Jeremy Corbyn – ain’tcha sick of him?

They never learn, do they!  For months before the General Election the media ran an unremitting campaign of vilification, mockery and misrepresentation against Nigel Farage. The more they did so, the more UKIP’s vote increased.

 

Now they are doing the same with Corbyn and each day his support in the polls grows, so that he now looks to be unstoppable, proving the old Barnum adage that the only bad publicity is no publicity.

 

He makes the front page every day. The current Telegraph has two headline pieces and 8 or 9 comment pieces

 

Of course, this may suit the Tories who envisage themselves to be the ‘natural party of government’ and in power for the foreseeable future, and the Lib-Dems who may see the fragmentation for the Labour Party that will surely follow as their opportunity for resurrection form the political grave.

 

The Parliamentary system demands an effective opposition to keep the Government in check. If Labour implodes, it is inevitable that back-bench Tories will start to make mischief, especially over the EU referendum.

 

As the proverb has it, ‘be careful what you wish for; you may receive it!’

 

 

Claire Short's chickens come home to roost............

The egregious Clare Short’s rant about the Chilcot inquiry almost certainly means that she is going to get roasted. Her come-uppance has been a long while in coming. No doubt Chilcot will make some reference to her threat to resign from the Blair Cabinet over war in Iraq and then voted to support it.

She first gained notoriety during the crisis in Montserrat when nearly half the island was destroyed  by the eruption of its volcano. The capital completely disappeared under volcanic mud. This included the only viable port. The airport was totally destroyed. Most of the good agricultural land remains in the ‘no-go’ area. The entire population of 15,000 was evacuated to the US and UK (it now stands at 5,000).

And how did the Secretary of State for International Development react to this disaster  in what was and still is a British Colony?

She refused to pay it even a short visit.

When faced with the need to construct a new airport, her Department selected a site after minimal local consultation, which the people said was in absolutely the wrong place. It is.

Her response to this was that ‘They will be wanting golden elephants next’, whatever that was supposed to mean. Not that she was very receptive to advice from any quarter. When she visited South Africa, her DFID advisor told me that she was the easiest Minister to brief ever. She never listened to anybody!

But her lasting achievement was the betrayal of white farmers in Zimbabwe with repercussions that will continue to be felt well into the future.

The Lancaster House Agreement that settled the new constitution had a clause that protected the private property rights of white farmers for the first 10 years. The Thatcher led government undertook  to provide the money needed to purchase their land for redistribution. The US Government provided funds to enable land to be redistributed on a ‘willing buyer, willing seller basis’.

By the end of the 10-year moratorium the promised Funds  had not materialized. Only £44 million had come through against a budget of $US 2 billion..

The new Labour Government ratted on the Agreement.

In a letter to the Zimbabwe Minister of Agriculture, Clare Short said that "we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe." She went on to write "We are a new government from diverse backgrounds, without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers."

She further informed the Zimbabwean government that the election of a Labour government “without links to former colonial interests” meant Britain no longer had any “special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchases

The inevitable consequence of this cynical repudiation of a binding agreement by Labour had its inevitable consequence.

Mugabe confiscated 4,500 white-owned farms without any compensation and  the main plank of the economy was ruined. Farmers were murdered if they resisted the confiscation of land which had been wild bush before they arrived. The whole economy became a total basket case, and the currency collapsed. The country was totally impoverished.

That is her lasting legacy.

Kiddy-fiddling; police hot on the trail

The police are back on the trail of claims of child abuse and worse which are of considerable antiquity and absorb such an amount of manpower resources that the Old Bill is quite unable to investigate petty crimes such as burglary.

 

Now they are after poor old Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP for Basildon and Billericay. At a press conference, Harvey revealed that he was alleged to have been a member of a gang of big-shots who regularly raped, assaulted and murdered teenage boys in posh surroundings like Dolphin Square.

 

The gang is supposed to have included Edward Heath (well, it would, wouldn’t it!), Leon Brittan (ditto), and the Heads of MI5 and MI6, the former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Bramall, and General Sir Hugh Beach. No doubt dotty old Lord Janner might expect a call from the Met in due course.

 

The fact is that Harvey and Ted couldn’t abide each other. HP was an acolyte of Enoch Powell and well to the right of the Tory Party.

 

HP was forced to resign from Parliament after being convicted and fined for homosexual offences that would not be offences today.

 

All this is alleged to have taken place around 30 years ago.

