ISIL; what are you going todo now, Dave

The old war-time Music Hall comedian, Rob Wilton, would open his act  with;

 

‘The day war broke out, my missus said to me ‘ What are you going to do about it?’’

 

Well, Dave, Mutti, François and the more junior members of your gang, what ae you going to do about  Islamists bombing you?

 

When ISIL first came on the scene, the establishment would have us believe (probably because they believed it themselves) that this was a bunch of religious fruitcakes who wanted nothing more than to turn the clock back to 830AD, and create a ‘pure’ Islamic caliphate. Their atrocities were clear proof of this. They were not interested in ‘the West’ and were no danger to us.

 

Well. They got that ever so slightly up their bottoms.

 

The ISIL campaign is a continuation world-wide of what began as 9/11. Then the Islamic terrorists won both tactically and strategically; tactically because they succeeded only too well in giving America a bloody nose, the most destructive blow the US had ever suffered at home from a foreign enemy; strategically because the objective was to lure America into over-retaliation and almost endless wars in Muslim countries at vast cost in treasure and lives.

 

Not only did US take the bait but as an added bonus to jihadism its enemy number one was the jihadis’ #1 enemy also, Saddam.

 

And the great ongoing success of the jihad has been to completely alter the western lifestyle – the imposition of security restrictions which are merely symbolic, expensive and farcical.

 

So it’s time for you Masters of the Universe to make a plan

 

You begin with a clear description of the aim, followed by the objective before providing a count-down on the steps to be taken sequentially to get a result.

 

To define it is not difficult – to exterminate every manifestation wherever it is found anywhere in the world. ‘Exterminate’ is the key word. ‘Victory’ or ‘triumph’ or other weasel words have no place in recognising that this existential threat must be wiped out as thoroughly as if it were some ‘ebola’ type disease. It demands the utmost ruthlessness and if this offends the ‘human rights’ faction, that will not cause too much loss of sleep.

 

The objective clearly is to wipe out ISIS ground forces operating in MENA and elsewhere, and to obliterate all terrorist cells operating in Europe and elsewhere, including what are clearly sophisticated and extensive logistical chains. These will include safe houses, weapon supplies, electronic equipment, false passports and all other support elements

 

Then comes the most difficult issue of how to achieve the objective.

 

First, the ‘Home Front’.

 

We have been here before.

 

We had 30 years of IRA terrorism that killed and maimed thousands in bomb attacks on shopping malls, markets, pubs and office blocks. In Europe, there was the Red Army Faction and other murderous Marxists who specialised in the assassination of public figures.

 

Lord Carey summed it up succinctly in the DT.

Let us take the example of terrorism. There is a risk that by overreacting we are conceding the very freedoms which we should be defending. Terrorists want to create fear and terror – it is what they exist to do. They want to divide our societies and they want us to change our policies and jettison our freedoms. As societies, we are now in danger of subjecting our citizens to an unacceptable level of surveillance and intrusion for the sake of a safety we will never achieve.

And we have forgotten that these acts of terror in Europe are mild in comparison with the violence people are experiencing elsewhere. The frequency of terror attacks is not even unusual in Europe’s recent history. In the Eighties and Nineties, Europe experienced many acts of terror attacks at the hands of the IRA and other groups. The death toll of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was an early signal of the lengths to which later Islamist terrorists would go.

In the UK, the security services seem to be doing a pretty effective job in catching jihadis, but it is a ‘given’ that indoctrination in schools and mosques must be firmly stamped out by putting the hate preachers out of circulation.

 

A good starting point would be the abolition of ‘faith’ schools, which have no educational value or relevance but are obvious breeding grounds for extremists. Banning all religious instruction and the wearing of clothing or artifacts proclaiming a religious belief naturally follows. Religion is excluded from education in France and the US by the constitution. It seems to have done them no harm; there are almost certainly more Church-goers in these countries than in the UK. And more widely, covering the face in public should be a criminal offence; after all, in English culture ‘mask’ means ‘criminal’ – your burglar or highwayman.

