#CharlieGard

The story of Charlie Gard's short life is a tragic one and heartfelt condolences must go to his parents who loved him and did what they thought was for his best.

Was Charlie's best interest served however? Looking from a distance and with an opportunity of objectivity that results - that is doubtful. The emotional cost to his parents for the battle they fought seems tragic and in my view their efforts were misplaced. There is no direct criticism of them because they were caught up in a maelstrom of love fuelled emotion and conflicting advice. Heart felt best wishes goes out to them.

However I do feel there is criticism due to the people fuelling and funding the parents campaign because clearly they were being used by ruthless, manipulative people with very fixed and uncompromising pro life views. These so called supporters did not serve Charlie or his parents well - in fact by dragging out the inevitable outcome over unnecessary months to serve their own ends they never helped Charlie and it seems left his parents in a state of misguided desperation and defeat. Quite despicable.

In the process there was a great deal of abuse levelled at the Great Ormond Street hospital team and this was nothing short of wicked. I have had some direct contact with GOSH over the years. It is shocking that anyone should question their vocational commitment and total professionalism in doing what is best for children in their care. GOSH is a world class centre of excellence. It was very sad to hear them being undermined and questioned by people who were badly informed of Charlie's specific case (Dr Michio Hirano) or without serious medical credentials which was the evident norm. GOSH deserved a lot more respect.

What has been learned from this sad case? Parental views  must be considered in a case like this but rightly their views cannot be paramount. They are too close - too emotional - and that is not a criticism - and of course they are not from the field of medicine. Does the medical evidence have to be tested in court - I guess ultimately it has if the parents (fuelled, funded and manipulated by doctrinaire supporters) are absolutely determined to ignore the conclusions of vocational caring medical professionals.

I am reminded of a divorce case over division of matrimonial assets. The husbands solicitor told him even if you offer your wife the entire estate the other side will still argue you are serving your own interest first. This was the state of the breakdown with GOSH and the parents and their supporters. If GOSH said white the parents said black by default. If mutual respect is lost on one side - if minds are closed - it becomes a bloody minded battle - the court route becomes unavoidable. Too often the world is a sad place - with too many people with "certainties" - so emphatic their ideas are right - despite and regardless of all the weight of scrupulous scientific evidence. Thankfully British courts offer fair and objective balance and ultimately they enforced the compassionate and professional conclusions of the GOSH medical team.

#Capitalisim in defence of (by Ruth Davidson) Capitalism needs rebooting

I have downloaded below a recent article written by Ruth Davidson - the bright and talented leader of the Scottish Conservatives.

This is her response to the relative success of Corbyn and old style socialist mindset.

She knows as I certainly know (and most of my generation knows) socialism does not work - it literally is a bankrupt philosophy. However what the Tories misunderstood at the last general election is the younger generation do not know that. They have fallen for Corbyn's nonsense without testing his credibility. The Tories wrongly felt the public could not be mad enough - silly enough to vote for him and they mistakenly targeted him rather than his policies. A big mistake.

Ruth Davidson is arguing the Tories must explain why capitalisim is the only model that works and take on this socialist clap trap for what it is. She is right. Here is her article. I commend you to read it before you chuck your vote at Jeremy Corbyn and the hard left!

