A SMALL CALL TO ARMS

There is much that a lot of people are in agreement about. The ludicrous situation in the United States whose president exhibits the most crash and asinine behaviour of any leader across the globe, and is losing credibility and respect on a daily basis, is on show 24/7. This latest circus promoting the worship of violence, crudity and cruelty on the very lawn of the White House is but the latest proof of his rapacious venality. HIs corruption is seemingly without parallel in American politics. To be sure there have been corrupt politicians in high office throughout history, but none have reached the pinnacle that Mr Trump seems to have reached. More significantly the checks and balances, supposedly written into the constitution, have been expunged. The American people have allowed their democracy to collapse into a cesspit. 

I see many congressional oversight committees, on YouTube, where various secretaries of state are excoriated by some, mainly Democratic Senators and Congressional Representatives,  only to be welcomed and uplifted by Republican counterparts and Chairpersons of the various committees. All of this amounts to no oversight whatsoever. It is all bluff and bluster and the gangsterism and cupidity continues unchecked. In effect the constitution has become toilet paper. 

What Mr Trump has managed to do is create the most volatile political climate the world has known   for some considerable time. The concentration of world leaders towards disarmament is ended and we are now in a world that feels obliged to divert a serious increased amount of its economy towards weapons of mass destruction. Across all European Nations governments are struggling to find the funds. 

In the United Kingdom, as in most countries, the elected government promised to maintain its social program of health, welfare, pensions, education, internal security as well as national defence, without increasing the tax burden on the individual citizens. Many, in the light of current events, are increasingly promoting the imperative view that spending on national defence is more urgent than has previously been considered.  It is very clear that if our democratic governments are committed to keeping its welfare and social services up to date, than any diversion of public funds towards national defence is not possible. No matter what creative and imaginative accounting may be employed, it will be inadequate and counterproductive. Taxes will have to be raised despite the howling opposition parties. Criticise  as they might about keeping promises  not to increasing taxes in manifestos and on the hustings, they know full well their complaints are a sham. The situation facing the world caused by Putin, Trump and Netanyahu leaves no alternative. The only true relief will begin with the removal of this trio of war criminals, and a gradual reintroduction of the disarmament principles they abandoned. 

I know that I am not alone in this view. I see many articles, editorials and opinion pieces in many journals that express similar sentiments. Whether our numbers are sufficient to influence political activity and the course of national objectives is another matter. I hear much the same from those around me, and I see, from my observations of digital media, that there are many in the United States who cannot wait to see the back of Trump and his acolytes. I know the will is there but the practical result seems far off in the distance. 

So, if trimming current departmental budgets and supposedly promoting more efficient accounting is not going to do it, then, it only remains for the present governments to decide what level of taxation to impose on individual citizens. Who will pay, how much can they afford to pay, and how will they pay it? The government should do everything it can to get this across to the general public as forcefully as they can. If the majority of the electorate are told specifically of this imperative and objective common sense is brought to bear, than we can have the necessary arsenal. Hopefully, they can in the future be beaten into plowshares. I give you Isaiah 2:4 -

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

It would have been nice if that biblical sentiment had been observed at the time it was written.  So much for the word of God, or is that being too cynical?

WHOSE VISION IS IT ANYWAY ?

Why is it about vision that causes such a variety of reactions in humans looking at the very same image or images? It seems clear that visual perspective is very different from mental perspective. The comments that one has heard in respect of the disturbances in Belfast over that last couple of days is an instance in point. To be sure, most people have condemned the violence. Indeed, most people condemn violence in general as a means of expressing displeasure. The explanations and opinions offered as to the cause of violent reactions is equally varied and gives cause for concern.

In the United Kingdom two recent images of unrelated events have occurred which have caused rage amongst a number of individuals who have resorted to violent expressions of displeasure.  The footage relating to the killing of Henry Nowak  by Vickrum Digwa, and the vicious assault by Hadi Alodid on Stephen Ogilvie. Although the event relating to Mr Nowak occurred on 3rd December 2025, the footage of the incident was only released for public view on the 2nd June 2026 following the conviction and sentence of Mr Digwa. The footage of the attack by Mr Alodid on the 8th June 2026 was released on the same night. The violence on the streets of Belfast erupted on the 9th June 2026, almost immediately following the release of the images. As to the release of the Nowak images, violent protest erupted in Southampton the same day. In both cases the families of the victims called for calm and reflection. In a statement, Mr Novak’s father Mark, said he “[did] not want [Henry]'s death to be used to create further division, hatred, or tension" and quoted prosecutor Nicholas Lobbenberg as saying: "This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder.”

In my view, neither incident was about racism, but most assuredly about violence. As to the reactions to the images, given that most people seeing the footage probably knew very little about the facts relating to the incident, they were most assuredly about racism and immigrants in particular. Even although Mr Digwa is a born British citizen, he is seen as a foreign immigrant. Various pundits keep emphasising that Mr Digwa was British, believing that in some way it did not mean that the violent reactions were to do with racism. Indeed, the leader of the opposition Ms Badenoch has claimed “Britain is the least racist country in the world”.  Absolute nonsense.

The reactions to the images coming so close to one another, produced extreme violence of a similar nature involving protest against ethnic immigrants. If that is not deemed to be racist, than  what is? How can any right minded thinking person not see the reaction as deeply ignorant and bigoted? Not only that, but the violence is mitigated by certain political figures as understandable. Of course they profess to condemn violence, but in this instance I hear certain voices saying “Can you blame them?”   

This reaction is, of course, entirely consistent with the Republican Party’s reaction to the aggravated assault on the Congress of the United States on the 6th January 2021. Denial of truth in spite of the images. 

I would guess that denial is a large factor, or perhaps it more to do with ignorance than denial. Without real knowledge of a situation, it is difficult to form opinion. Then again one should not react to a situation with violence if one is without the relevant facts, and even then one should generally avoid violence. One’s first reaction should be to make every effort to find out before resorting to rage and violence. 

It is all very well to talk of truth, reflection and understanding when there is a very definite group of people whose behaviour is beyond all understanding. It is not easy to recognise this group or to to even spot the individuals who form part of this group. They are not actually a group at all, except they come together when the event presents itself. It’s as if the event itself engenders the coming together of these like minded individuals whose basic reactions are rather simplistic and primitive. They identify or perceive a situation which offends their sense of what they conceive to be wrong. They are the stone throwers who do not hesitate to do so. They would in fact be the ones who would cast the first stone regardless of previous sins. They are more likely encouraged by previous sins. They are however our fellow citizens and, despite anti social behaviour orders, do not hesitate to claim the righteousness of their displeasure. They are also citizens who have a vote. They are the poorly educated so beloved of the populist right wing politicians who are more than able to pull them on side with their jingoistic rhetoric and tacit consent to their unsocial behaviour. Messrs Trump and Farage are instances in point. Although Farage has nothing like the power of Trump, he sees himself as leader in waiting.  He also appears to have similar acolytes including those with very deep pockets to fund his nonsense. 

Unfortunately they are a growing population, the disaffected young men and women who are finding it difficult to find employment in a job they consider worthy of their abilities which they are actually able to do. They may have aspirations and hopes that sometimes exceed their proficiency or qualifications and are thus unable to achieve anything, which, the longer it goes on, leads to more frustration. This state of being makes then vulnerable to anyone offering them a dream. Whoever can make good on that dream by providing them with an activity that goes some way towards that dream, will get their support. A false dream will not work, but it could be good enough to get them onside. That is what the likes of Trump and Farage have on offer and it could be glitzy enough to be working. 

It may not be the equivalent of the Sturmabteilung (popularly known as the Brown Shirts) of 1930’s Germany, but I would not be surprised if something equivalent is going through the minds of the leaders of the conservative right. Is ‘bring back national service’ being contemplated ? Prenez garde?

Combating racism and bigotry with getting the disaffected on side is not easy; however, an attempt must be made. It must be a priority. I do not mean to appear elitist, but unless that group is convinced they have a future that will lift them up, they will continue to riot, cause hate and disruption at the slightest provocation. So called wiser heads may no longer be able to control the situation. I still have hope.   

A WARNING FOR LABOUR

In July and September of 2022 I commented on the then leadership election by the Tory Party. The candidates at the time included Suella Braverman, Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss. We all know the unfortunate and catastrophic effect of Truss's accession to the office. For 54 days she attempted to push through some fantasy agenda that she was certain would lift the British Economy to stratospheric heights.