 

Then there is the complete farce of the police ‘enquiries’ into alleged paedophile activities by Ted Heath. No less than five police forces are involved.

 

This has been not merely absurd but outrageous. What possessed the Wiltshire police to hold a photo-call for the media outside Heath’s former residence if not simply grandstanding? Never mind ruining the reputation of a man who devoted his life to public service so long as plod can get the front page.

 

And yet Heath had constant 24-hour police  protection for the whole time that he was prominent in politics until his death. There was a police car outside his house at all times. I saw it every time I walked by his house in Salisbury.

 

So how come the Special Branch boys never spotted Ted sneaking off for a bit of kiddy-fiddling.

 

Then we turn to the interminable inquiry into child abuse at a children’s’ home in Jersey. It is alleged that Ted was at it there, too. Except that the only time he is known to have visited Jersey was in his yacht, Morning Cloud. He carried a large crew and yet we are asked to believe that not one of them noticed was Ted was up to.

 

The whole enquiry could have been a ‘Carry-on’ film script. The Jersey rozzers had got the idea that there were mass graves near the children’s home, so they started digging. It would seem that the original holes were dug as part of a location scene for a TV police series (Bergerac?).

 

Then they found some human remains that got them rather excited until it turned out that they had been there since about the 15^th Century.

 

Will we next hear that the Met is investigating the murders in London of two small boys and that the chief suspect is believed to be one Richard Plantagenet?

 

Maybe the police should be charged under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act.

 

Wasting police time!

WW2; my part in our victory......

6^th April 1945. We were playing in the street with some mates when two        Wellington bomber passed almost overhead. My brother looked up just at the moment they collided. Moments later there was the sound of an enormous explosion. There was nothing recognisable as an aircraft. There was only an aluminium shower floating slowly to earth.

 

There was one parachute. Then the burning fuel from the plane caught up with it, there was a brief flare as it burnt up almost immediately and the airman fell free-fall about 1000 feet.

 

We were off a full tilt, running or on our bikes. But the first person on the scene was our school-friend Janet who lived on the opposite side of the road from the impact.

 

The main wreckage had fallen in a field just a few yards from our country railway station. Some debris had on  the line, closing it for quite a time, but by some miracle left the station building and waiting room untouched.

 

Janet stumbled across a flying-boot and then wished she hadn’t. It contained a foot!

 

By the time we arrived, the firemen were already damping down the wreckage and invited us to go away (or words to that effect). Callous little devils that we were, we gave no thought to the sudden deaths of perhaps eight or ten young men.

 

We were after loot, especially Perspex from the plane’s windows which we would carve into all manner of things, like rings and knuckle-dusters.

 

Epilogue. Searching for hard facts to support 70-year-old memories, I am indebted to David King, Chairman of the Aircrew Remembrance Society for the following information:

 

 

‘The Wellington Collision you witnessed accrued on the 6^th April 1945, both aircraft from 26 O.T.U. Little Horwood, Wellingtons, serial No. HE928, flown by F/Lt D L Wise, and serial No.LN540 flown by F/Of M L Hore’. He provide a map showing the point of impact together with a photo of one of the engines, which has been donated to Bletchley Park.

 

Nuclear Iran; what's the big deal?

The Iran deal may be Obama’s lasting legacy, but not if  the more Neanderthal members of Congress have their way.

 

And yet whichever way you look at it, the agreement is both tough and as good as the West is likely to get. It has provisions which are not only the most stringent ever imposed on a nuclear-ambitious nation, but are likely to have the positive result of re-admitting  Iran to respectable society and putting an end to the ‘Great Satan’ nonsense that has bedevilled US/Iranian relations for a generation.

 

And yet there is little in the media about the detail.

 

First up, Iran will have to destroy 98% of its enriched uranium and all the weapons-quality uranium, remove two-thirds of its centrifuges and all its advanced centrifuges, stop all enrichment at its Fordo nuclear plant and moth-ball its plutonium reactor

 

Until the IAEC is satisfied that there has been total compliance, all economic sanctions will remain in force. All facilities are liable to spot checks and monitoring at any time.

All these steps must be completed to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency. If the Iranians are caught red-handed breaking the terms, there are ‘snap-back; provisions whereby sanctions would be automatically and instantly re-imposed without the need for agreement between the sanctioning nations.

