UK

BoJo’s EV adventure by 2035 is risky

Image result for ev charger nullarbor

There is a lot of irony when studying electric vehicles (EVs) and government policy. The lack of consultation with the very industry it seeks to regulate is mind-boggling. This picture of an EV charging station powered by a diesel generator along the Nullarbor highlights how poor the thought processes are. The problem governments face is that they are starting with a narrative and trying to reverse engineer the data to fit it. Sadly, the market will ultimately decide – that means consumers.

3 years ago we met with an EV parts supplier, Schaeffler AG, which openly admitted the task to meet the government EV demands was being impeded by their own desire to out virtue signal each other.

Schaeffler said, 200 cities across Europe had EV policies as distinct as the other. Therefore carmakers were struggling to meet all of the non-standardised criteria which was driving up production costs and making EVs even further out of reach. Instead of all working for the “same” outcome, the parts suppliers were saying until governments came to a sensible balance, the delays would continue.

The irony is that the broad range of EVs available in the market is too narrow. Of course we can argue in 15 years that will have vastly changed. The question is whether production can keep up.

First of all, governments around the world tend to generate around 5% of total tax revenues from fuel excise. You’d be a fool to think that EVs won’t end up being stung with a similar registration tax to offset it. It is already happening. Cash strapped Illinois has proposed the introduction of a $1,000 annual registration fee (up from $17.50) to account for the fact EVs don’t pay such fuel taxes.

Secondly, the UK government may well have to introduce cash-for-clunkers style subsidies to entice people to ditch their petrol power for an EV. Because, unless someone owns a classic car, the second most expensive household asset will be near worthless meaning many may not bother to switch by 2035. That will put huge pressure on the auto industry and dealers to convert sales.

Third, the infrastructure to be able to charge millions of EVs overnight will need significant upgrades, especially to the power grid. If the UK wants to go down the renewables path good luck in meeting the surges in demand because EV charging will be highly random. People won’t be happy to be sitting at home waiting for a charge and realising that 200,000 others want to do so at the same time on a cloudy day with no wind.

Then there are the automakers. While they are all making politically correct statements about their commitments to go full EV, they do recognise that ultimately customers will decide their fate. A universal truth is that car makers do their best to promote their drivetrains as a performance differentiator to rivals. Moving to full EV removes that unique selling property. Volkswagen went out of its way to cheat the system which not only expressed their true feelings about man-made climate change but hidden within the $80bn investment is the 3 million EVs in 2042 would only be c.30% of VW’s total output today. Even Toyota said it would phase out internal combustion in the 2040s. Dec 31st, 2049 perhaps? Mercedes have vowed to keep diesel and petrol on the menu out to 2050.

Put simply, why is the government trying to dictate the technology to an industry that has made such amazing advancements in safety and technology? By all means, have a zero-emissions target by 2035 but offer the industry complete technological freedom to achieve it. The consumers will ultimately decide and if carmakers are forced to meet a target that was based on ill-advised government policy, we shouldn’t be surprised if dealers are forced to close or car makers requiring bailouts.

Also at 2m vehicles a sold annually in the UK, it won’t get to dictate where car makers allocate their global EV inventory. If easier market conditions – based on the available output and cost per vehicle to meet the standards – are found in the US, China or Germany, the costs to Brits to make the shift will make the 2035 target even more pointless. Pricing themselves out of the market.

However, it won’t much matter because many of the politicians making the move won’t be in government come 2035 to clean up the mess.

EU Parliament sticks to its totalitarian roots

Nigel Farage gave his last speech to the EU Parliament last night. It was telling to see his microphone cut off mid speech when he started to wave the Union Jack.

So totalitarian is the EU that it doesn’t allow nations to display national flags in parliament. One would think Farage was waving the Swastika such was the outrage directed at him. Perhaps he would have been expelled if he’d waved a Trump 2020 flag.

Farage hit the nail on the head when he said, “we love Europe, we just hate the European Union.” That is likely true for many Brits.

Parliament vice-president Mairead McGuinness took quite an exception to those remarks, furiously retorting that “we shouldn’t hate anyone, any nation or any people.” Rich coming from a body that hates its members and treats nation state democracy with utter disdain, as was evidenced through the protracted Brexit process.