She had an extraordinary rise over ten years, from new MP in May of 2010 to Prime Minister in September 2022. Her premiership did not last long, but then her political affiliations were just as transient. Growing up in, what she describes as, a left wing household, she was a liberal democrat in her University days and in 1996 joined the Conservative Party. She was very pro Europe in those days and indeed was so up until the referendum. At the time she was quoted as saying:

"I don't want my daughters to grow up in a world where they need a visa or permit to work in Europe, or where they are hampered from growing a business because of extortionate call costs and barriers to trade. Every parent wants their children to grow up in a healthy environment with clean water, fresh air and thriving natural wonders. Being part of the EU helps protect these precious resources and spaces.”

Difficult to understand how she moved away from inclusive and cooperative thinking about relationships between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Was it purely political ambition that drove her into the arms of Brexit? Certainly her ambition to lead the Conservative Party was real enough. She read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Merton College Oxford, yet somehow any knowledge she may have gained at University was slowly ebbing away. She had a four year stint working for Royal Dutch Shell qualifying as a chartered management accountant, followed by five years at Cable & Wireless rising to the post of economic director. 

I suppose her working life gave her the impression that she understood numbers and what drives productivity and competitiveness. As it turned out the knew very little about any of it and, convinced of her fantasy, pushed ahead despite the warnings and realities of the situation. When did she give up on protecting the precious resources and spaces she felt the EU was empowered to protect? A minority of conservative party members put her in office and the entire country suffered for it. It fell to Rishi Sunak, who lost out to her with those members, to attempt to repair the damage. It was clearly a lost cause.

The experience of that last chaotic Conservative Party’s attempt to rescue itself should be a lesson to the current tumult in the Labour Party. For some obscure reason it always finds a way to shoot itself in the foot. Having obtained a massive majority in Parliament, it somehow finds excuses for pulling away from cohesion and cooperation toward division and disharmony. The overreaction to a disgruntled populace being preached to by a right wing rabble of discontents and ignorant bigoted political amateurs, is unbelievable. Have the gumption to stand up for the Labour Party and get to work. What we have now is confusion and puzzlement, as if no one knows which was to turn.

The cloud of what happened to the Tory party in 2022 is hovering over the Labour Party. This coming by-election, allegedly proffering a great Aintree hope (rather like betting on the Grand National itself) into returning to Parliament and possibly into number 10,  is yet another fantasy. There is no white horse on the horizon. His pronouncements on taxation, investment, nationalisations, rejoining the EU seem to me to be all over the shop. He has yet to give any idea of how these ambitions will be funded, whilst safeguarding a welfare state so essential to the ordinary citizens, save to indicate that “They will pay for themselves”. He clearly  has been a very fine mayor and is beloved by his constituent, but that does not make him the saviour of the nation. If the Labour Party is to save the nation collectively it had better get to work on working together.

The labour party is a big beast. What was once very clearly a working class political enterprise has very much expanded due to the rise in education, qualifications, employment and economic situation of the children of that 1940’s working class population. They are now the middle classes and those that did not change their points of view towards the conservatives have remained within the party, but from a very different perspective. The spectrum from Blair to Corbyn has already come under fire. It needs to come together or form into separate groups that can find a way to work together.  It cannot continue the way it is currently constituted. Decisions must be taken. You are either together or you go your own way. Floating around in a cloud is no longer possible. There is so much indecision in the air, it is crippling. Rally behind the Prime Minister and help show him a way forward or create another party of the left. Just choosing a new leader of a mishmash group without any centre is not going to work so long as discontent and indecision hover over Westminster. A new leader will not stop the discontent. Get to work putting it together by the next election, or you will all be voted out of office and replaced by yet more discontent and indecision or possibly even worse.  The right wing is indeed just that, waiting in the wings. Do not let that happen. 

A SHORT COMMENT ON HOPE

I was recently listening to a podcast about the late writer Evelyn Waugh. He reportedly said that he needed his catholicism to keep his inner demons from overtaking him and making him the most evil person on the planet. I have always found his catholic faith more than somewhat surprising, given the way he writes about catholic belief and the arguments against it in his novels. In particular Brideshead Revisited and the Sword of Honour trilogy. (I would highly recommend these books to anyone with any interest in the human condition). What is most surprising is the strength and logic of his arguments against this faith and the almost blind acceptance of catholic faith by some of the characters he portrays. 

As examples in Brideshead, the character of Charles Ryder is surprised that his friend Sebastian Flyte accepts the ‘awful lot of nonsense’ associated with Catholic beliefs, such as the story of Christ’s birth. Sebastian replies “Is it nonsense? I wish it were. It sometimes sounds terribly sensible to me.” Later in the novel Sebastian’s sister Julia in explaining why she can no longer be with Charles says “ I’ve always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again, punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God”. This is most likely how Waugh, a convert to Catholicism, felt himself. 

Whether this adherence to a church is to do with redemption, atonement or salvation, I can only guess. Most of us have a degree of guilt, self deprecation or embarrassment when we do something we would ordinarily find ‘bad’ or reprehensible, and we seek to redress the wrong with positive actions and apologies. We find no need to address the problem to God and seek absolution from a priest. Many, if not most, of us do not accumulate sins that we take with us to a confessional for ritual forgiveness and prescribed punishments. 

Since the beginning of time there has been a cumulation of patterns of behaviour, within different communities, that is considered proper and acceptable. Indeed, most societies across the globe have a similar idea of what is considered to be civilised conduct as between individuals. Initial respect and acceptance are to a large degree what is required, whilst keeping our prejudices, suspicions or hostilities in check. It is generally how things work, with cooperation between individuals. 

This attitude of initial cooperation and civility occurs despite the multiplicity of religious beliefs and without the necessity of appealing to a deity for approval. Despite beliefs, mythologies and aged sagas, there is little evidence of any God’s interference is the actions of human’s on earth. That, as one might say, is entirely ‘man made’. What is going on in today’s world is clear evidence of the woeful lack of Godly intervention. I ponder in which direction does the almighty turn when the majority of the population of Ukraine and Russia adhere to the same Orthodox Christian Church.  The same prophets, rabbis and imams gave us the bible and the koran and appeal to the same God, yet are at each others throats. Again the situation is entirely man made.

So I ponder who are the men who make it so? Following on from a world shattering economies collapse in the 1930’s a rebuilding and reshaping took place across the world and unfortunately led to an even greater catastrophe in a world war of extraordinary evil. It promulgated and spawned despicable prejudices which more civilised citizen’s were forced into armed conflict to end the horror. In so doing weapons of mass destruction were invented and produced with the caveat that implied ‘we must all behave or armageddon will ensue. It was, so we thought yet again, the war to end all wars. We had hope and faith, and from 1945 to 1963 the world, despite a political cold war and serious outbreaks in Korea and Vietnam, a reconstruction was taking place; yet, with the advent of generations x and y, the dividers, bigoted populists and nationalists are re-emerging from the firmament. It’s as if some rogue seeds had been planted and certain flesh eating maggots have sprung up. 

This brings me to the likes of J D Vance, Pete Hegseth, Elon Musk, Marco Rubio, Victor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu, Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen, Marion Merechal, Jordan Bardella, Bernd Lucke, Frauke Petry, Tino Chrupalla, Alice Elisabeth Weidel, Santiago Abascal Conde and unfortunately many others. I have only listed but a few. The most prominent at the present time being Vance, Hegseth and Rubio. Their adherence to the sick outpourings of a delusional psychopathic narcissist is nauseating. 

The demonisation of jews, gypsies and homosexuals in 1930’s Germany spewing out of the mouths of the political leaders of the Third Reich and the general condemnation of ‘immigrants’ worldwide by Vance, Hegseth and Musk as ‘saving civilisation’ is exactly the same. Why is this outrageous stupidity and venal cupidity allowed to continue? Their latest pronouncements on a British tragedy and situation, that has given the nation pause, is so far out of place that it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. To make these vile pronouncements on the very anniversary of the day the civilised world stormed the beaches of Normandy to rid the world of the very type of individual they themselves personify is, frankly, taking the piss with extreme prejudice. If ever there was an insult to civilised behaviour this is it. 

So where are we and where is God in all of this? Unfortunately it is all man made. I hope there’s still hope. There are moments in history when I feel there is justification in having faith in humanity. Human beings have often come up with surprising civilised solutions, if only after great upheavals. Perhaps we are just going through one of those. I have hope. 

