The Great Debate

So we've had the two of them (hello and good evening, by the way). Two leaders, two debates and one outcome. Not quite election-level, though we'll be going through the motions in May for some locals and the European Parliamentary elections. Nonetheless, TV airtime was dedicated to the parties which hold the most polar views on the UK's EU membership as it stands. The contenders: 

Nigel Farage MEP. Tory until around 20 years ago, made his money as a commodities broker in the city. Currently MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the European Parliament. Has a leadership position in his group. Fairly amiable chap, so one would think; hailed as an authentic speaker who has few links to the British political class. Rabidly anti-EU, star of many YouTube videos and permanent bane to Martin Schulz, current President of the European Parliament. 

The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP PC. Former MEP himself, now Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Liberal Democrat Party. Came to prominence during the 2010 General Election TV debates, when the catchphrase "I agree with Nick" saw the Conservatives go into coalition with him. Known since for not keeping his party to heel and letting Vince Cable run rings round him at will. May see his party's fortunes dip next year over tuition fees, desperately scrambling to rehabilitate his party nationally.

The stakes were, at least to me, slightly unclear. I suppose it helped to maybe push people toward one extreme or the other and one thing which people have said and with which I agree is the noted absence of both Labour and Conservatives. Well Labour don't have much to say on anything that's worth listening to just now, so we can discount them. Conservatives are too busy actually doing things and shaping the country up a bit better. Were the Lib Dems or UKIP able to put anyone else recognisable into the field, then I'd have been all for it, but as UKIP can't quite do that now that Roger Helmer is out of the frame, that could prove somewhat difficult. 

The performances: I only saw snippets of each, I must confess, but it told me all I needed. Farage looked to be in command and was forceful throughout. He told the people what they wanted to hear and they responded back to him positively. Contrast that to Nick, who still wants people to agree with him, but tonight especially sounded desperate, almost whiny and lacked force of personality. Say what you will about Farage (and plenty do) but he has a strength of personality people seem to like. Scratch below the surface and he's another golf club bore, but there we go. 

This is what I mean when I am derogatory about UKIP. Although they are populist in their approach and may have poached many anti-gay marriage Tories off us (they're welcome in my view), they have nothing else to offer. They are now bent on gaining a working-class vote and will use tactics employed by the BNP (a third of their former membership are reported to be in the ranks) to help. Again, they're welcome. Unfortunately this means that their policies will vacillate wildly in order to placate the plethora now in their ranks. To top it off, I cannot honestly name you above three people currently in the ranks who would be of ministerial calibre. Surely they must start to think of this, if they wish to be taken seriously? There are no other names or faces than Nigel Farage, Roger Helmer and Neil & Christine Hamilton who I can recall as notable members of UKIP.

I'd be equally nasty about the Lib Dems, but really, is it worth it? They not only have cake, but they now wish to eat it. Tim Farron being paraded round today going against the Spare Room Subsidy because it might help the party's image and hopefully keep them in double digits at Westminster come next May. They lost voters in 2010 in coalition. They bled them further when the welfare reforms were agreed. They may have stayed some hands on gay marriage, but ultimately the promise was blatantly broken on tuition fees, I do fear for their numbers. 

Neither party has, of course, offered any serious middle ground. UKIP want out and that's it. No negotiation, no attempt at consolidation. Just up, out and leave. OK, but then what? The Lib Dems want in, ever-closer union and one big happy family. No thanks. Labour, well, will want something that will see us edge closer to Brussels but sneakily so nobody suspects and the people won't have a say. Conservatives want a referendum in 2017 when all other avenues have been exhausted and the British people give a full and clear signal as to what should happen next. Not popular with the other three parties and indeed some members (who haven't yet joined Nutty Nigel) would be sceptical. I'm not; 2017 seems to be a sensible date, no election, no foreseeable crisis. A good and clear run starting in 2016, although the question is being debated now, which is good. 

My advice is to all of you not to simply let blind populism or unsupported faith be your guides when deciding what our future in relation to the EU should be. I think we should stick with it, but not in its present form and not for the reasons Nick suggested on BBC 2 tonight. It's a trading bloc and it's solid. Politically it's a complete banana republic and that alone should send the BRICs and US running for the hills. A diplomatic corps for a trading union? Preposterous. Its own flag, anthem and presidential system to boot? Ridiculous. It is these things we ought to change. If we can reform the EU for the good (and I mean less Brussels-based interference) of all the member-states, then we will have achieved something. That will not be delivered by UKIP and cannot be left to the Lib Dems or Labour. 