 

Schools and mosques should be subject to closure indefinitely or permanently if  radical Islamism is being peddled. Universities that tolerate the promotion of extreme Islam must be dealt with ruthlessly by dismissal of weak administration, withdrawal of funding and expulsion of radical students

 

There are some clues in the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 that served us well for many years. One provision was for internment. So that regardless as to whether there is evidence that would achieve a criminal conviction, those who wish us harm can be safely tucked away until the danger is no longer present. There were some effective ‘catch-all’ criteria, such as ‘spreading alarm and despondency’ and ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy’. Public support for individuals or organizations like HAMAS that advocate and support terrorism as a legitimate political weapon might well lead to an extended sea-side holiday as in WW2.

 

The nonsense of airport ‘security’ which signals triumph to jihadis must be abolished immediately and changed to an Israeli-style profiling approach so that security officials can concentrate their attention on swarthy young men with beards rather than white grannies with Zimmer frames. The Brussels slaughter proves that all security scanning should be done before entering the departures terminal; it works pretty well elsewhere.

 

And now to the ‘Eastern Front’.

 

The present disaster is a direct consequence of Obama’s ‘no boots on the ground’ stance. Assad would have been gone within a month if the western alliance had given him a good shove.

 

The west must stop regarding the Syria situation as being ‘counter insurgency’. It is not. ISIL is clearly organized, well-led almost certainly by Sunnis trained by the US  as a part of the Iraqi army reconstruction, well supplied, well financed. The beheadings and other atrocities appear to be carried out by adolescent  cannon-fodder as part of a deliberate tactic to terrorise the local populations into easy submission.

 

The only realistic solution is crushing military intervention using all available resources and assets until the enemy has ceased to exist. Yes, we have been there before but we tend to remember the disasters of Dubya and forget that Gulf War 1 was  a resounding and rapid victory at minimal cost in allied lives.

 

And hopefully our leaders will have learnt a few lessons since Gulf War 2 and Afghanistan. Meanwhile ISIS in Libya is only about 80 miles from  a European landfall.

 

 

 

Butt-out, Barry.....

If there is one thing guaranteed to get up British noses it’s when foreigners stick theirs into our business.

 

So the British public is unlikely to have been impressed by Obama  pontificating for months about how essential it is for UK to stay in the EU. His latest piece of nonsense is to suggest that leaving would undermine European security.

 

Eh?

 

The EU has no security role. That is the realm of NATO which is older, bigger and more successful in its task than anything the EU has tried to tackle. On the contrary, Brussels’ persistent attempts to set up an EU security force would weaken NATO. Its track record to date has been abysmal. It is still struggling to get agreement on how to handle the influx of refugees, a task that we took in our stride in similar circumstances immediately after WW2. Meanwhile, the other members have been content to rely on Britain and France for credible military capability in Europe whilst they spend about 50% less on defence budgets.

 

The EU would still be meeting in Brussels as Ivan’s tanks rolled up The Mall.

 

And it is particularly outrageous that Obama should propose that the UK should accept the kind of regime that would cause another civil war if anyone tried to introduce it into the US . Just imagine; the decisions of the Supreme Court overturned by a jurisdiction based in Mexico City; or the suction-power of vacuum cleansers laid down from Canada; or decisions of Congress being struck  down by another legislature based in Venezuela.

 

He recently upbraided Cameron for not doing enough to contain Libya ‘because he was distracted’, presumably by the EU pre-referendum negotiations. (The real reason was lack of military capacity due to Cameron’s spectacularly ill-judged and ill-timed defence cuts).

 

But what did Obama contribute to snuffing out the troubles in Libya? After all it is worth remembering that the chaos now infecting the whole of MENA was a direct result of America’s disastrous Gulf War 2, described as ‘the greatest strategic screw-up since Hitler invaded Russia’.

 

The US disbanded the Iraqi army so there was no internal security presence. It fired all Baath party members leaving the country without a civil service. Rumsfeld was warned of the consequences before the war began, which he proceeded to ignore. Dubya had just about cleaned up the mess when Obama took over.

 

He dashed for the exit as a result of which the disastrous Premier of Iraq got rid of Sunnis in Government and the military. The army then disintegrated after the US had spent about $25 billion on training it. Undoubtedly ex-Iraqi soldiers explain the success of ISIL, which the world is belatedly recognis9ng as more than a rablle of savages.

 

But after starting a bushfire that has spread across the Middle East, Obama has sat on his hands. Every time he draws a Red Line, Putin scrubs it out. He has done almost nothing about the Syrian conflict in five years. As to the refugee problem, the US has taken less than 3000 to date out of a total that must now exceed 2 million in Europe alone.