WHAT LESSON LEARNED ? A short reminder

Today was showcase the conservative viewpoint on the Today program on Radio 4 with back to back interviews of ex-prime ministers Rishi Sunak and Tony Blair. Mr Blair has written an open opinion piece about what he perceives is necessary actions for the current Government  to adopt. His viewpoint is now, in effect, a return to Margaret Thatcher’s reliance on the market place to bring about “growth”, which they all keep harping on about. This market place he speaks of is the world of A.I. - Embrace and adopt or die. This technological revolution is in the same category as the industrial revolution. Britain was great then and if it has any ambition to be in the premiership of nations, then it must fully embrace this technology. 

I notice that Mr Blair keeps using his usual strategic condescending tone. He begins a statement, does a little hesitation and then says “look, the thing is…” He keeps saying “look…” as if it denotes sincerity,  honesty and truth. In my view to does none of those things. During Mr Sunak’s interview, Rishi, on being questioned about Mr Blair’s ‘essay’, stated that he supported much of what was said. Mr Blair was most gratified that Mr Sunak agreed with him, with a tone of ‘how could he not’. This view was also expressed when it was suggested that Ms Badenoch agreed with him.  What it boiled down to was that the welfare state, in order to support paying pensions, disabilities, the NHS and defence, could only do so by laying off some of those commitments on to the private sector. So by creating or allowing 'for-profit' organisations to run aspects of public welfare, the state would benefit financially and become part of the power elite of nations. So, while claiming support for human welfare they would fully embrace private enterprise.

What they seem to suggest is that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish, and they could only do that if they were not taxed and allowed to pay people without imposing any additional employers contribution to employees national insurance. In fact it might be better to stop national insurance all together and pass on the whole question of personal insurance for health and welfare to private insurance companies who could then run the whole system; for a healthy profit of course. Hospitals, medical practices and welfare care and homes could then be run as separate private companies receiving their funds from private billing and insurance claims. Whatever state tax burden there was, would be covered from a multiple of private companies. The tax would be less for each individual company but would collectively supply more in total. 

The only problem with that is, private enterprise does not and would not benefit the majority. The wealthy and rich would find no problem in paying for services and insurances (as they do now) but those who live from pay check to pay check and are on  disability benefits or income support, would be locked out. The cost of insurance premiums is unaffordable for those people even now, let alone if the whole system were privatised. One need only look at the United States, which, with all it’s wealth, has very high insurance premiums under its pitiful national health care provisions. 

The only thing of sense that came out of the interviews is that leadership in government must declare a policy. Some direction as to what kind of society we wish to live in. The prime factor is an appreciation for the rule of law. Do we want basic freedoms of speech, thought and religion? Fair employment practices? Health and Safety? Habitable affordable homes? What is the best and most efficient way for the state to provide these basic services for its citizens? Is it really through private enterprise or should the collective state be responsible? 

In addition, what and how is the best and most efficient way to negotiate between nations and the global economy? Can a diplomatic service be handed over to private enterprise? Should there be a United Kingdom Foreign Office Plc. 

Just how far does one go to indulge private enterprise?  I know a number of people think that the country already is or should be UK plc. It is a slogan that has long hovered over Britain; but, that is not the case. The sole purpose of a Nation is to tend to and look after its citizens. To allow them to be safe, healthy, educated and to pursue whatever endeavour they choose to fulfil their lives. 

The attitudes and so called policy decisions preferred by the rich, Sunak, Blair, Badenoch and probably Farage are exemplified in 1843 with the Publication of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Sadly, it is just the kind of political position they have without even realising it. 

“…the clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?”
“Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality,” Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides—excuse me—I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!” 

GREAT EXPECTATIONS IN BRITAIN

Shambles. This seems to be the operative word to describe the current state of world affairs. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin; maybe even, a place or scene of bloodshed or carnage. I heard, on the radio,  a comment made in relation to Italian politics, that the Italian people were ungovernable, or rather that the Italian people carried on with their lives as if the country had no government at all. This attitude towards government would indeed make a populace ungovernable. It was suggested by the commentator, who followed up the remark, that the United Kingdom’s citizens were becoming like the Italians.

In my view, it is not so much that the people are ungovernable, but that, despite the elected government, the population could carry on as if the government had no real affect on their lives, hence they carried on regardless.  The shit show that appears to be the political landscape is one that can be argued about and discussed  at great length (in some news programs ad-nauseam), and yet allows people to carry on with their daily activities, occupations and other endeavours; but, because it is a shambles, people are less inclined to be dragged into political discussion, listen to or watch current affairs programs. It is just too irritating and depressing. It appears to suggest that what happens in Parliament, stays in Parliament, which is the problem. What happens there, seeps out and does affect the lives of others to a greater of lesser extent depending on where one sits on the eco-socio spectrum

It comes down to expectations. We elected a party whose representatives produce a manifesto, or list of legislative measure, which is meant to improve the state of the nation, and the individual lot of each and every one of its citizens. This instills in the electorate an expectation of what a government can actually do. We expect violence and dishonesty to be curtailed because political parties claim they have a program through which crime, in general, will be tackled and reduced if not eradicated. They also claim they have a grip on the economic life of the nation. Employment will be universal, wages will continuously rise, inflation will be reduced and there will be perpetual  growth. The ideal economy will include not only a free market but a thriving welfare state. Some claim that while the state may not be able to provide 100% of health and welfare, the private sector will be able to take up the slack. The levels of taxation therefore are flexible depending on which side of the political spectrum is in control. Some institutions are of course wired in as being essential to the state, the NHS, the Armed Services, Police and Security, the Legal System being the most prominent. 

These institutions  are therefore expected to run with 100% efficiency, but as we all know, they do not. Various governments claim they have the solutions to improve these services and make them more effective and efficient. They boast of budgets and funds assigned to these public sectors in the belief that the amount of funding will no doubt be channelled to improve the service. For some obscure reason, the efficacy of services is equated with the amount of money allocated to provide the service. Again, the reality is that money is not the issue. The issue is the people to whom the money is given to provide the service. It’s to do with skills, integrity, levels of ambition and a real idea of what is expected and what can be made possible.  The idea is for expectation and possibility to go hand in hand, and reality is an ever changing landscape. It is the conduct of humans across the globe that affects every nation’s well being. Economies and welfare are variously dependent on the actions and consequences of this global activity. Violent upheavals, both natural and man made shape what happens on a daily basis. 

The cost of repairing natural disasters, of prosecuting conflicts and repairing the aftermath, is substantial. The sheer scale of funding required can have nothing but a negative effect.  The waste and deployment of men and arms, followed by reconstruction is an insanity, and the complete opposite of efficiency. It should have no place anywhere. It is a scenario entirely man made and funded. The people who are paid and control the budgets of these destructive institutions are clearly not worth the salaries they receive. It would appear that they are not only incapable, but are fraudsters of the worst kind. Claiming to be suing for peace and security through aggressive self defence is a sham. The collateral damage engendered by these charlatans is to cause world wide ruination and should receive universal condemnation; yet somehow, that does not appear to be expected. 

Whilst there are public demonstrations against wars and injustices in countries that permit these processions to take place, there is still the expectation that individual governments are able to cope with and deal with the trials and tribulations caused by actions taking place abroad.  There is somehow the belief that these foreign entanglements really have little or no local effect whatever, and that it is a poor excuse of blame outside events for local failures.  In my view this is shortsighted. There are no longer any outside events. If ever this was demonstrated, the closing of a 75km (45 miles) stretch of water has made that abundantly clear.  Equally clear is that the perpetrators of this insanity should be prosecuted under international law, yet that is unlikely to happen.

Instead, the difficulties of many national leaders are exacerbated by public expectations. Why is their leader not taking charge of the world? Why is our nation in such turmoil? Why is our party not unified but  thrown into disarray? How is it that our leaders fail to live up to expectations?  Oppositions thrive and heckle with no real solutions either. There are no ‘knights of the round table’ ready to change in is actually capable of delivering relief, with slogans and quick instantaneous fixes. It is not going to happen. A temporary blip of political fanfare is not solving the problem. Unity and realistic expectations however, might see a way clear. A collective cross party unity would be preferred, but humanity has somehow avoided that possibility owing to prejudice, bigotry and small minded nationalism which is actually the least patriotic position to be adopted. I do not expect a coalition of minds, but then what else does one have a right to to expect, and just because a local mayor has been able to make the busses run on time is not a sure fire certainty that he can make a Nation more efficient. The Nation expects.

HOW ARE YOU FEELING TODAY ?

