Pauline

Right, read it. 1)Taking into ac it is impromptu and written in March: what I agree with is that it is depressing people are happy to see others miserable. That is a direct result of realisation of impact of that vote in my experience: not ‘I told you so’.

I encounter Remainers almost every day and the majority want their fellow Brits to suffer for voting to leave so they can say 'I told you so'. For the same reason they constantly talk down the UK as if we're not good enough, not capable of standing up for ourselves or to have a standing in the world outside the EU. As the 5th largest economy and 2nd most influential nation on the planet, this is clearly ludicrous.

2) we have always had sovereignty and the protections offered from EU in terms of worker’s rights, food safety and a higher court including their recent legisl. re tax avoidance will not be available to us. Who benefits from that- not ordinary folk.

Over 60% of laws which apply to the UK made between 2010 and 2016 were enacted in Brussels and we had no say but to adopt them. We had vey little influence during that period (or any period). Law-making in Brussels comes from the Commission who hand down laws and policies to be rubber stamped by the European Council. It is not a democratic system. The UK has better/more generous workers rights, food and other standards than the EU. These standards are designed to bring less wealthy/mature countries up to the standards of the highest, not to bring the UK up, since we already lead/set the standards in most areas, including environmental, animal rights and green energy (although [latter] not something I support necessarily). Tax avoidance is legal and a matter for HMRC. It has nothing to do with Brexit.

3) although I am part time self employed as a proofreader/ editor I know little about big business but what I have been reading and watching re our trade deals gives me little confidence in what US will offer to us over EU as a bloc. We are sellers & customers.

90% of future global economic growth comes from outside Europe. The EU is currently a shrinking 44% of UK export trade, predicted to fall below 25% by 2030 (WTO). The EU, in 40 years has not been able to secure trade deals with the major global growth economies of India, China or the US. Its recent deal with Canada was held up by Wallonia a small province of Belgium. When the dust settled Canada realised that it had done a deal to help it trade with the UK... and we're leaving. When we leave we will still be Canada's second biggest customer. Significantly bigger than the EU. The US wants to do a trade deal with us for historical relationships reasons, because we are a major, trusted, relatively uncorrupt and financially sound economy and also because Trump loathes the undemocratic EU. Many other nations around the world want to do trade deals with us for the same reasons - and that they'd only need to negotiate with one partner, not 28 + regions. We are the EU's biggest customer on the planet. It has a trade deficit in its favour of over £90bn/yr. We will still trade with the EU when we leave because it is in both sides' interest, but particularly theirs. We are by far the biggest consumer of German cars on the planet, for example (circa 25%). So it's not either the US or the EU. It's both, on our own behalf, instead of the EU and maybe the US sometime, but with the EU making all the decisions for us and taking their share of unnecessary tariffs.

4)The complicated integrated and functioning strong operations in place for sharing on anti-terrorism, customs, people smuggling across EU is seriously challenged post Brexit - staff, costs and operations to botch’s disadvantage.

We are part of the Five Eyes system (UK, Canada, USA, Australia & New Zealand) which is recognised as the world's best anti-terrorism, security and information-sharing organisation. GCHQ is miles ahead of any information/surveillance network the EU can boast. Both are massively valuable to the EU, whereas the security apparatus of the EU is pretty much useless to us as they can't even cooperate between themselves across European borders/languages. By controlling our own borders we will be much better able to stop illegal smuggling of goods and people.

5) It is early days and weak pound makes UK attractive for tourists and maybe students but the EU staff who are already employed in education of whom I know many not a few are not all happy to say where their rights are not secure.Still no reassurance in EU for UK workers.

From the outset we have wanted to guarantee the rights of overseas workers in the UK and we will not be expelling anyone who lives and works here when we leave. We simply do not do that and we will continue to welcome skilled immigrants into the UK. The EU is playing with this, threatening people's rights as part of its brinkmanship programme. Not the UK government. Leave does not mean no immigration by any stretch of the imagination, but control of borders does mean we can do just that and control illegal immigration which is, erm, illegal. The weak pound also helps our economy, exports and jobs.

6) I read widely outside my studies and have been following investigations since last year into CA, DUP spending, the source of hidden funding into Leave campaign and have no faith in the legitimacy of its outcome or how people were duped by undeliverable promises.