 

Now Obama is to visit the UK, stirring up apathy.

 

So keep it up, Barry. Every time you open your mouth there’s a few thousand more ‘ leave’ votes for the Brexiteers.

 

 

 

 

Arthur or Martha?

We oldies may be forgiven that for feeling that we are sometimes inhabiting a parallel universe with today’s yoof.

 

In our young days one of our concerns was freedom, especially of speech and expression. Then, it was severely circumscribed. Films were censored, and even if they survived scrutiny by the British Board of Film Censors, the Watch Committee of the local Council could ban it. The chairman of one such got rather more media coverage than he expected when he banned ‘Deep Throat’ . ‘In Southend oral sex is something which we will not swallow!’ he announced.

 

The theatre had been censored by the Lord Chamberlain since 1737 and was only abolished as late as 1968. Swinging sixties indeed. The office was responsible for some of the barmiest decisions known to man, including banning the words ‘up periscope’ from a Naval offering on the grounds that it might suggest buggery!

 

The Obscene Publications Act is still with us, so if you believe that ‘anything goes’ in this louche era you may be in for a surprise.

 

So the British people having campaigned for freedom of speech for centuries, where stands the present young generation?

 

Mainly in favour of banning anything that does not meet their own crackpot view of the world.  The ‘Rhodes must go’ campaign was a case in point. As foreign Rhodes Scholars privileged to be able to study at the expense of the British at Oxford University, the two black South Africans who led the campaign to get rid of the statue of Rhodes from Oriel College repaid our hospitality by insisting that British history should be rewritten.

 

Their future in South African politics is likely to be ‘solitary, nasty, brutish, and short’, (not that they would recognise the origin of that quotation).

 

Now it seems that there is a much broader target. They call it ‘No platform’, which means that they will refuse to give a hearing to any visiting speaker whose views do not coincide with their own. They have no wish to hear any alternative case.

 

One of the most publicised examples was when Germaine Greer was ‘no platformed’ because her views on ‘transgender’ did not suit the student Stalinists.

 

‘Trans’ seems to be their main focus for reasons that are completely obscure except for their wish to uncover even more ‘victims’  of this wicked, uncaring, selfish capitalist society. Nobody knows just how many ‘trannies’ there are, but a tiny minority of perhaps a few thousand at most.

 

The unvarnished truth is that the whole ‘trannie’ issue is a myth. There is no such thing as ‘transgender’; the word does not exist in the English language. Bearing in mind the deplorable state of literacy amongst today’s students, perhaps they mean ‘trans-sexual’ wherein a man wants to be a woman or vice versa.

 

Well, the bad news is that a sex change is not possible. Greer got into trouble by saying that a man who had his bits-and-pieces chopped off  was not a woman but a mutilated man; a eunuch. She was absolutely right.

 

It is simply not possible to change sex. A person born with one ‘X’ chromosome and one ‘Y’ is male. The female has two ‘X’ chromosomes. Nothing can change that.

 

There is no doubt that there are people who believe that they are in the wrong body for whatever reason; psychological, hormonal?

 

They don’t know whether they are Arthur or Martha; they deserve sympathy, not surgery!

 

 

Another nice mess......

 

The way we see it across the pond is that Europe and the UK will not unite under a common federation for the simple reason that both are far too tribal to permit domination by any single country component. The lack of tribal society in the USA is precisely why our federation has worked as well as it has.

 

This is not to say that a looser and more flexible union is impossible. The lurking suspicion remains that Germany is intrinsically dominant, France is congenitally xenophobic and the UK does not consider itself a European nation. In short, the basis for unity among Anglo and European nations does not exist.

 

The type of organization the EU needs to develop is still evolving and will continue to evolve as long as internal and external threats to its legitimacy arise. Once such threat is the immigrant dilemma which was clearly the result of Germany projecting a self image of a refugee friendly country in need of skilled workers. This image may well prove to be the downfall of Angela Merkel, but it will not make the German people less dominating

 

It is not that the Yanks don't have problems of their own; a major one being Donald Trump. Indeed, the entire cast of characters who make up candidates for the American Presidency are third rate adventurers seeking personal objectives that have little to do with statesmanship, leadership of the free world and competence in meeting contemporary challenges.

