UKIP - My take on the local elections on 2nd May 2013

As the dust starts to settle after the local elections in England (and 1 Council in Wales), the talk has all been about UKIP.

Before Thursday, they didn't control a Council, or even share an administration with another party. The elections gave them another 139 councillors. But they still dont control a Council or share an administration with another party.

Nigel Farage has been on TV saying that he will work with the Conservatives, but not with David Cameron as their leader.

So Nigel Farage now thinks he is the Kingmaker for the Conservatives!

Admittedly, the last few sets of elections have centred on the poor showing by my own party, the Liberal Democrats. This time, the loss was just 124 councillors and the experts had predicted far more. To be honest, I had. As a Wiltshire boy, I still follow what goes on in my old home County and see that the Lib Dems actually increased their numbers by 5 to 27. I would imagine that this could have been aided (in part) by UKIP standing and thus affecting the Conservative vote in some wards, under the first past the post electoral system, that the Conservatives love and support.

We all know that in between General Elections, the party (or parties) in Goverment get a kicking in local elections and this was true on Thursday. The Conservatives lost another 335 councillors and the Lib Dems 124, as I said above.  Labour should have raced away and got far more than the 291 additional councillors and the 2 Councils they took control off (Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire). So it was not exactly a ringing endorsement of Ed Milliband and Labour. The results showed that whilst Labour made gains in the north, it did not materialise in the south, other than the traditional urban areas.

So the 2015 General Election does not bode well for Labour. Mind you, it doesn't bode well for the Conservatives either and the Lib Dems can probably breathe a sigh of relief that the vote generally held up in the South and in seats where their nearest contender is a Conservative, the signs would indicate that those seats could be retained.

So what is the effect of UKIP on British politics, in my opinion?

Well, the economy still is slowly grinding along and I can understand why people voted as they did, but at General Elections we know that people vote seriously as its the country at stake. 

I looked at the votes in Cambridgeshire as I knew the Fens are fairly well, having helped out in a by-election there, about 4 years ago. There are 11 County Council seats. Up to Thursday, all 11 were Conservative. By Friday, the Conservatives were down to 6 and UKIP had 5. I looked at the results for Wisbech. This is where my paternal grandmother was born in 1897. On my recent visits there, all the talk was of the Eastern European workers in the area. You could walk the town centre and listen to people talking. Very few were speaking English. Locals call the town Wisbechistan and I would read the local papers and the court cases had names of people that I assumed were of Eastern European origin.

Wisbech is not too far from the town/constituency of Boston, where UKIP also did well. I can understand why UKIP did well in these areas, but I am not a UKIP supporter in any shape or form.

We have European Parliament elections in a year's time and I cannot tell you the names of the Welsh representatives, even though I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable on politics.

No doubt UKIP will do even better in 2014 and it will be up to all the major political parties to wake up.

There are calls for the Conservatives to move to the right. But we all know that General Elections are won in the centre, so it will require a steady hand. But it must surely be time that our political parties actually tell us what a withdrawal from the EU would mean. People are taken in by UKIP and whatever they read in the Dail Mail, Express or Sun and think that we can leave the EU or get rid of the immigrants and all our problems will be solved. My view is that we must be in Europe, but also be pushing for reforms to make it more democratic and accountable, but also to bring it back to what it was there for. To promote trade. Somehow, politicians have centralised too much power in Europe and some of that has to come back to our shores. In 1975, Britain voted to remain in the European Economic Community, but no one has voted for closer political union. The problems with the Euro must surely be a warning that one size does not fit all.

The next 12 - 24 months will certainly be interesting. Will UKIP continue to advance, or will we finally be told the overwhelming reasons why we must remain as part of Europe. The true story doesn't get told. Just the rubbish in the tabloids and UKIP benefits from that.

From "Vicious" to "The Job Lot" - ITV Comedy

For weeks, ITV subjected us to previews to their 2 new comedies. "Vicious" and "The Job Lot".

As a lad in the 70's and 80's, I loved the comedies on the BBC and ITV. Both channels had their share of half hour sit coms that families could sit down and enjoy. Whether it was Steptoe and Son, Bless This House, George and Mildred, The Good Life, Fawlty Towers....etc.... They were all classics.

Then in recent years, both channels seemed to have lost the plot and home grown sitcoms almost disappeared from our screens. All we were offered were rubbish from America with canned laughter and nothing else. Friends has been repeated so many times and I cannot understand how it has a following. I must be one of the few to have never laughed at the programme!

