EU mess

Don't worry, this isn't a recipe for a meringue, cream and summer fruit dessert.  The mess I refer to is the way things are going with the Conservatives re-negotiation of the terms of membership of Britain's participation in the European Union.

Prime Minister, David Cameron, has started the process of re-negotiation.  It is barely a month, since the Conservatives were elected, with a small majority, to the Westminster Parliament.  A referendum is promised by the end of 2017 and yet to hear some people, you would think that the vote is around the corner.

On this issue, many people, myself included have some kind of an axe or other, to grind.

• The media, particularly the BBC, who receive lavish funding from the EU, are strongly pro-EU and so push an agenda that seeks to promote talk of a Tory split and faction fighting among Tories,  David Cameron is accused of issuing ultimatums to Cabinet colleagues about toeing an as yet undefined line!  And so on.  We also hear that Rupert Murdoch has had a Damascene conversion and now wants Britain to stay in the EU!  
• UKIP and noisy people that want out and really want no renegotiation, just out now (or yesterday, if we can 'fix' the records).
• Big business mostly declaring a doom and gloom future if Britain leaves the EU.
• Myself, my axe to grind is that I have my own 'red lines' - more on these shortly - and I don't want these issues to be lost in peripheral matters.  

How are people better informed about the renegotiation of say free movement of labour and the effect on immigration, if they are distracted by stories of a Tory split or Deutsche Bank's latest view on the precarious economic future for Britain.  The distraction from UKIP will, over time become a dull pain.  They need to freshen-up their message rather than just saying the same thing over and over and over again.  'UKIP wants Britain out of the EU' - we know, we get it!  Change the record!

I know that I have to be patient and await the outcome of these negotiations.  Cameron and the other leaders need come to a resolution to very complex matters and I don't expect that these will happen over-night.  Even the UKIP, 'Out now' solution, is a bit more nuanced than the phrase suggests.

I would suggest that all British people need to be patient and don't allow ourselves to be swayed by these people who want to bounce our opinion and thus our vote, in one direction or another.  I would request that organizations like the BBC, big business and UKIP, just pipe down.  We are not fools, we know where you stand, and we want to hear the deal that Cameron eventually gets for us and then we will make-up our minds.

My expectation is that once negotiations are concluded, there would be a period of, say, three months, during which the Yes and No campaign can put out their stalls and seek to persuade one way or another but until we know the deal, any comment seeking to persuade, one way or another is just noise - it might help to inform the debate (as do my 'red lines', I hope) but stirring up trouble and rifts and divisions doesn't help. I wouldn't though suggest that debate is stifled more that it is focused on the real issues rather than just posturing and saying nothing new.  I would also say that Opinion Polls, yes the same organisations that got the GE2015 results, so wrong, have a part to play.  These could strengthen the hand of Cameron and the negotiating team as they send a message to our EU partners about how seriously the UK wants change.

Talking of the No campaign.  There has been mention made that this should be led by Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP.  This would be completely wrong.  Farage has done a great job of pushing the need for a referendum but he is very divisive and would likely cause many potential No voters to turn away in disgust and vote Yes, simply because he is there.  A far better No campaign leader would be Boris Johnson or Daniel Hannan.  The latter has consistency and, as a Euro MP, a long history of opposing and exposing the anti-democratic nature of the EU as it is currently constituted.  Johnson has great voter appeal.  Cameron is said to expect to work for a Yes vote and so, were Johnson to lead the No campaign then this would suggest an easy transition and change of power, should the Nos prevail.  As another possible leader, Sir James Dyson, a dynamic business leader, who is much admired for his entrepreneurial flair and business success.  Being a non-politician, he may also be more trusted by the 'man in the street'.

Now my 'red lines'.  As with any negotiation, we won't get all that we want but here's the framework.