 

Donald's critics are finally getting it. He is a bully. Both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have recently used that very word in describing his character. His bullying has decimated candidates like Marco Rubio (little Marco) and Carly Fiorina (who would vote for a face like that). He regularly labels Ted Cruz a liar which he justifies by stating that he had to degrade Ted when his polling statistics began to rise. Donald has insulted just about everyone from individual reporters like Fox's political commentator Meygan Kelly to groups of people like the entire Muslim world, the Japanese, Chinese and Mexicans.

 

The inevitable association between The Donald and Adolph Hitler has belatedly hit the market and the loony left is issuing Nazi salutes at his rallies whenever they see a media camera. It looks as if these protesters have got his number as they are appearing more frequently and in greater numbers at Trump political rally. Donald wants the police to arrest them all and has very carefully avoided taking matters into his own hands. Clearly, the protesters are organized but by whom remains unclear. Donald blames Bernie Sanders supporters for one incident, but there are a myriad of groups, minorities and organizations that would gladly plot his downfall.

 

The USA has endured campaign episodes like this in the past. The vitriolic protesters are nothing new in theme or in scope. Not surprisingly, these protests help Donald politically by showering him with free publicity and by making him look like a victim. He needs to keep his wits about him, however, lest he succumb to the temptation to involve his own security people in combating the protesters and thereby enhance the 'brown shirt' image.

 

Unless something dramatic happens, it looks like Donald will indeed be the Republican nominee for president. Dr Ben Carson recently bowed out and soon afterward endorsed Trump. Rubio and Kasich are miles behind in the electoral vote counts and have no hope of catching up. If Ted Cruz had his way, they would both drop out and give Ted the chance to campaign one on one against Trump. Ted must know by now that his still would have no chance of beating Trump in the remaining primaries.

 

There is some talk of having a brokered convention in which those people who have delegate votes would meet and agree to deliver the majority of their votes to someone other than Trump. This is feasible from the perspective that the Republican establishment seriously dislikes and fears Trump as a loose cannon and as a person who has promised to upset the prevailing legacy of 'going along to get along' in the House and Senate. The problem is, that any such brokerage would logically involve the next most popular candidate; Ted Cruz. And the establishment hates Tad as much as they hate Donald.

 

Talk about adding to the gaiety of nations

 

 

 

 

Donald trumped by Old Molly....

In the event that The Donald becomes POTUS, an event that is turning from nightmare to possibility, there will be one place where a State Visit will be unwelcome.

 

Scotland. In particular, Balmenie, home of the Trump Golf Links.

 

Ten years ago he bought the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire with the avowed intention of building  Golf Links aimed at the mega-rich. When the news got out, all hell broke loose amongst the locals.

 

This was a site of special scientific interest (SSSI). It was one of the most important and sensitive environmental and conservation areas in Scotland. Its sand dunes were unique. It was a treasure trove of wildlife, marine life, trees and plants, and the local and national conservation organisations were appalled. So was the local planning authority. It threw out the planning application as an environmental disaster and totally incompatible with all planning criteria.

 

And there the matter should have rested. But there is a particular characteristic of Trump. He is only too aware that money talks and that many politicians like what it says.

 

Step forward the Wee Eck aka Alex Salmond, the then Chief Minister. In an almost unprecedented move, he had the planning application called in, and in the teeth of local opposition led by the Aberdeen Council, permission was duly granted. Salmond’s case was that the employment and economic benefits outweighed environmental considerations, although the economic benefits of a game of golf are not clear. But it has been described as ‘one of the worst environmental crimes in recent UK history’.

 

Then the irresistible Trump came up against the immovable Molly Forbes, a feisty Aberdonian in her 90s.

 

She and her son occupy a farm bordering Trump. He wanted it, and tried every kind of blandishment, bullying and intimidation. He even tried to persuade the authorities to use a compulsory purchase order, a perversion of justice since CPOs are for developments in the public interest, not private gain.

 

Molly found her water supply interrupted. Her electricity was cut off by a Trump digger. There was alleged harassment by security guards. The makers of a documentary about the ruckus were arrested by the Grampian Police, handcuffed and bundled into the back of a police car. No charges were brought.

 

Trump described Michael Forbes, Molly’s son, as ‘the village idiot’ , and described their farm as a ‘pigsty’. Meanwhile, photographs of the refuse, waste and general detritus on Trump’s building site suggest wholesale breaches of health and safety and hygiene rules.