Leave didn't make any promises. The only thing Leave has 'promised' is that we leave the EU - the SM, CU and ECJ, as well as taking back fishing waters, leaving the CAP and not paying in to the EU project any more. It hasn't made any promises about jobs or the economy or trade deals other than that they would happen. What promises do you mean? If you're referring to the bus, the discrepancy was between gross and net contribution figures and the suggestion that if we stop paying in to the EU we would be able to spend the money on UK infrastructure is entirely true. Without knowing what the arrangements will be when we leave it is impossible to make promises other than those I state based on fundamental economics like future growth coming from outside Europe. Not that this has stopped Remain from making its scary, negative predictions - none of which has come true so far.

7) I have never seen EU project as perfect but UK has had a damned good deal within it with countless concessions and opps which future generations will not have and no part in decisions about its future. You can’t control what you have no part in.

We have had very little influence in the decisions or policy-making processes of the EU. It's why even Dave wanted a legally binding guarantee that we would be exempt from the future direction (towards federalisation and the creation of a single European state, which is the EU's goal) of the EU. If we stay in, we will lose the pound by 2025 and become an 8% (and shrinking) province in the wider EU state with little or no influence, instead of the world's 5th largest economy in its own right. The concessions and opps of which you speak have all been paid for by us, less the 70% cut that the EU takes before telling us how to spend our own money. The EU has no money of its own as I'm sure you realise.

8) I was brought up near a highly troubled border and future of NI and Ireland has been ignored by Brexit loving British people to their shame. I had personal discussions pre ref with people who admitted it never occurred to them.

My family is from Ballyshannon, just across the border from Norn Iron. The amount of trade across that border is minuscule compared to general UK - EU trade. We have said we will not construct a hard border, as has the EU. Technology and the approval of trusted logistics traffic across the border can solve the problem if both sides are willing to cooperate. It's only a problem if one of them doesn't. And guess which one isn't at the moment?

9)To sum up in purely practical terms I can see no benefits for ordinary people and plenty for elites and Westminster to exploit. I am already witnessing an increase in opps to legit anti- foreign feeling, costs increasing locally and blame on messengers.

Not sure quite what you're getting at here. The benefits to ordinary people of being able to vote in and vote out people who live nearby and understand their issues instead of people who've never heard of your county let alone the town or village you live in are pretty self-explanatory. The economic benefits of the UK trading with growing economies around the world as an expansive, global rather than protectionist inward-focussed EU, are also pretty obvious. As far as 'elites' are concerned, it's the elites who are trying to de-rail Brexit. Remain is/was supported by the big banks the Military Industrial Complex, the New World Order brigade. Leave is about restoring influence and democracy to ordinary voters. And trying to change the rules of the game after it has taken place, is nothing short of cheating. Regarding anti-foreign feeling, I'm sure that was an issue for many leave voters. If you lived in an area that has seen significant inward immigration which has changed the nature of your community, I'm sure you'd take a different view too. People vote for a variety of reasons and their votes are legitimate in our system (or they were until very recently). However the need is to control our borders (like a proper country) so that we know the numbers of people we need to accommodate and can provide infrastructure for them and for the people who pay for it (existing taxpayers). Leave is not a racist movement despite what many Remainers would try to have you believe. And if you want to argue this with me, you'll really need to roll up your sleeves.

10) philosophically I see it as an act of selfishness, inward looking, retrograde, spurred by a whole range of reasons and ultimately very sad. Worse than that is the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ which are still, it seems, unknowable or uncommunicated. I’m done.

Leaving the EU does not mean we're leaving Europe or that we won't still trade with EU members. Nor does it mean that we won't be friendly with European people and states. Nor does it mean we won't go on holiday there or welcome them here. Nor does my antipathy to the EU mean I don't love Europe. I do. It's why I want it to stay as a collection of brilliant, special, distinctive culturally diverse nation states instead of everywhere being 'Germany'. From our point of view, it means that we'll take a much more global view of the world (as we always used to do) and be active around the globe with new trading partners and dealing much more positively and fairly with old friends including Commonwealth members and many other countries with whom we have good relations. This is in no way a little Englander situation. It is exactly the opposite.

Soros is open about his motivation. Not much was open about the donors behind Brexit. The network will all be flushed out eventually and is mired in secrecy and underground hidden illegitimate tactics. Follow the hidden money.