As we have said all along, the EU requires drastic reform and respect for nation state democracy if it is to survive. If it fails to wake up from Brexit it is doomed. The sooner the better.

When racism cuts the other way and the authorities stay silent

Racism is intolerable on any level. However in today’s society, expressing an opinion others don’t like can brand one as being racist. The British media has been lambasted by the likes of Vox over its treatment of Meghan Markle.

However when a damning report on the Greater Manchester Police Department revealed it had systematically covered up dealing with largely Pakistani grooming gangs over 15 years for fear of being viewed as racist, much of the media fell deathly silent.

The Telegraph wrote,

In the very week that an excoriating 150-page report revealed that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) knew of grooming gangs sexually exploiting almost a hundred girls, some as young as 12, “in plain sight”, Question Time did not feature a single question on the topic…The BBC was keen to indulge the notion that a cossetted multi-millionairess had been a victim of racism, while completely ignoring girls like Victoria Agoglia, who died after having her 15-year-old veins filled with heroin so she could be raped by dozens of “Asian” (Pakistani-heritage) men…I ask you, which case is of greater national significance? A duchess who leaves the Royal family after 20 months because it’s “not working for me”, or the revelation that police officers turned a blind eye to scores of children being grotesquely violated because to arrest their tormentors might look like cultural insensitivity?”

Valid points.

The report centred on Operation Augusta, set up in 2004. It was prompted by the death of Victoria, 15yo, a girl under the care of Manchester City Council, who reported being raped and injected with heroin by a middle aged Asian man. She died of an overdose two months after this.

Operation Augusta identified at least 57 victims and 97 potential suspects but was shut down by senior officers and files went missing.

While we have yet to read the full report on the GMP it is not an isolated incident. We read the 200-page Rotherham Report in 2018.

The details of the Rotherham grooming gang scandal was tabulated in an independent inquiry looking at the problem between 1997-2013 showing the extent of the cover up.

The Inquiry tabulated a case of a father being arrested for trying to get his daughter out of a rape den. A 12yo girl was raped in a park then doused in gasoline and threatened with being set alight if she said anything about what had happened.

The sad thing is that these gangs are wide spread – Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle, Bristol, Aylesbury, Oxford, Peterborough, Keighley, Newham, Leeds, Bradford, Telford, Sheffield and London. The report discussed how the gangs transferred the children within the ‘safe houses; in the network to keep the industry clandestine.

The Inquiry was given a list of 988 children known to children’s social care, or the Police. 51 were current cases and 937 historic. It read 66 case files in total. It took a randomised sample of 19 current and 19 historic cases. In 95% of the files sampled, there was clear evidence that the child had been a victim of sexual exploitation. Only two children (5%) were at risk of being exploited rather than victims. From the random samples, we concluded that it was very probable that a high proportion of the 988 children were victims.

Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem. It was unable to assess the numbers of other children who may have been at risk of exploitation, or those who were exploited but not known to any agency. This includes some who were forced to witness other children being assaulted and abused.

The responses by the authorities were absolutely insane. Take some of the following examples from the report:

We read cases where a child was doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, children who were threatened with guns, children who witnessed brutally violent rapes and were threatened that they would be the next victim if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators, one after the other. One said, What’s the point… I might as well be dead.

In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. In a small number of cases (which have already received media attention) the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.

One child who was being prepared to give evidence received a text saying the perpetrator had her younger sister and the choice of what happened next was up to her. She withdrew her statements. At least two other families were terrorised by groups of perpetrators, sitting in cars outside the family home, smashing windows, making abusive and threatening phone calls. On some occasions child victims went back to perpetrators in the belief that this was the only way their parents and other children in the family would be safe. In the most extreme cases, no one in the family believed that the authorities could protect them.

