ON REVIEWING PAST ENTRIES

I have been reviewing some of the previous most read blog entries. There is one from four years ago on Monday, 1st March 2021, entitled Angry, Upset and Bitter. It is essentially about the scamming and dishonesty that was proliferating, during the pandemic in particular, and that has not abated since. It has become even more insidious given the scale of cyber blackmail that seems to be affecting major companies and institutions. But the tragedy of the acceptance of dishonesty within the general public and the rise of overt shoplifting is the saddest development. The election of Trump is the most tragic example of the acquiescence to criminality by a general population.

Another blog that attracted numerous readers was posted on Saturday 15th May 2021 entitled, A Question Of Judgment. It referred to the United States Supreme Court and some of its past deplorable decisions and the outrageous hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy  of Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell over the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Bench. Her role in the debacle of Roe-v-Wade will not be forgotten, particularly with her evasions on questions put to her during her confirmation hearing about that very case. These Senators are still with us and still just as reactionary, hypocritical and mendacious as ever. I include McConnell particularly because despite his sometime clashes with Trump he has done nothing to actively prevent him from running for office as he should and could have during Trump’s second impeachment.

Other popular postings include one on Monday the 28th June 2021, entitled A Rambling Reminiscence and another on Friday 25th June 2021 entitled Teachings of a Man Made Church?. The Rambling Reminiscence was just that and covered an extensive recall of events in our lives and also included a covid chart published in the Express, showing the current state of the UK deaths and hospital admissions rate at the time as well as an MSNBC account of the Orwellian dangers continuing as a result of the 6th January 2021 insurrection. 

As to Teachings of a Man Made Church?, you will note the question mark. It was inspired by a report that President Biden had been refused communion during a Church service because of his stance on abortion. It was a mater in which he had no choice as he had sworn to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment of which states: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I commented at the time:
As president Mr Biden therefore has no authority to interfere with or indeed express an opinion on religious matters, or in particular, the will of God. What Mr Biden supports is the individual citizen’s right to choose what religion, or not, they wish to follow and how they choose to lead their religious and moral lives. Religion therefore has no place in politics, nor in the secular education of the nation.  The citizen is free to choose. That is what is of paramount importance, and that is what Mr Biden is protecting and defending. How he personally feels about abortion has nothing to do with it. He is duty bound to support the 1st Amendment, no matter how difficult it may be for him personally.
The sad thing is that the clergy confuse the issue of abortion as being against the teachings of the church, and not a decision to be made by the individual concerned. Choices are individual judgements and resolutions made after considerable thought. The matter of terminating a pregnancy has never, in my view, ever been a matter for the bishops to pronounce upon as if it were the word of God. Whatever the teachings of the Church might be, it is man-made education and not the word of, or the definitive will, of God. Indeed, for a religious catholic to decide on a termination of a pregnancy, that decision having been made in consultation with God, would clearly be the will of God. Consultation with God is not consultation with a Clergyman of whatever denomination. The clergy are not God, despite their desire to give the impression that they are the voice of God. They are not. Consultation with God is with one’s conscience. It is usually an internal conversation and can have many outcomes. It is not for any individual or government to “prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
If God is love and forgiveness, then for any priest to deny communion to any catholic because of a difference of opinion, is in complete contravention of the teaching of Christ and they should be defrocked and drummed out of the church. Again, the teachings of the Church are not the word of God. They are the word of man, and that is always open to question. If the United States of America, is to call itself ‘one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’, then it is the will of God that individuals have the right to choose. No man can, nor should, interfere in that.