On A Day Like Today

It has been forever, it seems, since I deigned to post anything on here and for that I once again apologise. I was realistic in my expectations that posts would eventually become erratic and so it seems to be. Nevertheless, I have a lot to say in this one, as I've been musing for a while and I'm sorry but I must go back 10 days to last week's Budget. My theme will become clear, I promise. Here goes. 

The Budget last week seemed to have once again set the agenda for the year's economic debate. It was a far cry from that awful debacle in 2012 when nothing that came out of the Chancellor's mouth made much sense. Last year was slightly better, although Conference in September was a little subdued. Then came last Wednesday. 

A rip-roaring roller-coaster which gave people more money in their pockets and more freedom to spend it. It was a general win-win, particularly for me and others like me, who will be paying less tax and will be succeeding someone who will have been able to retire comfortably. Annuities took a bit of a pasting in the markets, but that's to be expected when people are given the freedom to spend their money how they wish. John McTernan (former Labour adviser), however, sneered and said that "you cannot trust people to spend their own money sensibly". I'd beg to differ, but that would mean, well, begging. Such sentiments are wholly immoral in my view, how dare anyone suggest that the government ought to control how my money is spent? I am fully in control of my faculties and if I were coming up to retirement and decided to blow my pension pot on some ridiculous whimsy then that is my decision. The only money of mine the government will ever have any input on are the taxes I surrender to it. That and the state pension I will eventually receive of course. 

It seems to be that the Conservatives are once again championing individual liberty in another spectrum of life. This leads me nicely into my next topic. Today, Saturday 29 March 2014, marks the day when people of the same sex can enter into valid legal marriages in England and Wales. The Scots will have something broadly similar come October so I hear. Personally getting married in Edinburgh would be worth the wait. Here again we as a party are championing the right, and it is a basic one, for people to marry whom they choose with all the rights and entitlements which go with it. Coupled to the tax breaks and all that are coming in for married couples in April, this couldn't have come at a better time. I don't care that people have left the party over this, of course it's sad that they cannot bring themselves to be progressive, but it's their loss. I respect those who object for religious reasons and understand their concerns, but from a Christian perspective, Jesus taught us all to love one another and be egalitarian in our outlook. I take large parts of the Old Testament with a pinch of salt, I make the New Testament my focus and in there do I find little to condemn homosexuality; in fact only three verses in three separate books make any concrete reference to it. If, as a party, we did not wish for progress in this and other aspects of society, then surely we would be called the Preservative & Unionist Party. 

I have been cheering all this on a little too quietly, so here I am on the megaphone making more noise. I was inspired to come back to you all today thanks to an article done for ConservativeHome, in the form of an interview with James Delingpole. This interview, for me, affirms why I am a member of the Conservative Party and why we should never let give Labour the slightest chance in 2015 of re-setting the clocks back to April 2010. We are giving people a say on our membership of the EU, something to which Miliband cannot give even his characteristic vague support. We are championing individual liberty, although Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs believes we can (and I think should) do more on that front. We are now a little over a year away from the general election which will make or break the reforms undertaken thus far. It is for the British people to decide whether or not they want rampant socialism in the form of price controls, enforced regulation and possible re-nationalisation, or the opportunity to give themselves more responsibility and the increased ability to make the important decisions in life for themselves. I know what I'll be voting for. 

A Man of the People

As the slogan for the Nationwide Building Society goes, "On Your Side". So those who do their daily dealings of a financial nature can assume that their money is secure, isn't going to be drained to any nasty shareholders and that for the savers, returns will be relatively healthy. Laudable. 

Let's expand the word "nationwide" metaphorically and then split it into two almost as big words "One Nation". That's the idea pervading the (alleged) thinking in the Labour Party, particularly after that rousing speech given by their apparent leader, Ed Miliband. One nation, where come 2015 under a Labour government, there will be blackouts. Land seizures. Even more borrowing and unworkable schemes because the  money will have gone. We are Britain, we certainly can do better than that. 