About a year ago, perhaps longer, I attended Kings College Hospital A & E Stroke Unit, for a suspected stoke. I was having a problem with the right side of my body (trembling right arm and complete numbness in the right leg, causing me to drop things and fall over) I have since had the matter dealt with at St Thomas’s and Guys Hospitals by the insertion of a stent which is allowing greater blood flow to the brain and providing the necessary oxygen to vastly improve the situation. I am, more or less, back to what one could call normal. It’s just age and getting older. 

Recently I received a phone call from a young person at the King’s Stroke Register asking me to complete a follow up form to gauge just how things have progressed. I confess, I cannot remember the actual date I attended the Unit. At the time I did I not think what I was going through was a particularly severe condition which would classify as a stroke. I was still reasonable articulate, my ability to count backwards was good,  I could calculate numbers by subtracting 7, I knew who the Prime Minister was , I knew where I was and I was aware of the date.  In any event, it was deemed a stroke of some kind, so I was sent the questionnaire. I am not aware whether the person who rang had full knowledge of the treatment that I have received since that visit so I wasn’t sure what sort of survey the might be, but I suggested she email me the forms and I would send them back a.s.a.p. I have done this but I have yet to receive any acknowledgment that the forms have been received.

I did find the questions a rather mixed bag of straight factual enquiries (date of birth, where you live, follow up repetition of incidents or new conditions, follow up medical appointments, do you have careers, get meals on wheels etc..) and qualitative valuations of ones general feelings about life. (I have just received an acknowledgement - tee hee)  The answers to these ‘feeling’ questions where tick boxes with:
Not at all -A little bit -Moderately- Quite a bit - Extremely
And yet others with:
All of the time - A good bit of the time - A little of the time -Most of the time- Some of the time- None of the time.

So when asked “How much time during the last month have you felt calm and peaceful?”  and “During the last month,  have you felt downhearted and low?” I believe the entire population of the UK might have a similar answer.

There is also a heading: 

This questionnaire is designed to help us know how you feel. Please give the reply which comes closest to how you have been feeling in the past week. Don't take too long over your replies: your immediate reaction to each item will probably be more accurate than a long thought out response.

To which one responds:
Most of the time - A lot of the time - Occasionally - Not at all - Nearly all the time - Definitely as much - Very definitely and quite badly - A little , but it does’t worry me - Not Often - Sometimes- As much as I always could - Not quite so much now - Time to Time
( These are all tick boxes)

The general questions relating to these replies are, inter alia:
I feel tense or ‘Wound up’.
I get a sort of frightened feeling like butterflies.
I get sort of frightened as if something awful is about to happen.
I feel restless as if I have to be on the move.
Worrying thoughts go through my mind.
I get sudden feelings of panic
I feel cheerful
I can laugh and see the funny side of things.

For my answer to that last question I ticked  - As much as I always could. Indeed, none of the above conditions, in my view, applies specifically to strokes, unless one thinks that just being alive is a form of stroke in itself. I do not think there is a person anywhere in today’s current climate who does not at some point feel wound up, butterflies or that something awful is about happen. Just watching or listening to the news is enough to elicit any of those feelings. I would add that in the current state of affairs,  one’s immediate reaction is  probably just as accurate as a long thought out response. 

It also occurs to me that perhaps it would be interesting to conduct my own survey. I wonder how Messrs Starmer,  Macron, Trump,  Putin,  any Labour MP or Republican Congressman might answer the questions? So herewith below is the relevant section of the forms. Perhaps you could let me know your feelings on the matter? I would love to know how cheerful you are 😁🤣 Replies to edwardklein@btinternet.com.

 

FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN

I have sent this email to Mr Starmer at No:10 -  

 

As our government is meant to be run by Cabinet Responsibility you should seriously think about changing the cabinet. You have appointed people to run the various ministries. If the public is so dissatisfied with the way things are going, clearly the ministers are at fault and failing in their jobs. I would suggest you take hold and sack all who have failed and appoint more able people in their place. It is for you to decide. Take hold, sack the lot of them and make the changes you want. If not call for a general election. See what support that gets from your party.

HISTORY GONE ASTRAY - WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?

The United Kingdom is a very peculiar country. Although a monarchy, it has given rise to a constitution which in turn gave birth to the rule of law and advocated for individual freedoms and the rights of man. This is not an insignificant achievement for any Government. So far as the rights of man are concerned, it has taken time over the centuries to codify and secure many of those rights with significant legislation. Some of it remains through the common law, but most is validated through statute. As a result, one would think that this progression towards a civilised and free democratic society under the watchful eye of a monarch, would, on the whole, represent a liberal, outgoing and enlightened population; yet, it is apparent to me, that that is clearly not the case.

Since the dominance  of Robert Walpole, generally regarded as the first Prime Minister, in 1721, who is classified as a Whig, there have been 20 Conservative Prime Ministers, 16 Whigs, 10 Tories, 6 Labour, 6 Liberal, 2 Scottish Unionists, 1 National Labour, 1 National Liberal and 1 Peelite.  So far as the Whigs are concerned, they were a mixed bag of centrist liberals and more right leaning  Liberal Unionists, which as Lady Bracknell says in Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of Being Earnest in questioning Jack:

Lady Bracknell: ….What are your politics?
Jack: Well, I m afraid I really have none. I am a Liberal Unionist.
Lady Bracknell: Oh, they count as Tories. They dine with us. Or come in the evening, at any rate. 

Walpole was in office for over 20 years and the Whig party for over 62 years. For the next 64 years, the Government was led mainly by Tories with the odd Whig period. In 1834 the Conservative Party was founded out of the Tory Party, and a conservative government continued to rule for another 21 years. 

In 1859 the Liberal Party was founded apparently as an alliance of Whigs, free trade-supporting Peelites and reformist Radicals. These factions all merged to become the Liberal Party. On the political spectrum they were a centre party and for the next 63 years they traded government with the Conservative party, their last Prime Minister in office being David Lloyd George. From 1922 to 1935 things were in flux. There was brief blip of the very first labour government under Ramsay MacDonald from 24 January 1924 to the 4th November 1924 when the Conservatives under Stanley Baldwin were in Government for the next 4 plus years years,  From 1929, during the world depression  there was a succession  of National Governments, first under Labour   for 6 years then from 1935 under Baldwin and Chamberlain until 1940 when Winston Churchill took the Office in May 1940 through to July 1945 when the second Labour Government under Clement Attlee took office.    Churchill returned in 1951 and the Conservatives ruled for  13 years until Harold Wilson took office for Labour in 1964. Since then the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have traded governments. For the next 60 years the Labour Government has ruled for 22 of those years and the conservatives for 38. The longest conservative spell was for effectively 14 years between 2010 and 2024, during which time the country has become the most divided it has ever been.

Historically it would appear that the United Kingdom electors have chosen a centre to centre right leaning Government.  For some obscure reason, in the last 10 years that electorate has moved further to the right rather than maintain that position of liberal unionism they clung to for so long in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. What is more extraordinary, is that as the 20th century evolved and with two massive world conflicts being dealt with, the country, still clinging to its hierarchical class ridden society, began to grow closer together. Indeed the upheaval of wars brought about collective national governments comprising all parties. With the cataclysm of the second world war it was the Labour Party that set to work to bring about a more cohesive and pluralist society with the Nationalisation of Coal and Health in 1946, the nationalisation of gas and electricity in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Oddly, the nationalisation of water did not occur until 1973 during a conservative administration under Edward Heath. All of this was thrown away by the Thatcher government during her 11 years in office followed by 6 years of John Major. An 18 year stint of Conservative government that began by championing the idea of free flow capitalism and privatisation to the maximum.

Privatisation created a number of very rich people as well as a growing number of poor people. We are lucky that the National Health Service survived at all. Its has been underfunded and allowed to fester despite the miracle that it has managed to keep the majority of our citizens alive and in reasonable health. It has its flaws but it would be an outrage were it to go the way of water, gas, electricity, rail and transport services, which provides only dividends for its stockholders and little else in the way of contributions to the taxpayer or the state. The failures of privatisation are painfully apparent. It has contributed to the depletions in council and affordable  housing. The great mantra of owning your own home as not only been debunked, but it has caused even more difficulties in even being able to rent one. The costs of rail and the pollutions cause by horrific mismanagement of water services are also instances in point. 

The legacy of the state pulling back, doing less, but seeking to control more is what we are left with. Hence the divisions. The nationalist and populist rhetoric has nothing to do with welfare, but everything to do with separation and isolation rather than co-operation and inclusion. It is becoming a grasping and judgemental populace with entrenched positions and prejudicial bigoted views. 

