarf from around his neck; ahead of him was a woman wearing a hijab, muslim garb that covers virtually the entire body, and to which no one had given a second thought as she passed through without comment or being required to reveal her face. The man asked, jokingly according to him, what would have happened had his scarf been round his face. That was it.

On the other side of the scanner, as he collected his belongings, he was then stopped by security staff and accused of being a racist. He was detained for an hour, questioned and effectively bullied by airport staff into apologising for his remark. He asked for the police to be called and demanded that, if he had done anything wrong, the officer arrest him. This the officer would not do but, again according to the man, the officer did tell him "that we now live in a different time and some things are not to be said".

Pardon me for being racist but WHAT !!!!!  Since when are we simply not allowed to make remarks ? This man made a remark that was a wholly justified comment on a particular situation; one passenger was allowed to pass through the security process unmolested and without showing her face while he was required to remove assorted clothing including his, obviously suspect, scarf. That a police officer subsequently told him that "some things are not to be said" beggars belief.

In an age when all manner of obscenity can be viewed on our television screens, when words such as fuck and cunt are everyday language for many and when the general amorality of our society has reached levels not experienced for hundreds of years, "some things are not to be said" ? When did Parliament abolish freedom of speech in this country ?

For heaven's sake, when will we get a grip on things ? The rise of separate 'communities' within our society is threatening to destroy it; the more we allow this the worse it will become. We cannot allow special rules for some for fear of alienating the rest and we cannot allow this kind of extremist over-sensitivity to dominate us. The much derided Enoch Powell talked of 'Rivers of Blood' and he may yet be proved right if we don't start to reverse this nonsense now.

LEAVE SYRIA TO ITS OWN DEVICES

This morning's news has revealed more stories of atrocities being carried out by the government in Syria.

This country is currently in a state of civil war, akin to what afflicted England in the 1600s, France and America in the 1700s and many others since, and yet we continue to wring our hands in horror and whine on with platitudes such as 'something must be done'. In fact, nothing, or very little, either must be done or should be done.

Cut the country off, certainly; impose sanctions and exclude them from international bodies, but let them get on with it. Western interference in Afghanistan has achieved nothing of lasting merit and Iraq will eventually fall apart again. Egypt is still a military dictatorship and it's a racing certainty that Libya will soon return to a state of chaos and / or dicatorship too.

What has happened in these assorted countries, and is still happening in most of them, is a process that much of the western world went through in the past, in some cases in the distant past. It is a process that is inevitable and necessary as nations are built in a way that will last, rather than in a way that satisfies the external politics of today. Much of North Africa and the Middle East was divided up along simple lines drawn in the sand by victorious generals and these divisions took no account of the wishes, needs or tribal loyalties of the local inhabitants. The ongoing problems in recent years owe much to these arbitrary decisions and the only way to resolve them is to let the local people work out their own solutions.

If the United Nations had any real muscle it could take a lead, but it's no more than a talking shop for a bunch of grotesquely overpaid and overvalued politcians and civil servants who all have more more regard for their own positions than for anything else. When did we last hear anyhing of note from the Secretary General ? Indeed, can anyone remember his name or where he's from ? In the absence of strong and united central authority, the UN is an expensive waste of space.

A few years ago, the US would quite possibly have sent troops in to Syria by now but that is no longer a realistic option, given the twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. They also have to be far too concerned about the rapidly escalating trouble between Iran and Israel to have much time left to worry about Syria. China won't do anything and Russia can't, Britain and France won't act without UN backing, leaving the Syrians, perhaps with a little help from their Arab neighbours, to sort things out for themselves.

It will be very unpleasant and very bloody, but so are all civil wars. Assad may well end up dead, but so did Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II, Gaddafi and many more. If the west interferes, there may be a less bloody and quicker resolution, but then the locals will be at it again in a few years. If we let them sort it out for themselves, it may take longer and be much nastier, but it will also produce a much longer lasting solution.

IS THE MIDDLE EAST ABOUT TO EXPLODE AGAIN ?

I hear that the peace-loving Israelis are thought to be on the point of invading Iran. The USA is unwilling, or unable, to stop them and we no longer matter, so the brake might well be off.

Apparently, the Israelis see Iran as a serious threat, particularly as they are thought to be close to developing nuclear weapons; the Israelis, of course, don't have such weapons as they abide by the various international agreements that limit them, officially, that is. Unofficially, the Israelis have nuclear weapons and are probably the most warlike and blatantly aggressive people on planet earth. Sadly and due to the atrocities committed during the second world war, they seem to be almost bullet-proof when it comes to international pressure or criticism.

Should these lunatics actually start a yet another war in the middle east, what on earth will happen ? Will the US or UK feel obliged to join in ? Will the UN condemn the entire venture while being its usual toothless self ? What will Russia and China do ?

Worst of all, will we still be here and safe in our beds a month later ?