2015 - Prospects and ....

I couldn't think of a word for the other aspect of what we face in 2015 but maybe by the end of this we will have it.

Prospects first then.

The new US Congress convenes in January and has a Republican majority in both houses.  I think that has the prospect of being a good thing.  The newly elected members will join incumbents but critically, these 'newbies' will bring with them a clear mandate from the electorate.  Change is needed in Washington.  That means that Congress needs to clean-up its act.  Less 'pork-barrel' politics and more 'American' policies.  Policies that will start to restore America in the eyes of its friends and its foes.

'American' policies?  Well that means no amnesty for a start.  It is 'American' to emigrate to the USA via legal routes not by hopping over the border accompanied by disease-ridden narco-gang members and others who believe that laws are meant for someone else.

So, no Amnesty and a clear statement to the Department of Homeland Security - Congress will de-fund you if you do not secure the border - that's the Southern border, in case you don't know which one.  Congress will de-fund HS if you don't start deporting, in significant numbers all of those illegal immigrants that entered the US during 2014 and then work backwards, year by year.  Who knows?  In the process you may well come across some Al Qaeda  or ISIS terrorists, on the way.  It's a pretty safe bet that some used the chaos that Obama created on the border, to infiltrate the country.

Again, no Amnesty.  Can't say it often enough.

Obamacare will really kick-in in 2015 and it is the duty of Congress to start the process of repeal and then accelerate so that this is done by the end of 2015 and America enters the 2016 election year with a clear choice between Democrats (who voted the ACA through without even reading it!) and want to reinstate it and with Republicans who oppose such socialistic but more importantly unworkable legislation.

Spending has to be reduced.  The people get it but clearly Speaker John Boehner doesn't.  Obama  has always been a lost cause.  Indeed, the same can be said of all Democrats.  Margaret Thatcher once said 'the trouble with Socialists is that eventually they run out of other people's money to spend' and that is where today, America finds itself.  So as well as spending needing to be drastically reduced, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must be replaced.  Rep. Trey Gowdy and Senator Ted Cruz or Senator Mike Lee would seem to be candidates that best represent the views of the Republican voters.

Spending reductions are also a prospect for British voters - though, (and this is where that .... creeps in) there is every prospect that the parties in the upcoming General Election will fall over themselves to offer money Britain doesn't have and hasn't earned as electoral bribes.  They don't call it 'pork-barrel' in the UK but the result is the same - unaffordable spending fueled by debt.

A gloomy prospect (there's that ...... again) is that the Scottish Nationalists (SNP)  may hold the balance of power and strike an underhand deal with Labour surrounding yet more transfer of powers to the devolved Scottish Parliament.  It is unbelievable but no less true that the SNP who so solidly lost the Scottish Indpendence Referendum now face the prospect of being the major Scottish influence at Westminster.  It says everything about Labour and their woeful leader, Ed Miliband, that we come to this pass.

Incidentally, while we are on the subject of the SNP, how on earth can they possibly be in the ascendancy when they made such huge play about an independent Scotland's prospects but all based on oil at the 'conservatively' set price of $113/bbl.  Oil is currently half that price and all commentators see oil at greater than $100 no time in the near future!

With Labour and the SNP squeezing on one side the Conservatives face the grim prospect of losing power as they are also being assailed from UKIP.  I think that the electorate distrust the Conservatives on Europe and I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that the Conservatives wouldn't mind losing the election so that the question of an EU referendum becomes someone elses responsibility/headache.

If the Conservatives do regain power, it will likely be to lead a minority government.  That though doesn't preclude the greatest prospect which is deep and meaningful cuts in UK public spending.  This is long overdue and I sense would receive strong support from the working population, if it was properly presented showing the choice between further indebtedness and future impoverishment and an affordable future for Britain and its children.

Back to prospects and  for the first time in a long time,  Europe and immigration will likely be 'front and centre' in the UK General Election and there is every prospect that contra-opinions to those of the metropolitan elite and to the ruling bureaucracy (the real rulers) will  be heard and perhaps a reasoned debate might ensue - we can but hope!

Of course, an easy prospect for the UK is that the key issue will be the economy and its prospects.  These will surely be enhanced if the austerity policies of the Conservatives, however anemic they have so far been, are preferred to those of the profligate debt-fueled spending proposed by Labour.

So, Prospects and .... abound and the above are just a foretaste but we need the following - and by we, I mean not just the USA and the UK, I mean the 'West' needs the following:

US Republicans to follow the electorate given mandate - no amnesty, reduce America's deficit (debt is perhaps too much to ask for), secure the border and start to repair relations with America's natural allies.  The latter will mean abandoning some of Obama's newly close Islamic allies but so be it.

UK Conservatives go forward on an economic plan founded upon lower taxes and much lower public spending.  Also be clear on Europe, if the UK can't get what it wants from a renegotiation, then we will leave.  It is asinine to go into a renegotiation of terms saying that even if the UK doesn't get what it wants, then the Conservatives will still campaign for continued membership.  Oh and one of those things has to be reduced immigration and zero, nada, zilch welfare benefits for any non-Britons.

So, no amnesty, spending cuts and then we can forget about those ........

2014 in review

This has been quite a year.  Some things would have been predictable at the start of the year and others not.

It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict that the Republicans would do reasonably well in the US Mid Terms.  It would though have been rash to predict that they did as well as they actually achieved.

I wouldn't have been so rash to predict that despite such representative progress, the current Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate would then cravenly acquiesce and pass the so called 'Cromnibus' bill with $1.1Trillion of new spending.  One long suspected them of being RINOs but to so blatantly, and especially so soon after the Mid Terms, ignore the crystal clear direction from the American people, takes some kind of special courage or blindness and deafness.  Or is it just arrogance?

Clearly though, Mitch McConnell in the Senate and John Boehner in the House must be deposed and replaced by real Republicans who understand the message that the people of America delivered on November 4th. .  Roll on January and a new Congress and a new GOP leadership.

Also predictable was the results from the August killing of Michael Brown, in Ferguson.  Protests about police brutality, Al Sharpton backing-up a fuel truck to add to the flames, rioters that 'trash' their own neighborhoods and loot and steal from their own people, the Obama administrations use of the incident to push their progressive agenda.  Following on, when the Grand Jury decided that based on the evidence that they had the killing was justified, we saw the normal reaction from people who demand justice but don't accept it, when it doesn't coincide with their version of justice.  Same thing happened in New York.  In both cases the 'victim' was held-up as some kind of angel, a gentle giant, if you will.  Of course the airing of the security video of Michael Brown stealing from a store and assaulting the store-owner, in the process, put the truth to that lie.

I don't though, think that I could have predicted the length or depth to which Obama and,  departing but not soon enough, Attorney-General Eric Holder would drag the US Government.  They spoke of understanding the anger.  Of empathizing.  Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.  So called 'progressives' always use 'equivalence'  and historical reference to justify the unjustifiable.  America once had slaves that were brought to the country from Africa - therefore anything that these people do, even if it is 150 years after they were emancipated, is allowed because it is a reaction to that wrong that was done to their ancestors!

All crime statistics show that American blacks are more likely to die at the hands of another black than they are at the hands of a white cop.  People point to the disproportionate number of black people in America's prison population and see this as some kind of racism.  So let's ignore the fact that America's blacks - especially young black men - are much more prone to violence and crime and end up getting convicted as a result of the choices (bad ones) that they make.  Instead, let's blame it on white slave owners from the 19th century (who, incidentally were largely Democrats, which is why the Democrat Party so opposed the abolition of Slavery!!)

It would have been good but probably unpredictable, to see black role models step-up and tell young black males that if you go around stealing and terrorizing people then you will end-up in jail or dead.  Not because you are black but because you are committing a crime.  If you want the latest clothes or shoes or cars, then do what most people do - work for them.  If you want a job, don't go to an interview with your ass hanging out of your trousers and you all 'blinged-up' and talking like only another gang-banger could understand.   The government can only offer blacks hand-outs.  If they need a hand-up, then they need to reach for it, themselves!

ISIS was entirely predictable - Obama's administration has abdicated responsibility in the Middle East.  They equate the self-defence actions of the Israelis with that of an 'apartheid' state and allow a terrorist organization such as HAMAS to go unpunished for their crimes.  There is even talk that the USA might impose some kind of sanctions against Israel!  having lifted sanctions against Iran, I suppose that the machinery needs to be put to work somewhere!

Talking of Iran, there are rumours that an agreement exists but it isn't being publicised because the Iranians need time to 'sell it' to the people and the Ayatollahs!

Other predictable events from 2014

All UK political parties falling over themselves to offer a blank cheque to the NHS.

The SNP, having lost the Scottish Independence Referendum, continuing to push for all of the trappings of independence without any of the responsibility.  Equally predictable that they are allowed to get away with their claims about independence making economic sense for Scotland and these all being based on oil at an average price of $113 a barrel.  Now it is around half that price, the fragility of their policies are exposed!

UKIP doing well as Britain, or perhaps more accurately  England come to reject the recent but rapid implementation of 'multi-culturalism'.  I think that the biggest problem with 'multi-culturalism' is that it allows no place in the 'multi' part for the indigenous culture.  Britons feel swamped because their values are being replaced.   And politicians from the three main parties are seen to be complicit in this.

Germany winning the World Cup wasn't so predictable but was fully deserved.  England going home early, was, sadly always on the cards.  Australia thrashing England in the Ashes was ominously predictable.  The England win in 2013 was much more slender and lucky than the scorelines suggested.  One wonders how the awfully tragic death of Philip Hughes will affect the bowling of Mitchell Johnson, in the future.