Consider the billionaire who provides five million pounds to a dissembler and separatist just so he can have the freedom to scam and claim a parliamentary salary from the United Kingdom as well as a pension from a European Parliament he was once a member of, despite doing everything he could to dismantle it by spouting incredible lies and division. The hypocrisy is glaring and his venality is appalling; yet he leads a party that voters have given over their local authorities security to, which will also allow it to pillage local funds and create yet more hopeless divisions. The insanity, short sightedness and ignorance of this is extremely depressing. The one party that has a proven history of peoples welfare at heart is ignored because for some reason Keir Starmer isn’t likeable. 

Just to remind you, 46 Conservative, Whigs and Tories and only 6 Labour Prime Minsters have been in Government. Without those 6 you would have no pension, no health, no housing, no care at all were it not for the efforts of those politicians and supporters of the labour party. What is not to like about what they have already accomplished? One man gets your back up and all you can articulate is “I don’t like him”. What is wrong with you? You would prefer to sell out to an idiot who shows off his socks to demonstrate patriotism, smokes and downs a pint? Is that your hero? The scammer who accepts 5 million pounds for not doing anything? “It’s because he likes me and wants to keep me safe. I don’t have to do anything for it”.  Do You believe that?

I never quite thought the British voter was as ignorant as some of the populist American Trumpers one occasionally sees interviewed on TV; however, I stand, or rather, sit corrected. Celia tells me that most people have no idea or are completely ignorant of their own history and the achievements in social welfare that have occurred to make our lives better. If that is the case, what is being taught and what information is being made available. Is none of this available through AI? I suppose the danger of AI is thinking “Isn’t AI great, I don’t even have to learn anything, it will do it all for me”. So what program is voting for you? I guess, your right, you don’t need to know anything. What could I be thinking. Sorry to bother you. 

If you have a problem with my view, do let me know. 

PONDERING THE ROAD

With everything going on in the world today I am drawn to reminiscences. Note the words drawn and scenes included in the sentence. It indicates painting pictures in the mind  or rather pulling images out of one’s hippocampi. The present preoccupation with memories is slightly overwhelming. It is spurred on by looking at photographs my mother gave me over the years - a few at a time, which she had extracted from various family albums and which she thought might amuse. They did just that. 

I cannot recall many of the pictures actually being taken, but I know they were, as I was there. I can recall the journeys, but only certain instances have become deeply embedded in my brain. I cannot say why that is, but clearly there was something about the particular event that stayed with me. Also, in looking more closely at the time line (I assume my mother’s notes are correct) what I remember as being ‘forever’ was but a short space of time. A journey of two and a bit years seemed a lifetime back then. I am amazed at what was packed into those years. To have travelled such distances in so short of time seems unbelievable, and to what end? The number of churches, museums, galleries and historical sites we visited is prodigious. I was probably dragged through quite a few of them, although I did spend quite a lot of time in the Louvre in one way or another. Getting into the building was nothing like it is today as there was nothing like the numbers in 1949 to 1951. Indeed on our return to France in 1953 nothing much had changed in terms of numbers.  On reflection, it seems to me, it was as if my parent hardly stood still. We appear to have been constantly on the move at every opportunity. The travelling continued in very similar fashion from 1952 to 1956 and as many miles were covered  with slightly different destinations all across the European continent. 

My mother claimed that our frequent travels were to do with our education. On reflection, it appears to me that our education was secondary to the travelling. Whenever my parents thought we should be in school, they rented a house and we were enrolled in whatever state school was within the vicinity. Every school break - spring, summer, easter, Christmas, whatever- the trunks were put on the roof rack and off we’d go. Our parents, however, were very keen on education and always encouraged, indeed, pushed us to attend school. Learning was important. Having an education, a degree and a profession was, for them, essential to be able to get on in life.  Yet, my father had no formal degree of any kind and was entirely self educated. My mother did finish High School, but had no higher education. She too was mainly self educated. What they felt they had missed out on, they were determined that we would not. We would not go through the hardships they went through. The key to an easy life was a well paid profession and that required a college diploma. That lesson was always paramount. 

Indeed, on our stop over in New York, in 1956, I was with my father visiting the jewellers building around 47th Street. He was looking up old friends and amongst the numerous work benches was a bald  headed man leaning over his bench trying to set a gemstone, wearing what appeared to be a multiple number of magnifying glasses. His name was Lustig. They greeted each other with laughs and hugs and chatted in Hungarian and Lustig’s heavily accented English. During the course of the conversation the matter of my education came up.  Lustig insisted that I must get a college degree. He remembered that during the depression even if you wanted to get a job as a dishwasher, if you had a college degree you were more likely to be hired over anyone who did not. He also told me that my dad was a very well liked man in their youth. “Your father could go out on a date with just a nickel in his pocket, and sometimes he’d come back with a dime”.

Along the journey my brothers and I went to a lot of different schools. So why did we never stay put? Was it to expose us to a wider education? Was it to open our eyes to differences or similarities? Was it to show us the roots of civilisations in ancient stones and monuments? 

As to higher education, I enrolled at UCLA in September of 1959; however, my university career soon came to an end, sans degree of any kind. Looking back, the longest continuous period I have spent in any particular educational establishment was at age 65 when I enrolled at Dartington College of Art in 2006, finally obtaining a BA in 2009 and an MA in 2012 from Falmouth University.  My parents did not live long enough to know this. That I stayed the course I can only put down to the miles of travel in my youth, treating this late scholastic effort as a road I had avoided. Was it a road less travelled by or rather full of wanderers? I don't know that it has made life any easier, and it wasn't so bad before.

What did happen during this late journey into education? I don’t think I have any greater knowledge or insight. I have more questions than answers. It is perhaps a more contemplative attitude to life; although, I have more critical opinions, with fewer possibilities to get them heard. Whether the rant in my blog is sufficient to relieve the frustration of an inability to communicate is a question in point. In any event, the accumulation of events over 84 years stored in the brain, both conscious and unconscious, or in whatever state of mind considered as ‘active’, is quite a lot of memory to sift through.  In the course of my academic education I came across an item by Dr Netta Cohen entitled Understanding Spatiality in the Brain. She deals with mapping the brain, its complexity, features and manifestations. She looks at intracellular morphology, the network topology and connectivity of these structures and where space fits in. It is this survey of the brain’s systems which becomes a model for examining and mapping other systems, other spaces. Dr. Cohen describes the brain as ‘a spatially embedded complex adaptive system’.

“One of the key things is that there are many interactive components, interacting in a non trivial way, as physicists would say interacting with degrees of freedom. There are microscopic degrees of freedom and macroscopic     degrees of freedom that are interacting. Each of those (components) are acting and interacting on a wide range of scales, this includes both temporal scales; you’ve got very very quick proteins acting on nanoseconds, all the     way to the range of microseconds and sometimes milliseconds and you’ve got lifetime learning. A very broad range of time scales and a very broad range of spatial scales, things acting intracellularly, at the molecular level and the G-network level which are very localised and you’ve got things happening at whole brain level and that’s excluding your interaction with the environment which is whole organism level... A single protein can change the macroscopic state of the system; a single macroscopic perturbation can cause some gene expression which then causes some cascade which completely changes your system”                                                                                             
So I’ve got a lifetime of learning happening at whole brain level and probably including whole organism level. I wonder what perturbation will trigger the cascade which will completely change my system? I’m sure there are some traumatic as well as therapeutic memories somewhere in the spatial scales of my brain. Time will tell.                                                                                                                                           
In the meantime I ponder just the first 14 years of my life trying to assemble the surfeit of country roads, autobahns, highways, hotels, motels, restaurants, amusement parks, railways, lakes, mountains, museums, galleries, sites, catacombs, seas, undergrounds, cable cars, rivers, trolleys, operas, cinemas, concerts, coronations, ships etc. into some sort of what? Order? Understanding? Meaning? Gift? I know not what, there is just so much of it. More of this anon.

THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE

When Abraham Lincoln delivered his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861, he made a plea for unity and reconciliation during a time of deep national division over issues like slavery and secession. The United States Civil War broke out just five and and half weeks later on the 12th April 1861. In his final paragraph he said:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

His optimism was clearly misplaced at the time. So too is any feeling of optimism in the present. Why is that? Do we still not know the better angels of our nature? Are we not, in fact, facing the same difficulties over unity and freedom? Would we not all like a united world, free of rancour,  violence, greed, deviousness and corruption? 