 

But Michael and Molly are as immovable as the granite hills of Aberdeenshire

 

And Nemesis may be just around the corner in the shape of Scotland’s draconian new limits on drink driving; one drink could cost you your driving licence. Alcohol consumption has dropped by as much as 60% in some places. Golf clubs are particularly affected because of the tradition of playing the 19^th hole. One major club has already gone bust.

 

Maybe time to revise those profit forecasts, Donald.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brexit: here's another nice mess, Dave.........

It was a snow-job from the outset.

 

Cameron would have us believe that he agreed to hold a referendum with the greatest reluctance and misgivings in order to respond to public demand. It was the will of the people!

 

It was nothing of the sort. He calculated on the basis of previous experience of referenda in Europe that he would win by a landslide, and public demand had nothing to do with it. It was about the  long-standing schism in the Tory party itself, and the expectation that this would be laid to rest at long last and permanently. History shows that referenda are almost always won by the rulers because they have a crushing grip on the propaganda machinery. Adolf Hitler was a prime example. The omens are already there indicating that the Establishment  will throw its enormous weight behind ‘In’, and that the first casualty will be truth.

 

The ‘In’ campaign reminds one of Dickens’ Fat Boy in Pickwick Papers. ‘I wants to make your flesh creep’. So far the bulk of the ‘In’ campaign has been the fear factor.

 

The ‘In’s trumpet that 36% of FTSE 100 companies have signed a letter (drafted no doubt in Number 10) supporting ‘stay’. That is not going to play particularly well with a Scunthorpe steel worker who has lost his job because Brussels failed to prevent dumping of Chinese steel at below production cost. And disregards the fact that the other 64% of companies did not sign!

 

According to them, Brexit spells doom. ‘Nearly 50%’ of UK exports go to the EU’; not mentioned is that a significant proportion is goods in transit through Rotterdam, Antwerp etc. to non-EU destinations. Or that the EU economy overall is in decline in comparison with the rest of the world; its share of CDP has fallen from 30% to 24%.Britain’s top 5 export markets are the US, Germany, Switzerland, China and France. Only 8 of the 28 EU members has trade with the UK of any real significance. Ireland is the only EU country with which the UK shows a trade surplus.

 

EU exports themselves are falling as a percentage of world trade, from 54% to 44%. The overall trade deficit has risen from £11 billion to £62 billion.

 

We have General Armchair writing to the press (another letter drafted in No. 10?) saying that Brexit would endanger our national security. Eh? Despite the boasts that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for half-a-century, the key has been NATO, principally the US and UK (France was absent most of this time, having a Gaullist sulk). As it happens, the only two EU members capable of defending themselves are the UK and France, the other members preferring to cower profitably behind the NATO shield by spending only around half of the minimum required defence budgets.

 

It is correct to say that the EU is crucial in terms of national security, but not in the way the ‘In’ lobby present it.

 

The truth is that the EU, far from being a bulwark, is in itself the greatest threat to our national security this Century when taken in the context of international terrorism.

 

Because we are unable to control our own borders and decide for ourselves whom to admit or keep out, we are vulnerable to penetration. The bloodshed in France has shown that ‘free movement’ includes the free movement of jihadists. The chaotic response to the refugee crisis has certainly flooded Europe with undesirables, but it is a reasonable certainty that a worrying number of them are likely to be terrorists. As if this were not problem enough, we have meddling European courts that prevent us from getting rid of foreign criminals, whose ‘human rights’ appear to be more important than  ours.

 

The EU’s track record when it has indulged in foreign entanglements has been woeful. It failed totally in the Balkans (although it is preparing to welcome those semi-criminal states into the fold). As for the Ukraine, it is now widely accepted that this crisis was triggered by Brussels’ clumsy attempts to draw Ukraine into club membership and by implication into NATO. Unsurprisingly this immediately spooked the Russians, and so here we are!

 

Most of all, we have the immigration crisis; this was perfectly capable of orderly management, but Brussels proceeded to prove that, to use the old cliché, ‘they couldn’t organise a booze-up in a brewery’.

 

Then there is the ruckus over Cabinet papers. The Cabinet Secretary says Brexit Ministers can’t have them because their purpose is to reflect and express Government policy, which these Ministers don’t support. What policy might that be?