I have not changed my opinion since then. It is a mater of belief and what we chose to believe. Unfortunately some people chose some rather disturbing things to believe. It is a question of fact and fiction. As to memories and going through past entries, I am reminded of the true nature of writing as expressed by Oscar Wilde:

CECILY. - I keep a diary in order to enter the wonderful secrets of my life. If I didn’t write them down, I should probably forget all about them.
MISS PRISM. - 
Memory, my dear Cecily, is the diary that we all carry about with us.
CECILY.
 - Yes, but it usually chronicles the things that have never happened, and couldn’t possibly have happened. I believe that Memory is responsible for nearly all the three-volume novels that Mudie sends us.
MISS PRISM.
- Do not speak slightingly of the three-volume novel, Cecily. I wrote one myself in earlier days.
CECILY.
 - Did you really, Miss Prism? How wonderfully clever you are! I hope it did not end happily? I don’t like novels that end happily. They depress me so much.
MISS PRISM.
 - The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.
 

You will note the reference to Mudie, which is now mostly lost on us. It refers to Charles Edward Mudie (18 October 1818 – 28 October 1890), English publisher and founder of Mudie's Lending Library and Mudie's Subscription Library, was the son of a second-hand bookseller and newsagent. Mudie's efficient distribution system and vast supply of texts revolutionised the circulating library movement, while his "select" library influenced Victorian middle-class values and the structure of the three-volume novel. He was also the first publisher of James Russell Lowell’s's Poems in England, and of Emerson’s Man Thinking.

The three-volume novel (sometimes three-decker or triple decker) was a standard form of publishing for British fiction during the nineteenth century. It was a significant stage in the development of the modern novel as a form of popular literature in Western Culture..

UNLOCKING THE DOOR?

Preoccupation of the mind. A curious concept. On the one hand it indicates one is absorbed in thought, or engrossed in a particular idea, or dealing with some current situation requiring resolution or action of some kind. The consequence of this mental activity, one’s mind is so occupied that it is unable to entertain any additional thought or matter that may arise. Rather like a cubicle with a sign indicating ‘occupied’. The brain  is certainly capable of dealing with a multiplicity of ideas and enabling multitasking, assuming the physical requirements for such endeavours are available; but, there are moments when the absorption or mental concentration is so deep, that one appears to be distracted and not open to any interaction, not even of any kind. It becomes in effect unavailable for use.

This state of being is naturally transient. We usually work through situations that occupy our minds to such an extent as to effectively close it down. This enables us to interact with others. At any rate, it is the normal and usual course of action between human beings. A give and take exchange of ideas. On the other hand there are minds that are full of specific ideas, so firmly held, that they are permanently occupied. This is a state of being that is beyond preoccupation. Areas of the mind, at its corp, are so completely absorbed with locked in thoughts, that nothing newly apparent or diverting can enter. The mind is not so much distracted but, rather, petrified. Hence interaction seems to take place on  the periphery of the brain. These fixed ideas are retrieved on occasions, not so much to elucidate new thinking, but to reenforce the already fixed idea. It is like a cubicle with a permanent sign indicating “occupied” whichever way one turns the latch. There is no way in. It is never available.

As I sit here preoccupied, pondering, I wonder whether there is an area in my own brain which harbours such petrified thoughts.  Am I a creature of what is called the radical left, or am I capable of accepting certain conservative concepts.  William Pitt the Younger was a Conservative politician,  yet he said in the House of Common "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”.  A sentiment which any lefty would agree with. Indeed many people in their youth have aligned themselves with the political left and mellowed in their later years to join with a more conservative approach to governance.  I do not think I have gone that far, but there are certain aspects of civilisation, in particular, what might be called the social contract, which may seem conservative on my part. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of care. There are a number of conservative politicians who would express a similar view. The difference is the extent to which laws are made to control behaviour and thought, and to what extent one enforces the duty of care.

Russell Kirk (1918-1994) an American philosopher and historian, wrote a book published in 1953 called The Conservative Mind.  In it he suggested five canons of conservatism:
1-A belief in a transcendent order, described as based in tradition, or natural law;
2-An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
3-A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasise natural distinctions;
4-A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5-A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.  

To begin with I find the second premise of an affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, completely at odds with a so called transcendent order or the idea that society requires orders and classes that emphasise alleged natural distinctions. What the conservative mind sees as tradition, natural law and distinctions is thinking of themselves as, by natural right, above the general population and consequently more worthy. They are not. As to property and freedom, they are to some extent linked. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with the freedom to own property, but the conservative view of acquiring property to the extent of preventing others from owning property, is something else again.