Extreme poverty is being routed. Infant mortality has halved. Literacy rates are climbing. After two centuries of increasing global inequality, developing world growth has reversed the trend. In short, the world is a richer, healthier, better educated and more equal place than at any time in my lifetime.
And yet, the consensus surrounding free markets and liberal democracy has never seemed so fragile. Systems of government, systems of finance, systems of trade are all under attack. If there was ever such a thing as a global world order, it is being shaken by a million raised voices.
The centre cannot hold. Or can it?
The world’s economy has many fathers; Adam Smith, the father of capitalism; Richard Arkwright, the father of the industrial revolution; John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern macroeconomic theory; David Ricardo, the father of international free trade; Henry Ford, the father of mass production.
For me, one man has done more to revolutionise trade, raise global wealth, reduce costs, bring goods to new geographic markets – and to the affordability of average households – than any other. His name is Malcolm McLean and he’s a ‘father’ too. He’s the father of the shipping container.
The son of a North Carolina farmer who grew up during the great depression, Malcolm McLean worked at a petrol station to save enough money to buy a second-hand truck. The ‘McLean Trucking Company’ was born. Waiting at docks one evening for a pickup, he realised how long and labour-intensive it was to load and unload ships. It took days for even a medium sized vessel to leave port. It was messy and dangerous – men had to take individual items from trains or trucks and put them on pallets, transfer them to the ship and pack the belly tight enough to ensure no destabilising movement at sea. Accidents and deaths were a regular occurrence. Theft or damage was commonplace.
According to McLean “a ship earns money only when she’s at sea” and he viewed those long waits on the dockside as an impediment to purpose. What if dockers didn’t need to handle, pack or unpack goods at all? What if a standard, lockable box containing those goods could smoothly transition from truck to ship to truck, from point of production to point of sale?

In order to save capitalism Ruth Davidson says "boldness of the kind we don’t often see from government is going to be necessary". Credit: Jane Barlow/PA Archive/PA Images

McLean applied for the patent for the world’s first sea container in 1956. He sold his trucking company (by then, the fifth largest in the US) and bought a tanker – the Ideal X – to start a shipping company instead. The Ideal X carried 58 containers on its maiden voyage. Today, container ships can carry over 19,000 and there are 20 million containers at sea at any one time. Before containerisation, loading cargo cost $5.86 per ton and only 1.3 tons could be loaded per hour. Today, cargo can be loaded at a rate of 10,000 tons per hour and at a cost of just $0.16 per ton.
90% of all purchased goods are now shipped inside a container and 90% of the world’s nations have at least one container port.
The container revolution means exporters can send a jumper the 3,000 sea miles from Scotland to Russia at a cost of just 2.5 American cents. When calculating international trade, economists will often assume the shipping costs to be zero. The biggest beneficiaries of this revolution have been the developing nations – their farmers, entrepreneurs and industries.
At the same time as containerisation, the world has grown far richer. Post war rebuilding, advances in health, greater literacy and, yes – cheaper and freer trade – has lifted millions out of extreme poverty. According to the World Bank, in 1981 some 42% of the world’s population were extremely poor (the definition of such being measured at a person consuming less than $1.90 a day at 2011 purchasing power parity). By 2013 – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – that figure had dropped to 10.7%. A billion people across the globe, lifted out of extreme poverty in less than a generation.
It is a huge achievement, and three-quarters of it is down to China. It is no coincidence that in recent decades China has become the largest exporter of containerised goods, shipping nearly three times more than its nearest rival, the US.
Containerisation is just one example of an innovation that has helped the world’s poor.
As market competition has driven down smartphone costs, farmers in sub-Saharan Africa have skipped the interim technologies used by their western predecessors to decide whether to go to market and can now receive pricing directly to their handset. Mobile technology is transforming the industry further, with weather forecasting, apps to chart the gestation cycle of individual cows as well as the provision of micro-insurance on a pay-as-you-plant basis. To date, there are more than 650 million mobile phone subscriptions in Sub-Saharan Africa.
So if capitalism has achieved demonstrable success, and continues to help many poorer nations grow faster than richer ones, why are people losing faith in the ability of capitalism to make their lives better?
In the UK, just 19% of people agree that “the next generation will probably be richer, safer and healthier than the last”. That figure falls to 15% of Germans and 14% of Americans. Markets might work but they aren’t seen to be working for everyone.

In 1981 42% of world's population was extremely poor... By 2013 that proportion had dropped to 10.7%

Speaking as a Scot, and one that grew up just a few miles from Adam Smith’s home in Fife, it’s worth returning to this particular ‘father’. Because Adam Smith wasn’t just an economist, he was also a moral philosopher. And while his famous tract, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations might have dissected the nature of self-interest in trade as led by the invisible hand, he was also the author of the Theory of Moral Sentiments. He argued that far from being purely self-interested, we care about the well-being of others, for no reason beyond the simple pleasure we take from their evident happiness.
He went further, too, advocating for the proceeds of trade to support public works and those unable to support themselves. The nature and purpose of commerce was:

“first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services”.