The Inquiry listed what had happened to these girls, aged as young as 11, after being discovered. It is shocking beyond belief:

Child A (2000) was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A. Child A continued to go missing and was at high risk of sexual exploitation. A child protection case conference was held. It was agreed by all at the conference that Child A should be registered. However, the CID representative argued against the category of sexual abuse being used because he thought that Child A had been ‘100% consensual in every incident’. This was overruled, with all others at the case conference demonstrating a clear understanding that this was a crime and a young child was not capable of consenting to the abuse she had suffered. She was supported appropriately once she was placed on the child protection register.

Child F (2006) was a victim of serious sexual abuse when she was a young child. She was groomed for sexual exploitation by a 27-year-old male when she was 13. She was subjected to repeated rapes and sexual assaults by different perpetrators, none of whom were brought to justice. She repeatedly threatened to kill herself and numerous instances of serious self-harm were recorded in the case file, including serious overdoses and trying to throw herself in front of cars. Social workers worked to protect Child F after she was referred by the Police. There was good cooperation between children’s social care services, the Police, Risky Business and acute hospital services, where doctors were seriously concerned about her because of the number and seriousness of hospital admissions over such a short time, many associated with serious drug misuse and self-harm. There was evidence in the file of social workers, frontline managers and Risky Business workers doing everything possible to help Child F. She was eventually placed in secure care, where she stayed for several months. During this time she was kept safe and a process of therapeutic intervention began.

Child H (2008) was 11 years old when she came to the attention of the Police. She disclosed that she and another child had been sexually assaulted by adult males. When she was 12, she was found drunk in the back of a car with a suspected CSE (child sexual exploitation) perpetrator, who had indecent photos of her on his phone. Risky Business became involved and the Locality Team did an initial assessment and closed the case. Her father provided Risky Business with all the information he had been able to obtain about the details of how and where his daughter had been exploited and abused, and who the perpetrators were. This information was passed on to the authorities. Around this time, there were further concerns about her being a victim of sexual exploitation. She was identified as one of a group of nine children associating with a suspected CSE perpetrator. Her case had not been allocated by children’s social care. The Chair of the Strategy meeting expressed concern about her and considered she needed a child protection case conference. This does not appear to have been held. Three months later, the social care manager recorded on the file that Child H had been assessed as at no risk of sexual exploitation, and the case was closed. Less than a month later, she was found in a derelict house with another child, and a number of adult males. She was arrested for being drunk and disorderly (her conviction was later set aside) and none of the males were arrested. Child H was at this point identified as being at high risk of CSE. Risky Business, social care workers and the Police worked to support Child H and her father and she was looked after for a period. She suffered a miscarriage while with foster carers. Her family moved out of the area and Child H returned home. Some of the perpetrators were subsequently convicted.

Yet political correctness and decades of turning a blind eye by the police allowed well documented cases of sexual grooming of children continue.

This is what the Inquiry had to say about the Police:

We deal with the response of South Yorkshire Police at some length throughout this report. While there was close liaison between the Police, Risky Business and children’s social care from the early days of the Risky Business project, there were very many historic cases where the operational response of the Police fell far short of what could be expected. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. The Police had excellent procedures from 1998, but in practice these appear to have been widely disregarded….We were contacted by someone who worked at the Rotherham interchange in the early 2000s. He described how the Police refused to intervene when young girls who were thought to be victims of CSE were being beaten up and abused by perpetrators. According to him, the attitude of the Police at that time seemed to be that they were all ‘undesirables’ and the young women were not worthy of police protection.

The Council was no better:

In 2004-2005, a series of presentations on CSE were first made to councillors and then other relevant groups and agencies, led by the external manager of Risky Business, from Youth Services. The presentations were unambiguous about the nature and extent of the problem…In 2006, a Conservative councillor requested a meeting with the Council Leader at which he expressed his concerns about CSE. This had come to his attention via constituents. He told the Inquiry that the Council Leader advised him the matters were being dealt with by the Police and requested that he did not raise them publicly… 

Interviews with senior members revealed that none could recall the issue ever being discussed in the Labour (Party) Group until 2012. Given the seriousness of the subject, the evidence available, and the reputational damage to the Council, it is extraordinary that the Labour Group, which dominated the Council, failed to discuss CSE until then. Some senior members acknowledged that that was a mistake. Asked if they should have done things differently, they thought that as an administration they should have tackled the issues ‘head on’, including any concerns about ethnic issues.”