Soros and the establishment, as well as the big banks, are trying to subvert democracy. To deny the legitimacy of ordinary voters for their own globalist, big business benefits. Doesn't that cause you any concern at all? The Electoral Commission, controlled by Bercow, is manned exclusively by Remainers who twice exonerated the Leave campaign and third time they suggested it broke the rules, which is disputed. Remain spent more than double what Leave spent, including Dave's £9m leaflet, and had the full weight of the establishment behind it. And still lost. This is not a valid point. Total spending Remain £19m + £9m leaflet. Leave spend: £13.5m.

Addressing them is fine if only in general terms with limitations of Twitter but trying hard to comprehend that our current situation can be good given what we know now is beyond me I am afraid. About to reach my workplace for a long shift but I like Mondays.

I do find it interesting, having almost demanded them, that you quickly ignore most of my 'benefits of leaving the EU' details and just outline your usual/standard negative claims. Most Remainers do this. They'll throw a challenge at me, I'll respond and explain the issue then they just ignore the explanation and move on to another 'issue'. It's frustrating to say the least, but you have almost done the same, ignoring the following:

• Local legislators and law-makers.

• Knowing what infrastructure is needed for UK population.

• Protecting us from uncontrolled illegal immigration which is changing huge swathes of continental Europe.

• Our status as the EU's biggest customer.

• Our status as the head of a group which includes 1/3 of the world's population.

• The declining economy of the EU.

• The way in which the EU has decimated Southern European terms of youth employment and the rape of Greece.

• 90% of future economic growth coming from outside Europe.

• Existing UK strengths (Universities, Financial, business and legal services).

• The demise of the EU would see everyone except Germany better off. The only beneficiary of the EU and EZ has been Germany. The EU was supposed to protect smaller, weaker nations from the stronger bullies after the last unpleasantness. The opposite has happened.

• The UK staying as a sovereign, free, nation state, governed by and for its own people instead of submersed in a European super-state with its own army, anthem, flag, currency, financial regime (ECB), governed by the Brussels elites, on behalf of Germany.

These are all benefits of our leaving the EU. You may still ignore them, but they are benefits of our leaving the EU. So, please, don't tell me you're still trying to find anyone who can identify any benefits to be gained from our leaving the EU. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

Having said all that, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my blog and to do so in a polite and professional way. Happy to continue to kick this about if you want to respond - or not, entirely up to you. Either way I wish you all the best in your endeavours.

Mark

May clearly had absolutely no intention of Brexit meaning Brexit

So what can you do?

You (we) win a free and fair referendum vote, the rules of which were clear and accepted by both sides and then the (our) Prime Minister vows to deliver it in full.

When pressed - because as a former Remainer, there is inevitably some doubt about her commitment - she repeats that 'Brexit means Brexit' time and time again.

Then she repeats, in parliament and elsewhere, countless times, that Brexit will also mean leaving the single market and the customs union and also means our no longer being under the rule of the European Court of Justice. And will also mean that we no longer pay in to the EU. (That particular lie has yet to be exposed, but believe me it will be quite soon).

She establishes a government department to handle the Brexit process and the kick-about begins: We express the desire to create an agreement that is in the interests of the EU as well as the UK. The EU states, time and time again, that it wants to punish us for wanting to leave.

We try to make accommodations to EU concerns, however trivial; they make no compromise and try to be as difficult as they can.

We give credence to their trivia and try to be as nice as we can - even though we know they need us and our trade as much as we need theirs. Its is infuriating and at times embarrassing but we can live with it so long as Brexit continues to mean Brexit. That whatever the embarrassment and humiliation we have to take along the way, we will eventually leave in full and be able then to make our own way in the wider world without being tied to the failing EU.

We can accept the obsequiousness of our government in its dealings with the EU, so long as we know we will attain our freedom at the end of the process.

And then, when the endgame begins, the white paper on our departure, being produced by the Brexit department - our position in the final round of negotiations - is simply dismissed by Theresa May.

Instead, without any warning, she introduces her own paper, produced by her own Remainer civil servants and the first thing she does with it is she shows it to Angela Merkel for her input and approval. Before our cabinet has even seen the document.

Then she gives what is by now almost a done deal, to her own cabinet, with two hours to read the 120 pages before it is discussed at Chequers and, by the way, she issues the threat that if anyone disagrees with it they will have to walk home as they will be sacked and stripped of their ministerial transport.

Now I know that is difficult to believe in a civilised C20th society. A modern government of grown-ups. But that is exactly what happened.

And what is the deal that Theresa and her tame, Remainer civil servants have now imposed on us? (subject to Parliamentary and EU approve of course. Yeah right).

