3 men losers; 2 women winners

Yesterday (23rd Feb) was a bad day for three men with collateral damage for those you supported them.
All three losers were at the wrong end of political manoeuvering but only two were Westminster orientated. Claudio Ranieri won huge praise last season for leading 5000-1 outsiders, Leicester City, to the Premier league title but this was not enough to save him from the chop; he was sacked as manager with his side one point above the relegation zone. Football holds no sentment; you are only as good as your last result or in Ranieri's case the season so far. I only hope that the owner of Leicester thought fit, beforehand, to offer his Manager, in the light of his past glory, the opportunity to resign. He was, after all, let down by his players.
The other two losers were political animals, Paul Nuttall of UKIP and the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. I hate to say this because my father was a Liverpool man, but  whatever the merit of his arguments, Nuttall's broad scouse accent is enough to put anyone off. I know it shouldn't be, but the man had a good product to offer the Stoke electorate but lost despite the constituency boasting a huge number of Brexiteers. I can only think it was his accent because the Labour man was eminently pathetic, beatable and grossly unsuitable as a member of parliament. Corbyn's speech, the morning after reminded me of other Socialist speakers with their dream of  a Utopian paradise of equality for all. I was reminded of the old adage, if you take from Peter and give to Paul you are always sure of Paul's support and it was surely to the Pauls that Corbyn addressed his speech; a plea to the faithful not to abandon his Party in the light of the Copeland defeat. He denied the loss was due to his socialist agenda, his predilection for discourse with terrorist organisations but could only offer lame excuses.
Two women, however, triumphed. Trudy Harrison won Copeland for the Tories, a seat they last held in antiquity and Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has impressed the electorate with the assured start to her tenure and the confident manner in which she has addressed difficult problems such as Brexit.
Yesterday was a good day for women.

Merkel & Islam

I don't know which report I find most depressing.

Mrs Merkel, the German Chancellor has told a European Defence Committee that Europe should take in more Syrian and Iraqi immigrants. She added that Islam was not responsible for terrorism. Of course it isn't. This story appears in today's papers (17th feb 2017) alongside a report that a school in Oldham has lost its headmistress to threats of abuse from the mostly Pakistani born parents who disapprove of her 'western' dress. It is feared that this is another 'Trojan Horse' attempt to stop the introduction of western values into a curriculum they, no doubt, wish to be based on Qur'anic studies.

Open Britain

Following the speech of Tony Blair asking the British people to  force the Government to hold a second referendum and the appearance of Mandelson on the Marr show today, it is difficult not to think that these two are preparing for the introduction of a new centre-left political Party, Open Britain. They are awaiting the outcome of the two by-elections being held this week when Corbyn's Labour Party are expected to do badly, possibly losing one or both seats.
Who the hell do they think they are? Both men, despised by huge swathes of people from both ends of the political spectrum and wider aspects of life, brought, in their way, the whole of Westminster into disrepute. Indeed many think that Blair, in particular, should be languishing in jail for his part in the Iraq War. You'd have thought both men would have learned to keep their mouths well and truly shut.
So, one can't help but imagine that this movement is not being wheeled out for the benefit of the people of the United Kingdom but has more to do with the machinations of two men who only have self interest at heart. But what can it be? As Europe fails over the next few years do these chancers see opportunity in the chaos...

Same sex marriage and the Church

The Anglican Church is in trouble over the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). A report by the House of Bishops was brought before the General Synod for approval in terms of being 'noted'. The paper, which broadly approved the idea of the Church conducting SSMs was voted on on by the house of Clergy and the house of Laity, requiring approval from all sections to gain approval. It failed, meaning that it could be years before the issue is considered again, leaving all parties in a state of unsatisfactory limbo.
The problem is one of scripture. Although the bible doesn't mention 'marriage' Genesis tells us that God gave Adam a wife so that thereafter a  man would leave his parents and 'become one flesh' with a woman, in his case, Eve. So it is said God ordained the institution of marriage.
On one side of the argument opponents of the move say that scripture, time and again, reviles against same sex relationships whilst others say that the God of love cannot harden his heart against loving couples of any hue. Those against argue that marriage should be for a man and woman who wish to bear children naturally whilst those for the proposition say that same sex couples can adopt. There are also irrelevant issues of 'human rights' abounding.
As I say in the conclusion of my book: 'Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions', should Churches abandon all notion of a supernatural, creator God and instead embrace the spirituality of man under the banner of: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. With God out of the way the door opens for love, hope, compassion and charity to flood in.