As to faith in custom, convention and prescription, it is not so much faith as it is respect. The traditional idiom of minding your p’s and q’s is a reasonable bench mark in social interaction. As regards innovation, by its very nature it cannot be tied to anything although in the light of the current expansion of the internet and AI, and its effect on societies in general, the value of prudence might apply. I confess I lean more towards the age of enlightenment in the persons of Locke, Kant, Smith (with reservations) and in the current era, Chomsky, Derrida, Barthes who probably have more to do with language and thought than politics. There are many more to chose from.

In any event, I am clearly not a conservative but I can appreciate some of its concepts; however, there are those who call themselves conservatives who do not embrace the five canons, and, whilst claiming to embrace small government, seek to impose total government control of their own making. They would impose their idea of what constitutes order, tradition and custom and prohibit any and all opposition to that order, even to the slightest degree. And so we have the likes of Orban, Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro and others of their ilk.

The current outstanding horrors are unfortunately being dominated by men whose minds are preoccupied in the sense of unable to absorb any new thought. I cannot believe that there are no people in positions close to these individuals who might break through the cubicle door and change some views. Perhaps not. I ponder. 

ADDENDUM TO YESTERDAY'S RANT

The insanity of the conflict in Gaza is stupefying the world. Indeed the whole of the Middle Eastern imbroglio seems to be an insolvable problem. There are two articles on the conflict that make an attempt at understanding the consequences of what is going on. Matthew Syed in an article in the Sunday Times from Saturday 17th May and Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian on Friday 23rd May both express clear and considered opinion, accompanied by a tinge of despair.

Mr Syed’s piece is introduced by: “Like every true friend of Israel, I am obliged to say - enough. With each bomb, each bullet, each meal denied to Gaza’s children, Hamas is getting more of what it wants”. What he means is that as long as the Israeli Government and defence force behave with such disregard for humanity, they are loosing sympathy and support which is now turning markedly towards  the Palestinians. The violence is such that far from turning away from Hamas the population is more likely to increase its membership and support. That goes for any observers as well. Mr Syed is of the view that the atrocity committed by Hamas last year was deliberately intended to draw Israel into this kind of retaliation, sufficient to turn the tide of world opinion, and they have succeeded beyond their wildest hopes. Israel fell fully into the trap.

Mr Freedland’s statement is prefaced by: “A biblical hatred is engulfing both side in the Gaza conflict - and finding them to reason. Israel starving Palestinians, two killings at a Jewish museum: both are atrocities. But vanishingly few can see it.” There is no doubt that the Israeli Government has lost all sense of foresight and that rational behaviour has been exhausted. So much so that any sense of support or sympathy has been eroded and all that is left is blind rage and violence. With mind and eyes filled with blood, all sense of humanity disappears. Endless retaliation is all that is left. It blinds one even to distrust and oppose those who would be on our side and in effect only succeeds in turning them against us. It is blind and therefore ignorant in every direction.

Both articles are considered and worth seeking out to read. They provide no solace, but perhaps something to reflect upon and find some understanding. Finding understanding however is not finding a solution. Finding a way of moving people back to rationality and considered compromise towards coexistence through a Niagara of blood is still far away.

ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER RANT

Seven days of events have passed since my last entry. The conflict in the middle east carries on towards even greater infamy. Netanyahu’s offensive has progressed to open insults directed at other world leaders, the united nations and any institution that dares to criticise the Israeli government. Any criticism from any quarter is now to be regarded as anti-semitism. This is an outrageous claim and fits in with his scurrying to Donald Trump to bolster his arrogance, not unlike the ego maniacs of the 1930’s messieurs Mussolini and Hitler. You may think this is a rash comparison, but how else is one to think of it.