Be under no illusions here, folks, allowing Labour back in will do us irreparable damage. Our fragile growth, albeit growing more robust by the day, will be squandered in a year and by 2017 the country will be at the polling stations once again. Is that what we want? Ed asked his party conference and by wider dint anyone who was remotely interested not in Brighton, if people were better off than they were four years ago? Well four years ago there was still a Labour government and people were miserable. Some will have certainly answered the question in their heads with a tentative "Well, actually...". 

Pundits are saying that the next election will focus largely on the cost of living. Certainly that will be uppermost in the minds of many and rightly so. Prices have risen almost every month since May 2010 and the horrible Tories, along with their Lib Dem lackeys have done nothing to abate it. Yet the inflation rate went down recently. The Chancellor froze fuel duty in the Budget and now the supermarkets are cutting their prices at the pump. We agreed an increase in the personal allowance, set to rise again in 2014. That'll help with the cost of living; paying less tax will mean more to spend on the everyday items. Council tax has either been frozen or raised (by most authorities) below inflation and no authority can raise it above 2% without a mandate from local residents. 

But to return to Red Ed and his fun-loving band. As I touched upon, he wants to regulate energy prices. An excellent idea, the greedy energy company shareholders fill their pockets and the consumers face a heat-or-eat crisis. So heroic, crusading, on-my-side Ed comes in and says that Labour will pass legislation in 2015 to freeze energy price rises for 20 months. Great! An extra £120 to each bill payer per year, equating to £10 a month or so. For some this will be a drop in the ocean, to others a lifeline. But it comes at a price: government interference. The Government will tell private companies what to do in terms of the prices they set, in a nutshell, price controls. This will extend to the supermarkets and railways as well. Commuters and consumers will cheer initially; policies coming from a compassionate government at last! Of course, but for the supermarkets this will mean a limit on profit being made. Limits on profits mean that their staff and services will start to suffer. The less a company makes, the less it can afford to pay its staff. Less money for the lower-paid = less immediate consumption in the market. Labour will make lower-paid workers worse off in the long term. 

Ed claims to be on the side of small businesses. Again, something I could get behind, it's what we do best as a nation. He wants to freeze a business rates hike and reverse a 1% corporation tax cut to fund it. Doing so would be suicide, particularly in terms of the latter. Not cutting the corporation tax will mean that the larger business won't be able to hire any more workers, invest in their operations or just give their staff a pay boost. We also won't be attractive to future investors from overseas wanting a decent place for European operations. If we want to stay ahead in the global race, then we must be able to demonstrate that we're competitive. Labour will price us out of the global market. 

Then came the pronouncements on social issues; housing and childcare. An extra 25 hours a week for care-givers in order to accommodate parental working hours. Because recognising marriage in the tax system is just plain wrong, as are any tax cuts. Then there's the land-grab I mentioned earlier. One Nation Ed will ensure that there isn't much nation left to look at not covered by concrete and tarmac. The "new towns" he wishes to build to solve the housing crisis (presumably funded by the repeal of the hated Bedroom "Tax"). Where will they go, please? The Cotswolds? The Chilterns? How about the Yorkshire Dales? How affordable are we talking for the new housing? Will everyone have the right to buy, or is it just renting? Who will be allowed to apply for the new houses; those in employment, or those who only receive housing benefit? Maybe they'll just be for show. Labour will re-entrench socialism. 

This is to say nothing of the other hare-brained schemes cooked up at conference. I have given a taste of what could happen in 2015 should we, as a nation, make the wrong choice and elect the wrong man. We all remember how in 13 years Labour ruined us through high-tax, mega-spend policies and the same looks set to happen again. 

So on that, I shall finish on another slogan, borrowed from a far-distant General Election campaign OLD LABOUR, OLD DANGER. 

Blood and Honey

I think I've been silent long enough and while this is still current, I am minded to write something on the events of the past few days, culminating in the disgraceful display on the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday night. As usual, a little context, just in case anyone has missed anything, although I suspect that only applies to that nice family from Croydon to whom I'm renting my Tahitian cave. Anyway. 