Unfortunately, the post-January fall-off in Arsenal's Premier League performance was also predictable though one always travels in hope!

On the personal front, I became a grandfather for the first time and though we don't see as much of my grandson, as we would like - he is in Scotland and we are in the UAE - the wonders of modern communications do help to bridge the gap.

Unsurprisingly, the pause in Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever is the current name that is applied to the non-happening environmental event, continued.   This of course didn't stop countries spending untold billions and impoverishing their people along the way, to try and address the climate change that simply refuses to conform to the expectations of the science and psuedo-science community and all of the other 'hangers-on' and band-wagon jumpers.  Thinking about 2015 and onwards, I predict that people will come to the realisation the this climate change just isn't happening and will demand that their politicians stop wasting money and stop funding the regressive policies of the so called 'progressive agenda'.

Of course it would have been very difficult to predict what happened to those two Malaysian Airlines planes.  One becoming inexplicably lost in the Indian Ocean and the other being shot down  as a victim of Russian expansionism or European Union adventurism, depending upon your viewpoint.  Nevertheless, the loss of life was tragic.

It wouldn't though have been difficult to predict something like the Peshawar school massacre.  The chances of this being perpetrated by the Taliban (Pakistan Branch office) were always high, given the effectively 'failed state' that is Pakistan and the state within a state that is the Pakistan Intelligence Service.  Unfortunately, we can expect more of the same in 2015 and later years.  Indeed, this won't ever cease while so many Muslims silently accept these acts being committed in their name.

Ebola was predictable but not Obama's actions in importing this into the USA.  Like the diseases brought into the USA by illegal immigrants through the US' open Southern border, these could have been prevented but they fit Obama's warped agenda to hollow-out and destroy America.

Boko Haram's action in kidnapping 200 young girls is of a kind with ISIS' enslavement of Yazidi and Christian girls.  The feeble #hashtag effort by Obama and his wife and their Hollywood allies was a  sad reflection of America's declining position in the world.

Crime continued as could be predicted - Oscar Pistorius found guilty, though of a lesser charge.  Rolf Harris and Max Clifford and Stuart Hall convicted on ancient sexual assault charges - though Bill Roach and Michael LeVell acquited.  Not sure how to categorise Dave Lee Travis who was acquitted and then re-charged.

Israel and Gaza fought a war because, predictably, Israel got tired of having rockets fired into its territory and tunnels being used to infiltrate the country.  Equally predictable the leftist media sided with the aggressor Palestinians rather than the defending Israelis.

The most predictable event of 2014?  The USA raising, yet again, its debt ceiling.

Most of the above is, I am afraid a more than a little depressing but some things particularly lifted my spirits this year.

Malala Yousafzai winning the Nobel Peace Prize - one in the eye for the Taliban and anyone that wants to hold back women.

The Ice Bucket challenge raised funds for ALS and got people around the world, engaged.

Who cannot have been moved by the tale of Stephen Sutton?  In the short life of this remarkable young man, his story touched so many people and his efforts raised significant funds for cancer research.



Not Happy Holidays but I do wish you a very Merry Christmas and here's hoping 2015 is more peaceful for the world!

NHS - Enough!

Firstly, let me address some questions to those readers from the private sector.  Public sector employees can think about answers but I doubt you will get it.

So, In the private sector, do you believe that the board of directors or your division's managing director would be calling, year after year for more money to be given to them while offering no guarantees of service?  Let me correct that, while stating that you may not be able to provide a service at all.

Getting specific, do you think it acceptable that the NHS have a ring-fenced budget?  Do you believe that any business in the private sector would be guaranteed that whatever their performance the organization will receive year on year growth in their funding?   Is your business one where efficiency or lack of it has no effect on the salaries or bonuses of the workers?  Where some of the workers are able to bring in private work and carry it out without anyone talking of a conflict of interest.

Of course these questions all relate to the UK's 'envy of the world' - the NHS.

Socialist politicians who are funded by unions (who now mostly represent public sector workers - with a very large contingent from the self-same NHS) have managed to hijack and effectively close-off any debate about the NHS and politicians of all hues are falling over themselves, to throw ever more money at the NHS.

Le's be clear.  People are living longer, so that presents a natural additional burden upon the NHS.  This is also changing the patient 'mix' for the NHS - more elderly patients with geriatric illnesses and longer times, in hospital, to recover.  Further, people are living longer because of advances in medical science.  These advances though, don't come cheap.

Add to that the usual problem of idiots abusing the NHS - attending Accident and Emergency departments because they have a cold or a headache or some minor ailment.  Layer-on also other abuses by non-Britons who receive treatment, for which neither they nor their governments ever pay and you have a classic squeeze.

That would be the time that any other organization would look at how they can re-organize and learn to adjust their methods and spending plans to meet straitened times.  Time to root out system and process inefficiencies.  Time to look at manning levels, especially middle management.  Time to examine contracts and renegotiate with suppliers - be they PFI financiers or drugs suppliers or nursing unions or doctors and consultants.

This though, doesn't happen in the NHS.  Instead, they simply whine about cash constraints, wheel out some bleeding wounded and allow the level of service delivery to fall and fall and then blame this on 'lack of funding'.  In any other organization, heads would roll but instead, we see and hear politicians promising ever and ever higher amounts of funding.  Funding which will not actually go into service delivery but rather into the pockets of NHS staff - think about that when you next see your doctor or visit the local hospital.

The NHS is a classic example of a nationalized industry - it is there for the benefit of the providers and not for the benefit of consumers.

That is a sorry state of affairs, in this day and age, when people have the advantage of seeing the massive benefits that have already accrued from the state getting 'out of business' but what's worse is that there is no politician that has the courage to call-out the NHS and demand that they change - not one.

Ask yourself if we really get value for money, from the more than £100 Billion that is spent on this service, every year.  Ask yourself if you are prepared to pay ever higher taxes to fund the NHS - if yes, how much more?  5%?, 10%?, 15%?   Ask yourself if taxes don't rise, what else will be cut to feed the NHS beast?  Pensions? Defence? Education?

Then ask yourself when is enough, enough?  When can we clear the socialist claptrap from our ears, eyes and minds and see that this 'envy of the world' isn't the envy but rather, is a service that could easily consume ever larger parts of the national economy and yet not improve its service.

CIA Torture - Means and Ends

Not sure if it counts as one of those weird coincidences that Life throws at us but I was just reading the late but still great Christopher Hitchens' collection of essays and reviews, called Arguably and came upon his piece for Vanity Fair, from August 2008.

In this essay, Hitchens recalls how he undertook an experience of 'waterboarding', courtesy of some Special Forces veterans.  These men had previously completed SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training, part of which included how to resist various forms of torture, one of which was 'waterboarding'.

Hitchens relates that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the so called 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks had supposedly endured 'waterboarding' for two minutes.  Hitchens suspected that his own period was much less but hearing that KSM may have survived a much shorter period, he felt somewhat better.

Hitchens talks of the perpetrators of his 'waterboarding' which he clearly considers as torture, in somewhat awed tones.

"This group regards itself as out on the front line in defense of a society that is too spoiled and too ungrateful to appreciate those solid, underpaid volunteers who guard us while we sleep.  These heroes stay on the ramparts at all hours and in all weather, and if they make a mistake they may be arraigned in order to scratch some domestic political itch.  Faced with appalling enemies who make horror videos of torture and beheadings, they feel that they are the ones who confront denunciation in our press, and possible prosecution.  As they have just tried to demonstrate to me (Hitchens), a man who has been 'waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time.  When contrasted to actual torture, 'waterboarding' is more like foreplay.  No thumbscrews, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack.  Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl?  On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame a diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down.  I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."

Hitchens being balanced, goes on to proffer the views of Mr Malcolm Nance, someone involved with SERE since 19997.  A man who would never be considered a 'bleeding heart liberal', Mr Nance also considers 'waterboarding' as torture and questions the reliability and value  of information so obtained.  He also goes on to suggest that because some of these captives that were 'waterborded', were subsequently released, then these have provided the terrorists with a training exercise which perhaps goes some way to explaining its subsequent inefficiency in actually gaining useful information.

Anyway, all of this is to lead up to the dilemma that we face.

The USA and the UK are among nations that condemn torture and punish this whenever we get the opportunity.   How then to accept the notion that the intelligence services have been using methods which can only be described as torture, to gain information?

Can the 'ends' - life-saving information on terrorist activities - be justified when the 'means' are based on what we consider to be horrific and criminal acts - torture?

The dilemma is compounded by the type of war that is now being waged.  The USA and UK and other 'allies' are fighting an enemy (ISIS, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, etc., etc.) which doesn't play by the same rules that are applied to them.  

Indeed, consider the case of Israel and HAMAS.  Israel considers, and all evidence suggests that they are correct, that they are under attack from Gaza by HAMAS.  Israel sees their actions as protecting their people - a fundamental requirement of any government.  HAMAS though take a more global viewpoint on its duties to its 'people'.  To HAMAS, placing rocket launchers in civilian areas, close to schools and hospitals is part and parcel of waging war against Israel.  This then presents Israel with a major dilemma.  Their dilemma is made worse by a media that either allows itself to be manipulated by HAMAS and fellow terrorist organizations or simply accepts the 'party-line' from the terrorists, without ever questioning them or applying to HAMAS, the same standards with which they judge Israel.