We could go on and on about the evidence discovered about the ‘Asian’ background of a majority of the perpetrators and how political correctness has allowed 1,000s of young girls’ lives have been destroyed because of the silence of the authorities. This is just one town.

The Inquiry found that taxi companies operated as part of the grooming gangs. It shouldn’t matter who commits the crimes or what their background is – it should matter how justice is served as a community that holds common decency as values. Even more importantly that law enforcement and the judiciary prosecute in a manner that sets an example such that it will never be tolerated.

This has to be one of the most shameful periods in UK history.  

We have little doubt that the GMP report will tabulate similar instances as Rotherham.

Any authorities, from the police to the local council at the time should be charged with willful and gross dereliction of duty.

ACF hires alarmist MCCCRH to sledge Cricket Australia for inaction on climate change

A Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub (MCCCRH) study commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), urged Cricket Australia (CA) to use its popularity to push for greater climate action and do more to look after player and spectator welfare. Hardly an impartial voice to undertake a study when MCCCRH states that it “conducts social research and leads impact focused projects to build media and policy infrastructure that adequately addresses climate change in Australia.”

The ACF campaign director, Paul Sinclair, said, “Cricket Australia should stop being silent and being a spectator on climate change. It should get in the game and be a climate champion for action to cut pollution from coal and to get onto clean energy.

Can the ACF tell FNF Media how many fans think about climate change as they head out to watch a game? It would seem by the sheer length of the beer snakes produced in Bay 13 at ‘The G’ that fans know how to keep well hydrated during play.

Perhaps the ACF should encourage CA to admonish the likes of Steve Smith who carries 10 cricket bats in his kit. Surely allowing New Balance to fell so many willow trees to enable Smith to indulge such a privilege is in direct violation of the UN Sports and Climate Action Initiative (UNSCAI) to reduce the carbon footprint in sports. Note CA has not signed up to this UN compact.

Perhaps ACF should request the air travel intensive Big Bash League (BBL) be banned to save the planet?

Perhaps Kookaburra needs to stop using leather in cricket balls? What do we make the stumps from? Plastic, aluminum? No good. Bamboo?

The ACF couldn’t resist a sledge at CA for having fossil fuel company, Alinta Energy, as a prime sponsor. ACF gave CA stick for having Marsh & Lloyds as commercial partners given they have plans to insure the proposed Adani coal mine. Why hasn’t the ACF slammed Rugby Australia for having Qantas and Land Rover as sponsors for the Wallabies?

In addition to its failings for not signing up to UNSCAI, CA was also criticized for declining to answer with respect to supporting Australia to be a net zero GHG polluter by 2050. It also failed to answer whether it supported turning Australia 100% renewable or whether CA had plans to transition to 100% renewable power itself. CA even copped flak for not recording the number of days abandoned due to extreme heat. Probably because the number is so minuscule, if any that no such records need keeping.

Which begs the question, if the science is so settled, why is it imperative for the ACF to shame CA for non compliance to their religion? We have already seen bodies with absolutely no climate scientific pedigree sign up and make public statements about the dangers of inaction on climate change. Based on what exactly? Is this how consensus is formed? Through group think based shaming which is disproven by the data?

The Australian Medical Association (AMA). It has little professional clue about the climate yet it pushes the narrative even though the far bigger worry should be the percentage of doctors abandoning the organization in droves because of the stance. Our Reserve Bank as well as regulators APRA and ASIC are on board pontificating about global warming, despite corporate Australia, by their own studies, showing less commitment. Such is the trend against climate alarmism by listed corporations, it seems regulators feel the need to dial up legislation to force adoption so it can get more funding to play Big Brother.

The ACF’s true colors come out in the pull quote on p. 18,

It is conceivable that directors who fail to consider the impacts of climate change risk for their business, now, could be found liable for breaching their statutory duty of due diligence going forwards.”

There you have it folks. Lobby for a change in the Australian Corporations Act. Let’s make sure that CA directors can be hauled over coals (no pun intended) for not using a carbon neutral yacht to transport players to the next Ashes series in the UK.