As the Nobel Laureate, Prof Amartya Sen argues, Smith:

“defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the in­digent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted…. he was deeply concerned about the inequality and poverty that might remain in an otherwise successful market economy. Even in dealing with regulations that restrain the markets, Smith additionally acknowledged the importance of interventions on behalf of the poor and the underdogs of society.”

Intervention. Market restraints. Decisions made at a macro-level by governments to ensure basic fairness for the little guy. It doesn’t sound like the buccaneering, laissez-faire hero that is lionised by so many on the right.
What Smith knew – and what we continually need reminded of – is that people are not pieces on a chess board, to be moved around by outside forces. And not for him the grand delusions of “men of systems” who seek to organise the world to their own ends.
Smith was a great Scottish humanist – he saw us for the individuals that we are. From this basic insight, flowed everything: his liberal outlook on life, his practicality, his sense of justice and his recognition that markets have to operate with consent.

George Osborne helped steady the ship, writes Ruth Davidson, but capitalism needs more of a change of direction. Credit: Jane Barlow/PA Archive/PA Images

In the UK, in 2017, that consent is crumbling. We stand at a moment in time suspended between what has gone before and that which is to come. The conclusion of the industrial revolution and the start of the technological one. That second when breath is caught, before we exhale.
And within those eons, we see individual currents and eddies. We are living at the tail end of a transition which started roughly 35 years ago. It’s a transition which has seen Britain gradually migrate from a manufacturing economy to a service-led one. The UK Commission on Employment and Skills shows the changes over the last 20 years in the UK workforce – fewer people in manufacturing, fewer in the skilled trades, fewer secretarial roles; but a great increase in managerial, professional and technical skills.
In many respects, this migration can be considered positive – as a country we now tend to do better-paid, cleaner and more gender-neutral work but it has undoubtedly created winners and losers. Many technically-skilled men, in particular, from declining or now uncompetitive industries, are chief amongst the losers.
The sense of injustice is fuelled by the uneven demographical and geographical impact.
For much of the 20^th century, manual and routine occupations offered progression and pay. For those leaving school to work in a factory, while it might have been hard to later switch career and become a lawyer, there was a clear path to becoming a foreman, supervisor or manager, with relatively high pay and stability of secure employment.
Similarly, in towns which sprang up because of a particular trade, industry or employer; while there might have been an insularity of ambition or even nepotism in appointment, there was evidence of available, achievable jobs. From pit villages to textile towns, whole communities profited in worth and self-worth from their industrial identities.
As the dominant occupations of the UK have migrated, such certainties have been lost. Towns have been gutted. Youngsters leaving school at 16 can no longer conceive that by the time their classmates finish sixth form and then a university degree, they’ll already be ahead of them with money in the bank and the first step on the housing ladder.
How does a teenager living in a pit town with no pit, a steel town with no steel or a factory town where the factory closed its doors a decade ago or more, see capitalism working for them? Is the route for social advancement a degree, student debt, moving to London to spend more than half their take home pay on a room in a shared flat in Zone 6 and half of what’s left commuting to their stagnant-wage job every day; knowing there is precisely zero chance of saving enough to ever own their own front door?
Or is it staying put in a community that feels like it’s being hollowed out from the inside; schoolfriends moving away for work, library and post office closures and a high street marked by the repetitive studding of charity shop, pub, bookies and empty lot – all the while watching the Rich Kids of Instagram on Channel 4 and footballers being bought and sold for more than the entire economy of a third world nation on Sky Sports News?
Not a single person familiar with this impossible choice should be surprised at the rise of the populist right and left, of Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn, with their simple, stick-it-to-the-broken-system narrative. This is what market failure piled upon social failure piled upon political failure looks like.
Business and commerce have enriched the world. We live longer, stay healthier, consume more and enjoy greater comfort than at any time in history. But corporate behemoths have forgotten about operating with consent. It is not enough simply for an Amazon to bring down the cost for consumers, the public expect it to pay a fair share of taxation and grant workers a decent wage as well.
It is not inequality that bites deepest, but injustice. People expect that the CEO of a corporation will be the highest paid person on the payroll. What they don’t accept is that FTSE 100 bosses are paid 174 times the average worker’s wage in this decade – compared to 13 to 44 times in 1980.
In 2011, YouGov found that 85% of Britons believed that income should depend on how hard someone works or on their talent. But analysis by the Institute of Policy Studies found that of 241 of the highest paid CEOs between 1993 and 2012, nearly 40% were either sacked, their company had to pay significant fraud-related fines and settlements, or their companies required some form of bail out from the state. Instead of bosses being paid for success, a significant minority were handsomely rewarded for failure.