I read the works of certain modern day thinkers and philosophers, mainly academics (where else but in academia could they survive) who are also occasionally trotted out in the media for a point of view about the state of the world in relation to the situation in Ukraine, Middle East, United States, Europe, Africa, United Kingdom etc; but little of what they say, although intellectually significant, offers actual solutions. Indeed, until we are actually touched by the better angels of our nature, things will continue as they are.

The simplicity of that is just as self evident as the truths outlined in the preamble to the declaration of independence of July 4th 1776, “….that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This declaration was a preamble to a political constitution that was established “in order to form a more perfect union” which is coming up to its 250 year of existence. It is clearly now at a crossroads as to whether it will survive.

It is however, not the only country going through political upheaval. There are problems galore facing most of the western democracies. We have yet to see what will become of Hungary now that it has disposed of Victor Orban. Who will be coming forward as the next President of France in one years time? Will the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East  come to an end? Will the European Union manage to stay together? Will the United Kingdom finally rejoin the European Union? The problem of Unity within each nation, let alone across the globe, is still very out of focus.

In the United Kingdom, with all its very significant challenges, we are preoccupied with what amounts to umbrage and pique concerning the Prime Ministers previous choice of appointing Peter Mandleson as Ambassador to the United States. Why has it become such a problem so has to, possibly,  cause a change of leadership? Why the furious calls for resignations?

I ask for perspective. The previous Ambassador to the Court of Donald Trump was disliked by this dangerous dictatorial madman over remarks made. In my view perfectly accurate. Nonetheless, a replacement had to be found. Someone with whom the President could relate and who could schmooze and cajole this narcissist towards a more workable accommodation with the United Kingdom, despite Trump’s trashing of the so called special relationship. Indeed some kind of reconstructed relationship had to be found.  On looking around at possible candidates, who better than an arch machiavellian schmoozer, with an impressive honorary title,  Lord Peter Mandleson. Trump will like the title, will have already met him, as well as having a number of friends in common. You may think a perfect choice in the circumstances.  After all he was a former Labour tactician, a Member of Parliament and an ex Secretary of State. Indeed as a former Secretary of States he would surly have had a security clearance of the highest degree. He would be perfect for the role. Despite being ‘iffy’ and probably loathed by many politicians in Parliament he was just the right devious climber to deal with the likes of Trump and his sycophants. Lord Peter would fit right in.  So any additional examination was surely redundant. Some people had misgivings, but the in house political advisers and tacticians thought it a very strategic choice. 

I do not think that I am wrong in that assessment, and Sir Keir, a very trusting soul whose most likely believes that his fellow politicians have the same notions of integrity, went along with it. I am sure, at the time, it was considered a very astute choice. But of course, as luck would have it, the continuing Epstein scandal at the Court of King Donald exploded with the release of thousands of pages of notes, letters, emails and photographs from Mr Epstein’s archive.  It revealed that the United Kingdom’s Ambassador was more connected with the President’s social circle that had been thought. What had seemed a clever and maybe audacious appointment backfired. The fawning, greedy, flattering, Uriah Heepish character was revealed in all his guises. What might have been an ideal appointment has come to naught and left Mr Starmer in difficulties as well as those who had supported him in the decision

And it was his decision. He can only apologies for that and has done so. Whatever explanation he has for making that decision is probably more difficult to explain, although the circumstances over the vetting procedure has to some extent given him a sort of excuse. It is unfortunate that his explanation to the House for taking that decision was incomplete and unintentionally  incorrect. Is that acceptable to the House? Is an incorrect statement, such as it is, a requisite for resignation? 

What with everything else in the world to deal with, in particular the affects on the British economy, its welfare system and national security, is it wise to remove Mr Starmer because of opposition party politics? I cannot believe the British public would be so stupid as to return to the Conservatives or turn towards Reform. That would clearly be insanity. In any event the Labour Party should be moving on and tightening its resolve. Closer unity is required and more thought put in to getting the message across that it’s not so much change that’s needed, as improving the current situation. If a change means making things work better, than make that clear. A more efficient NHS. Better values and conditions of employment. A healthier and productive economic climate. Improved social housing. Appealing to the better angels of our nature as citizens is what’s needed. We might just all step up.

WHAT ABOUT HUNGARY

I am in a quandary understanding  the political choices that are being made round the world. The very recent Hungarian elections are an instance in point. In last Sunday’s general election, Mr Orban’s Fidesz Party has lost its majority in the Hungarian National Assembly, a unicameral assembly consisting of 199 members. Since 2010, Mr Orban’s party, which was initially viewed as a centre right party, has consistently moved further right on the political spectrum.  It was also backed by the MH, or Mi Hazánk Party (Our Homeland Movement), a far right political party which had only 6 seats in the previous assembly. They still have their 6 seats whilst Mr Orban’s party has been reduced from 135 to 55 seats. A loss of nearly 60%. Whilst eight parties and ten independents were represented in the assembly, there are now only three left. The Tisza party with 138 seats, the Fidesz and alliance Party with 55 seats and the MH with their 6. 

It should be noted that when Mr Orban came to power in 2010, there were 386 seats in the assembly which represented a population of 9,979,128 which means each elected member represented about 25,852 people. In 2014 Mr Oban was again elected, however his government had changed the constitution and reduced the number of assembly members from 386 to the current 199. In that time the population had reduced to 9,862,842 and each seat represented 49,562 citizens. That population has reduced even further to around 9,585,818. Indeed the population of Hungary seems to be reducing by about 24,500 per annum over that last 16 years. Nearly 4% of the population has left the country in the last 16 years. Indeed the percentage of 30-34 year old citizens has gone down from 8.2% to 6.4% of the population and the 40 to 45 age bracket has gone down from 6.9% to 6.5%. In effect a lot of  of the 30-34 year olds from  2010  may have left the country.  There must be a  reason for this exodus.

So far as the new prospective Prime Minister, Mr Péter Magyar, is concerned, he was formerly a member of Mr Orban’s party from 2002 to 2026, when he became president of the Tisza party which is classified as a Centre Right party, as was Mr Orban’s in 2010 when first elected. So, I ask myself just how far has the Hungarian electorate actually moved? And will the population exodus begin to decline? Also, have the political parties previously on the left completely disappeared or have they been absorbed into Tisza? The socialist and social democrats previously had 25 seats.  The centrists and the conservatives had 16 seats. The independents had 10. That’s 51 seats that seemed to have changed hands or completely disappeared. Was there ever a left or left of centre political group at all? Will Péter Magyar go the way of Victor Orban? How far has Tisza moved away from Fidesz.

At the moment, it’s all smiles and congratulations from the rest of the European Union, as it is believed that Mr Magyar is a firm believer in the European Union, and the cries of ‘Russia go Home’ from the jubilant crowds on election night are very welcome to Mr Zelenskyy’s ears. Is this really a change of direction and will the Tisza movement, with its supermajority, actually restore greater representative government in the Assembly? Will the younger Hungarian citizens remain to find out? 

Is this a move away from right wing movements around the world or just a local reset for conservative parties across the globe? Does the outcome of the Hungarian election have any impact at all on a world view? Or is it just a local European election from which one can draw no conclusions at all? Does it have any real effect on  or within the European Union? These are things that give me pause. On the whole, I welcome the ousting of Mr Orban from any further influence on the political stage, or am I thinking too soon? We can only wait and see. 

 I am informed by Celia that the population decline is not unusual in that most European societies are in decline, but the Eastern European nations are particularly declining, Hungary being among the top countries with a declining population. Birth rates and death rates are changing although emigration is a large factor. In most Western European countries and North America the population in increasing although the growth rate is declining. Populations across the world clearly vary. In Hungary the population is in decline and the median age is rising.  In 2010 it was 38.9 and in 2026 it is 44.2. It would seem younger people are leaving and going elsewhere. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable. We can only wait and see.

As to the ousting of the current leadership, one can only be thankful the orange man child might feel the disappointment that his endorsement carried no weight.

PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE ? or PLUS C'EST PIRE ?