We we will remain in a customs union. Not the customs union but a customs union with the EU so we won't be able to make our own International trade deals on our own behalf.

We will remain in a single market and have to abide by free movement. So we do not regain control of our own borders like a proper country.

We will adopt a common rule book wherein we will have to meet all EU standards for goods and services, even if we don't trade with the EU as a company and without having any means of influencing the rules because we are outside the EU.

And two further things that are not clear now, but will become so quite soon: We will continue to pay in to the EU over and above the ridiculous 'divorce bill' we seem to be resigned to paying and we will, by 2025 at the latest, have to give up the pound in favour of the Euro. As night follows day.

Don't believe me? Just watch. This is now inevitable.

Theresa May never had any intention of Brexit meaning Brexit. She has become the biggest traitor to the UK of all time.

And now, the disastrous position in which she has left the UK will see us falling down the world's economic and performance leagues precisely because of the Remain stance. We cannot trade on our own behalf with the growing economies of the world but will have to rely on the woefully slow and inadequate EU for our international deals instead. We will have to rely on Walloonia to agree before we can.

Remain will be entirely responsible for the coming calamities we will face. And while this is small comfort, we should never forget this and never fail to remind them of it.

Words cannot express how furious I am about this. A life-long Tory who will never vote for them again, indeed, I will do all in my power to campaign against these lying c*nts.

Not a word I ever use really, but no other will do right now.

Thanks for reading.

Has she gone yet?

I was a supporter of Theresa May. I thought her 'strong silent' approach to governing; not reacting to Brexit bullshit, keeping quiet while others - the EU, British Remainers and the media including, in particular the BBC - were flapping about trying every angle of attack, was a good thing. I thought she was in control and a source of strength. I thought we were in safe hands.

I was wrong.

For background, my overriding issue for the past 30 years has been anti-EU. I believe that the demise of the EU will be wonderful for almost everywhere in Europe (except Germany obviously) in terms of giving the people of Europe back their sovereignty, freedom and hope for the future. I have been (and still am) vehemently anti EU because I love Europe. I love its diversity, culture, cuisine etc. I don't want everywhere to be Germany. That's my starting point.

So Brexit is very welcome to me, not just because it gives the UK back its sovereignty like a proper country, but also, perhaps even more importantly to me, because it heralds the end of this failing, corrupt, undemocratic EU project that has been terrible for everyone in Europe except Germany.

So, where are we now, and how did we get here?

In April and May of 2017 Theresa May was way ahead in the polls. The UK public was dialled-in to Tory policies and the Tory approach to governing, partly because Corbyn's Labour Party was clearly a throw-back to the 1970s and, given that backdrop, Tory policies were increasingly welcome to UK voters. There was talk of Labour being defeated and out of contention for a generation.

And then what happened?

Theresa and her advisors decided that she had such an unassailable lead in the polls that she could try to park her tanks on Labour's lawn and go for the traditional Labour voter as well as the Tory votes that seemed to be safely 'in the bag'. In effect they thought that they could take the Labour vote as well as the Tory vote and deliver a knock-out blow to Labour over and above the Tory-based majority that they felt was a foregone conclusion.

They got greedy. And that greed has now left us in the position where Corbyn and McDonnell's 1970s policies and political stance could well be what we end up with at the next election. The absolute opposite of what the vast majority of the country thought it was looking forward to after the election of earlier this year.

Because what these fuckwits did (Theresa and her advisors, so-called political experts), was to half abandon the Tory policies that the country wanted and instead 'go for' some of the left-wing Labour policies of old, in an attempt to win both sides of the argument.

What they actually did was lose both.

Because the Tory voter saw this as an abandonment of the values upon which she'd built her lead; an abandonment of the approach with which the majority of the population was comfortable, and a betrayal of the Tory values that were winning the day in terms of popularity in the country.

What the Labour voter - many of whom were leaning towards a right-of-centre approach to governing the country - saw, was Theresa May taking the piss out of them. Insulting their socialist integrity and treating them as if they could be bought with a few 'leftist' initiatives that were not genuinely held, but were being put forward in order to win their vote, but at the same time, to demean their long-held socialist beliefs and values.

And the wavering Labour voter saw this as her taking the piss. And I think they were right to do so.

So from a position of formidable strength, Theresa May (advised by absolute fucking idiots in my view) managed not only to lose her majority and her strength, but also managed to propel a previously unelectable Labour party into the current position where it is almost a shoe-in to be elected into government at the next election.