So how can the intelligence services fight the 'war on terror' with 'one hand tied behind their back'?  I say that not to specifically condone torture but to put in play the thought that if we are to make progress in this 'war', then we must do so using all available weapons.

It seems to me that we have to endorse some methods, which under normal circumstances, we would abhor, simply because our enemies do not expect us to.

I comfort myself that there are 'checks and balances' within the democratic system to keep the intelligence services under scrutiny.  I don't think it is naive to say that while we do have the power of the ballot box, we can control those who would perform these acts on our behalf.  Equally, I do not see that we have any choice but to ask these men to act as we want them to but we must not then indict and prosecute them if they do so.   That is, we expect politicians to set the 'rules' on our behalf and then so long as the intelligence services stay within those bounds, we cannot apply 'official' laws against them.

Further, it is wrong, on so many levels, for a subsequent administration to seek to re-write rules of engagement, down the road.  One doesn't have high expectations of President Obama but his abandoning of his intelligence services, indeed his throwing of them to the liberal 'West-hating' media, is a new low, even for an administration that  has already plumbed heretofore unseen depths.

So perhaps I have answered my own dilemma, at least for me.  Torture can be acceptable as a means to and end, so long as that process is democratically controlled.  What think you?

Oh and by the way, do buy Christopher Hitchens book Arguably.  His views don't really conform to a stereotype but they are always thought provoking.

Aid and debt

I posted previously about George Osborne's Autumn Statement and and the International Aid budget.

I will send this blog, via Twitter, to George Osborne and David Cameron.  The same sentiments though, apply in the rest of the European and the USA.  However, I don't really expect common-sense to suddenly break-out in the upper reaches of the UK Government.

How, even in the crazy world in which we find ourselves, can it possibly make any sense for a government to borrow money, so that it can give this money to another country?

Think about that.

Would you borrow money, so that you could donate it to charity?  Indeed, would you do so, knowing that it is your children and your children's children and their children that would have to pay the interest on it?

I have heard all of the stuff about 'rich' countries having a 'duty' to share the wealth with the poorer ones but how do we define 'wealthy' and 'poor'?

Is a country 'wealthy' if it has debt close to 100% of its GDP?  For that matter, is a country 'poor'  if it can dispatch rockets into space?

In 2013, the UK gave aid to the value of £249M to Nigeria.  In case you missed it, Nigeria has huge oil reserves but the almost endemic corruption means that the country has to import fuel to illuminate homes, cook food and drive vehicles.  Does it really make sense for the UK to borrow money to send to Nigeria?

Britain gave £104M to Ghana, which is in the midst of an oil fueled boom!

Crazy as that sounds, Britain also borrowed £946K to give to Argentina.  The same Argentina that constantly threatens Britons in the Falkland Islands.   The same Argentina that invaded the Falklands and now requires Britain to retain a military presence on the islands.  I am not making this up!

Then there is Brazil £5.5M and India, receiver of a whopping £269M of aid.  These are the very same countries that are supposed to be the emerging economic powerhouses!  Brazil is actually running a budget surplus, at the moment.  The UK is borrowing money  to give to Brazil.  The UK is running a deficit of 3.6% of GDP and a country that is running a surplus of 1.6% of GDP.  This is the same Brazil that has a GDP which is the seventh largest in the world!  The UK?  The UK is the sixth largest in the world.

Yesterday, in the Houses of Parliament, Member's of Parliament voted on a bill which will enshrine, in law, a guarantee that the UK will donate 0.7% of GDP to international aid.   Doesn't matter what state our economy is in.  We donate 0.7%.  Doesn't matter if people are dying on the streets of the UK.  We donate 0.7%.  This is the  liberal idiocy equivalent of Nero's antics with a fiddle!

In what world can it make sense to guarantee, by statute, that we will always donate 0.7% of GDP to international aid?

If you need an example of just how out of touch politicians are, how remote the 'Westminster bubble' has left them, then this is it.

Over to you, George and David!  

Osborne's last chance

Maybe the title isn't strictly true.  There is always the April 2015 budget but tomorrow, when Chancellor George Osborne delivers the government's Autumn Statement, he has to get it right as this will set the tone and the battle lines for the 2015 General Election.

I have already posted here and here on what I think should be happening but I wanted to have a last- minute rant or contribution to the debate, depending on your view, on what George Osborne should be saying, tomorrow.

First and foremost, the UK is broke.  I'll say that again. The UK is broke.  We are more than £1.4 Trillion in debt.  How much more than £1.4 Trillion?  Nobody knows.  That £1.4 Trillion is just the admitted debt.  It doesn't include unfunded liabilities like future pensions to be drawn by civil servants, local government employees and MPs.  It doesn't include the more than £350 Billion of NHS Private Finance Initiative debt nor lots of other 'off Balance Sheet' financing of the type in which Gordon Brown's Labour Treasury, excelled.  Note, when companies like Enron used such accounting techniques, they were, rightly, pilloried and ended up being declared for what they were - bankrupt!  However, for entities like HM Government, the rules get suspended.

So, with a 'broke' UK, the opportunities and choices are limited.

We cannot afford HS2 - so we scrap that and save, more than £50 Billion.  Let's be clear though, that isn't really a saving - as it is just a reduction in future borrowing needs.  Also, for the sake of clarity, everyone knows the £50 Billion number is just the starting point.  The final number will be much higher, if we were to proceed.

We cannot afford International Aid.  Sorry Bono but Britain simply cannot borrow money so that we can give it to others - no matter how genuine and heart-wrenching their need may be.  It cannot be about Britain sitting on the big table and lording it over others like China, because we meet the aid obligations and they (and other nations) don't.   The money we give to other countries is ultimately funded, on an interest bearing basis, by those same Chinese!

Britain must cut back on overseas ventures.  I would dearly love us to be able to project a strong military presence around the globe and demonstrate the strength and value of our democracy and traditions but we simply don't have the money.  Today, the biggest foreign investor in Africa is China and yet how much do you think they are contributing to fight the spread of Ebola?  Britain does have a strategic interest and, to some extent a local one, in the fighting in Syria and Iraq but the major beneficiaries of holding back ISIS are Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries.  If Britain is to fight on their behalf, then they should pay us top dollar for doing so.

Now to domestic matters.

All government spending must be cut.  That is all as in all.  No ring fencing, no special cases, no phasing in.  Simply put, no, no, no!

Or another way, cut, cut, cut.

Firstly, and this helps Cameron cut the Gordian Knot about immigrants, immediately announce a cut in welfare payments to all non-native born Britons.  If you do not have a British passport, or the right to one, then you get no welfare.  Zero, nada, zilch.  I know that Human Rights lawyers and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and all of the others that want Britain to spend money it doesn't have, will scream and shout and threaten all sorts of retribution but that's all they can do.  We must pass legislation to immediately end our association with the ECHR and abolish the Human Rights Act.  Another advantage of doing this is that it will end the Coalition and the Conservatives will have to govern alone, without the dead, interfering hands of the Lib Dems on the tiller.    I would think that George Osborne could even sell raffle tickets, for the benefit of the national debt of course, for the winner to tell Vince Cable he is fired!  I would buy a ticket for a fiver.  Hell, I might even buy two just for the chance to see the look on the face of a man who has taken sanctimonious 'prattishness' to new Olympian heights.

Secondly, as said before, tell the NHS, that funding is cut by say 20%.  This can be reduced to 15% if they abrogate their PFI deals and get significant reductions in their PFI payments.

Thirdly, All other government departments a significant cut in expenditure plans as outlined in my earlier mails.  Though, the more I think about the unsustainable deficit and the increasing debt mountain, perhaps deeper and faster cuts are required.

Clearly, some people will suffer from these cuts.

 Foreigners who take advantage of our overly generous welfare payments.  Financiers who gulled a spend-freely Socialist government into excessively generous PFI deals, and NHS back-office staff and civil servants who allowed this to happen - 'because at the end of the day, the Government will pay'.  They will suffer loss.  hard as it sounds, I don't think that is our concern.

So too though, will Britons suffer loss and therefore the tax cuts side of the equation needs to be put in place.  Accelerated raising of the tax threshold, immediate reductions in fuel duty and abolition of asinine 'Green' taxes will be a start.  Here's a further idea.  Use some of the money that  is saved by not funding International Aid, to promote charitable giving at home.  Allow  people tax-relief on up to say £1,000 of a contribution that they make to any charity that supports UK based charities that only work in the UK.    So nothing for contributing to Oxfam, Band Aid or Save the Children but full relief, up to £1,000 for money or goods given to a local food bank, for example.

This should be the thrust of the Autumn Statement but, scared by UKIP and bullied by their Coalition partners, the Lib Dems and in thrall to the Labour dominated media, Osborne's speech will likely mean more borrowing, more debt and the sound of cans being kicked down the road.

Spending priorities for the UK

Recently I posted a blog here which purported to be a leaked version  of George Osborne's upcoming Autumn Statement.  This was a spoof but some people took it more seriously.  Perhaps that's because it is the sort of thing that Osborne should be saying?

The United Kingdom now has a national debt in excess of £1.4 Trillion.  I am not even sure I know how many zeros that represents but I do know it's a lot.

Britain is now paying more than £55Bn a year in interest on its debt.  That's more than we spend on defence!

I was thinking about this and watching a news clip that was showing Bono and Sir Bob Geldorf talking about aid for Africa and so on and Bono commented that Britain was one of the few countries that actually lived-up to its international aid commitments.  I was proud, for a moment, then the news moved on.