 

The one reasonable certainty is that the campaign will be demeaning. The In crowd are already focusing in three areas.

 

The first is cupidity. The emphasis will be on imminent economic collapse, loss of jobs and business, with a fine disregard for the evidence, as has been seen already. And expats will have to leave their Spanish villas and return to the privations of a British climate. We will have to pay more for most things as Europe will hit us with swingeing customs duties.

 

The second is the innate conservatism of the British people. They will vote for the status quo unless there is a clear, attractive and better option.

 

The third is risk-aversion; ‘Always keep hold of nurse for fear of getting something worse’. The In crowd will play heavily on seeding insecurity and fear of the unknown.

But we should not expect much emphasis on the most important issue. Sovereignty. The millions of people who fought (and often died in a centuries-old struggle for Parliamentary democracy  did not do in order to turn a profit. Their struggle was to achieve what our political masters have lost and thrown away; the supremacy of Parliament; the end of tyranny by  autocrats; the election of our law givers and the ability to toss them out if a majority of people so decide; a judicial and legal system in which final decisions were made by our own courts.

In Europe, our Parliament is subject to dictation by foreigners whom the British did not elect; laws are subject to interference from another country; we are conditioned by an unelected bureaucracy far away; court decisions may be overruled by foreign courts of dubious integrity and competence. Our ‘Supreme Court’ is anything but.

Is this what we want for ourselves and future generations?

‘Look upon my works, O ye mighty, and despair’.

 

 

 

 

Footba' crazy, footba' mad.........

I belong to an oppressed and endangered species.  I loathe, detest and despise  ‘the beautiful game’ and everything that goes with it.

 

Its lifeblood is greed.

 

There is something repellent about kicking a plastic ball around a field for 90 minutes and being paid obscene amounts of money. The average Premier League player pulls down £2.3 million a year. Wayne Rooney will trouser £73 million for his five-year contract, Ferdinand £44 million, Garrard £42 million, Mourinho £40 million, Lampard £39 million, Ronaldo £80 million, Messi £52 million .

 

In Britain, footballers occupy 7 of the 10 ‘rich list’ places. Time was when the boyhood heroes, Tommy Lawton, Wo’or Jackie, Stanley Matthews, got by on £12.50 a week!

 

But King of the Midden is Brand Beckham, worth a cool £500 million (to be fair, he personally donates to charities, especially these for children, including £3.4 million that he earned playing for Paris St Germaine).

 

The Premier League is said to be the richest football league in the world. Its TV rights deal nets over £5 billion. It is so awash with cash that there is possibly no need to charge for tickets, and yet Liverpool attempted to increase its ticket price over £70 but was forced into retreat when 10,000 fans walked out f a home game in protest.

 

But all this fades into relative insignificance when the massive corruption and embezzlement right at the top remains uncorrected.

 

FIFA has been a byword for fiscal crime over many years. It was only when Blatter finally overreached himself that the balloon burst. It was common knowledge for years that Blatter couldn’t lay straight in bed, but the world of football simply shrugged its shoulders and he kept getting re-admitted to the cookie jar. Meanwhile, pardon us if we ae a little cynical about  the successor’s ability to clean up the mess. One hopeful sign is that the new man is not a machine FIFA place-man; he is currently head of UEFA and uncontaminated by FIFA history.

 

And to pile on the ordure, at League and club level, match-fixing has been described as ‘endemic’. In 2013, Europol investigated 680 match-fixing allegations in 30 countries.

 

Then there is the constant invasion of our personal space. Hours of prime-time TV are taken up with matches, often between teams largely known for their obscurity. The most common sound in pubs these days is of a commentator shouting his head off as if he had no microphone and who is watching in a warm studio – not even present at the game. The accompaniment is the yells and roars and fist-waving from the customers as if they were.

 

There is a pub nearby that has been extensively and tastefully renovated and furnished. There are three comfortable bars. In each one there is a massive flat-screen TV blaring out a match often between two  foreign teams with the commentary in Italian. But perhaps all is not lost. Some pubs now advertise ‘No football’ as a major attraction, which, of course, it is.

 

Worst of all, perhaps, is  the death of conversation. In male company the talk is all about how Man United fared or whatever. They are indifferent to the louche behaviour of some players, yet scarcely a week passes without a front-page story of some sexual or other misdemeanour.