Free movement of Labour - I must declare an interest as I have benefited from this, during my working life.  Therefore, along with other experiences of the benefits, I see this as beneficial to our economy and our country.  Yes it potentially means an influx of cheap labour but this is good for the country.  There are very definite challenges to be faced - schooling, health systems etc., but these will resolve themselves, over time.  A growing and healthy economy can afford such 'problems'.
I find the people that argue against this as somewhat hypocritical.  We don't want cheap labour doing jobs that need doing, and we oppose reform of a welfare system which makes it 'uneconomic' for people to come off of welfare and take low paying jobs, seems to be the crux of their argument.

Bureaucracy and Reciprocity - Big words.  More simply put, there are areas where the EU isn't needed.  Working hours in Britain - that's a matter for the UK parliament, not un-elected officials in Brussels.  HSE, Britain not EU, there is a whole raft of EU legislation - or more accurately, legislation that starts out as a Brussels 'directive' and becomes UK legislation because we have no choice but to implement it, under current rules - and this needs wholesale review and likely abolition for the greater parts of it.  Foreign relations?  Britain doesn't need, except perhaps on areas limited to certain trade discussions, an un-elected commissioner representing her.  History has shown that we are quite capable of doing so, ourselves.

Funding - The original benefits of the EU or the Common Market, as it was then called, effectively related to free trade - the sale of goods from one country to another without the imposition of tariffs or other barriers.  That is the place to where we should return.  Therefore the need for much of the funding for the monolithic bureaucracy and EU organisations would disappear.  Why should any country in the EU subsidize another?  If I join a club of some sort, I can expect to pay an annual subscription fee for the running and administration of the club.  I don't expect to pay based on my income, nor do I expect to pay fees for people that can't afford to be in the club, in the first place.  I certainly don't expect to pay their bar tab every single day that they are living beyond their means!
 
Democracy - Becomes somewhat moot if funding and reciprocity are addressed but this swings two ways.  Firstly, the EU Commission, if it is still needed (but I can't think why it would), must be democratically elected - that would suggest it must be appointed by either the people, through direct elections, or through the European Parliament.  My own view is that both the Commission and the Parliament should be abolished and much money saved.  I can't believe that all that hot air and cant is good for the environment!  Neither is the to-ing and fro-ing between Brussels and Strasbourg every month, nor the EU-citizen funded traveling between home country and Brussels/Strasbourg and back, on a weekly/daily basis.  Every time I think of that, I think of all those climatologists that attend these conferences in exotic places, traveling by jet - private or commercial - to do so, or Al Gore's house that uses so much hydrocarbon-provided power that it is said to be like the Great Wall of China - visible from space!  But I digress.  So less democracy in terms of a talking shop in Europe but then democracy in terms of consensus forming decisions and then acceptance by all.  So long as the 'club rules' and the 'club charter' aren't being infringed then all governments must accept the will of the majority of voters, with voting rights.

Free Trade - this should form the basis of 'club' membership.  Goods and services (see also  free movement of labour) can be traded between club members without the imposition of tariffs.  That would apply to import tariffs - so no customs duties on equipment manufactured in Germany and sold into Slovenia or Britain, etc.  Also though, no hidden tariffs, such as higher rates of local value added taxes on such goods.  This wouldn't preclude a state subsidizing its own industry, where that might 'harm' the industry of another 'club' member.  So if France wanted to subsidize French sugar beet growers and processors and this allowed these companies to then compete unfairly against German or British growers, then let them.  It's France's money to do with as it pleases.  It is not for Britain or Germany to say how France supports or doesn't support its rural communities.  Equally, it is not for Britain or Germany to pay for France's support for its rural communities. Free Trade also means that 'club' members should be free to trade with non-club members, as they wish.  So, if Britain or Germany decided that French sugar beet was too high-priced and they could get it cheaper from say, Turkey, then they would be free to negotiate purchases and set import tariffs as they see fit.  If Turkish farmers are able to produce and sell sugar beet cheaper than French farmers, then why should British or German consumers miss out on Turkish efficiency.