 

The naysayers contend that the predicted leap-forward of the Iranian economy when not burdened with sanctions would enable Iran to push forward an even more ambitious nuclear programme after the agreement expires in 15 years. Perhaps, but realpolitik says that the other signatory nations will not agree to extending sanctions now that there is an agreement that they regard as acceptable regardless of the largely ill-informed views  of grandstanding right-wingers in Congress.

 

The latter also contend that greater prosperity would enable Iran to increase its financing of terrorism. Again, this may be so but one might say ‘Well, what else is new?’ If there is no agreement Iran will continue to finance terrorism regardless. A more likely scenario is that the Iranian people are tired of the deprivation and suffering resulting from sanctions and will demand a return to normality and well-being that relief would bring and which is long overdue.

 

If the antis in Congress have their way, Iran will simply accelerate its nuclear programme, and the US will be left isolated and humiliated.

Never has ‘carpe diem’ seemed so relevant.

 

Calais cock-up.......

Ah, sweet mystery of life; why is it that the Masters of the Universe look for difficult solutions when facing simple problems. The solution to the migrant disaster in Calais is simple.

 

The West Africans are economic migrants. They have no business trying to come to the UK from countries such as Nigeria, one of the richest in the world (admittedly most of it is stolen by the elites, but that is not our problem). Many are French-speakers who seem not to be welcome by their former colonial rulers, who in any case are far less generous than the soft British when it comes to jobs, housing, and hand-outs.

 

It the French are not willing to accept them, they should invoke EU law and send them back to their first port of entry into Europe, which is almost certainly Italy from whence the authorities have been quietly helping them over the borders of other countries.

 

The alternative is to air-lift them back to their native lands. Whatever the French decide, the fact is that it is a French problem, not ours, and we are not taking any illegals.

 

So much for the West Africans. What about the other illegals, from Syria and Somalia?

 

Another matter altogether. They are refugees and the countries to which they flee have obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees.

 

 A refugee is defined as  "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’.

 

That seems to be a pretty good description for Somalis and Syrians. The fact that they are ‘illegals’ is irelevant. The Convention goes on to say that

A refugee has the right to be free from penalties pertaining to the illegality of their entry to or presence within a country, if it can be shown that they acted in good faith- that is, if the refugee believes that there was ample cause for their illegal entry/presence, i.e. to escape threats upon their life or freedom, and if they swiftly declare their presence.  The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31).

 

So sending them back, as the Standard 6 noise-makers advocate, is not an option. But there is another more positive solution at least partially.

 

We now appreciate that the Syrians are frequently educated and professionally-qualified. Unlike Africans, these are not people who have been exposed to our concept of civilization for two or three centuries. They come from one of the cradles of civilization. Many speak flawless English, as we have seen from TV news interviews.

 

So we should get amongst them and cherry-pick those who could be economically useful. Our own economy is suffering a chronic and serious skills-shortage.

 

But Germany needs 200,000 immigrants to make up for its declining population. As ‘Stonewall’ Jackson is alleged to have said ‘Blessed is he whose cause is just; but thrice blessed is he who gets his blow in fust’.

 

Trumped!

The talk of the town just now is the reprehensible Donald Trump. He is a profound embarrassment and is seriously chipping away at the chances of a conservative government in the forthcoming election. It is not so much that he could win, he cannot, but in his denial of this fact he may opt to run as a third party candidate. The result would be a sufficient draw on otherwise republican votes to decisively cut into their chances. As demographics now stand, whoever runs on the democratic ticket will win owing to their slightly superior numbers. A strong and appealing republican candidate could sway voters into supporting the man rather than their party, but only marginally. Trump could pre-empt that margin and the threat of such action strikes terror into the hearts of the republican political machine.

 

Then we have the God-fearing, clean living ultra conservative Ted Cruz. Old Ted is a man of principle and honor, or so he claims. Taking this to heart, he stood up in the Senate this week and loudly and without mitigation called the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, a liar. Nobody is quite far enough to the right to satisfy Ted and so, in his own version of political megalomania, he trespassed onto every senate rule and convention by publicly insulting a sitting colleague.

 

There is, of course, no doubt that Ted's accusation was blatantly true, but Mitch staunchly denied it and fellow senators quickly abandoned Ted like bees in a hive on fire. No loss, as Ted could not get sufficient political oxygen on his extended limb to breath life into himself let alone his party. So Ted is left with whatever self-satisfaction the self-righteous can muster and perhaps to mull an arrangement allowing him to join up with Donald to form a bête noir party.