Intervention. Market restraints. Decisions made at a macro-level by governments to ensure basic fairness for the little guy. Adam Smith doesn’t sound like the buccaneering, laissez-faire hero that is lionised by so many on the right.

Adam Smith’s diagnosis “when the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters” while blunt, contains a kernel of truth for the present. If business itself has flunked the opportunity to put its house in order following the 2008 crash, then it is time for governments to take the initiative. Reforms of corporate governance, the break-up of monopolies, restrictions on tax avoidance, lowering barriers of entry to market competitors – each of these actions is required and each needs governments to cooperate in order for them to be effective.
The Conservative governments since 2010 performed essential, albeit unfinished, repair work to the public finances and also began important longer-term initiatives like George Osborne’s Northern Powerhouse and Greg Clark’s devolution agreements for city regions. But there is no room for even an ounce of complacency or wariness.
Debts of households and government both remain too high.
Planning law privileges those who already have property – disadvantaging the young and poor.
Beyond London many regions and regularly forgotten rural communities lack adequate physical and digital infrastructure.
Producers out-muscle consumers in the lobbying of parliament and government.
The low-waged still face disincentives as they move from benefits into work and up the pay scale.
We have not adequately considered how education and training services will need to upgrade in far-reaching ways for when automation slices through many white collar jobs, just as it sliced through so many industrial jobs in recent decades.
Boldness of the kind we don’t often see from government is going to be necessary.
We will need to be particularly bold when we see restrictive practices. Too much profit comes from tax avoidance, land speculation, financialisation and other unproductive economic activity, rather than through innovation and high performance.
Closing loopholes, increasing enforcement and overhauling regulatory frameworks can go some way to addressing the creeping cronyism that is making free market capitalism an unfree and anti-competitive capitalism, but this stick approach should only be one half of the story. Government also has the ability to set the tone and the direction of travel by using its vast array of levers and resource as a carrot, too. It should do so.

90% of all goods shipped across the world are carried in the containers envisaged by Malcolm McLean. From Pixabay.

Such action is not about the Treasury picking winners or propping up failed industry, but it is about investing in genuine productive activities. Policy should also be realigned to reward firms that do the right thing – recognising investment in research and development, in workplace training, in productivity gains.
Where there is direct public sector investment, it should be to enable, not to replace or push out private sector investment. Its focus on physical and digital infrastructure, education and training; prioritising the public investment in the productivity – and therefore the earning power – of working people.
Taking the Conservatives’ recent UK manifesto as an example – policies such as a huge investment and expansion of technical education will do much more for long term wage growth than putting workers on boards. That technical education has to be focused on tomorrow’s jobs, however – particularly service jobs – and not positions that are being automated.
Similarly, policies of ‘help to build’ rather than ‘help to buy’ will do more to address the inability of young people to get on the housing ladder. The biggest ally we have in increasing housing supply is beauty – if new houses complement the local environment and avoid the disastrous design choices of the past we can help build sustainable local support for extra construction.
While Thomas Picketty’s claims of capital growing without bounds at the expense of workers has been disproved by – among others – the Brookings Institute in Washington DC, its analysis of net capital share shows that housing is the only area where capital income displacement of labour income is apparent.
This matters. If the trend continues across the western world, home ownership will become ever more unaffordable. Measurement by the gini-coefficient might tell us that inequality in the UK has fallen to its lowest level since 1986, but Britain doesn’t feel unequal when a generation’s only hope of home-ownership rests on the lottery of home-owning parents dying suddenly – and without massive care home fees.
In short, the multiple instabilities of insecure employment, opaque career progression, wage stagnation, high rental and commuting costs and growing financial barriers to home ownership clearly explain why Britain’s young adults don’t feel they have a personal stake in a system that doesn’t work for them.
The challenges policy makers face as we stand on the cusp of the next industrial revolution include how to equip our workers with the skills for the future, the road map for individual advancement and social mobility, the framework for fair marketplaces, the investment in productive economic activities, empowerment of consumers relative to producers as modelled by Margrethe Vestager within the EU, and a housebuilding programme which democratises home ownership once more.
It is not enough for government to facilitate a discussion about where next for Britain, it has to actually lead. The short-term, election cycle nimbyism of prohibitive planning laws needs to cease and there is no room for one-of-the-in-crowd Davos sycophancy either. At home and abroad we need to press the case for fairer markets.
Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and made the world a better, safer, healthier, more comfortable place. It’s not working for everyone, however, and some people are enriching themselves through the kind of restrictive practices that Adam Smith warned us about two centuries ago. Nationally and internationally, capitalism needs a reboot.
Time to press Ctrl + Alt + Del.