In terms of imports from non-club members, these should not be subject to restrictions - individual sovereign states can enter into bi-lateral agreements - except that any onward sale of such imports need to meet certain criteria.  This criteria would relate to the value added in the club member state.  So if Britain and China concluded a bi-lateral trade agreement with very low import tariffs (or better yet, none) this could not be used as a 'back door' for China to then sell these on to other 'club' members with which it doesn't have a bi-lateral agreement unless a certain value was added in Britain.  Let's say 60%.  If a UK-based company imported parts from China, assembled these in the UK and then sold them within a 'club' member country, then the UK value added to those parts must be greater than 60% or whatever number is decided upon.  We don't want dumping but neither do we want restrictive practices that protect inefficient local industries.

Non-EU wide and other  agreements - These would be agreements that are established between sovereign nations - be they 'club' members or not which cover restricted topics.  So, if Britain, Germany, Iceland, Australia, Brazil and Norway wanted to establish an agreement that allowed for a fast track extradition process between themselves, then this would be allowed and wouldn't require any input or permission from other 'club' members.  It's called reciprocity - 'club' members only need to be involved on matters relating the the raison d'etre of the 'club' - free trade etc., and to not interfere in matters that are decided by other nations and which don't impinge upon these.  Such an extradition treaty would be outwith the 'club' charter and so no business of other 'club' members.  Similarly, if certain 'club' members wanted to establish a political and fiscal union and even a common currency, then they should be free to do so, so long as they do not seek to impose that union or its effects on other 'club' members.  So by all means have a Euro currency but don't expect non-Euro countries, to bail out Euro members!  If I join the Royal Automobile Club, I don't expect to be tapped-up by members of the rival Automobile Association, when that organisation runs into difficulties.  It's a different 'club', I have chosen to not be a member and so shouldn't be required to pay anything for its failings.



Dear reader, be patient in the coming months.  Listen to all of the views, look to the motive of the speaker and then form your own opinion, as I am sure you would anyway.  Above all though, let's be patient and simply demand clarity on what the renegotiated deal means for us and our country.  Then vote for what is best for Britain.  I currently lean towards voting for  BREXIT but, in the words of the great Joan Armatrading, I am 'open to persuassion'

GE 2015 - Part One

This is turning out to be a funny old General Election!  I will put some of my observations here and maybe some will resonate.

The opinion polls have so far been stubbornly almost static.  What small movement they show for a party's support, tends to be contradicted by the next poll.  No UK-wide party is demonstrating a clear and commanding poll lead.  Labour and the Conservatives are stuck around the 32-34% mark.

In themselves, these results are surprising.  Given the improving health of the economy, especially considering the almost Greece-like basket case that the Conservatives inherited, the Conservatives should be further ahead in the polls.  Partly some of reason for them not being ahead will be a natural left-leaning bias in the media but much of the reason is the short-term memory of the average voter and, let's be frank, their selfishness.

The latter point first.  If the polls are to be believed, then the average person doesn't care that parties like Labour and the Scottish Nationalists or the even more extreme Green Party are happy to impoverish the nation and mortgage the country's future for our children, our grand-children and our great-grandchildren (etc., etc.,)  rather than undertake the structural reforms and yes, cuts in spending, that are a requirement to the improvement of the health of the UK economy.

This 'I don't care about the future of my country or kids, I just want my wide-screen TV, three holidays a year and lots of tax-payer subsidies, even if it does mean increasing borrowings and therefore debt and the deficit' attitude, can only be described as selfishness.  

Let us be very clear.  The UK has not experienced 'austerity'.  Has any pensioner seen their pension cut three or four times (as has happened in Portugal)?  No, of course they haven't.  And perhaps that is why the Conservatives are not enjoying the fruits of the economic position in which the UK sits.  People didn't feel any real pain, weren't turned out en-masse to live on the streets, those streets were not full of begging and ill-clothed children and families hawking their meagre possessions for the price of a tin of beans or a loaf of bread.   People's view of so called 'austerity' is that 'it didn't really affect me personally, too much and with Labour now saying we can spend a little bit more but tax the super-rich in order to pay for it, well that sounds reasonable to me!'  Don't worry, I am not a hair-shirt wearer who gets off on experiencing the pain of real spending cuts or seeing others experience it but I really do want to see Britain overcome it's debt dependency, for the sake of my children, grandchildren, etc., etc..