I had intended on posting a completely different type of entry, one more focused on the autobiographical; however, in the light of events I was reminded that on the 24th June 2025 I wrote a blog entitled “Have we given our hearts away”. In it I included the following, but I have highlighted some phrases in bold:

“The world is too much with us, complained William Wordsworth in 1802, just after the turn of the 18th and 19th century....
In effect much was going on then as now. There certainly was a continuous level of violence going on, and the recognition of human rights was being determined all over the globe. Revolutions and hypocrisies were rife, nonetheless we have established, in more than one area, a human rights convention and an International Criminal Court to oversee flagrant breaches of a rule of law that we are all meant to observe. So as Wordsworth cried out in 1802 against a disappearance of decency, so we cry out now that the world is indeed too much with us. Relief from this insanity of nationalist imperialism and violent religious bigotry, would not come amiss. Must leaders of democracies be tyrants in the making? Is arrogance and narcissism a prerequisite to governance? Why do so many cling to people of such colossal ego with extravagant and amoral prejudice? Is it necessary to create a bogeyman on whom to heap vile insults, such as Hitler on the Jews and Trump on all immigrants? Is it essential to so obviously twist the truth? 
For goodness sake, there are pictures and recordings of events, clearly illustrative of appalling actions and criminality, which are turned on their head. Why is that accepted? Are the populace so totally mesmerised as to be made deaf, dumb and blind?
When will the congress of the United States step up and reassert its powers to uphold the rule of law? When will this Orwellian horror show be over?
One should normally be respectful of other people’s views, no matter how difficult they may be. To have divergent opinions is a healthy thing. We are individuals and not all alike. We may seethe inwardly, but honest opinion is to be respected. Honest opinion, not one founded on mendacity, bigotry and ignorance. With the likes of Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Lukashenko, Orban et al, it is a calculated and pernicious obsession to retain power. Any lie and appeal to ignorance is acceptable. It is strategic condescension, as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, used to maintain that power. Is it any wonder Trump claims to “love the poorly educated”?
I sometimes feel at wits end and deeply troubled by an inability to act. It is all very well to rant at my MacBook Air screen, but it changes nothing. I know I am not alone in my point of view. It is irrational, but I loath the poorly educated. I do not speak of the ignorant, or the intellectually challenged,  as they are for the most part able to distinguish truth from lies. I loath the people who claim education and knowledge when it is, in effect, based on deceit, duplicity, lies and fabrications. Believing in myths and ghosts is harmless, but calling on people to obliterate those with whom we do not agree, and calling them scum, is a crime against humanity. This is what our current leaders seem to do, and want to do. It is who we have elected. How sad is that?”

So, having said that nearly a year ago, the situation has become even worse. The crass, crude and rude uncivilised behaviour of the current President of the United States is beyond redemption. His acolytes are no better. How has the world order let such stupidity reign for so long? Now, even some of Trump’s previously staunch supporters want to see him removed as soon as possible. His clear lack of control over his own speech as well as over his supposed ally, Netanyahu, has imperilled the world. Under the guise of his approach to making America safe, he has exacerbated a tragic situation in the Middle East by making it not only a death trap of horrifying proportions, but an equally catastrophic economic disaster. 

I am sorry to be so repetitive, but there is no other way. The same crap seems to be occurring again and again. The nightly news is just as stuck, amplifying the same story over and over again since the 21st January 2025. There is no such thing as “What’s new?”. Perhaps there is a change, from “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose” to “plus ça change, plus c'est pire” 

Can this be fixed at the ballot box? I sincerely hope so. 

ANOTHER VIEW

We are, once again, being led into a tangle of distractions away from the catastrophe that is the Trump administration. Millions of Americans came out on the streets across the country to protest the very idea that the United States should be run by autocracy. 

Nonetheless, the attempt to divert focus to the journey round the moon and the live movie script that is the rescue of a downed US Airforce serviceman, is ongoing. It is a continuation of the comic book approach to governance that consumes Trump, Hegseth and other sycophants. What is going on is far from a game. Other influential figures have no hesitation in condemning the violence. The newly seated Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope in Rome have made their views quite clear. Would that the political leaders of all European countries, and other members of the United Nations, condemn the United States, Israel and Russia in no uncertain terms, for their illegal and criminal actions in Middle Europe and the Middle East. Netanyahu has already been indicted, butTrump and his entire Cabinet should be facing the same scrutiny by the International Criminal Court. 

The latest moment of braggadocio from Trump and Hegseth “We got him”, costing over a billion dollars, quite apart from the two billion a day, is a confusion. Whilst it is laudable that such an effort should made to extract a fellow serviceman from harms way, he should not have been put in that position in the first place.  Heroic acts are really distractions from the corruption that engulfs the entire Trump administration. One must not let the Hollywood style theatrics divert from the condemnation and law enforcement required to bring this venality and dishonesty to book. 

Here a clip from the Rachel Maddow show which gives an overall of what is going on at present.  Well worth a look and listen. If the video is not available go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI36Z5otlrQ

EXPLORING THE MOON

In the light of the present journey around the moon and back, here is a little vignette from 13 years ago with Bill Nye the Science Guy and some reporter on Fox News 

TEXT AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTION

Some 12 years ago I was contemplating doing a research degree having completed an MA in performance writing under the tutelage of Jerome Fletcher, a most excellent instructor and advisor. My subject was intended to examine the performance of writing in the environment, displaying social identity. 

The premise was that every sign in a public space is open writing, a public ‘text’. This included all posters and placards pasted on walls or held up on demonstrations, advertisements, shop signs, bus stops, traffic signals, subway stations, the entirety of all public displays of images and words in the environment including the digital world.  It is writing addressed to a public audience continuously reminding the observer of ‘reader’ of some official or unofficial information, or some social or political position. Some of these public signs are significant public art. Indeed artistic displays of any kind are a form of public text to be viewed and read.

My initial questions were whether this ‘writing’ signified as social and political? Do the majority or ruling groups support their political and territorial interests through the use of public writing? Does this ‘public text’ perform as a display of the social identity of a given group? Does public text  have  real  power and influence? Can one include aural rhetoric as a form of writing? 

As you can tell the questions go on and on and I was never able to pinpoint any specific question to explore which would encapsulate the essence of the performance of text other than it ‘informs’. It simply imparts information which can be either accepted and acted upon or just observed and ignored. It is similar to an accept all, reject all or accept essential only, as in the manner of cookies. 

But what is public. Does one include books and magazines. They are displayed and open to the public, although they have to be bought or at least handled by the reader, which requires the reader to actively seek out whatever the book or work conveys. Likewise any open performance, film, television or online streaming requires the deliberate participation of the reader. There is stuff just put out on display whether anyone likes it or not. Is that really a distinction? 

So far as the power of text is concerned, there are statutes and laws which are written and necessarily available to the public, which the public are deemed to understand and abide by. The fact that one is unaware of a particular prohibition or mandatory action is considered inexcusable. The rule of law is embodied in text. . 

The more one looks into Text, the more one accepts Jacques Derrida’s statement "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte” - There is nothing outside the text. In effect, there is nothing but text. In preparing my project back in 2013 I put together a short video in an attempt to formulate “The Question”: 

  

In my view, on reflection after 12 years, it is perhaps not sufficient, as it does not to take into account the myriad of public texts which was the object of the investigation. In particular, when it comes to social identity, it does not stress enough the real power that text has on our daily lives. Legality, religion, economics, health, nationality, political affiliation, employment, status, everything is dependent on the “written manual’ that goes with it. That text has its influence is one thing, but of course, along with the reader is the writer. Someone has put the text on display. Whether it is done simply to display a statement without expectation of reaction or comment, or with a very specific intent of causing reaction and comment, it will cause, by itself,  reaction and comment, both positive and negative. There will be some interaction between people. How human beings act towards other people or things is based on what meanings are assigned to them. 

There is a theory of symbolic interaction which focuses on the analysis of the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. The theory is a framework for understanding how individuals interact with each other and within society through the meanings of symbols (or text) Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. 

There are a number of people who has pronounced on the matter. Erving Goffman believed that when an individual comes in contact with other people, that individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner. At the same time, the person the individual is interacting with is trying to form and obtain information about the individual.Herbert Blumer (set out three basic premises of the perspective:
•    "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
•    "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."
•   "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Others, such as George Herbert Mead and Joel M. Charon have expressed views. In deed Charon is the author of Symbolic Interaction An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Mr Charon expresses five central ideas symbolic interaction. Briefly, 1- The human being must be understood as a social person, 2- The human being must be understood as a thinking being. 3- Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in.4- The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present. 5- Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment.

The theories as proposed by these three are very similar, and in particular I note “Human beings must be understood as thinking beings”, “Human act towards things on the basis on the meanings they ascribe to those thing” and “When individuals come into contact with other people, the individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him/her by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner”

Of course, the theory of human beings being understood as thinking beings presupposes that the human in question is an honest and ethical individual. On the whole one should be able to suppose that integrity and character are widespread. I have often stated before that human beings, when  departing from the norm, do  two thing, they steal and they hit. Violence or dishonesty is what appears to be the default mode when human beings fall short of clear thinking. 