Syria. Five letters, one country and now a myriad of problems. Once a great centre in the entire Middle East; Damascus, centre of learning and culture for Muslims, Christians and Jews. A gateway to Turkey and the Mediterranean, it has stood proud and strong for millennia. Until the Assad regime came. Firstly, the family were good enough not to go off half-cock shooting innocent people and terrorising the populace at large. A dictatorship yes, but largely benevolent and decent in its treatment of the large Christian and Jewish minorities resident in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere. That was until the events of the Arab Spring, when the Syrian members of Generation Y took to the streets in the big cities and demanded, as their Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni counterparts, greater freedoms and change. Events were quick to escalate and now we've had nothing but two long years of Syrian internal strife, culminating on Wednesday 21st August this year with the first use of chemical weapons this century. I have to say I'm impressed that mankind managed to hold off that long before doing something so stupid or dangerous. 

Now what do we have? A frightened population and 1,429 people whose lungs were filled with toxins and allegations of napalm used at a playground only a couple of days ago. The reaction from much of the world was righteous indignation; who would do such a thing and to so many women and children? A frightened and paranoid despot who will stop at nothing to ensure the re-enslavement of his people. Nations both large and small registered their disgust and anguish at such a diabolical atrocity. The UN sent in weapons inspectors, who are now safely back in New York having completed their investigation and who will report to the Secretary-General. We know they won't lay any blame, but my hope is that the provenance of the weapons used will do that for them. 

So what happened otherwise? Well, the UK tried to get the Security Council to agree to some sort of action plan but Russia as usual proved intractable and China non-committal. Quelle surprise, but surprisingly France is on board for military intervention. Which brings me to the nub of why I've written this. 

In Opposition, David Cameron promised that the UK would only be involved in military action if Parliament deemed it worthy to do so. He promised to consult Parliament every step of the way, in a bid to avoid doing another Blair and riding roughshod over Parliament's absolute sovereign right to keep the executive in check. He was given assurances by Ed Miliband that Labour would support the motion tabled on Thursday night to involve the UK in some form of military action, provided that the UN route had been exhausted, the case was built and Parliament was given two votes. 

285-272. That was the result and the government's motion was defeated. Our hands are now tied and we can only sit idly and watch as the rest of the world, including Australia, France and Turkey back the US in going up against Assad et al. Dan Hodges wrote in his Telegraph blog that he felt so ashamed by the duplicity showed by Miliband that he has now left the Labour Party. I do hope that The Telegraph keep him on, I don't believe he'll renege and join the Tories or even the Lib Dems any time soon. 

Even at time of writing, my Facebook feed is showing me articles from The Political Writer and other sources arguing that Britain shouldn't be following the US into every conflict and even suggesting Obama may not be too eager to wade on in just yet. Putting that aside, I do wonder what went through the minds of those MPs voting "No" on Thursday night. Some will have done so in the hope of being seen as good MPs who were concerned and listening to the voters. Others will have of course been politicking, although I won't be uncharitable and entirely blame the Opposition. 

I know Ed Miliband won't be ashamed of himself in what he's done. He'll doubtlessly think he's done the country and enormous favour that it'll play well in the national memory in 2015 and indeed at his party's conference in a few weeks. Big rubber balls. He's proven that he's totally unworthy of the burdens of the office to which he aspires (or believes should be his because he's entitled to it). I do hope that those Tory MPs who voted against aren't all in the crucial 40/40 seats we're targeting. I know some of them will have wanted to "stick it" to Cameron on some other issue because they just don't like him. I am comforted, however, that now Miliband has soured relations with the Democrats in the US; their memories are long and I know that even if we lose in 2015 and the Republicans win in 2016, the words Prime Minister Miliband will not be met with any great enthusiasm in Washington. 

I do feel sorry for the PM, no good deed goes unpunished and the pundits may be right about his authority being diminished. He's spent so long, along with William Hague, re-building British foreign policy and increasing our standing abroad. Now that all lies in tatters and the Britain that once stood up twice to an over-mighty Germany twice in a century, as well as halting atrocities in Africa and the Balkans not less than twenty years ago is no more. While I applaud that Parliament was able to rightly assert its will, the choice was the wrong one. There may yet be an opportunity to re-frame the question once the weapons inspectors' report is published. For now, I shall simply let my rage subside and grieve quietly for a period in our history which has ended so abruptly. 