Fact is that UK government spending, under the Conservatives, has increased, every single year during this parliament.  The Conservatives went into Coalition with the Lib Dems, in 2010/2011 and total spending was £674 Bn, which was £19 Bn higher than the previous year.  In 2013/14 total government spending was £725 Bn.  Not a huge increase I will grant but neither is it a sign of the allegedly 'savage' cuts that Labour and their left-leaning allies in the media, particularly the biased BBC, would have you believe.  I believe though that the actions taken by the Conservatives will have the long term effect of reducing government expenditure.  Remember, from 1999/2000 to 2009/2010, Labour increased spending from £339 Bn to £675 Bn.  Almost doubling government spending and taking it to 47% of GDP.  The Conservatives have now got this heading towards a sub-40% position and, if re-elected will get this into a more sustainable 25-30% range during the course of the next Parliament.  Before you ask, I say sustainable because such a level of spending then allows the government the flexibility or room, if you like, to deal with unforeseen events, should they occur - to increase public spending if absolutely required.

Now to the earlier point.  The anti-Conservative bias of much of the media and particularly the BBC.
The narrative, from the Labour party, in the run-up to the election was that Conservative leader, David Cameron was a 'toff'.  Someone who had attended Eton and Oxford and was wealthy and out of touch with the general public.  Someone who lacks the 'common touch'.  Well no big surprise from Labour, there.  They project Cameron as such since it puts them, in their narrative, firmly on the other side - alongside the 'man in the street' (or has that become the 'person in the street'?).

How Labour must have chuckled last Sunday.  Cameron was interviewed by the BBC's Andrew Marr, and was asked about an interview he gave to the Countryside Alliance magazine (Countryside Alliance is a lobby group that represents rural interests and was very prominent in galvanising support from those communities, in opposition to the Fox Hunting Bill).  Anyway, Marr declared that Cameron had stated, in the CA interview, that fox-hunting was his favourite sport. Simple fact is that Cameron said nothing of the sort.  When Marr made the comment, Cameron looked non-plussed, as well he might, given that he had never said anything like that.  Just to drive home the point though, Marr then repeated the lie.  Marr has since apologised for his error but only on Twitter and only after being found out.  So, a question for the BBC and Andrew Marr -  did you knowingly lie when you falsely quoted from the CA article?  Or was it that you or your researchers were too lazy to check out the factual nature of statements?  Or was it maybe that putting such a statement, however false,  out there, would resonate with people and bias some of them, especially in urban areas, to be anti-Conservative and to confirm the Labour narrative about Cameron being a 'toff'?  Okay, so that's three questions, but you get my drift.

This is just the most blatant example of the BBC bias but you could also  include the constant interruptions made by Evan Davis in the interviews he has conducted.  Not only are these rude, they show a clear disregard for allowing the Conservatives to put across their message and response in a coherent way.  The Conservative message keeps getting broken-up into smaller 'bites' and the speaker having to try to stay on message and also to consider how and when to respond to the latest accusation.  Very poor!  The sooner the £145 TV tax is repealed, the better!

More to follow on this but my advice to Cameron is ignore the staged events and photo-ops.  Do a 'John Major' and get out on a soapbox in the towns and cities of the UK and talk directly to the people.  Show them that Conservatives passionately believe in the UK and it's people and tell them that Conservatives have a plan for us and our children, grand-children etc..  Don't let Labour and their 'cut from the same cloth' SNP allies, steal the election and our country!

After the vote.

We are a couple of days away from the result of the referendum on Scottish Independence.   The opinion polls suggest a close result likely to favour the No campaign.