And, along the way - and of much more importance to me - she managed to jeopardise the whole Brexit process. Not just process but whether it will happen at all.

The Tories have effectively made an unelectable Labour Party electable. A party whose ministers and policies and people will take this country back decades - even Labour Party MPs think this. But as we have seen in recent days with people like Harperson, Adonis and Hyacinth, these lefties don't actually give a fuck about principles or the long-term good of the country, they just want to keep their snouts in the trough.

This has always been the case for Labour. They don't really care about the state of the country, the prosperity of its citizens, our credibility as a nation on the world stage, they just want power at any cost. They don't care about their voters; they don't care about poor people or equality. They just want to shove the noses of successful people into the dirt, whilst enhancing their own merit-free, achievement-free rewards and lifestyles.

The trouble I have with this, is that it is all Theresa's fault.

She has to go. And soon.

Has she gone yet?

Thanks for reading.

Despite Brexit

This is just funny. And an excuse for me to spend about a minute investigating the BBC website for 'despite Brexit' quotes.

Two minutes' work found dozens of recent occasions in which the BBC has used the term 'despite Brexit'. A term they've been using regularly since June 24th last year, with a range of variations all of which are used to portray Brexit as a negative issue. 

The sight of our national broadcaster doing everything it can to undermine post-Brexit Britain; everything it can to promote the EU; everything it can to try to stop Brexit from happening, against the will of the people, is massively unedifying. 

Once Brexit is out of the way, we should think about how best to ensure that we have a national broadcaster that stands up for the country it represents and the people who pay for it. 

In my opinion.

Thanks for reading.

'Food banks are a disgrace in C21st UK'

I've been told that the use of foodbanks in the UK in 2017 is an absolute disgrace, reflects very badly on the Tories and points to a failing nation.

The Trussell Trust - which derrives its income and food donations for its foodbanks from members of the public, says that 1.2m people took a three-day food package from a foodbank last year.

Personally I'm glad that the Labour-backed Trussell Trust is doing this good work and helping out people in need. And that generous people are donating food to people who happen to need some help from time-to-time.

This help is usually required when the system breaks down and people find themselves outside of the welfare system for a few days. That is regrettable of course but the reasons why they are outside the system are many and varied. There are currently about 1.6m people unemployed in the UK and net immigration last year was 273,000 (ONS).

So when one puts this into some kind of perspective, the 1.2m people using foodbanks in a year does not mean that 1.2m people rely on foodbanks for all of the food they eat. Which, I think, many lefties seem to want to be the case so they can kick the Tories.

It's 1.2m people, out of our 65m population, our 1.6m unemployed and 273,000 immigrants, who had one three-day food parcel from a foodbank during the last year.

So one in about 60 of us had help from a foodbank which covered three out of 365 days of our food requirement. Or to put these figures in percentage terms; 1.8% of the population required help with 0.82% of their meals in the last year. That is hardly a nation in chaos or crisis.

Particularly since the combination of Labour's open border (not just open but 'go and find them') legacy and our EU 'free movement' requirement has seen more than 3m more people (net) arrive here in the past ten years.

Against that background, the fact that the figures for people using foodbanks is so low is testament to the fact that the system is working pretty well.

The other point to make, obviously, is that if you offer people free stuff, they tend to take it. And that's fine, good luck to them and if it means they have a few quid over for themselves because of the generosity of others then that's a good thing isn't it? So why use this as an argument with which to beat the Tories, whose supporters are likely to be donating the lions share of the food that the foodbanks distribute in the first place?

Maybe the Tories should close down all the food banks and ban their operation - so as to avoid this nonsensical criticism. I'm sure Mr Blair would have considered this course of action. Would that make you happier lefties? That there would then be no foodbanks for you to point to as a sign of Tory failure, but some people would be going hungry occasionally?

Of course it won't happen because the Tories tend to do what's right for the population, not just what fits the spin. Unlike Blair, Brown & Corbyn's Labour party.

Thanks for reading.

If we had a proper opposition Theresa wouldn't be able to make a massive mistake like houses for care

That's it really.

What are you looking here for? I've told you what I think.

Just kidding; but it's true. If Theresa didn't have such a lead, if Mr Corbyn and Labour weren't so inept, she would not feel able to make such stupid, anti-Tory manifesto pledges. It's a simple as that.

This 'using your home to pay for your care until you die' is just so stupid and anti Tory.