I have been thinking about that moment, for a while and no longer feel proud.  I feel ashamed.  Ashamed that Britain is impoverishing its own people and future generations to provide aid to other nations.

That's right, Britain is borrowing money so that it can give the borrowed money to other countries to feed their hungry and homeless, while the hungry and homeless in Britain continue to be hungry and homeless.  The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

Any spending by government on aid has to start from the premise that charity begins at home.  In what parallel universe can it make an iota of sense that Britain borrows money to give to others?

Probably in the same parallel universe where it makes some kind of sense to be involved in the 2014 version of the arms race.  Instead of building dreadnoughts, the race is about NHS funding.  The Conservatives are trying to out-Labour, Labour on the NHS by ring-fencing spending.  They absolutely know that the NHS is a black hole that could, almost as soon as tomorrow, swallow the whole UK GDP and still need more money.  They know that the second biggest problem with the NHS is actually PFI.  The NHS, under the last Labour government, borrowed massively to build new hospitals and offices for their army of managers and executives.  Now they are spending money that should be spent on front-line health-care provision, funding this spending splurge.

Again, the UK government is borrowing money and impoverishing our people and our children and our  children's children, to fund this.

The deficit isn't coming down and neither is debt.

It is bad enough that politicians don't have the courage to do the right thing - to tell the people of Britain, what the people already know - that we are 'broke', 'skint' 'borasic' call it what you will - and we must cut back spending in order to survive and that these cuts will have to be severe.

We cannot afford a high welfare bill, while also funding local spending, so 'welfare' has to be 'earned'.

We cannot simply borrow to fund overseas aid  - our first priority must be charity spending in the UK or rather not spending what we don't have.

We cannot police the world - we cannot afford it.  If certain nations want us to fight or bomb  ISIS and other terror organisations then those nations must fully fund such actions.  Same goes for the fight against Ebola.  In the extreme we are an island and have a natural barrier to the spread of foreign sourced contagious diseases, so why must Britain be at the forefront of spending its money - money which it has to borrow - to put troops and resources into Africa?

We cannot afford the European Union.  The funding of this  un-elected and highly inefficient bureaucracy is simply unacceptable.  Remember these are the same people, who, when the individual countries of Europe were implementing various levels of domestic austerity, these Eurocrats put forward a budget calling for them to have increased funding from member states.  That act, displaying such a dis-connection from the real world should be enough to cause Britain to distance itself from such madness.  Instead, Britain must borrow money to fund such lunacy.

We borrow, borrow, borrow.

We borrow to fund International Aid, to fund military adventures overseas, to fund a European monster that needs constant feeding, to fund international banks and lending institutions that suck funds from the NHS before a drug is bought or a nurse or doctor is paid and to fund an over-generous welfare system (that treats those who have never paid a penny into the 'system' the same as or better than those that have).

The spending priorities for the UK desperately need to change.

So here is a challenge for politicians.  Stand-up and be counted.  Stand-up and justify why the UK must continue to borrow money to send to countries that can afford their own space programme and yet has its own people depending on the charity of others through food banks.  I have nothing against food banks, by the way, I think they are an excellent way for us to show that we care for our fellow citizens and I see these as a great benefit in terms of the voluntary nature of the wealth redistribution and also of the spirit of compassion and humanity to our fellow countrymen.  I struggle though to understand why my children and grandchildren must suffer so that others can drive around in 4x4s doing 'good' in faraway places!

Any politicians out there, ready to take-up the challenge?  Self health tip - I am not holding my breath!

Yes for Scotland, No for England and Europe

Do you think that the Conservatives, or more accurately David Cameron and George Osborne have some kind of death wish?

I ask because I find it incomprehensible to understand the politics and policies of the Conservatives towards the Scottish, the English and the British.

On September 18, 2014, the voters in Scotland, in a high turn-out, voted No to Scottish independence by a margin of 55%:45%.  Not a resounding victory for the No campaign but enough to show a clear position.

The Conservative Party are poorly represented, in terms of MPs elected to the Westminster parliament, by Scotland.  Only one Tory MP being elected in the last three elections.  In the Scottish Parliament, the Conservatives have just over 10% of the seats and most of these coming arising from the proportional representation system, deployed in those elections.

Why therefore should the Conservatives be so concerned with Scotland?  I will come back to this in a moment but for now, think of it in cold electoral terms.  Scotland brings next to no electoral benefits to the Conservatives.  On the contrary, it elects a huge swathe of Labour opposition MPs.  Though this seems likely to change to Scottish Nationalist MPs at upcoming General Election, there is a very strong socialist and redistributive streak that runs through SNP policies, so there isn't that much difference between them.

So why are the Conservatives pushing for the devolution of further powers to Scotland's parliament?

Powers that will maybe allow Scotland to have all of the essential facets of nationhood, such as full tax raising and spending power, without the responsibilities that go with them.  The UK will still be the lender of last resort for Scotland and will be the backstop for its profligate spending plans.

As a brief aside, do you notice how quiet the Scottish Nationalists have become on the subject of oil revenues?  They were loud and proud when oil was north of $100 a barrel but we here nary a peep now that oil is south of $80 a barrel.  Is there any brave economist out there who could run the numbers and see what difference a >20% drop in the oil price would do to the SNP's already fanciful accounting?  I keep wondering if the Scots have learned from Darien, that it is always better to have someone to run to when the economic tides turn against you while the English are being led by fools who will allow such an imbalance of responsibilities.

These powers still will not address the fundamental 'West Lothian question'.  Scottish MPs will continue to be elected to Westminster, where they can vote on tax measures related to England, Northern Ireland and Wales and yet they will not be able to vote on matters relating to Scottish taxation.  If a minority Tory government, with a strong and overall English-seat majority wanted to propose tax reductions for middle and higher earners, such measures could be defeated by a coalition of English Labour MPs and their Scottish counter-parts and the SNP.  So the Scots have freedom but not the English.

In what world does this make any sense for the English or represent any notion of fair play?

I know that Conservatives will say that we are a United Kingdom and this is a legitimate response to widely-held Scottish opinion but when will they stop to ask the English?  The Scottish 'tail' is well and truly 'wagging' the English dog!

Then we come to Europe.  Here the Tories are losing ground to UKIP.  Here the Conservatives claim that they are unable to put a referendum before the British people until sometime within 2 1/2 years of the next election.

Think about that.  The Conservatives can push through parliament, in the space of a few months, legislation that fundamentally changes the fabric and constitutional settlement of the  United Kingdom and yet legislation related to the EU must wait.  Consider also, that there is no mandate from the British people, nor even the people of Scotland to push through the proposed changes.  Nothing was mentioned, about giving sweeping or indeed, any extra powers to Scotland, in any of the party manifestos, for the 2010 election.

In their haste, the Conservatives are supported by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems.  Both of these parties are pro-Europe and hope to reap some electoral rewards in Scotland as a result of this unjust settlement (though all opinion poll predictions are that both of these parties will go the way of the Tories in Scotland)

I believe that the British public know that all of the main parties want to stay in the European Union.  That all will campaign on that basis in any eventual referendum.  I also believe that the British people want to have a say in the matter.  It is perhaps a sign of the times that the people of Scotland can get a vote on issues like independence but the English cannot.  That Scotland can get local tax raising powers but the English cannot.  Perhaps it is a realisation that given the real powers that actually rest with the European Union, any such local powers, pale into insignificance.  What does it matter what taxes are raised in Scotland, England or the United Kingdom, if un-elected Eurocrats can simply decide that the UK must pay more funds to feed the EU beast?  And that there is nothing that can be done by the Scots, the English or the British to counter the position (and please do not try to use George Osborne's  decidedly dodgy accounting tricks concerning the £1.7Bn, that was recently demanded).

Only UKIP is offering an immediate referendum on EU membership and yet the likelihood of a UKIP parliamentary majority is very slim.  They can damage Conservatives and Labour but are highly unlikely to be the majority party nor to hold the balance of power.  My sense is that UKIP will damage the Tories on Europe and immigration and will damage Labour on immigration.  Labour's (pro) policy on the EU is not something that they really push, though I think that this will be under deeper scrutiny, in the coming months.

So a system of an united governance, for the United Kingdom, that took more than 300 years to develop, can be fundamentally changed in the space of a few months, without the say-so of the people of all of the United Kingdom and yet an alien system, and make no mistake,  the EU's definition of democracy - deals done behind the scenes by un-elected Eurocrats - is alien to British ideas of democracy, cannot be even discussed let alone changed until after years of wrangling.

Forget all the talk about fighting for Britain in Europe, that comes from the mouths of politicians.  That is at best just a soundbite and at worst an outright lie.  Britons fighting in Europe ended in 1945 and since then our democratic freedoms have continuously been whittled away with a rapid acceleration after 1975.

If David Cameron and George Osborne cared a fig for the United Kingdom or even just the Conservative Party, they would put legislation for an EU Referendum, before Parliament immediately.  This would take the wind out of the sails of UKIP and would force Labour and the Lib Dems to show their true colours.  Most importantly, it would give the people of Britain a voice on an issue of truly fundamental importance.

We don't need any fancy propositions or crazy and undemocratic notions - as for example spouted by Nicola Sturgeon, here - a simple Yes or No to continued membership will suffice.  If the result is a Yes, then the strength of the majority will settle things.  If a very strong Yes, then nothing more to be said, Britain succumbs to the EU Superstate.  If the Yes majority is more narrow - say 10% or less, then Britain seeks a re-negotiation of the terms of membership.  If the majority is for No, then we leave the EU, within 12-18 months.