Don’t laugh, the International Olympic Committee and UN argue that, “Sport is not just a victim of climate change; it is also a contributor, through greenhouse gas emissions.

C’mon CA! Ban all merchandise. Tell off KFC for giving fans paper buckets to put on their heads every game. Think of all that virgin pulp that will end up in landfill. No more interstate or international games unless players can be carbon neutral. No more day/night matches unless the light towers are 100% renewable. Players can only have two bats to share between them.

In closing we should cast great doubt over Monash University’s ability to be impartial. The institution’s alarmist climate credentials are well documented.

Recall Monash University made up c.20% of the academics who signed an open letter in support of the lunatics of the Extinction Rebellion. We showed that most of those academics came from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender and racism. Few from actual climate science fields. We even proved that Matthew Flinders, who died in 1814, was a signatory to the same open letter, proving once again that alarmists are very poor at policing things that damage credibility. It is all about the number that sign, regardless of background.

Hopefully CA has a jolly good laugh and tells the ACF that it will happily comply as long as the ACF guarantees to offset any lost predicted revenues due to the ACF’s dud prophecies. Perhaps CA should simply ask the ACF why the IPCC admits within its own research (not the summaries written by politicians that hypes the panic and fear mongering) that 98% of the models it uses grossly overestimate warming.

An open letter to Peter Fitzsimons

SMH.png

Dear Peter,

It wasn’t so long ago that Fact Not Fiction Media penned an open letter to your lovely wife Lisa after she suggested to newly elected PM Scott Morrison – the man who won the unwinnable election – that he should pick up the phone to NZ PM Jacinda Ardern if he was ever in doubt about policy positions.

Never mind the election results that showed, not only how he managed to ‘unite’ the LNP after the wilderness of the Turnbull Coalition, but his ability to read the pulse of the voters, especially in Queensland. The rest is history.

Never mind the realities that 570,000 Kiwis (11% of their population) choose to live here vs 39,000 Aussies who live there. Can anyone point to the tidal wave of New Zealanders returning to their homeland to embrace the policies pushed by the high priestess of woke? Thought not. Quelle surprise that Australia already outranked her Wellness Budget even before her superior social media skills caused the press to lavish endless praise without lifting a finger to provide context.

So it is with little surprise to read your dig at the British and Tony Abbott after the resounding landslide won by Boris Johnson this week. We get that you don’t like the former Member for Warringah.

Your remark about “Little Britain” is utterly baseless. Did you see sterling rally on the result? Did you see the positive reaction of UK stocks on the FTSE? Financial markets, as you know, echo economic confidence. Not quite sure what bigger endorsement Boris Johnson could have got?

If you let your olfactory senses go wild at the Avenue Rd Cafe over the aroma of the election, it seems way more Brits side with Mr Abbott by that metric. Plenty of Aussies, including me, relish Brexit as a massive opportunity. We’ll get to that. First things first.

Even if we were to indulge your ‘Little Britain’ theory a little further, which part of not being a part of the EU, which presumably is the basis of your negative comment, will the Poms or Aussies miss out on? What adverse externalities would ensue for Australia?

Australia ends up being a winner from Brexit. We already do as much with the UK in bilateral trade than Germany & France combined. Bilateral trade with the UK is 1/3rd that of the Eurozone based on a population 1/8th the size. A strong UK economy is much better for Aussie businesses per capita. They understand this.

Should Aussies celebrate the fact that poverty levels in the EU have ballooned by a further 30m people since 2006? That is right, c.109.2m people (21.7% of the total EU population) live below the poverty line according to Eurostat. No, it is not due to the entry of so many new EU members, many which joined in 2004. Poverty has been a consequence of grossly incompetent centralised control out of Brussels. Yet where is the media on this? Deathly silent.

Eurozone growth has crawled to a trickle. Pent up uncertainty in the UK will now dissipate as the clear majority won by BoJo will allow the free hand of capitalism to turn the financial spigots on. President Trump will have no hesitation in putting an FTA together. A deal with an economy comprising 25% of world GDP is no bad thing. I’m sure ScoMo will oblige 10 Downing St too. Japan will be lining up to make sure Mitsukoshi can stock Fortnum & Mason teas in Ginza. All will be spiffing. Aussies benefit from a stronger UK. Little Britain?