I should like to add here that civilisation has accepted that, in order to survive as thinking human beings, we have a duty or care towards one another that follows on from the rules which have been written as rules of law which ensure that we can interact with each other even symbolically. There is a passage written by Northrup Frye, a Canadian literary critic and theorist who commented on the law and artistic endeavour as it relates (in my view) to symbolic interaction:
All respect for the law is a product of the social imagination, and the social imagination is what literature directly addresses.…If the law were to be completely absorbed into the internal discipline of honest men, there would be no more law and we should all be living in the Garden of Eden. We are not there, but in the meantime law still depends upon the imagination, and the fostering and cherishing of the imagination by the arts is mainly what makes [the] profession honourable, perhaps even what makes it possible.

In the light of all of the above, I am compelled to ponder on the beings who are now in the process of scarfing up the planet and turning it to shit in the very neighbourhood of the supposed site of the garden of eden. They are not at all what one could describe as truly thoughtful and the only interaction they seek is to control. They preen and pose like peacocks and are prone to violent outburst of insult and arrogance, and are unable to adhere to any duty or care or rule of law. They are not honourable men and women and have no concept of what service to a nation means. Thoughtlessness, violence and dishonesty are their go-to norms rather than the opposite. You know who they are. Unfortunately their 15 minutes of fame has been extended for far too long. If ever the world needed the American people to come up trumps, it is to clip Trumps wings on the 3rd November 2026. It is hoped the other miscreants will follow suit. 

MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS

There is far too much going on at present to have any grasp on sanity. The continuing Trump generated world wide catastrophe is almost impossible to take in. It not only affects international relations, but the collateral damage to domestic politics is just as depressing. In the United Kingdom the right of the political spectrum initially supported Mr Trump’s shenanigans then wavered and made attempts at distancing themselves from his agenda. The financial repercussions, already in chaos, have become even more problematic as a result of Trump’s middle east war.  Attacks on the British Prime Minster roll along. Accusation and insult are hurled totally unaccompanied  by any serious assessment of a situation that he or anyone else is able to control. Self righteousness and arrogance abound. Problem solving is at its lowest ebb. 

If anything is to make headway, all hostilities must cease worldwide and various parties must sit down, reflect and properly assess the world situation and devise domestic and global solutions that promote prosperity and bring health safety and security to all nations citizens, regardless of the domestic political arrangements in place. Clearly that is impossible in the current climate, although there are signs that perhaps in the European Union some cohesiveness is on the cards. Also, the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Carney, has indicated his willingness to approach nations other than the United States to form agreements on trade and other matters. He demonstrates a world wide approach to governance to the benefit of his own citizens. The Australian Government is equally showing signs of such diplomacy, and there are others; however, it will all go to nought if the hostilities, recriminations and psychotic Trumpisms continue. Mr Trump believes the world revolves around him and so long as he is allowed to continue in that vein, the chaos will prevail. He must be told “It’s over!!!”. It is up to as many European and Far Eastern leaders as possible to get that message across. Stop enabling the insanity.  

If only one were able to provide an intervention with the group photographed below:

Wishful thinking, although Granville Stanley Hall would most likely be on the side of Mr Trump. He was certainly not a man of the people and favoured a more pompous arrogance so far as I can glean; however, I am sure that Carl Gustav Jung might attempt at a breakthrough. On the other hand, I doubt very much if Mr Trump has any inkling of self examination, discovery and balance guiding personal growth and understanding. His thoughts, feeling, memories and instincts are entirely directed at his own aggrandisement. The ego trip to end all ego trips “like nobody has ever seen before, by a lot”, as he might say.  I hesitate to speculate on what Sigmund would make of Trump. I’m sure that after a mere 5 minutes observation he would have a pretty comprehensive diagnosis. For starters, Mr Freud would undoubtedly confirm that Trump still sucks his thumb.

 

I am sorry to obsess. As a breakaway from world pandemonium, and in keeping with my own memories and experiences, I post herewith a link to a bit of audio reflections on events in the very early 1960’s, when I had just turned 21. Highlight and click on the link or copy and paste if you  care to listen. Its about 14 minutes. I believe it will come up on some form of audio program. Thank you.

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1l5QmXZTiGFKF8MpWP66jPyk-9vpSsfrZ

WHAT PRICE DEMOCRACY ?

Where do we go from here? 

I post a paragraph I found on the net:

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov issued a stark warning to the United States and President Donald Trump, stating the ongoing war with Iran threatens global peace and could escalate into a Third World War. In a major press conference, Lavrov accused the US of triggering the conflict by unilaterally abandoning the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and blamed Western powers for disrupting regional normalisation between Iran and Arab states. He cautioned that NATO is being drawn into the conflict, expanding beyond its mandate, and warned the war is destroying vital energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Lavrov concluded that the conflict, which he termed US aggression, risks the collapse of international law and could stimulate a global nuclear arms race as more countries seek atomic weapons for self-defence, prompting Russia to push for a UN Security Council resolution to end the hostilities.”

The sentiments and views expressed by Mr Lavrov (if correctly reported) smack of such hypocrisy that it is impossible not to laugh in derision. The remarks appear to be quite a reasonable and probably correct point of view; however, for Russia to be calling for the UN Security Council to produce resolutions or the kind Russia has consistently ignored is, what your average Eastenders might say, taking the pis. 

In any event, the current analysis of events in the Middle East conflict, particularly relating to the the oil crisis and economic fall out, continues non-stop. There is, as expected, a good piece from Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian dated Friday 13 2026 at 17.18 GMT:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/13/donald-trump-iran-war-total-disaster

His concluding paragraph states:
“To confront the Iranian regime was to walk, with a lit match, towards a tinderbox soaked in gasoline. If it were to be done at all, whether by military or other means, it had to be done with the greatest care. But Trump has blundered in, crushing and trampling all before him, making a bad situation worse. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He does not deserve his war to be assessed charitably. He deserves our contempt.”

The chaos that Trump’s war, promoted by Netanyahu, has engendered, is engulfing the globe. Not a day goes by without the disastrous effects rumbling on with no clear end or solution in sight. Indeed, one wonders if there is any concept of lucidity or intelligibility at all in the current government administrations of the, so called, leading nations. There is much talk of ‘transparency’, combined with a derisive tone, as if the statement itself was so obvious,  how could anyone have any doubts. 

The frequency with which Mr Trump’s press secretary and attorney-general claim that he is the most transparent president in the world goes unchallenged, and, in a way, he is. There has never been anyone so self serving, egotistical, venal and power hungry as Donald Trump occupying the office of President of the United States in 250 years. That fact is so glaringly obvious and transparent that one is almost blinded by its clarity. Beyond that, there is nothing but stupidity and murkiness surrounded by a haze of imprecision. Everything is deflection and obfuscation, accompanied by insult, effrontery and anger. This is what politics in America has become. 

There is a sadness that this exemplar of ‘clarity’ is probably becoming the modus operandi of many countries. I exclude the already established dictatorships among nations as they have made their position quite clear. I say this as my attention was drawn to a report published by the Varieties of Democracy Institute Report, or V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 which can be found at:
https://v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf

The institute claims, inter alia:

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) produces the largest global dataset on democracy with over 32 million data points for 202 countries and territories from 1789 to 2025. Involving over 4,200 scholars and other country experts, V-Dem measures over 600 different attributes of democracy.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the Democracy Report do not reflect an official position of the larger V-Dem Project, the V-Dem Steering Committee, or theV-Dem Institute. Authors are responsible for the content.

I post below, the Executive Summary of the Report.

 

Just for emphasis one should note the current view of the situation in the United States:
* Under Trump’s presidency democracy in the USA has fallen back to the same level as in 1965. Yet the situation is fundamentally different than during the Civil Rights era.
* President Trump’s second term can be summarised  as a rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency.
* The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.
* Legislative Constraints – the worst affected aspect of democracy – is losing one-third of its value in 2025 and reaching its lowest point in over 100 years.
* Civil Rights & Equality before the Law, and Freedom of Expression & Media are now at their lowest levels in 60 years.
* Electoral components of democracy, however, remain stable – for now.

 

What is even more disturbing is that the research reveals that the share of the world population living in liberal democracies in 2025 was only 7%. So I ask again where do we go from here? Never before has the importance of voting in the November elections of 2026 been so vital. If you don't want to loose it, vote. I would also recommend your reading the report.