I am not usually one to give out health tips but if you are hoping for a referendum on the EU, don't hold your breath.  Unless UKIP do really break the mould of British politics and achieve a significant breakthrough in 2015, we will see no change in British/EU relations until after the 2020 election and by then it may be too late.

Very depressing that we have come to this and especially so that it is at the hands of the Conservatives.

The real masters

This opening won't be popular but maybe we should show some sympathy for politicians in the UK?  And just to be even more controversial, also those in the rest of the European Union.

I know they do every single thing possible to reinforce the view of the man on the street that these pols are only in it for themselves and don't care a fig for the common man nor for their own country but...............

The only reason I suggest some sympathy is that it is clear to me, that the real masters are the bureaucrats.  Those usually faceless people who push policies upon their supposed political masters and certainly don't serve their own people or country's needs.

Consider the EU Carbon Emissions policies.  These might have been signed-off by the politicians but the genesis came about because of bureaucrats who push a pseudo-science.  Government funded scientists and those within leftist so called 'think tanks' who are assisted on their lie-generating mission by state-funded media, such as the BBC ( and don't bother suggesting that the BBC isn't state-funded, they get their money from a  UK government law that imposes a tax on all UK television owners) have been pushing this anti-progress policy for years.  Remember when it was called Global Warming?  That name changed to Climate Change when even the scientists couldn't actually produce evidence of any meaningful 'warming' occurring.  Pardon me for a moment but it is somewhat laughable when data is doctored (the so called hockey-stick fiasco) and even then that damned data still doesn't show any global warming!  'It just isn't fair', the pseudos say!

But I digress.  These EU policies do next to nothing to address environmental pollution nor, if you still subscribe to the phoney green policies, to global warming.  The European Union doesn't exist in some kind of hermetically sealed bubble.  The EU can cut carbon emissions to zero but if China and India keep-up their dash for growth, the EU's efforts will count for naught!  China alone burns more than one and a half times  more coal, the biggest producer of so called green house gases, than the US and the EU combined.  A  study from earlier this year, showed that China was completing a 600Mw coal-fired power station every 10 days for the next 10 years!  Think about that when the lights go out in Europe, particularly in the UK, because the EU bureaucrats have set ludicrous limits that impose shutdowns to productive power stations.

The fatuous nonsense surrounding these policies is nevertheless blindly pursued by these bureaucrats who force their political 'masters' to stick to them on the basis that the rest  of Europe demands that we do.  This same argument is used by all of these bureaucrats in the ministries around the European capitals and its circular nature goes unchallenged.

It is not just in the sphere of EU politics that we see the hand of faceless bureaucrats guiding policies.  We see this also in other areas of public life.  Local Government is run by bureaucrats.  Councillors are elected but in most cases these people are are essentially working part-time and so the actual running of Town and County Halls is carried out by these unelected officials.  These people push their ideas of 'what is good for us' and their own financial interests.  How do you think that those gold-plated pensions came about?  Those salaries that were bench-marked against private sector incomes, until the private sector started to turn down?

In Britain, we have a epithet we use for some of these petty officials.  They are called 'jobsworths'.  So called because when such a bureaucrat is faced with unarguable logic that illustrates the idiocy of their imposition of a certain policy, they simply state ' Can't do anything about it.  I wish I could help but it's more than my jobs worth!'

These though are just the public faces.  So many of these real masters operate in the background and 'advise' under the cloak of anonymity.  Watch the TV news when elected politicians  gather.  Always lurking you will see advisers.  Notionally, they are there to assist their political masters - the people that 'we the people' elected to implement policies for 'our betterment - but the reality is that these advisers are there to make sure that the minister stays on message - doesn't go all maverick and makes a deal that hasn't already been agreed between the bureaucrats from the different countries or ministries.  For all of these EU, G7, G8 and G20 meetings or even just bi-lateral ones between countries, the communique is prepared before the meeting and is agreed by the bureaucrats and then the politicians just endorse the outcome and deliver it.  Any politician that has the temerity to question something in such a document is told  ' ah yes minister but if we change that, then the other side will want to change this paragraph or that paragraph and we really want those'.  The same game will be played out on both sides so that by the time that the 'puppets' deliver the message, the bureaucrats can, off-camera, congratulate themselves on another successful summit and tick-off the particular goals on their own agenda that have been achieved.

I think that the disillusionment with Westminster-based politicians that is seen nowadays, is a symptom of a push-back against these bureaucrats.  Politicians from established political parties increasingly find themselves unable to implement policies because they are thwarted by bureaucrats and people then see politicians as being either liars or incompetents.  Given the 'expenses scandal' it doesn't take a great leap to put MPs into the first category  when in reality, the truth is that it is the system, one that is self-perpetuating, that stops politicians doing what they said they would do.

So do you think that maybe we should consider cutting the politicians some slack and understand that the real 'blame' lies with the bureaucrats?  Or should we maybe say that we elect politicians to run things and that includes managing the bureaucrats as well?

It will be interesting, if UKIP do make the breakthrough that they think they will make (I don't believe that they will), to see how they cope when they have more actual interaction with these bureaucrats.

OK, so enough sympathising with politicians!  The expression 'grow a pair' comes to mind.  Certainly Margaret Thatcher seems to have been influenced by this and was not as compliant as her bureaucrats thought she should be.  Yes she was forced out and I have no doubt that bureaucrats played their part in her downfall but she pushed through policies that brought Britain back from the brink and set the country on the path to recovery - ok, so there have been slips since but directionally , the country has progressed.  Council house sales were anathema to bureaucrats but Thatcher pushed them against such opposition and huge numbers of British people managed to become part of the property owning class because of her determination.

So the message for politicians is rule on behalf of the people that elect you, don't be ruled by bureaucrats!

For American Blacks and Hispanics

Really though this is for anyone with intelligence, to read.  I don't want to be accused of playing the race card, so early in the game.

Specifically though, as a non-American, I am trying to understand what is the problem with black Americans and Hispanics.

And yes, let's get this out of the way, at the start, I call them blacks.  What's with this calling a certain group of Americans - Afro-Americans?  I don't hear those that migrated to the USA, hundreds of years ago, from Germany, England or Ireland, for example, referred to as Euro-Americans, nor those that migrated from Brazil, Argentina and Chile called South America-Americans!  What do we call migrants from Egypt or Algeria or Tunisia or whites from South Africa or Zimbabwe?  I bet it isn't Afro-Americans!

So what is it with blacks and Hispanics?  Election after election, when they can be bothered to vote, they traipse into the voting booth and vote for the Democrat Party ticket.

Now, I know that the Democrats make all sorts of promises about how they and only they, will help the Afro-American and Hispanic community and that the Republicans cannot be trusted because they are racist and only concerned with helping rich white people but...

This Democrat Party line has been spouted for years and years and, at times, during those years, Democrats have held the levers of power.  They have had Democrat Presidents and Governors and Congress and Mayors and yet still masses of blacks and Hispanics are living on the breadline or below it.

And that's what I don't get.  Someone defined madness as doing the same thing, time after time and expecting different results.  So I have to ask black Americans and Hispanics, how's that voting Democrat thing, working out for you?  Is Detroit really a model garden city and those pictures of years of neglect and decay by successive Democrat-led city administrations, just fabrications of the media and the GOP?  Is black on black crime a real problem or just something spouted by racists?  Are Hispanics really loving the latest Obama-inspired and orchestrated influx of MS13 gang members, into the neighborhood?

How is that liberal thing with abortion working out for blacks?  A black woman is 5 times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman.  Blacks comprise just 13% of the US population and yet account for 37% of all abortions!  Hispanics account for 22% of all abortions.  Ask yourself why the criminally misnamed Planned Parenthood, the largest seller of abortions in America,  have located 80% of their clinics, or as some might call them, murder factories, in minority - that's black and Hispanic, in plain language, neighborhoods.

And now America has a black President and his contribution to the advancement of blacks and Hispanics is to use Executive Action to 'legalise' up to 5 million illegal aliens, currently inside the USA.  That's 5 million people who will be doing one of two things.  Either they will be taking jobs that legal Americans could take or they will be taking welfare that is funded by legal Americans.  Either way, the burden of Obama's Executive Action will fall, very disproportionately upon poor blacks and Hispanics.  Those are jobs that could be taken by blacks and Hispanics, by people that are legally in the USA.  Instead they will go to people whose very first act in the USA, is one that is illegal.

Just how many times does the Democrat Party need to 'stick it to blacks and Hispanics' before they will understand?  Honestly, just how stupid are you (that isn't a competition, by the way) that you would vote, election after election for a party that has complete disregard for blacks and Hispanics?

Here's a quick pop quiz for blacks.  When Obama was running for the presidency, in 2008, didn't you think Yeah, about time, now is the time for the blacks to get some!  Didn't you think that a black man in the White House would have maybe just a little bit more understanding of the plight of poor people and particularly blacks?  Okay, so he went to Harvard and had this Community Organizer thing, going on, but he is black and he is from Chicago (or at least that was where he was living at the time - 'birthers', please don't get into this).  Didn't you, as a black, think, he is one of us  How did that work out?

Truth is, that throughout history, the Democrat Party has abused the privileges granted by blacks and Hispanics, with their votes, and have instead pursued liberal and socialist ideas that have done nothing and will continue to do nothing, to lift people out of poverty.