At last! Obama gets his legacy.

At last Obama has secured his ‘legacy’ and in the most unusual and unexpected circumstances.

 

Perhaps the most serious criticisms levied against him relate to  foreign policy. Obama’s foreign policy has been not to have one. Under his stewardship, America has progressively withdrawn from the world, leaving an open field for China and Russia.

 

And yet his legacy will be two historic foreign policy ‘triumphs’.

 

First up is Cuba.

 

For 56 years the two countries have been scowling and snarling at each other. The American posture has been diplomatic lunacy. It embargoed all trade, including that by foreign companies with American interests. It banned travel between the two countries. It ended all diplomatic relations.

 

It banned oil exports, leaving Russia with an open goal to supply Cuba in an oil-for-sugar barter agreement that allowed Russia to establish a major foothold in the Caribbean and threated American security and interests throughout Latin America.

 

Most disastrously it engendered the Cuban missile crisis which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

 

Not only was American policy plain daft;  it was counter-productive. It allowed communism to become entrenched in Cuba by allowing Castro to use the existential threat from the US to crush any semblance of dissent.

 

And it allowed Castro to present himself to Latin America and the world as the Hispanic hero who stood-up to the bullying Yanqui.

 

Now Obama has begun the process of normalisation. And not before time!

 

Next is the Iran deal which might – just – end a stand-off between the two that has lasted for nearly four decades. There is a wider context than only America. The deal was endorsed by six world powers and the EU.

 

Will it work?

                      

The antis think it a defeat, a sell-out. Israel calls it ‘an historic disaster’.

 

There may be considerable substance in their fears. The regime of the ayatollahs has been characterised by meddling and mischief-making of the highest order throughout most of the Middle East. It is interfering in Iraq and Syria, supporting Hizbullah in the Lebanon; and stirring up trouble in Yemen and Bahrain.

 

Lifting sanctions will release more money for fomenting trouble.

 

The supporters believe that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be stymied for 10 to 15 years, by which time re-joining the world, attracting trade, investment and tourism, bringing prosperity to the much put-upon population. After all, the regime itself could be threatened by the worsening of the condition of the people through extended sanctions.

 

What options do the antis propose? There seem to be only two; wait for a better deal or war. The first is unlikely and the West has learnt from its adventures in Iraq that the second makes matters worse, much worse.

 

If the deal works it will secure Obama’s place in history.

 

But there is one legacy that he might not wish to remember.

 

The British tend to regard some US Presidents with affection (FDR, Ronnie. Ike) or indifference (Carter).

 

Obama is possibly the only POTUS in living memory who has been actively disliked in the UK. The reasons are not difficult to find.

 

He maintains that his grandfather (whom he never knew) was imprisoned and tortured by the British for his part in the Mau Mau  uprising.

We are informed that this was the reason why Obama threw out the bust of Winston Churchill whom he regarded as a colonialist oppressor. The fact that Winnie was half-American, an honorary American citizen and idolised by most Americans was of little consequence.

 

We regarded this as a studied insult to the British people as a whole.

 

There are no records of his being jailed at all, although there is anecdote that he was locked up for 6 months in 1949. On what charge there is no evidence, but it could not have been for a Mau Mau connection because  the uprising only began three years later, in 1952. He was a Luo. Mau Mau was Kikuyu. He came from western Kenya, far away from the violence. He was a Muslim. Mau Mau were animists who bound their supporters by vile oaths.

 

Most of the sources for this tale are garbage. One maintains that it was Obama’s father who was locked up, and that Mao Mao (not Mau Mau) is so-called because they were followers of Chinese communism.

 

The only known ‘atrocity’ was the killing of eleven detainees at the Hola Detention camp. There was a full enquiry as a result of which all detention camps were closed.

 

Then there was his contemptuous treatment of Gordon Brown when Brown visited him and the belittling gift of DVDs which were not playable on the UK system anyway.

 

Finally there was his outrageous attacks on BP during the immediate aftermath of the oil rig tragedy when the causes and responsibility were unknown. He made great play of ‘British Petroleum’ although it has not been called this for years, is an international company no longer British and the rig was not only under the auspices of BP America based in Texas but largely managed by Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s paymaster.

 

But never let the truth get in the way of some Brit-bashing.

 

 

 

Nigerians, lock up your daughters: Boko Haram is back!