#Clipperroundtheworld PT8 (Mainsail) - to the Pacific leg of the 2017/18 round the world race

This is a very short blog. I have posted it mainly as a reminder. Yesterday - Sunday 23rd July 2017 - I went over to Gosport with some of our crew to take delivery of a suite of new sails for CV25. CV25 is Team Dale's boat (sponsor to be announced) - and the boat I will be sailing across the Pacific on early next year.

Our main task was to hank on our new mainsail to the mast. This is a one off job as it is quite possible the mainsail will remain in situ until the round the world race is completed. To have a hand in setting up this absolutely crucial piece of the jigsaw felt significant to me - almost ceremonial. Our boat will carry three Yankees, three Spinnakers a Staysail and various storm sails - but only one Mainsail.

Anyway we did it - and we did it in grotty wet weather. A big job - because the sail is absolutely massive and weighs a ton. When you get up close - and really look at it - it is almost a work of art. The stitching - the paneling - the reinforcements are so complex. No wonder sails like this cost a fortune. It is incredible that a sail - so substantial and well made can rip under tension - how is that possible - we all know how it is possible ?!

Be kind to us mainsail - we will endeavor to look after you - and promise not to overfill you with wind by reefing in good time - to flake you accurately so your batons don't get bent and twisted -  and to stop your reefing lines flogging like crazy!

CV25 starting to get ready - on the dock yesterday

Preparing the new main for hoisting - so much material

Main halyard has been ground on to the mast top. Looks like the boom needs to be lowered!!

#Clipperroundtheworld PT7 (Level 4 training) - to the Pacific leg of the 2017/18 round the world race

5th to 11th July was our final mandatory training week. It was a week at sea on a Clipper 70. Its specific purpose was to get us in racing mode - to practice our skills as a team but the greater purpose was to introduce us properly to managing life on a racing yacht which is trying to perform at optimum level 24/7 - for weeks at a time with no let up or break. It is tough - and we were only in the English Channel and only for a few days!

Why is it tough (many reasons)? It is tough because even a Clipper 70 (like all yachts) - is an unstable platform. They bob up and down on the sea like a cork. A Clipper also sails fastest on a heel - often it seems at 45 degrees. This makes functioning very difficult (and fall injury all too easy) because you have to hang on - to brace yourself against falling over - and there is no let up. It doesn't matter if you are on deck, down below - cooking - using the heads - or for that matter lying in your bunk (your bunk has a pulley mechanism and lee clothes which can be adjusted to avoid you falling out). Sea sickness is often induced - especially down below - but thankfully this is something I avoided over the week. It is also tough because the boat has to be sailed 24/7 and that requires the crew to be divided into rotas - called watches. That means 4 hours on and 4 hours off. Sometimes this pattern is broken by necessity - but typically you have 3 hours in your bunk on a rota basis - so good sleep is precious. Fortunately I typically sleep well. Onboard so many things are difficult especially if you are hot bunking (sharing your bunk with someone from the other watch). Accessing your gear - maintaining a modicum of personal hygiene - (there are no showers - it is wet wipes all the way) - and certainly getting dressed and ready for going on deck takes a lot of thought, pre planning and physical effort. On this trip it was easy to get hot below and you struggled with your gear but up on deck the reverse can soon be true.