Just recently we had the fatuous comment from Hillary Clinton that 'business don't create jobs'!  This is a woman who believes that she has a right to be America's first female President.  And of course, she fully expects that blacks and Hispanics will continue to give the Democrats their vote and it won't cost the Democrats a thing.

Are blacks and Hispanics really so stupid that they will continue to vote Democrat?

So you are probably wondering why a white Brit is getting so upset about the almost institutionalized stupidity of American blacks and Hispanics.  Well, I see America as a bastion of freedom and the place of hope for the World.  I know those freedoms have been sorely tested in recent years but if America falls to the Democrat/socialist horde then mankind is lost.  The world needs America to demonstrate that the US Constitution is still valid and so is the American way.  That the socialist 'utopia' is a false dream where abortion and euthanasia are encouraged.  Where race is used by government, as a weapon to divide people.

One of my abiding memories from the TV coverage just after 9/11 was a short of a group of people observing a moment of silence in memory of those that were so brutally murdered.  This image has stayed with me not because of any evocative pictures of the World Trade Centre towers but because it was just a shot of a group of Americans, united in mourning the loss of so many innocents.  The camera panned along the line of these people and there was no segregation of colour or 'race' or, I sensed 'thought'.  They were united, black, Hispanic, white, Asian, male and female just standing and showing respect for their fallen fellow Americans.  That unity is not something that the Democrat Party and the race baiters like Obama and Al Sharpton want.  They want a racially divided country and so far, blacks and Hispanics continue to allow them this.

So blacks and Hispanics, next time you apply for a job and don't get it, don't blame the white person doing the hiring.  Blame Obama and the Democrats for flooding the country with cheap foreign labour.  Blame Obama and the Democrats for opposing job creating opportunities like the Keystone pipeline and then take a look in the mirror and blame the person you see because that person is the real villain of the piece!

I (provocatively) asked earlier how stupid are blacks and Hispanics.  I don't mean to imply that there is some kind of gene that blacks and Hispanics have that makes them stupid or do stupid things like continue to vote for Democrats that betray them and don't deliver.  We are thankfully seeing more and more black and Hispanic Republicans and commentators,  that represent American values and seek to expose the Democrat lies and their socialist agenda but still the mass of blacks and Hispanics look to the Democrats on polling day.  And that is just plain stupid!

Back for a moment to Obama's Executive Action.  Congress needs to act decisively and de-fund this, immediately and the people of America need to clearly tell their congressional representatives that Obama's actions are un-constitutional and un-American.

Osborne Statement leaked

Below is the transcript of the Autumn Statement that Chancellor George Osborne is to deliver to the House of Commons on December 3, 2014.  Given its content, we can expect that there will be changes made to water down many of these but see what you think.

Mr Speaker, fellow members of the Conservative Party and members of Parliament from other parties.  Today, following this speech, I will place in the House of Commons Library a copy of this statement and supporting documentation.

The supporting documentation includes a statement from the independent Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) which comments on my statement.  As the House will know, the OBR was established by this government to act as an independent reviewer of the economic situation within the United Kingdom and of the government's responses to that situation.  Essentially, to ensure that there is independent scrutiny of government budgetary plans so that we avoid the multiple counting of expenditure and unfunded promises, which could not subsequently be kept, that were so prevalent under the previous government.  Also to comment on taxation and policies that would drag Britain further into debt.  The House will recall that Britain's spiraling debt increases were occurring even before the 2008 global economic crisis.

Before I get too far into this statement, I must declare an interest.

It is customary, in such circumstances that the Rt. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, will respond to this statement.  I declare therefore that though I have made a financial contribution to the 'Save Ed' campaign, I do not expect to receive any favours in return for such largesse.  My donation was in excess of the 2p that the Leader of the Opposition recently allegedly gave to a beggar in Manchester, but I consider my £1 money well spent, if it keeps him and the other Ed sitting opposite and continuing to peddle their Micawberish lines about 'needing to borrow ever more because something will turn-up to sort it out'.

I have news for them.  Something did turn up to sort it out.  It is the Conservative Party.

Before I digress too much a final comment regarding the party opposite.  A friend recently reminded me of the line from the film, Love Story and turned it around to make it relevant to Labour and their economic incompetence.  Labour means never having to say sorry, is how it goes!

So Honourable Members, when you read the statement and hear the comments from those opposite, remember that, Labour means never having to say sorry for how they left this country in 2010.  Labour means never having to say sorry for the deficit that they left the country, for the debt mountain that would grow bigger because of the financial black holes and unfunded spending that they left behind.  In fact the only time that Labour have said sorry, is when they left a note at the Treasury saying ' Sorry, there's no money left!'

Before I get to the statement, just a word about our Coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.   Some members of that party have indicated that they do not support this statement and will vote against any measures arising from it.  My Right Honourable friend the Prime Minister has suggested that any such dissenting members, who hold ministerial office should consider their position and that is what they are now doing.

Thank you for your patience and now to the statement.

The UK economy is well on the way to recovery.  Indeed it is leading the way, in terms of all economic indicators, among the G7.  As with any patient that has had a serious illness, a relapse is possible, though given that the fundamental underlying economic health issues have been identified and the remedies are known, we can expect a full recovery, over time, so long as we stick to the medicine that has brought us back from the brink.

Sticking with this medical theme, the UK economy was obese and suffering as a consequence.  In 2010, the Body Mass Index, or BMI was very unhealthy.  We were funding a financial/calorific intake that was far in excess of our needs and of what was good for us.  We were getting fatter on other people's money.

For the health of the patient, that had to stop!

Over the last 4 1/2 years, we have initiated policies which have begun the slimming down process.  Our economic BMI is still too high but now when we get on the scales we can see improvement and as a nation we know we cannot treat this like some kind of yo-yo diet where we now  backslide and start getting into debt again.  We need to stay the course.

Staying the course is  vital for any healthy diet.  However, a diet needn't be all doom and gloom, not all abstinence and restraint.  Sometime we also need the carrot of a little self-indulgence.

This statement looks to keeping Britain on that healthy diet.  We will slim down the State but will indulge our people along the way.

Firstly, the slimming regime.

In the Budget planned for April 2015, this government will propose removing the so called ring-fence from Education and Health spending.  At a time when all other sectors of the economy are learning that they need to slim down and lose weight, we cannot, as a nation have two vital services that are allowed to gorge while others are on reduced rations.  that is not the British way, that is not the Conservative way.

All government departments, will need to reduce year on year expenditure by 5% in the fiscal year 2015/2016 and a further 5% in each of the succeeding 4 years.

The NHS has been protected from the expenditure reductions that have been required at other government departments but it simply isn't fair that this continues.  I know that the party opposite will scream about the NHS not being safe in Tory hands and so on but the reality is that we are all in this together, we cannot slim-down the body and ignore any large part of that body, we must look at this as a whole.

My colleague the Minister for Health will be advising NHS Trusts on the planned spending budgets  for coming years in a short time.  This advice will include instructions that they should immediately undertake wholesale re-negotiations of all PFI contracts.  And, let us state here and now, we expect these PFI providers to fund the largest part of the reduction in NHS spending.  We will advise NHS Trusts that they will be allowed to go into receivership, bankruptcy, fold or call it what you will but we, the British taxpayer and the Conservative government, will not allow the people to be ripped-off by paying exorbitant fees to private finance organisations.

To be clear on this.  We know that most of these overly generous PFI contracts were signed under previous Labour governments and were considered a 'neat trick' to keep the public finances looking good.  This though isn't about political point scoring.  This party wants to see a healthy NHS not one that is having its very life-blood sucked out by onerous PFI contracts.

To those financiers listening to this, my advice is clear.  Get in touch with your NHS Trust partners and renegotiate the terms of your agreements as a priority.  This issue of overly generous contracts is now on the table and we know we can expect the full support of the 'banker bashing' brigade on the opposite benches, so it isn't going away.

Details on departmental budgets will be placed in the House of Commons Library following their announcement by the respective Ministers but the foregoing outlines the overall direction of where we are heading.

Turning now to taxation.

It will come as no surprise that this party is committed to reducing the tax burden on ordinary people.  The party opposite will bleat about tax cuts for the privileged few and so on, and they may, in their comments,  be yet joined by others.  The reality though, and they absolutely know this, is that government spending isn't funded by the privileged few, by the top earners.  If these people were taxed at 100% it still wouldn't be enough to fund spending.  And that is before we contemplate the huge increases in public spending that will be required to fund the extravagant promises made by the party opposite!  Why they would want to throw away the gains we, as a country, have made in the last 4 1/2 years is simply criminal.  We haven't come through a period of austerity, just so that we can go out on a Labour Party inspired binge!

At the recent Conservative Party conference, we proposed certain measures would be enacted if we were entrusted with power, by the British people, after the May 2015 General Election.  We now believe that we can accelerate some of these proposals.

The April 2015 Budget statement will include proposals to raise the income tax threshold to £12,500 with effect from April 2015 and increase by £500 increments each succeeding fiscal year until it reaches £15,000.  This will lift millions of people out of paying tax, altogether.


The April 2015 Budget statement will include proposals to raise the income tax threshold for the 40% rate from the current level of £41,865 to £45,000 from April 2015 and then by £1,000 increments each succeeding fiscal year until it reaches £50,000.  This will cut the tax bill for millions of so called 'middle earners' .  These people have contributed to putting the UK economy on the road to recovery and it is only right that they should get to keep more of the money that they earn and to be able to spend it as they like, not so that its spending is dictated by some bureaucrat in Westminster or the local town hall.