Boko Haram was quiet for a while. Now it is back with a vengeance. What has been going on?

 

The explanation involves SSTEP - Specialized Tasks, Training, Equipment and Protection. This is the successor to Executive Outcomes, a private army that existed in South Africa from 1989  to 2000, both founded by Colonel Barlow, a former commander in the South African Defence Force. In 1995, EO gave the arm-choppers of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone a good thrashing. There was relative peace until EO was withdrawn and the mayhem began all over again until it was finally snuffed out by the Royal Marines and the Paras,

 

Now history is repeating itself.

 

When Nigerian forces proved to be very bad at fighting BH but very good at robbing, kidnapping and murdering innocent civilians, the then-President Goodluck Jonathan turned  to Col.Barlow.

 

At its peak, the army numbered around 1500 men, mostly battle-hardened veterans who had honed their trade in Angola and Namibia.. They were dubbed ‘koevoet’ – the hammer – as tough as they come, skilled at arms, and very experienced in bush-warfare. They were the only multi-racial fighting unit in the South African military. Of course, they are now ageing but they reckon that it’s experience that counts more than youthfulness.

 

About 100 men were deployed in Nigeria, and they were equipped with attack helicopters. Their key tactic is ‘relentless pursuit’ in which they chased BH into exhaustion and then cut off their escape routes by landing troops ahead of them. BH got hammered and fled back into the bush.

 

Then the Nigerians got a new Big Man when Jonathan lost the Presidential election.

 

He promptly sacked all his top Generals.    . He also got rid of the South Africans.

 

And BH immediately returned, now affiliated to ISIL. No surprise there, then.

 

The lesson is blindingly obvious.

 

 

Osborne's 'lefty' budget.

Two key issues attracted very differing media reactions to Osborne’s ‘socialist’ budget.

 

The first is the ‘living wage’, which has been seen as a left-wing innovation that steals a key plank in Labour policy.

 

It is nothing of the sort.

 

For a start, there is nothing new about it. It has been in effect in Australia for 120 years. Wages Councils were begun by Winston Churchill before the first World War. In introducing the legislation, Winston said ‘It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions’. Almost all countries have some form of control over minimum wages.

 

And this was not a piece of Labour policy. It was put together by Steve Hilton when he was Senior Advisor to David Cameron. Osborne proposes an eventual  starting level of  ‘more than’ £9 per hour. The Living Wage Foundation estimates that the living wage for London is £9.15 per hour.

 

There has been a marked lack of support or enthusiasm amongst the chatterati. They maintain that setting a ‘living’ wage means higher costs for employers and a massive loss of jobs. But this is not confirmed by experience or any reliable evidence. On the contrary, a decent wage is reflected in increased productivity,  much lower staff turnover (a costly business for the employer), and increased commitment and loyalty from the workforce.

 

The Working Tax Credit will go, and not before time. It is misconceived morally, socially and economically. It is grossly misnamed. It is not a ‘tax credit’. It is a welfare payment; it keeps the low-paid in the benefits trap and diminishes their dignity and independence. In effect. It is subsidy to employers  that encourages them to pay below the proper rate  to the tune of more than £3000  a year for each family, of which there are around 2.3 million.

 

Its abolition will save the taxpayers about £1.4 billion. It could be usefully redeployed to reduce National Insurance for smaller firms facing statutory  wage increases.

 

The second was defence and it elicited almost no comment. The expected cuts did not materialise. Instead Osborne appeared to ‘ring fence’ it at 2% of GDP. This means a year-on-year budget increase if the economy continues to prosper. Cynics may wonder about the catch. Will other security-related spending be loaded onto the defence budget, such as aid to war-zones, or anti-terrorism measures?

 

For the present it looks as if defence has the dubious privilege of sharing a special status  with foreign aid, that bottomless pit into which the government shovels vast amounts of tax-money where it disappears without trace.

 

The Tory commitment to ever-increasing amounts of ‘aid’ is incomprehensible.

 

At this time the UK is unable to track Russian submarines in British waters as there has been no early warning capacity since the scrapping of Nimrod without replacement. The cost of this would be £250 million, the same as the amount given to India in aid.

 

Meanwhile, the Department for International Development has the task of spending £30 million every day. The consequence is that they simply spend, spend, spend  without any monitoring of the effects. The entire farce is input-oriented; get rid of the money and don’t bother with the outcomes because DFID simply does not have the institutional capacity. In reporting on the situation, the Government’s own watchdog says that its inspectors encounter examples where “ambitious spending targets” seemed to take priority over considerations such as whether the poor were being helped. “When we asked one contractor what Dfid meant by “impact” the response was: 'it doesn’t come up very often’.