 

As to the financial scandals, they couldn’t give a damn.

 

 

The Last Trump: revenge of the plebs................

The single truth emerging from our latest endeavor to elect POTUS is that everybody got it wrong Considerable pundit and funder support went to Jeb Bush who was considered the best bet to defeat Hillary Clinton. Jeb cratered along with the hopes and millions of dollars in investment of his Super PAC (Political Action Committee) supporters, or rather gamblers.

 

 

Looking backward, Jeb mounted a campaign his father and brother were proud to endorse. Problem is, Jeb failed miserably to capture the prevailing climate of opinion. Americans are angry, frustrated and fed up with our politicians in both houses and in the Oval Office. We are not yet revolution minded, but if nothing is done, there could be a spot of bother.

 

We now know that anyone associated with the political establishment has a poor chance at best of winning mass support. Hillary who was up until a few months ago a shoe in for the Democratic Party nomination and the Presidency, is struggling for the former and is highly unlikely to achieve the latter.

 

 

A 74 year old Jewish socialist named Bernie Sanders ripped into Hillary on almost every front leaving here clinging to the black vote at best. Owing to the was the deck is stacked in favor of establishment politicians in the Democratic Party, Hillary is picking up electoral votes at many times the rate as Bernie even though she is behind in the popular vote of states that already held their primaries and caucuses.

 

 

The great surprise here is that a person like Bernie could have made such a huge dent in Hillary's popularity. The speculation is that almost any mainstream Republican could defeat her in a national election.

 

As for The Donald, he is the new political idol of the mindless masses. He is attracting support on both the left and the right and loudly avows that by  financing his own campaign through his enormous personal wealth, he is indebted to no one, to no PAC or group of lobbyists.

 

 

His outlandish and outspoken proclamations empower the people like no other candidate can. He is a bully who may well be handed the bully pulpit as a reward for crass, crude, knee-jerk and untutored statements. As such, he is as accurate a reflection of the man in the street as one could find. 

 

The Pundits and professionals alike are now talking of Trump as a political force in himself that needs to be reconciled with sensitive and pressing foreign and domestic issues. It is clear that the Republican powers that be are now putting their full support on Marco Rubio as the only remaining candidate who, albeit poorly, reflects establishment aspirations and who has the potential to both defeat Trump and win against Hillary. This is a big gamble as Rubio still ranks only third behind Trump and Ted Cruz in the latest polls. It is unlikely that Cruz will endure as he is too far to the right. More importantly, his supporters are more likely to convert to Trump than Rubio should Cruz drop out or fail. Tangentially, it is not easy for a second generation Cuban immigrant to capture the imagination of the American public and both Cruz and Rubio are just that

 

As you might rightly opine, there is many a slip between cup and lip and we all know the fat lady has yet to sing. Moreover, the experts have been embarrassingly wrong so far and are now a bit gun shy about making strong predictions Yet, the media goes on, and on ad nauseam spouting their nonsensical guesswork to the point of extreme boredom.

Michael Gove's full statement.........

For weeks now I have been wrestling with the most difficult decision of my political life. But taking difficult decisions is what politicians are paid to do. No-one is forced to stand for Parliament, no-one is compelled to become a minister. If you take on those roles, which are great privileges, you also take on big responsibilities.

 

I was encouraged to stand for Parliament by David Cameron and he has given me the opportunity to serve in what I believe is a great, reforming Government. I think he is an outstanding Prime Minister. There is, as far as I can see, only one significant issue on which we have differed.

And that is the future of the UK in the European Union.

It pains me to have to disagree with the Prime Minister on any issue. My instinct is to support him through good times and bad.

But I cannot duck the choice which the Prime Minister has given every one of us. In a few months time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave. I believe our country would be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU. And if, at this moment of decision, I didn’t say what I believe I would not be true to my convictions or my country.

I don’t want to take anything away from the Prime Minister’s dedicated efforts to get a better deal for Britain. He has negotiated with courage and tenacity. But I think Britain would be stronger outside the EU.

 

My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.

But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.

The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.

 

Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.

 

In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.

 

By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.

 

Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930.

 

The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age.

 

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).

 

Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.

It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

 

But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.

 

We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.

 

We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.

 

This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future.