The April 2015 Budget statement will include proposals to completely lift the burden of so called 'green taxes' from our people and our businesses.  These taxes have crept stealth-like into the fabric of our country and sap the economy.  They force Old-Age Pensioners to sit in unheated homes because they cannot afford to pay high gas or electricity bills which are high because of these taxes that were brought in by the last Labour governments.  These killing taxes must go.

Linked to this, effective midnight, the fuel duty will be reduced by 10p a litre.  I have listened to representatives of the transport industry and of those from rural communities and know that this is the right change to make, to aid our people.

Honourable friends colleagues and Members, these are the headline changes that this Government will be putting before the House.  The full statement, including the comments of the OBR and the current position of the economy will now be placed in the House of Commons Library.

I commend this statement to the House.

Immigration - the real issue

Immigration and the UK's strained relationship with the European Union is a very hot topic at the moment.

It seems to me that UKIP and their supporters are being at best disingenuous and at worst lying.

The talk is all about EU immigration - people from the EU, particularly from Eastern Europe, flooding the UK.  This then is where the argument starts to fall apart.  These immigrants are flooding the UK and taking low paid jobs and so depriving local people of employment opportunities.  These same immigrants are flooding the UK and sponging off of Welfare because the UK authorities are too soft.

Leaving aside the inherent contradiction in these two statements, let's dissect that for a moment.

These East Europeans take jobs that UK people don't take.  That is probably true to a considerable extent.  Certainly all the figures suggest that these East Europeans are very predominantly in work.  In many cases they are in work which is below what their educational qualifications would suggest as being appropriate but they are in work.  Being in work, they are only eligible for those Welfare benefits that are on offer to all low paid employees - UK citizens and non-UK citizens.  These benefits like Working Tax credits and Child Benefit are a symptom of Labour's Gordon Brown's constant meddling in the UK tax system.  Labour's Brown was/is 'old school' socialism.  The sort that taxes everyone very highly and then the kindly State apparatus gives back to those that can work their way around the claims system.  In this Socialist Utopia, you work for the State and then the State decides how much pocket money you shall have, to live on!

But back to immigrants.  So these EU immigrants do jobs that the local population feel are somehow 'beneath' them.  These though are jobs that society needs to have done.  Office cleaning? Fruit or vegetable picking or packing?  Clearing tables? The need is there and so is the supply of local labour however, the tax and the welfare systems combine to make it not worthwhile for the 'locals' to take these jobs.  The income level achieved on Welfare benefits is such that actually taking a low paid job can cost a claimant a net loss in income.  They and their families can be worse-off by being in work.  This is because of income taxes that disproportionately hit low wage people and 'pound for pound' cuts in benefits based on income coming in.

The changes made by the Coalition, on an admittedly Lib Dem fundamental policy, are addressing the tax side of the equation.  The raising of the threshold at which people start to pay tax, benefits millions of people but particularly the low paid.  The Conservative pledge to build on this policy is very encouraging and worthy of support.

The Coalition policies on Welfare reform, this time Conservative inspired, are also starting to untangle the convoluted benefits system and make it clearer for people and, more importantly, to change the philosophy such that 'work' pays.  That this has been done at a time when the nation has been undertaking a policy of austerity (although lack-lustre in my view) is a credit to the Conservatives and reflects a weeding out of the highly dubious claimant numbers that had grown up over recent years.  A very high percentage of  people that were claiming 'incapacity' benefit decided to drop their claims when they were told that they would need to be medically examined.

Recent reports point to a very positive net contribution to the UK economy from EU immigration.  I know that these people have 'an axe to grind' and so the figures might be a little overblown but no one is questioning  that the position is a net positive and this is after considering the costs associated with this EU immigration - higher NHS, schools and local council services use, etc..

I think though that the use by UKIP of EU immigration is a cloak.  The real target is actually non-EU immigration.  It isn't the pale-faced Poles or Czechs that bother them, so much as the black-faced Africans and Indians and Pakistanis and increasingly, displaced people from the Middle East.  Read the sub-text to the UKIP election campaign for the Police and Crime Commission position in South Yorkshire.  The Labour Party were, rightly, condemned for their negligence, bordering on encouragement of the abuse of up to 1,400 young girls in Rotherham but UKIP didn't fail to point out that the perpetrators were overwhelmingly (exclusively?) Asian men - usually Pakistanis.

All of the TV stories show black faces or swarthy types milling about in Calais and trying to steal away onto trucks.  That is the immigration to which UKIP refers.  It isn't the Bulgarian that flies Ryanair into Stanstead and travels on to London and takes a job cleaning toilets, for minimum wage!

I know I invite vitriol by saying it but how does UKIP's concerns about immigration differ from that of the odious BNP or National Front?

The issue with immigration is that people do want to come to the UK.  Some will come because the Welfare programmes are too easily accessible.  Others will come because the UK economy is growing and there are jobs available which are not being taking by locals.

To significantly reduce the 'Welfare' arrivals, the UK government needs to severely restrict the opportunity to claim benefits - something like, you cannot claim benefits until you have been paying into the system for  for two years.  Oh, and apply that to locals as well - wouldn't want to be discriminatory!

To reduce the numbers of those that come to the UK for work?  Kind of a dilemma.  A strong economy should be a welcomed event, however, in terms of incentivising local's off of Welfare and into work, government needs to continue to get out of the business of subsidising low-paying employers.  Do this by increasing the tax thresholds, indeed accelerate this and combine it with squeezing Welfare benefits out of the tax system (and in the process, simplifying that overly complex beast).

UKIP is cleverly conflating British disenchantment with the EU, with a frankly racist immigration policy.  Don't be fooled!  You wouldn't vote for BNP or the National Front, would you?

After the Mid Terms

Thanks to American voters, Republican Party candidates did very well in the US' Mid Term elections.  That sounds so  good to write that I will say it again.  The Republican Party gave the Democrat Party a thrashing in the Mid Term elections.

And let's be clear - a thrashing is what it was.  Leave aside, for a moment, the exceedingly good results in the Senate and Gubernatorial  races - since these were not nation-wide then they can be said to not be representative of the 'national mood'.  The same cannot be said of the elections for the House of Representatives.  These were conducted across America and, given President Obama's assertion that his policies were 'on the ballot', then there was a very clear repudiation of those policies. I suspect that it wasn't just the overt policies - those that head towards the statute book, I think that it was also the modus operandi employed by the Democrats that was rejected (more on this, shortly).

Americans across the country have seen the left-ward lurch under Obama and, in spite of a fawning and therefore uninformative media, they have rejected that direction and have indicated a desire to move back towards more traditional American values and politics.

That said, I sense that this 're-positioning' should not be considered as permanent.  By this I mean that the American people have been sorely tested by Obama's economic 'recovery' the failings of Obamacare and the various scandals that would have engulfed any other administration but with the compliance of the media, merely 'stained' this one, but I don't think that Republicans have clearly articulated a coherent alternative.  So, .......

When the new Congress convenes in January, they need to hit the ground running.  Republicans cannot be Republicans in name only (RINOs).  Nor can Tea Party adherents be ideological obstructionists.   Both wings of the 'right' need to come together and pursue Republican policies.  And this united front needs to be complied with.  So no sulking and taking your vote away because your too far right of 'right of centre' idea has been rejected by the majority of the Republican movement.  Argue your position and then get behind the decision.  America is not your plaything and can't simply wait on you sulking in your tent, nor will America forgive such petulance.  The 'right' has an opportunity to pursue conservative policies and push that agenda but that doesn't mean pursuing far right or 'Democrat in Republican clothing' policies.  America is in trouble and needs its conservatives to put aside the 'nice to haves' and to focus on the 'have to haves'.  To focus on getting Americans back to work, a strong economy and a strong and respected America.

In short, Republicans need to get on with the job for which they were collectively elected - to 'fix' America.

What does that mean?  Well, let's consider the current state of play.  The Democrats and the President still have a little under two months to push through legislation and then, after January, President Obama has his mighty pen and Executive Orders.  Congress after January is obviously though, not without its own power, not least of which is to defund, defund and defund.


In my view, Mitch McConnell, assuming he is elected as Majority Leader and Speaker John Boehner  need to come out and publicly state that any inflammatory legislation, e.g. an immigration amnesty, that is rushed through before the new Congress sits, will be opposed and, come January, repealing legislation will be passed.  Same applies to any pardons or whitewashes of the various scandals that have surfaced - these abuses of power will be pursued and prosecuted - not to the exclusion of all else, fixing the economy has absolute priority, but for the good of  America's democracy.

During the recent campaign, much was made of the number of bills that are sitting on former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid's desk.  The number was in excess of 300.   What particularly irked people was that many of these had passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and some, unanimously so.  Therefore these bills, should now move from the Harry Reid waiting room, through to the floor of the Senate and onwards to votes and Presidential signing.

Next, Obamacare.  All I have heard of it tells me that this is wrong for America.  Certainly it isn't delivering the savings nor the coverage that was touted.  Rather than get into a battle over repealing it - Obama will be most unlikely to sign any such repeal into law - simply defund it.  Or, if it can be fixed (and Republican thinkers, when they apply themselves are very innovative) then proceed with it but, and it is a big one, there can be no exemptions.  Congress cannot pass laws and then exempt itself from the effects of such laws.  That might have worked for pre-revolution French aristocrats but not for 21st Century Americans.