And the response from Labour, that rich people should continue to get the Winter Fuel Allowance and that rich people should not have to pay, with their homes, for social services care in old age, just turns everything on its head in terms of party principles.

Who knows where we are now? Are Labour the party of the wealthy? Why are the Tories attacking the rich in this way?

Frankly this is as stupid as the bedroom tax. But at least that had the virtue of being correct in principle but not in terms of it ever being fair in terms of application.

Allow me, briefly, to explain what I mean. (You've got this far, not much more to go).

Alan and Jane at number 26 have worked all their lives. They strove and saved and didn't go on holiday all that often if they couldn't afford it; didn't drink or smoke, brought up their kids and incidentally, fed them breakfast and lunch at school as well as dinner in the evenings. (That's 'Tea' to you in the North).

They did the right thing and paid off their mortgage. But they're now getting on a bit and the route to the hospital, sadly, is one they now know quite well.  But at least they have their home to pass on to the kids to give them a financial boost when Alan and Jane shuffle off. It's a thing that is never talked about, but it is also something that has motivated the couple all their working lives. After all, their parents, growing up after the war years, were not ever in a position to do the same thing for them.

But they've paid into the system. They're coming up to retirement and hopefully they can enjoy the fruits of their labour for some time to come. They live in the south, so their home is worth £300,000 now, although they originally bought it for £25,000. They are not particularly wealthy in cash terms but the house is worth a bit. They receive the Winter Fuel Allowance and a free bus pass.

Alan is a school governor and umpires the cricket in the village of a Sunday. Jane is on the PCT and has coffee mornings to raise money for the Brownies.

And now Theresa (May) wants the house - or at least 2/3rds of it to pay for their care should they need it in old age. And the NHS has the brief to keep people alive for as long as possible - an aim we probably all share, but, not necessarily when we are so ill that there's no real quality of life and it's just 'existing' in a care home, rather than truly 'being alive'. The £100,000 they will be left with after their care is paid for, might just pay off (kids) David and Anne's student loans, but not much more.

Their Winter Fuel Allowance which is a nice bonus and makes the family Christmas easier to pay for, will be taken away because they have a few quid, having saved all their lives. They vote Tory. Always have.

Across the street are Bruce and Barbara. Same house but they don't own it. They had a different philosophy. They took holidays they couldn't afford, smoked and drank and have no savings. They paid into the system sometimes but mostly were recipients of benefits. On account of Bruce being unlucky, on account of him being a lazy bastard. They vote Labour. Always have.

I have nothing against lazy bastards, I myself have been known to be a lazy bastard, but bear with me.

Bruce goes to the pub and watches the cricket sometimes. Barbara goes to the Bingo. Their kids Kylie and Jason are minor drug dealers and still live at home. Both are on benefits and both smoke and drink.

Jason's Corsa is currently rotting away on the front lawn. Next to Bruce's old Capri and Kylie's daughter Jasmine's old pram.

Bruce and Barbara will not have to pay anything at all for their care in old age. They will continue to receive the Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus pass. They will pass on fuck all to their kids, but what on earth would be the point anyway?

Now I know that what Theresa is pledging means that what people can hand on to their kids out of the value of their home, is actually going up from £23k to £100k under this policy. But that still does not make it a Tory policy.

Yes this may have been going on for years, discretely, in the background, under the radar, but now putting it front and centre of your manifesto has exposed what an awful solution it is:- to have individual families suffering financially if they are unlucky enough to have a member who needs long-term care. When this is a national problem - just like the rest of the Healthcare system and should, therefore, be solved (paid for) on a national - not individual - basis. That would be the Tory way. Using it as an effective inheritance tax is simply not a fair way of solving the problem.

It is an unfair sticking plaster rather than an actual sustainable solution. Theresa is correct to look at the issue - it's about time someone did look at our changing demographics and our failing social care system - 'failing' because of the massively increasing pressures upon it - but this solution is grossly unfair in my opinion and should be reconsidered.

This current Tory manifesto is not a Tory manifesto. It's a manifesto, designed to wipe out the Labour party by stealing its policies and position on the board. But if, in doing this, you lose your core vote Theresa, you'll have been an utter fool.

Thanks for reading.

Newsnight 030417 Kirsty Wark 'Interviews' John Brennan

Tonight we have an exclusive interview with John Brennan.. (Obama's former head of the CIA {mentioned} and a sworn enemy of Trump {not mentioned}.