Gibraltar

Egad! Another post so soon, hot on the heels of the last? Yes, indeed, but on another theme about which I feel very strongly; British sovereignty. A brief context; much has been made over the past few days of the story concerning Spain's apparently aggravating policies of wanting to instigate border charges at the point of entry from mainland Spain to the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. The Spanish government wishes to charge each vehicle €50 (£43) to enter and exit the territory. That is a cost of roughly £96 per day to those who have to work there, estimated at 4,000 or so. While that would be a very nice little earner for the blighted Spanish economy, which currently suffers at 25% unemployment, this is an entirely unworkable solution, when considering what else they wish to impose, namely the closure of Spanish airspace to all inbound and outbound flights to Gibraltar. That would be far more damaging to the Spanish economy as a whole. Yet what is the reasoning for this dispute in the first place? Simple: a fishing dispute. The Spanish government claims that the building of a reef by the Gibraltarian is harming the Spanish fishing trade. 

Regardless of whether or not this is true (and I suspect is isn't); the imposition of a fine in contravention to various schedules and sections in all EU treaties to which both Spain and the UK are signatories is a violation. Without wishing to sound too much like a Little Englander or, God forbid, a UKIP candidate (I am not, by the way), why has Brussels chosen to let Spain and the UK fight it out? These are EU member states and as I said, the fines are in contravention of what is ostensibly EU law. The EU would be perfectly within its rights to act as a mediator, yet it chooses to ignore the dispute. I guess part of the reason is that both countries' heads of government have managed to take some of the heat out of the argument by talking directly. 

There are, however, some aspects which still need to be addressed and I shall go wider here. Gibraltar is sovereign UK territory, its last referendum was held in 2002 and the popular will was still to remain British. There may be another plebiscite held this century, but I do believe that the Rock will still have the Union Flag flying above it during the rest of my lifetime. Despite the bilateral phone conversation earlier this week between David Cameron and Mariano Rajoy, the Royal Navy has still seen fit to divert one of its fleet to Gibraltar (we are reminded of Lord Palmerston and his effective 'gunboat diplomacy' during the 1860's). We still maintain a small presence in another small, but no less important, territory and they need no name at all here. They too held a vote and in March this year decided to remain British as well. As has been said in other parts as well this week, it is a clear indication of troubled or failing governments which border a BOT and claim British imperialism if they perceive a slight or wish to cause trouble. President de Kirchner of Argentina said she doesn't recognise the Falklanders' vote this year, cries foul and all sorts of nonsense. These places were British territory recognised by treaties signed before either Rajoy's or de Kirchner's great-grandparents ever drew breath and will be so when their great-grandchildren's death rattle will sound. 

I visited the reception given by HM Government Gibraltar at Conference last year and signed the book at the Falkland Islands stall as well. The quiet dignity of the First Minister of Gibraltar when he spoke (although at length) impressed me greatly and is reflective of those resident in the territory. We should not give in to demands made just because they are made. We are backing Gibraltar and should do so until instructed otherwise. No government has the right to tell us otherwise.  

You Do Surprise Me

Following on from the rows about the NHS and the damning reports which have been published about care provision in the last few months, I thought I too would offer my own opinion on the subject. I was moved by the revelation published by online magazine The Commentator that the Guardian had yesterday permitted the publication of a piece on its much-revered Comment is Free page by a Spectator contributor, namely Melissa Kite. The subject being funding for the NHS and why those who have private health insurance are denigrated. 

Ms Kite's motivation came from the revelation by Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director for the NHS, that the organisation ought to be more like PC World in its delivery process. Like many right-wingers, Ms Kite included, I believe that the NHS should reform and perform better. I do share her scepticism that maybe it wouldn't be entirely wise for the NHS to privatise entirely, given the fluctuating ability for the markets to provide universal services (but that's the price we pay for capitalism, eh?). 

Her article quotes from the original Beveridge report, which was the arguable cornerstone for the founding of the NHS in the first place. Sir William himself said, "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, responsibility, opportunity in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family". In other words, the NHS will happily provide you with all the basic stuff you need, but don't expect it to bear the brunt of your bad lifestyle choices. 

I also agree that those who do pay for much of their healthcare ought to be applauded for not adding to the burden of our already overstretched system. If I were fortunate enough to have the money, then I too would pay for my healthcare (albeit with certain strings. Tax break for one). 