In recent weeks there has been talk of David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, being called upon to resign if Scotland votes yes.  The people that make these calls offer no logical reason for why he should do that, other than he has ‘lost’ Scotland.  That is complete poppycock!  As a Unionist, and Englishman, I fully understand the limited participation of Cameron  in the debate.  When he has spoken it is with an obvious and deep-seated passion for our United Kingdom.  Let’s be clear though, the Conservatives are not well liked in Scotland.  Indeed, in some parts they are loathed.  A Scottish friend, who sits in the No camp, said that the less Cameron speaks on the referendum, the better, as his Etonian pronunciation just pushes the ‘don’t knows’ into the Yes camp.  I see his point and it is a sad reflection of the current debate that he may be right.  There’s a part of me though that thinks that as the campaign draws to a close, some people of Scotland are seeing (hearing?) past the voice and listening to the message.  This is a message of our shared history  and a strong desire to have the United Kingdom  continue to lead the world in so many fields.

I think though, that whatever the outcome, Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon his deputy, must stand down on Friday morning.  They have led a very divisive campaign.  Oftentimes, they have either wittingly or unwittingly unleashed the thuggish element which inhabits the nationalist fringes (North and South of the border) . 

They have  given a glimpse of what life would be like in  Scottish Nationalist Scotland – Independent or not.  A State controlled media, for example.  One that pushes-out the party line according to wee Eck.  Salmond became furious with Nick Robinson, of the BBC, because Robinson has dared to question some of the more outrageous statements made by Salmond and Co.   Bad boy  Nick – go sit on the naughty step!      It was perhaps telling that Salmond’s outburst against the BBC came just after his independence campaign was solidly endorsed by North Korea’s Supreme Leader – a fully paid-up member of the ‘It’s my country to do with as I want and don’t dare question me’ club.   In Pyongyang one can’t say that the emperor has no clothes but is still possible, just, in Edinburgh. 

Salmond and Sturgeon have taken Scotland down a very divisive road and pitted neighbor against neighbor.  Does anyone believe these two have the ability to bring the country together, from Friday?  These are little people with little minds.  I’ll admit Salmond has a way with words but throughout this campaign they have not managed to craft an answer to the fundamental questions that have been posed.  Ask a question Salmond or Sturgeon don’t like  and back they come with a non-answer or an accusation that ‘you are in the pay of the distant Westminster elite’.  Ask about the Scottish NHS and the accusations that it would not be safe with a No vote and you get all the rubbish about privatization and nothing about the fact that Health is a devolved responsibility and so currently and will continue to sit with Holyrood and not London!  Oh, and by the way, the NHS was established, ever before devolution by those ‘Westminster elite types!’

So come Friday whatever the outcome,  Salmond and Sturgeon could do one last decent act for Scotland, by tendering their own resignations.   They have said nothing, in their years in power, to indicate that they have the spirit to heal the divisions that their hubris has brought about.  

BBC Madness

If you have read my blog before you will be aware of my concerns about the biased BBC and the iniquitous TV Tax - also called the license fee.

However, even the most (blinkered) ardent supporter of the BBC must have been taken aback and stared with incredulity at the claim that in the past two years the BBC contributed more than £8 billion to the UK economy!

How did it do this?  Well it is called the 'multiplier effect'  This says that for every pound that is spent it generates economic activity of twice it's value.  In the case of the BBC the premise is that when it buys a TV camera for example, the money it pays, goes to generate salaries for the makers of the camera and their workers etc., and these then buy food which generates economic impact for the makers and transporters of food, etc.  and on and on it goes.

This is fatuous nonsense and the fuzziest of fuzzy maths.  If we take the BBC's view to it's logical extension, all global activity can be traced back to the spending that the 'beeb' is making.