As an aside - the Pacific leg I am doing is in the north Pacific and will be very cold - below freezing at times - air ands sea temperatures brutal. The seas can also be some of the most challenging on the planet -  huge waves - massive remoteness and violent storms. (what I experienced this week - hard enough - but actually little compared with what is to come). What to wear is an issue. For the Pacific leg many people go for a dry suit. They make sense because they are designed to keep the water out but also give you more of a chance of surviving water temperatures if you go over the side (god forbid). However getting a dry suit on and off is a battle - and talking to someone who has done the leg before - a disincentive to use it. Rightly or wrongly I have bought a dry suit made by Ursuit. It is made of much lighter material and is designed to worn under your foulies and not instead of. It will not be as good as a full dry suit in the water - but there is a better chance that you will actually be wearing it and it will be more comfortable. It is a compromise. I am not sure if I have made a wise decision.

I have talked about how tough it is on a Clipper 70. Now a bit about why it is magnificent! A couple of specifics for now. The first is racing. It adds another dimension. It is your crew - your teamwork - the boats good decision making - that makes the difference. This can engender a lot of passion and commitment. The second for me was time on the helm - steering the boat. Can I try and describe how it feels. It is the middle of the night - a wonderful bright full moon. We are hammering back from Cherbourg. There is a stiff breeze giving us fantastic boat speed. Big waves are coming in off the port beam. We are on a close reach on a port tack. St Catherine's Light House is miles off and we are heading for the finish off Bembridge. I am on the helm - steering a 40 ton yacht chasing down another Clipper a mile or so in front. The bow is being bashed by the rollers and it is tricky to hold a course - but we seem to be catching the yacht in front. The water is sizzling as it rushes by - I get the boat in a groove - everything goes super light - speed picks up more. My helm buddy is clapping - we are cheering and laughing - come on baby - we are after you swear swear. What a feeling - amazing. I absolutely loved it - the whole thing.

Enough - back to the practicalities. The Round the World race starts from Liverpool on August 20th. Before that there is masses to do. The majority of the crew will be helping at some point with boat prep before the boat is sailed up to Liverpool. Specifically our boat is CV25 until it is sponsor wrapped - which should happen shortly. Much more significantly we have had a change of skipper. Rick Powell has reluctantly had to stand down for personal reasons. Dale Smyth - a South African has been appointed as his replacement. I have sailed with Dale for one week on an earlier training course. While it was sad to lose Rick because he got our campaign off to such a good start and was a really good bloke I am absolutely delighted that Dale is his replacement. Dale has vast ocean going experience. He is also a really solid, down to earth fun guy and I am sure he will be a tremendous skipper.

A moments reflection. What I have taken on is scary. The Pacific will be an uncompromising challenge. Am I prepared for it - because it has really hit home to me that this is no joke? It will be the hardest and certainly the most unnerving thing I have ever done. The answer is not really. To start with I need to improve my upper body strength - because there is so much hard physical lifting and pulling to do. I will be working out. More importantly I still feel under experienced to tackle the north Pacific and 5 weeks at sea. Therefore I have signed up with the Tall Ships Trust to deliver a Challenger 72 to Grand Canaria from Portsmouth in Oct/Nov. This will give me over two weeks of offshore sailing including crossing The Bay of Biscay and I think it will be invaluable and sensible preparation for me. It will be off to Qingdao, China in mid March to pick up my boat for the 6000 + mile leg to Seattle USA. What an incredible possibility.

Like so many things in the life the main pleasure will come at the finish and reflecting on what you have achieved I think, but there will be massive highs and lows for sure on the way across. Talk about mixed feelings - but a dream come true if it all works out - and mega mega mega touch wood it will - ha!  