Labour reinventing themselves?

Did you see on Sunday 12th Feb, the appearance on TV of Tom Watson, labour's deputy leader (on the Marr show) and Chuka Umunna (on the Ridge show)?
Both went out of their way to promote the Labour Party's patriotism, love of Country, family life, defence of the realm, in fact all the sort of things we expect to hear from a Conservative Member of Parliament. Could it be that as their popularity wanes, the traditional working class vote collapses, the Labour Party are having to reinvent themselves, putting Britain first, before the two crucial by-elections later this month.

Poisoned dwarf

That fatuous oaf, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Bercow, has told MPs that he is opposed to the idea of the President of the United States speaking to the House. He cites the President's alleged racism, sexism and mysogyny. This is the man who welcomed into the bosom of the House, the leaders of, for example, China and Kuwait, leaders with a reputation of human right abuses. If that wasn't enough, he proposes to alter the dress code of servants of the House despite centuries of history and tradition whilst wasting Public money on feathering his own nest, the grace and favour residence in Central London he enjoys. The man is a disgrace.
It is traditional that the Speaker's seat in parliament is unopposed but why don't his constituents throw him out? Are they not embarrassed by his hypocrisy, his cringeworthy bumptiousness that time and again brings the UK's Parliamentary tradition into disrepute?
Following this sleight on the UK's greatest ally, perhaps the Speaker of the Senate will invite him over for a chat and conveniently lose him. He will not be missed.

However, I'm sure Mr Trump will ignore this insult, choosing to put himself above this and other creatures of the swamp. Talking of the swamp, I can't remember a time when the House of Commons has held such poor quality members. The entire opposition front bench, including the leader, Corbyn, and Abbott, is a disgrace. To listen to the poor quality of the speakers makes one despair for the people they represent.

More Trump thoughts

In my previous article I suggested that because so many on the left had demonstrated their opposition, Trump must be doing something right. The progressive left were at it again last night as violent demonstrators stopped a talk by Conservative, Milo Yiannopoulos on the University of California, Berkeley campus. It seems that the right of the freedom of speech applies only to those on the left, mostly ill informed youngsters who have been nowhere and done nothing in their lives.
Back to Trump. I had rather thought that Trump had started his presidency well; that is until up to yesterday. At a National Prayer Breakfast event he called upon Americans to have hope in God before ending with the time-honoured, 'God Bless America'.
His speech will have disturbed secularists the world over. This claim that somehow God is on the side of America when so many adversaries claim the same is akin to the footballers who perform a little ritual before entering the field of play, seeking, presumably, to ask God to favour them rather than their opponents. Now I know that to do well, politically, in America one has to suck up to the bible bashing communities but does Trump need to be so provocative about it? I mean when he invokes the help of God he might as well be appealing to the same God of Abraham as the Muslim immigrants he wishes to vet more thoroughly. And, in any case, where can he show any evidence that God cares anyway. Can he see God in the Middle East, North Korea, Iran, the favellas of Brazil or the slums of Mexico City?
In his reference to immigration and his tough and controvertial new executive order he alluded to the Pilgrim Fathers, claiming that they too had been immigrants. Well they weren't; they were colonisers, conquerors if you like, who, with their followers, displaced many of the indigenous peoples of North America. Conquerors have different rights to immigrants as  manifest in Roman Britain and after the Norman and Viking conquests. Conquerors impose their will on the defeated whilst immigrants should respect the way of life, culture and beliefs of their hosts.