Is it any wonder that the BBC push socialist policies, which posit that spending can occur without  actually having the money to pay for them?  According to BBC economic theory, all it takes is £1 and then you double-up and double-up and double-up until that fancy new BBC News Centre or Newscaster's salary has been paid for.  You can do the same with hospitals!  Need to finance a Trans-Gender outreach worker? - all you need is to spend a pound and in no time the funding is there.

In case you think I am making this up.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/entertainment-arts-21041587

The report said: "The effect of initial BBC spending is 'multiplied' as it ripples through the economy from region to region and sector to sector (and to the employees of those sectors). This is known as the 'multiplier effect'."
The BBC's chief economic and policy adviser Najma Rajah explained: "The basic premise is that when the BBC spends a pound, the impact of that pound is 'multiplied' as that pound spent by the BBC creates value elsewhere in the economy.
"So, for example, if the BBC were to buy a camera from a supplier in Manchester, the camera supplier would receive some money in return for the camera.
"The camera company would then use the income generated from the sale of the camera to pay their suppliers for the components that went into the camera and to also pay their employees and so on."
Rajah added: "A really good example of how this multiplier effect works is when the BBC commissions a programme that is made by an independent television production.
"The programme might be filmed in Scotland using local runners, electricians, make-up artists etc. who are paid and then will spend their wages in Scotland to the benefit of the Scottish economy."

 So there you have it (are you paying attention Mr Salmond?) another series or two of Monarch of the Glen and a couple from Rab C Nesbitt and Scotland's economic future is secure - maybe Salmond is right - they don't need the oil industry!

 Now ardent supporter, you might ask yourself why the BBC needs to have it's own chief economic and policy adviser?  Why doesn't it spend less on justifying it's own existence and maybe more on original programming?


Repeal the TV Tax now!

BBC NHS bias - nothing new

The BBC is splashing big on an NHS scare story today.  BBC Breakfast show was trawling for viewer comments and managed to get some along the lines of 'why is it so difficult to get a doctor's appointment'.

Their website says
:

Fresh fears are being raised in England that cuts will have to be made to the front line of the NHS if it is to cope.

The government has promised to protect the health service, but research by the King's Fund, based on interviews with 45 NHS finance chiefs, raises doubts.
The think tank said 19 expected care to get worse over the next few years and that 2013 could mark the turning point.
Meanwhile, a BBC survey of 1,005 people suggested 60% believed services would have to be cut.
The majority of the 45 NHS directors of finance who took part in the think tank's study said they were currently managing to make savings without harming care.

Let's deconstruct that a little.

The King's Fund asked finance chiefs within the NHS.  This suggests that they asked people with a vested interest in showing a need for more funding, and in showing an inability to do their job - manage the finances available to them.  Hardly surprising that they want more money from the taxpayer!

19 of these finance chiefs expected care to get worse over the next few years.  That is, finance chiefs are now qualified, according to the King's Fund,  to comment on the future level of care that patients can receive.  I think I might have been a tad more convinced if a physician had stated that!

Then we get the BBC survey.  A meaningless statistic which asks a small sample of people a loaded question.  Did the BBC ask 'Do you think that there is waste in the NHS?'  Did they ask' Do you think doctors and consultants and 'managers' are overpaid and that the majority of NHS pensions are padded at the expense of yourself, the taxpayer?'

No they wouldn't, because it doesn't serve their own vested, leftist interest

The King's Fund said these sentiments were supported by the latest performance statistics which showed the NHS was performing well.
Waiting times in A&E and for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, had fallen slightly and were well within target, while hospital infections rates continued to drop.

But health minister Lord Howe maintained the NHS was "on track" to achieve its savings target.
He said £5.8bn was saved last year, while performance remained good.
"Waiting times have been kept low, infections have been reduced, there are more doctors, more diagnostic tests and more planned operations," he added.

So savings appear to have been made, and the level of service (maybe that could be called care?) remained good!  While that cannot continue indefinitely, an annual budget of £104 Billion, should afford scope for further savings.