What does he think of the Presidential twitter strategy? (Clip - not much)

He warns about the dangers of America going it alone against North Korea and decries Trump's plans for a travel ban.

I began by asking him if President Trump is right to say, if China won’t solve the problem of North Korea, America will.

‘Very complex, too simplistic, etc.’

Q2 President Trump says, using the term Radical Islamic Terrorism will help the US win the war on terror: Do you agree with him

'No etc'

Q3 Do you think Donald Trump’s proposed ban on several Muslim majority countries will make America safer?

'No etc'

Q4 Do you think it will be counter-productive?

'Yes etc '

Q5 US intelligence is suggesting Wikileaks is helping the Russians do you think Julian Assange is being unwittingly used by the Russians?

'Yes and wittingly etc'

Q6 Why do you think Donald Trump is so well disposed towards Putin?

'You'd have to ask him'

Q7 But have you actually seen evidence that the Russians have compromising material on Trump?

'There are active investigations going on now, two investigations in Congress as well as the FBI'

Q8 But actually when Trump says only the fake news media thinks his team colluded with Russia, when the director of the FBI James Comey hasn’t ruled it out, clearly you’re not ruling it out either?

'These are ongoing investigations..'

Q9 Now the British Home secretary says UK government should be given access to whatsapp, security etc.

'blah blah'

Q10 In the lecture you’re giving tomorrow, the Dimbleby lecture, you’re saying very clearly that you’re concerned about the competence of some politicians to enter positions of authority who don’t have the skills for carrying out their solemn governmental responsibilities with competence, integrity and efficacy… who are you thinking of?

'Lots of people around the world etc..'

Q11 You talk about, though a variety of people – the kinds of people you might be talking about, and you said, if this person came from, even in an unrelated celebrity inducing field; you’re being coy, but you’re talking about Donald Trump aren’t you?

'Expressing my concerns about how important these gov't positions are.. whether some people with power & authority are up to the task etc..'

Q12 Was Donald Trump right to tweet his accusation that President Obama wire-tapped him before the election? Was he right to say that?

'tweets, he needs to tweet information that is accurate, measured, not impulsive'

Q13 But Donald Trump would say that the real story that’s going on at the moment is leaks for the intelligence community not the alleged links with Russia is he right?

'Leaks are appalling, need to stop'

Q14 One of Donald Trump’s first outings when he became President was to make a speech in front of the CIA memorial, in which he talked about his disputed inauguration attendance figures rather than actually paying tribute to the CIA agents who’d fallen in the course of duty; what went through your mind when you saw that?

'That wall of honour is hallowed ground for the agency, fine men, line of duty etc..'

Q15 Because you criticised Donald Trump for comparing intel agencies to Nazi Germany and I wondered how that was received by the intelligence community? Not what you said, what he said?

'Intelligence professionals.. don't do it for recognition etc, baseless criticism, impugning the integrity etc'

Q16 But just going back to that whole question about Barack Obama, the White House all but accused GCHQ of helping President Obama wire-tap Donald Trump, I mean was that justified? Did it damage the Five Eyes alliance?

Smiles & sighs - how ridiculous this is: 'Lot of things that have been tweeted that I'm mystified over..'

Q17 If, at the end of these investigations into the leaks it is found that there have been leaks buy CIA officers themselves they will undermine their own organisation, the organisation that you served for all these years. If that’s found to be the case..

'Releasing classified info, treasonous act, should be held to account, occasions where officers have gone bad..'

Q18 The Deep state?

'Individuals'

Q19 But you don’t believe in the Deep State

'No I don't, absolutely not, ridiculous'

Q20 But that’s what Steve Bannan, what Donald Trump thinks..

'Delusional'.

John Brennan thank you very much

'Thanks Kirsty'

Not a shred of balance or defence of Trump. No-one invited to challenge what was said. A simple, biased, unbalanced stitch up. 

Tonight the BBC gives him an uncluttered 45 minutes to continue his unchallenged criticism of Trump, the elected President of our most important trading partner and military ally in the world.

Surely a proper journalist would be challenging his position? 'For more than a year the world's best security agency, which you led, has been trying to find evidence against Trump. If there is any, why haven't you found it yet?' For example.

Good old BBC eh? Our national broadcaster. Really? Richard Dimbleby must be spinning.

It's on iPlayer, watch it yourself and see if you think this was journalism or pure propaganda.

Thanks for reading.