This leads me onto another similar argument made by the Telegraph's excellent Janet Daley last month. Being American-born, she is well placed to comment and indeed makes some excellent points in the article, particularly on the topic of health insurance. She contends that having a co-payments system for non-basic procedures would help benefit the provision of basic healthcare from a financial standpoint. Again, this should come with strings attached, preferably in the form of reduced NI contributions for those who do have some form of basic health insurance. 

Both of these combined could see a resurgence in healthcare provision and ensure real demand from those patients who will be particular about the treatment they receive. To be able to better provide basic healthcare is what the NHS ought to be striving for, that is why it is there. Added to this the Friends and Family test which, although shaky right now (and unwittingly mentioned in an earlier post of mine), should add weight to what patients think of their treatment and enable others to choose where they are treated. All this is designed to continue to help raise the NHS's game and ensure that it continues to deserve the epithet of "best in the world", for I am sure neither we or it can stomach another damning report. 

In Memoriam

It is no doubt apparent to you all that something momentous happened today. Sometime this morning, the United Kingdom lost one of its great historical and political figures since the Second World War. I speak, of course, of the Rt Hon Baroness Margaret Thatcher KG OM FRS. She died in her hotel suite at The Ritz at the age of 87.

Hers was an undoubtedly controversial legacy, but I firmly believe that she transformed this country for the better. From her time as a humble backbench MP, she rose through the ranks, intending to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, but ended up holding the highest of the Great Offices of State. I shan't recount her story, that's not why I write this blog. I shall instead give my verdict on the longest postwar premiership served and the remarkable person upon whose shoulders that august burden fell.

I was born in the year of her third and final general election win and indeed was but a toddler when she left Downing Street. By the time she left, Britain was a markedly different country and indeed was left in a much better state than when she found it.

In the 1970's, the United Kingdom was the sick man of Europe, crippled by rising international debt and held to ransom by overmighty unions. Things came to a head in 1979 during the Winter of Discontent when a weak Labour government was forced from office by having to go to the IMF for a loan. All that changed significantly.

The 1980's saw our island go through massive upheavals. Yes, there were riots in Liverpool and London and the miners went on strike for almost a whole year in protest at the closing of the pits. Entire communities were decimated, but there were positives. Her tenacity and sheer force of will ensured that we won the Falklands War, still a sore point for Argentina and the question is trotted out each time a president of theirs is in difficulty. Her determination for people to aspire to home ownership led to the relaxing of controls and restrictions on the City of London and for the possibility for those in council housing to have the right to buy. Of course local authorities became greedy and didn't bother replacing much of the stock (quelle surprise), but it was still the right thing to do.

Further to that, people could buy shares in the privatising nationalised industries, such as British Gas and BT. The state was rolled back and people were left to spend their money on what they wanted. With the lines of easy credit stretching far toward a golden horizon, this was of course rather easy.

Unfortunately this came at a price. First, she has been demonised for crushing the unions. The unions needed putting back in their place; they had stalked the land for far too long, creating mayhem and misrule wherever they could, just to show force. We are not to be cowed by such people, nor such people as the IRA. Gerry Adams' comments today were not particularly welcome and he knows he ought to be ashamed of himself. Terrorists are brutes and deserve brutalising. Last, was the poll tax. The riots that caused were unnecessary and marked the beginning of a startling trend, which culminated two years ago in the horrific scenes in our large cities.

Of course, she was also unswervingly patriotic on the world stage. I have mentioned the Falklands, but foreign policy was conducted with a single view in mind; how greatly will Britain benefit? In Europe she won us back a rebate on our contribution (squandered by a so-called admirer of hers who shall remain nameless). Elsewhere she helped win the Cold War, bridging the gap for the Soviet Union and the United States.

It is therefore with a full heart that I say how sorry I am that such a figure has now departed from us. Margaret Thatcher will be as loved by many as she is reviled by others. However there can be no doubt that she was a remarkable person and the world shall never be the same for lack of her in it. I was surprised equally by the positive comments on my social media feed as I was appalled by others. Before I go to press with this, I will add that anyone who comments negatively out of pure spite and malice on Facebook will have their comments deleted. Such people ought to know better; remember a family tonight lost a mother and grandmother.

Once again, ladies and gentleman, Margaret Hilda Thatcher. Such will never be seen again and a chapter in our island story is ended.