The BBC poll, carried out by ComRes, asked members of the public in England a series of questions about the NHS.
Some 61% agreed that they expected the NHS would have to stop providing some treatments and services in the future due to rising costs and increasing demands.
Nearly three-quarters also said they did not trust the government with the health service.
Over half of respondents said it did not matter whether private firms provided care as long as it was free of charge - the government's reforms have come under heavy criticism amid a perception they would lead to greater private sector involvement.

This must really upset the BBC and it's leftist allies.  More than 50% of people don't care who gives them health care, just that it is free at the point of delivery.  Can this mean that the scales are dropping from the eyes of the people?  Are people now starting to understand that this bloated bureaucracy needs reform?  Maybe some of the respondents have seen, first hand, what healthcare is like and how it can be efficiently funded, in other countries?

But 2013 was seen as the year when it could start to unravel by many of the finance directors.

Why?  Yes the Public Sector pay freeze ends but what is to say another one can't be imposed?  Or that the pay settlement can't be held to a low percentage?  What about reduced NHS pension contributions?  What about these same Finance Chiefs getting around the table with their PFI providers and squeezing them?  Same applies to other service and material suppliers, such as pharmaceutical companies.  That's what happens in the private sector.  When times are tough, you talk to you suppliers and get them to share some of the pain.  You make them see it is in their interest.

BBC Bias - Use this complaint

The Commentator Blog reminds us that the 'glorious' BBC (a 'national institution' of which we can be justly proud?) failed to show any honour to the memory of victims of terrorist violence on the anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.

If you share my disgust at this disrespect, please complain to the BBC.   bbc.co.uk/complaints

I am a little shocked by the lack of coverage of the anniversary of the bombing atrocities that were carried out against the people of London on July 7, 2005.  Only a little shocked because frankly it what we have come to expect of the BBC and it's skewed editorial policy. 

Pro anything that is anti British (so play-up stories inspired by the terrorist IRA,  about Blood Sunday) but don't say anything about Muslim terrorists killing and maiming innocents on the streets of London.  Don't initiate any in-depth studies of the criminal terrorist gangs that run Northern Ireland or the fundamentalist gangs that have taken over Islamic student societies in our universities.  Instead, make a big splash about so called rampant neo-fascism  at Euros 2012 and don't worry if the scare-mongering doesn't materialize into fact.

I used to think that it was a left-wing bias that inspired much of the BBC reporting but the closer I examine it, I see that it is actually anti-British and anti all that Britain stands for.  That is why so much air-time is given to people like the Scottish Nationalists and so little to others like UKIP.  So much time to any story that shows the Christian religions in a bad light and so little to any that show all of the good work that these people do.

If the BBC had to operate in a competitive market and fund itself, rather than depend on a TV tax on the people of Britain, you would be out of business in no time.  You don't even have quality TV to boast about, now.

The French don't like us - Quelle surprise!

According to the (biased) BBC, the French don't appear to like us.  This seems to be news to the BBC. 

Seems that Cameron has upset them by standing up for British interests and (based on recent polls) by representing the wishes of a majority of the British public.

Now the French, in a communitaire act, are suggesting that the ratings agencies should downgrade UK's debt from  AAA to something lower. 

Fortunately the agencies are not yet run by France or the EU (though a proposal seems to be doing the rounds!).  These naughty agencies are not looking at UK rating levels - I guess that little though the UK is doing to reduce debt and the deficit, it is doing something! - instead they are looking at France's rating which seems to be at risk.

Thing I don't quite understand is who does the French Finance Minister think he is fooling?  Or who is listening to him other than for a blogg-able quote to denigrate and denounce? 

Why, when his own jardin is such a mess, is he looking over the fence and criticising the neighbor's garden?

It must be hard being French these days.  Wine is poor, old and over-priced, Triple A rating is about to become a thing of the past and, no that's it, there never was much!

Oh!  I know, Sarkozy  also has to closely watch Merkel's back-side so he doesn't bump into it when this French poodle follows its master.