Then the BBC discovered Mrs Brown's Boys and I have loved it since Day 1. Probably the best sit com on TV, in my opinion, since Father Ted, which was shown on Channel 4.

So now we had adverts enticing us to watch 2 NEW comedies on ITV, one after the other.

What extremes of comedy they were!

Vicious stars 2 big names. Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Derek Jacobi. Playing 2 old "queens". I guess that term is politically incorrect these days, but it was a reminiscent of a 70's sit com .....and an awful one at that. I cannot believe how these 2 greats of the theatre and TV had allowed themselves to appear in what can only be described as dross and should be pulled immediately to save them any further damage to their careers and to save us from having to be confronted with it.

I am sure they must have focus groups to test programmes on and can only think that they ignored their comments as they had spent so much money to get McKellen and Jacobi on board. Even having Frances de la Tour in the comedy did not help. I still remember her as Miss Jones in Rising Damp, where she played alongside Leonard Rossiter as Rigsby, the landlord. Seeing her in Vicious, I thought I was watching Rising Damp once again.

Marks out of ten..... 0

On the other hand, "The Job Lot" followed. Whilst its not on the same level as Mrs Browns Boys, I am prepared to give it another look tomorrow.

Set in a West Midlands Job Centre, it was more plausible and shows more potential to develop.

The main star is Russell Tovey who plays Karl. As he was a werewolf in "Being Human", he is one of my favourite younger actors on TV today. He must be good as he was supposedly in the running for taking over from David Tennant as Dr Who. But the star of the show for me was Jo Enright who plays Angela, a typical jobsworth civil servant with attitude problems. Now that is a character who we can all associate with and will have plenty of scope to develop the character.

Marks out of ten ...... 7.5....... shows promise.

WHY should Queen Elizabeth II abdicate?

A few weeks ago, Benedict XVI abdicated his position as Pope. The first to do so for 600 years.

On 30th April, the 75 year old Queen Beatrix abdicated after 33 years on the Dutch throne. I must be getting old as I remember Beatrix becoming Queen following the abdication of her Mother, Queen Juliana. The Dutch now have their first King since 1890.... King Willem-Alexander.

So there has been much talk in the British media over whether Queen Elizabeth II should follow suit and abdicate in favour of Prince Charles who is now the longest serving heir apparent in our history.

I am not going to prattle on with my views on royalty other than to say that I am not a fully fledged Royalist, waving my flag at any opportunity. If there was a better system of a British Head of State, I would support that. But I still cannot find one. The current system aint broke so there is nothing to fix.

No one can fault the Queen's dedication to the job and the way she has done it. So in that vein, I have the greatest respect and support for her and I wish her a long life, good health and happiness.

So should the Queen abdicate? 

My simple answer is NO....

Why?

Whilst I am not religious myself, the Queen is. She may be the Supreme Head of the Church of England, but she also has a deep faith and I admire her for that. I admire anyone who has faith ....as long as they keep it to themselves and dont start to try and force it down your throat. I dont force my political views on people. I just happen to be a Liberal Democrat..... but I also see good in all parties...(as well as things I dont like or support!).

On her 21st birthday, Princess Elizabeth as she was then made a broadcast to the British Commonwealth and Empire, pledging  ^"I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

We forget that whilst she has now been Queen for 61 years, she was heir apparent since December 1936, when her father became King George VI on the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. In effect, the Queen has been there for 77 years as Queen, or Queen in waiting.

The Queen's health looks fantastic for an 87 year old and watching Prince Philip in Canada the other day, he was walking like a 30 year old. He will be 92 next month!

The Queen also made her Coronation vows, 60 years ago and I cannot see her abdicating. Its a job for life.

So why should she abdicate?

So what if Charles is waiting to become King? He will be 65 himself in November. He's hardly a spring chicken, so if you suggest there should be a younger monarch, why not suggest Charles abdicates as well, and lets William take over?

My final observations is that the Royal Family is "the Firm". The Queen still does many visits, investitures and other public duties, in addition to reading all the state papers and advising the Prime Minister. The Queen may not do so many overseas visits as she has done in the past, but no one is suggesting that she is no longer pulling her weight. I am glad if she can pull back a bit as she has Prince Charles and her other children to do some of her duties.