The Senate needs to institute hearings on the scandals that have surfaced (VA administration, Fast and Furious, Benghazi and IRS, spring immediately to mind).  Such hearings have been blocked by Harry Reid and the Democrats because they will clearly be an embarrassment for the Obama administration.  This cannot continue.  And if people like the former IRS head, Lois Lerner, plead the 'fifth' then recognise the fact that she is in contempt of Congress and throw her in jail.  Same for those people who are busily destroying e-mails!

Fundamentally though, the new Republican Congress needs to work on fixing America.  Be very clear, there is a deep disapproval of Congress, by the electorate.  My view is that this is because Americans see Congress as more interested in politicking than in getting something done (and maybe also, 'lining their own pockets' at the same time.

Don't look to the White House for support - it hasn't come in the last six years, it won't come in the next two. A  job title for Community Organizer sounds like it should qualify you to bring people together but we have seen that the former Community Organizer, occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is only concerned with telling the community what to do and doesn't feel the need to listen to the community.

As said earlier, fixing America means putting aside what divides Republicans and focusing on getting the economy re-built.

I am British and I know this about Republicans.  It doesn't matter if they are left of centre-right, centre right or right of centre right or even really right of centre-right, they have common core principles founded on a love of their country and the US Constitution and a belief in conservative values such as small government.  Think of those uniting principles in the coming months and focus on restoring America.  The USA needs this and so does the rest of the right-thinking World.

UK elections

I know that the UK General Election will not occur until May 2015 but things are starting to heat-up, so let's take a look at the current state of play.

The 'elephant in the room' many would suggest is UKIP (but see below).  I am not so sure.  I can see that UKIP will damage both major parties but perhaps the Conservatives a little more.  Can they though make a breakthrough?  In by-elections, as former MP Louise Mensch has pointed out, they have done well, where the UKIP candidate is a defector.  They won in Clacton and seem to be ahead in Rochester and Strood.  However, will they fare as well when they come-up against a sitting MP with a reasonable majority?  Especially if that MP is Conservative and an overt Euro-sceptic? My sense is that faced with such a choice, people will look beyond UKIP's headline 'out of Europe' and 'no immigration' policies and consider that there isn't much policy meat there.  And, what there is, has a distinctly socialist taste to it.

I accept that there is disillusionment with the main parties but I think that on the day, people will stand in the voting booth, see the Conservative or Labour incumbent and either vote for them or for their opposite number, if the opposite number has a chance of winning.  That is, in Conservative or Labour  seats, where the other of the two main parties were second, the voter will consider switching between those two.  Where there existed a large majority, at the last election, for either party, then they will consider moving their vote to UKIP.  So it is the 'protest vote' in such cases that is movable and not the core.

No doubt UKIP enthusiasts will say I am wrong and that Nigel Farage is 'breaking the mould' of British politics but I just don't see that happening.  The British are very conservative, when it comes down to it.  Those of you with a long memory will recall the same being said about the Social Democratic Party and the so called  'gang of four'  - much was written and said by the political pundits but come the day, people didn't fall in behind their SDP candidates and eventually the party merged or was subsumed, depending on your viewpoint, into the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats.

So UKIP?  Good local MPs like Douglas Carswell will likely hold onto their seat.  Maybe Farage will be elected and maybe also a few others.  One problem that they have though, is that their most well known personalities are elected members of the European Parliament and so if they stand in the UK General Election, then they will be open to accusations around their having their noses firmly stuck into the EU trough or, if they resign and stand, as causing unnecessary expense for the British taxpayer, etc..

The Lib Dems?  Not sure that they are entirely in terminal decline but a post election merger with Labour wouldn't be too outrageous.  Many, some would say most, Lib Dem policies are very socialist.  Indeed, in some areas, the Lib Dems seem to outdo the Labour party in their interventionist, nannying kind of way.  The Lib Dems will suffer badly (and rightly in my view) at the next election and will lose significant numbers of seats, perhaps even, being wiped-out in Scotland.

So to the Conservatives.  They are very trusted on economic matters but there is a strong sense that on the very important issue of the EU, David Cameron cannot entirely be trusted (this indeed is a big part of the reason for the rise of UKIP).  On crime, the Conservatives have a good story to tell.  Similarly so on Welfare, where people see the 'welfare cap' as a good thing, (though still too generous) and other welfare reforms as long overdue, and on Education, where there is a quiet revolution underway - Trojan horse school scandals, notwithstanding.  On defence matters people are  trying to square the idea of defence cuts with an increasing need for military engagements around the globe.  The partnering approach to this is being accepted (grudgingly).  On the environment, there is not much 'clear green water' between any of the parties.  All slavishly follow the highly flawed IPCC reports and the fatuous EU Carbon Emission Targets, though I sense that there is a growing sense of scepticism within Conservative ranks - not least because of the economic costs involved.  You can expect that scepticism to soar if there are power outages during the coming UK winter.

All said and done, I believe that the Conservatives will be the largest party at Westminster after the next General Election.  Though they will likely be short of an overall majority and with a much diminished Lib Dem party, have difficulty in forming a coalition.  Given the passing of the Lib Dems favoured legislation on fixed term parliaments, this will present the UK with a period of political instability!

Which just leaves us with the Labour Party.  Prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum, Labour probably thought that the Conservatives were their main opponents.  Keep banging-on about tax cuts for the rich and so on and Labour would sweep to power.  The way of the UK system certainly favours them.  Notionally, they require just over 35% of the votes to be in Number 10.  However, that is much less certain now.  The SNP, who, in my view, are the real 'elephant in the room' are expected to make very significant gains at the expense of Labour.    To many Scottish voters, they are faced with a choice between a socialist Labour party that represents the whole of the UK and a socialist SNP that puts Scotland's interests, first.  Why would a Scottish socialist vote for Labour?

And that is before you take account of the turmoil in which Labour finds itself, in Scotland.  The Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, has resigned and in the process lambasted Ed Miliband and the London-based Labour elite.  While Ms Lamont has lost a Christmas fraternal greetings card from Ed, she has done Scottish Labour (and the people of Scotland) a great service, with her exposure of Miliband's inadequacies.

It is not only in Scotland that Labour is coming apart.  On the economy, their solution of 'what we need is more debt and more borrowing' doesn't resonate.  People know that this is how we got into the mess in the first place.  And they don't forget who was in charge at that time!  On Europe, the charge is that 'Labour don't trust the people' and not agreeing to a referendum, indeed opposing the Conservative backbencher attempts to enshrine one in law, just reinforce the view that Labour are pro-EU.  On immigration, a very hot topic for voters and a vote winner for UKIP, Labour are seen as the architects of the current situation.  The Conservatives don't get off scot-free but immigration is a stick of rock with Labour written all the way through it!

Thinking about that - the  two big UKIP issues - immigration and the EU, see them diametrically opposed to Labour.  So if these are key issues for the electorate, one would expect to see Labour suffering more than the Conservatives.  The latter certainly lean more UKIP's way on these issues.

Back to Ed Miliband.  What a sorry excuse for a party leader.  One who owes his fratricidal elevation to union block votes and who is now in a continual sniping war with the very same union bosses who 'annoited' him and whose unions bankroll his party.

The silent support for Miliband, from his front-bench colleagues is deafening in its absence.  The buffoonish Ed Balls thinks he should be party leader, while ignoring his exceedingly close proximity to the Treasury, when Labour were in power and ruining the economy.  The Labour deputy leader, Harriet Harman, is fixated on pushing a 'feminazi' agenda by wearing slogan shirts in parliament.  When she is not seeing evil intent in every utterance by or action of, a male she must sit, in her quiet moments and ponder how foolish she and her husband, fellow MP Jack Dromey, were to push a Paedophile Information Exchange agenda, when they were on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties.  It is a sign of great concern that she would think how foolish they were rather than how wrong.  This alone should be enough to consign her (and him) to the rubbish bin of political history.

So while these Labour heavy-hitters are so otherwise engaged, Ed continues to flounder.  Some people say that politics is about policies and, they are largely right but don't discount the personality factor.   Nick Clegg came out of the 2010 Election debates so much better than Gordon Brown and David Cameron because of his 'niceness'.  Brown was seen as arrogant and less competent than he himself believed, and Cameron's message was delivered in a manner that was perhaps uncaring.

The 2015 General Election debates will see a personally confident Cameron versus a bumbling Miliband.  Miliband's speaking, the nasal and whiny delivery just grates on one.  Whatever message he is trying to put across gets lost in a general annoyance with the delivery!  Farage will do okay, in his matey, ' I might drink in the saloon bar but I am in touch with the views of those in the public bar' approach but I doubt he will have the breadth of subject grasp that will survive scrutiny.  Clegg?  He will be caught between a rock and a hard place - trying to defend the Lib Dems time at the top table and to differentiate.  (Incidentally, a much better analogy that rock and a hard place is 'being between the dog and the tree'!)

The issues?  The economy, immigration, EU and welfare.  Funded tax cuts rather than debt-funded ones will appeal.   I don't think the NHS will loom as large as in previous elections.  Labour will bang on about it but are very susceptible on the fiasco of Labour-run NHS in Wales and the truly shocking incidents at Mid Staffs hospitals and elsewhere.

So a hung parliament in 2015 and a further election later that year or early in 2016, once Labour have a new leader.  Oh and not forgetting a much improved Westminster presence for the SNP.

File this one away and come back and see how accurate I am!!