Maybe Brits felt uneasy signing over more sovereign rights to unelected bureaucrats like former EC President Jean-Claude Juncker who was often found stumbling around drunk? Maybe they saw Juncker threatening to cut off voting rights to the Austrians if they democratically voted in a right-wing eurosceptic president was a tad totalitarian? Did you see that 18,500 Austrians signed a petition to tell the EU to respect their nation-state democracy? Therein lies the point. The EU is all for nation-state democracy as long as it aligns with Brussels. Anything else sees reprisals. A mouth-watering prospect no doubt.

Perhaps we might question why Switzerland voted 126-46 to tear up a 24yr standing invite to join the EU? Lukas Reimann of the Swiss People’s Party, who proposed the bill said:

“It is hardly surprising that the EU looks like an ever less attractive club to join. What, after all, is the appeal of joining a club into which the entire world can apparently move?”

Maybe the British saw through the recent EUP announcement of a ‘climate emergency‘ ahead of the COP25 summit? How much faith can the British have when EU MEPs rejected the following amendment of that legislation by 563 votes to 59:

that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it scientifically so that policy, and especially spending is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and what percentage is natural

Surely this is not a big ask to demand that any decisions are based on fact, not fiction. Yet the EU is no stranger to ludicrous policies.

Who could forget when the EU legislated to heavily fine companies and hand out jail sentences to bottled water companies that claimed their products rehydrate after a 3-yr study? It is probably this type of brainless stupidity that was a swing factor in encouraging Brits to want to jettison from such insanity. All self-inflicted wounds at the hands of the EU, certainly not because British voters somehow lack intelligence.

Could it be that the EU left the UK, not the other way around? Is it possible that the British were plain fed up with the prospect of having even more EU oversight? The idea that the EU thinks that fixing the problems of the EU are best served by having ever more EU regulations.

If Brexit proved anything, it was the idea that the EU has to reform. Unfortunately, the EU seems willfully blind to look in the mirror and admit that is indeed the problem. Now the UK has a strong mandate to leave, the power of populism will only be emboldened among other member states. The more successful Britain shows itself outside the bloc, the more other countries can have the confidence to leave this utter joke of an institution, a close second only to the buffoonery at the UN.

In closing, there is a touch of irony to know that the media beat-up of Trump’s endorsement of BoJo caused a landslide while Obama’s blessing of ‘remain’ ahead of the referendum caused a resounding defeat. We shouldn’t forget that every candidate poor old celebrity Hugh Grant endorsed lost their seats.

Probably because the average Joe and Joanne are the ones living in the real world.

Perhaps your title should have been, “who wants to cling onto the EU?

All the best,

Mike Newman

DiNatale has a go at democracy

FNFM does not know where to start. What part of overwhelming victory doesn’t Greens Senator Richard DiNatale get? Such rhetoric by the left didn’t work ahead of the election. Stands to reason the result speaks for itself afterwards.

Perhaps DiNatale might wish to relive an interview former England & Wales Greens leader Baroness Bennett had with Nick Ferrari at LBC during the 2015 election campaign as to why the British voting public ignored the Greens in 2019.

Comrade Corbyn, the next British PM?

Something has been burning in the back of CM’s mind as the UK election looms this week. While polls point to the Tories winning, Corbyn is likely to do way better than what the pundits predict. Could he end up as PM? It is not an impossibility. In fact, the odds are increasingly in his favour. CM thinks Corbyn might actually do it.

While it is true that 1.3mn more people voted to leave in the largest ever democratic process in UK history, almost 13mn people didn’t vote on the basis they probably assumed it was a foregone conclusion. CM fundamentally believes that referendum results should have been respected regardless. Not showing up to vote is no excuse. None-the-less we now have a ‘youthquake’ who are desperate to overturn the referendum result to consider.