Then we also have the next generation. Both William (and Kate!) and Harry have proved that they are capable of taking on their own public duties.

Thus the fact that duties are being done by senior members of the Royal Family should be welcomed and who knows, maybe they will have to take on more as the Queen gets older. But in the meantime, there is no reason why the Queen should break her promise, and abdicate. Even if the Queen has to cut back her duties quite considerably in the years to come, the other members of the Royal Family are there to pick up the slack.

So I am happy for the Queen NOT to abdicate. Talk of it, just because she is getting old, is not a valid reason. Its not that the Queen is getting old. She is old, but I do not know of any other 87 year old that looks so good. There is no sign of her showing her age, other than the date on her birth certificate.

Even if old age does eventually catch up with the Queen in due course, I still see no reason why there's a need to abdicate. Charles, William, Harry, Anne etc... are all there to provide the cover. And we do know that one day, maybe you will have to put your feet up....But I am sure they would be able to manage.

So whilst Benedict and Beatrix have abdicated, Queen Elizabeth II is not a quitter, in my eyes!

Just carry on....you are doing a fine job..... and long may you have good health!

The Boston Bombings - In Perspective

My earliest recollections of the news was of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The bombings. The deaths of Protestants and Catholics and British Soldiers. The injuries to thousands. The huge destruction of property and the hatred between the communities and their politicians.

We also had the bombings on the UK mainland. Birmingham, Guildford, Brighton, Warrington and London, among others. The nearest I came to it was when I lived in Abingdon in Oxfordshire, when I first started work. The constituency's MP, Airey Neave, who had escaped from Colditz in World War 2, was killed by a bomb within the Houses of Parliament in 1979.

Thankfully, some semblance of normality is returning to Northern Ireland, but as the recent events over the Union Flag flying from Belfast City Hall showed, its going to take a few decades for the province to resemble the rest of the UK. But at least the pointless bombings and killings are as good as eradicated.

So...

When the 2 bombs went off at the Boston marathon in the United States on 15th April, 3 died and over 260 people were injured.

The US is not used to such terrorist assaults on their own territory. I guess the last was the 11/9 assault on the Twin Towers in New York.

What followed was almost reminiscent of the Wild West as the man hunt for the bombers started. I went to bed that night thinking that the only ones behind it was North Korea. Kim Jung-Un has been raising the temperature and threatening to hit the US with his missiles. As he is somewhat loopy, all I could think was that this bombing would be used as propoganda in his home country that he had hit the US mainland with his missiles.

The US within 24 hours were somewhat surprised that they still hadnt caught the perpetrators. And then we were treated to the spectacle of the Tsarnaev brothers.....Tamerlan was killed and his younger brother Dzhhokhar was eventually found, alive...just.

Boston was put into shutdown and it was interesting to see how America reacted.

To me...I had seen over the years, many bombings on TV and in the press, in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. Many died and in my opinion, for no reason reason. Why should Protestants and Catholics want to kill each other seemed so pointless.

I suppose I got hardened to the bombing as it must have gone on for over 30 years. Thankfully, those days are hopefully behind us now from Ireland, but we also saw the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005 in which 52 we killed, as well as the 4 suicide bombers.

But the US's reaction seemed to be one of complete shock. How can ANYONE have the temerity to attack and kill on the US mainland?

As I said, I guess us Brits are more hardened to bombings, but then I remembered that every year, the Irish Republican leadership would go to the St Patricks Day marches in the United States and funding to the IRA was made by Americans, through NORAID, the Boston-based organisation that would serve as Irish Republicanism's US arm during the 20th-century "Troubles".

So from being a base to finance the IRA, Boston, 20 years later would itself become a victim of a terrorist attack.

The posse that hunted down the Tsarnaev brother's was quite a spectacle to watch and whilst they have not been found guilty in a court of law, the evidence does seem to be overwhelming and suggests they were the guilty party. So I am glad the US have got their people and hopefully, peace and tranquility can return, but its a shame they had to do this in the first place. For what ?

Yesterday I was reading that the funeral director is finding it difficult to find a cemetery in which to bury Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

I must admit, the more I read about the US, the more I cannot understand the country and how it can call itself  "Christian".

In the end, the Boston bombs were as pointless as the ones we saw in the Northern Ireland troubles. Nothing is achieved by all the deaths, injuries and destruction of property.