#WayneRooney still a great player

Just back from my early morning bike ride. As I have written before - it is amazing what percolates to the top of my brain in the half hour I have been out. Surprisingly - this morning - and out of the blue - it is Wayne Rooney!

I am going to write this short blog for one reason only - and that is in anticipation of the smug satisfaction by being able to claim "I told you so".

Wayne Rooney - England's most capped outfield player - England's and Manchester United's highest goal scorer has been sold by Manchester United to Everton because he is apparently no longer good enough to get into their team. He has an illustrious career behind him - he has been playing at the very top since age 16 - both true - but he is still only 31 - and in my view - very much has still got it (and perhaps more importantly and so typical of him - he still wants it).

Rooney still has the best touch in the Premiership. He is the most naturally two footed - the best balanced - the most incisive passer - the most natural finisher - and he gives 100%. United's loss is definitely Everton's gain and I think they will rue their decision. (he will score goals against them)

Wayne Rooney has had jealous supporters of other clubs (not least the Liverpool scouse) on his back for years. Lazy pundits have climbed onto the lets have a go at Rooney bandwagon. Rooney is always judged against his own standard set - which is to be the best player on the pitch. If he ever falls below - he suddenly becomes the worst player on the pitch - and of course this is nonsense.

No doubt Rooney could have cashed in on his big name status and gone to China or the USA for mega bucks - but he has not. Why? I am sure it is because he knows he can still produce at the highest level - and he wants to continue doing so. If he is as successful at Everton as he (and I) expects there are more England caps to come and he will once again silence his detractors.

Wayne Rooney is a diamond footballer. Like David Beckham (no one could deliver a ball better than him) before him he has been subject to a cartload of willful negativity. If Ronald Koeman gets it right at Everton Rooney will have a couple of great seasons for sure and force even the most jaded pundits to admit they wrote him off too early.

I am predicting Wayne Rooney will be footballer of the year in 2017/18

#Labour for Corbyn & the "young" voter. Rhetorical questions PT1

There is no doubt Jeremy Corbyn has hit a note with many young voters. Glastonbury illustrated that (and I recognize that at first hand). However while of course every voter is entitled to their view regardless of how it is formed there is no doubt in my view that many positions are based on superficial knowledge and jumping on bandwagons without a reasonable degree of academic vigor or indeed objectivity.

To explore my point :-

Corbyn - " I accept the decision of the Brexit referendum because more than anything I am a democrat. However I do not accept Theresa May's "hard" Brexit."

Can you challenge yourself against the points below and come up with coherent answers ?

1) If you accept the Brexit referendum decision what in reality do you think the electorate voted for ?
2) What does leaving the EU actually mean - how do you expect it to be characterized if you accept that democratically it has to happen?
3) What is "hard" Brexit?
4) What actually is "soft" Brexit. How will it differ from "hard brexit" ?
5) What concessions will be made to the EU under a "soft" Brexit?
6) What is the difference in reality between staying in the EU and "soft" Brexit?

I am genuinely puzzled because as far as I can see - objectively - the nation voted to regain control of our money, laws and borders in order that we can make our own democratic decisions as a free nation. This includes the ability to be able to trade on our own terms with the rest of the world and set our own immigration policy to meet our own needs. Otherwise why leave at all?

There are a couple of other points I would like to put up for debate :-

1) The referendum debate was apolitical (leave and remain was not party based) - but the decision has become politicized for narrow self serving party reasons or as a rearguard way of trying to overturn the democratic decision of the referendum (which is therefore in reality anti democratic?)

2) The refrain - "it is not just about the 52% - what about the views of the 48%." What does this mean in practical reality ? How can the views of the 48% be reflected in the decision to leave because they do not want to leave. Is it really practical to argue 52 want to go one way 48 the other - so the 100 have to go in a direction that does not make sense and NOBODY wants. This is why we have a democratic referendum now and again - to constitutionally handle fundamental decisions. It has to be yes or no - and the democratic thing to do is to accept the majority decision - make the best of it and move on together.

I would suggest to you in reality there is no such thing as "hard or soft" Brexit. There is just Brexit. Anything less will be a political/democratic fudge - or put another way - worst of all worlds (all the pain without the advantages).