Of the 18.6mn that couldn’t vote in the referendum in 2016, official figures suggest that 3.85 million registered to vote between the day the election was called on Oct. 29 and Tuesday’s registration deadline — two-thirds of them under the age of 35. The youth seem far more preoccupied with socialism than their parents. While it is safe to assume that not all of the 13mn that didn’t vote were remainers, the youth could well be a decisive factor.

CM detests pretty much every policy that Corbyn espouses as it would be a total disaster for Britain in terms of future investment and immediate capital flight. Yet young kids being offered free everything lack the lived experiences of pre-Thatcher socialism and the economic calamity that ensued. They are utterly clueless in this respect. Yet Corbyn sings all of the woke causes of climate change, social justice and equal outcomes. They are on his side.

How well do millennials know their tyrants? A CIS study in Australia showed that 58% of millennials had a favourable view of socialism. Unfortunately, 51% did not know who Chairman Mao was. Another 32% did not know Stalin and 42% hadn’t heard of Lenin. If we combine with “know but not familiar” with “don’t know” we see almost 80%, 66% and 74% respectively. Oh how wonderful to learn in school about three men whose social policies led to the deaths of 10s of millions. With Marxist teachers rife throughout academia, Corbyn will have a plentiful stock of willing comrades in his back pocket.

Still, as much as the press smears the socialist opposition leader, UK PM Boris Johnson has been the man who has been looking to avoid confrontation at all costs. Surely if BoJo possessed a winning hand and held a superior manifesto, why wouldn’t he show up on the popular BBC programme hosted by Andrew Neil to state his case? It is a terrible look. Neil eviscerated Johnson without the PM being there to defend himself. Worse for BoJo is that his video went viral. What have you got to hide PM?

Corbyn could well snatch victory.  If the Tories take the attitude of former PM Theresa May’s snap election in June 2017 they should beware the barking electorate. Don’t forget how well Corbyn did in that fight.

CM stated in May 2017 the following,

“The first thought to come across CM’s head when Theresa May called this [June] election was, “bad idea.” This hubris she’d romp home may prove yet again how out of touch many politicians are with their constituents and how one must never believe in polls. I think she scrapes home but for now, wants the nightmare over.”

History revealed she scraped home with the help of the DUP. The EU has masterfully engineered delay after delay to keep the ‘remain’ dream alive. Now the youth have gathered steam as registered voters, they could well hand the EU a gift that will keep its Ponzi scheme alive.

When will politicians realise that being less worse no longer cuts it with the electorate? They are sick of the self-interest of the political class. They want to blow it up. Johnson has not looked good and the Brexit Party, which might have smashed the European elections, looks as though it does not have the traction it had hoped for. It could underwhelm.

Many of the Labour MPs may have ignored their elderly constituents but it would be a safe bet to say that the ultimate outcome in these so-called “betrayed” constituencies is anything but a doe deal to shun them.

Polls are damned near useless now. They failed to predict Trump. Failed to pick Brexit. Why put faith that the UK pollsters are any closer to the mark?

Politics is a random walk. Trudeau managed to cling on to power in Canada despite being found guilty of two breaches of conflicts of interest, blackface, cultural appropriation and many other gaffes. Clearly, it didn’t matter enough, just as “p*ssy grabbing” didn’t impact Trump in 2016.

Therefore CM expects a much higher chance of a Corbyn PM-ship or at the very least a parliament that puts us straight back where we were before the election – a hung parliament with no rudder and a Brexit that is watered down in such a way that it achieves nothing in the way of that originally intended.

CM sincerely hopes he is wrong on Corbyn. He would be an economic disaster at a time the Tories would have left a troubling fiscal legacy that is nothing to write home about.

If Corbyn wins, the UK will face severe capital flight. The pound will tank. A second referendum will be put forward. The outcomes will be dire. This is not being hysteric in any way. The markets are simply not pricing it in at all.

At least Sir James Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame saw the light. He is a Brexiteer but his lack of faith in the process has already seen him relocate the HQ to Singapore. Many more would follow. After all, if Corbyn wants to control the behaviour of British business on the FTSE and nationalise utilities it will hardly be a fertile ground to invest.