 

Meanwhile,  the taxman is given an average of £400 a year per household to spend on a charity of his choice.

 

It’s a mad world, my masters!

 

Class warfare and the SNP.

Nicola ‘Mugabe’ Sturgeon is wasting no time in pressing ahead with the creation of the Caledonian Democratic Peoples Republic, the prime target, as ever, being those capitalist running-dogs, the rural landowners.

Non-domestic rates were abolished in Scotland long ago which brought it into line with the English practice. Sturgeon’s land reform will bring back NDR on agricultural land and sporting estates and woodland.

This is ideological, a weapon in the class war. Profitability on sporting estates is very marginal. There is little alternative use. It is likely to lead to the break-up of large estates and shaft the lairds. Which is the intention.

There will be ‘powers for Scottish Ministers to intervene where the scale of land ownership and land management decisions are a barrier to local sustainable development’. This also targets rural landowners; much is made of the fact that half the rural land is owned by just 432 people ignoring another fact, that most of this land is unviable except in large units.

But the real stinker is ‘the modernisation of succession law so that all children are treated equally when it comes to inheriting land’.

At this time,  a testator can leave his property, whether land or just money and personal effects, to whomsoever he chooses. In the absence of a will, land will pass by primogeniture.

Although we have yet to see the small print, the general principle being pursued by the SNP is for both moveable and immovable property to be shared amongst the family.

Until modern times this was the practice in European countries that followed Roman/Dutch law or the Code Napoleon. The upshot was that with each passing generation the holdings became smaller and eventually unviable. The law of succession ensured that large estates were broken up, which suits the SNP admirably. But if Comrade Sturgeon believes all this will be easy she is in for a rude shock.

The landed gentry has remarkable survival capacity. Over the centuries it has suffered confiscation, execution by tyrants like Henry VIII, taxes, death duties, decimation of its heirs in WW1. It continues in rude health.

Magna Carta says ‘NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold’. The sanctity of freehold is an essential feature  of political, social and economic stability.

 

Since Ms Sturgeon is a great admirer and supporter of the Greek Marxist buffoons currently ‘governing’ Greece, perhaps this is of little consequence to her. Scottish country-folk don’t vote SNP.

 

The Daily Telegraph: drinking in the Last Chance saloon?

For quite some time, I have felt that the Daily Telegraph was due for a change of ownership. Now it looks as if the 11-year reign of terror by the Barmy Barclay Brothers might have run its course. The twins are now 80, they no longer seem to take much interest in the paper.

 

Private Eye has been running a hatchet job for over a year about the conflicts of interest between editorial and advertising and the shambolic staff situation. The rate of attrition from the editorial side has been awesome; it is surprising that there are any actual writers left.

 

The first notable departure was Simon Heffer, widely believed to be due to his hostility to Cameron. Since then there has been a rout culminating in the pyrotechnic departure of Peter Oborn; he accused the Chief Executive, Murdoch MacLennan of committing a fraud on readers by suppressing news in deference to advertisers, specifically the HSBC scandal. He joins Heffer at the Daily Mail.

 

The average tenure of the Editor has been less than 2 years. But whole flocks of chickens are now coming home to roost. The American boss brought in to digitalise the paper has been fired – hardly surprising, unlike his appointment; he had no experience whatsoever in the print media. It is probably digitalisation that makes the on-line DT a shambles,  with ‘comment’ items remaining on the page for days and news updates failing to appear. MacLennan could well be the ultimate victim of his own regime.

 

During the Barclay’s ownership,  pre-tax profits have fallen by about $10 million, sales have almost halved, and the on-line operation is very lacklustre. The Barclay twins paid £625 million for the paper in 2004. That works out at around £1 billion in today’s money.

 

So who will buy it?

 

Well, the record seems to show that national newspapers are a vanity venture for billionaires; profitability is a secondary consideration. It is entirely possible that there is a fabulously rich Asia, Russian or Chinese somewhere out there who fancies being owner of the House Journal of the Tory Party (which actually it is no longer).

 

One name being bandied about is Lakshmi Mittal the steel magnate. He had better be quick; the decline in the quality of the DT has been so marked and so rapid that survival must be the top priority.