Trump’s administration is uprooting the constitution every moment he is in office. His attacks on well established institutions of higher learning under the guise of eradicating anti-semitism is an outrage. He seeks total control of enrolments, hirings of staff and areas of study. He seeks to stifle any free speech and thought that does not conform to his methods of operation. His will is what matters. He applies this to any institution or profession that might cause him difficulty; hence, his bullying of legal firms and the judiciary. Any criticism or adverse ruling of his so called executive orders is seen as criminal treason. The fact of his own open corruption highlights his hypocrisy. The adulation with which the Republican Party greets this venality and open racketeering is sickening.

His claim, together with his acolytes, that there is no place for hatred in the United States is astounding, given his endless insults, hate tweets and speech over the last eight years of vilifying his detractors and immigrants, enlisting the aid of the likes of Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Kristi  Noem. These three alone have spewed hatred with malicious epithets directed at immigrants and any person voicing contrary  opinion.

The comparisons to the establishment of dictatorships in Italy and Germany of the 1930’s grows more and more appropriate. The repetition of adulation of the leader by subordinates and the relish with which they exercise their power is akin to the Stanley Milgram’s experiment at Yale in the 1960’s. The blind arrogance with which they follow their leader belies there supposed education and reminds us of the worst excesses of the French Revolution.

The bizarre nature of the current tit for tat headline grabbing, between the Gaza horror show and the atrocities in the Ukraine, dumbfounds the mind. What are we to do?  There is an ongoing civil war in Sudan and various insurgencies and internal conflicts in Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Haiti are also facing significant challenges. Violence seems to pervade the world.

The two major conflicts have the United States President at the forefront. He put himself there with his claims, on the one hand that they would never have  happened if he had been President, as he should have been at the time, and on the other hand that he would resolve the conflict within 24 hrs and a phone call. Well, he is in the mix and the situations have got worse. He does a mineral deal with Ukraine which is hardly likely to take effect so long as Mr Putin remains intransigent. Indeed, Mr Putin will continue to pull Mr Trump around by the nose until, by some miracle the light dawns and Trump finally says enough is enough and goes into his bully act. An unlikely scenario as Trump is devoted to Putin and is more likely to just walk away from the problem. He has already threatened to do so. As to Gaza, he is apparently committed to organise food aid distribution as per Mr Netanyahu’s request. Whether that will actually happen is another matter, although Mr Trump’s real estate ambitions of Costa Gaza are always on his mind.

There is of course the problem of violence at home for Mr Trump which he might seek to resolve. Over 1.6 million assault victims  taken to ER hospitals last year in the United States, and nearly 25 Thousand homicides. During Trump’s first Presidency “between 2016 and 2020, the number of homicides in the United States saw a general trend of slight increases, with a notable spike in 2020.. While the data for 2016, 2017, and 2018 showed a relatively stable number of homicides, 2020 saw a significant surge, with the average U.S. city experiencing a nearly 30% increase in its homicide rate, the fastest ever recorded.” It started to reduce under President Biden. In any event, racial hatred and other prejudices abound in the United States. Note another alleged fact:

“In 2018, it was estimated that U.S. civilians owned 393 million firearms, with the U.S. having the highest number of guns per capita in the world. This translates to 120.5 firearms for every 100 residents. As of 2023, 32% of Americans owned at least one firearm, and a larger percentage (44%) reported living in a gun household, according to a 2020 Gallup survey”

There are about 2.2 million military personnel in the Ukrainian army. The average Ukrainian soldier could have 128 weapons each if the US citizens gave up their guns. What kind of world do we live in? Should not Mr Trump clean up his own mess rather than screw up the rest of the planet?

393 million firearms in private hands. A shocking number. I do not understand why any government should have anything to do with a country that is vested in violence to that degree. How the right to bear arms has not been repealed or expunged from the constitution of the United Staes is  beyond comprehension. How can the world even expect progress towards peace from the leadership of the most lethal society in existence? I think that is a fair question. Mr Trump clearly cares not one jot for his own citizens, for whom he claims America First, let alone any other “foreign” citizen, whom he constantly refers to as insane rapists and murderers. We should have nothing more to do with this man. The European countries must take a stand, indeed take the lead. We will get nowhere with this broken collection of so called United States who seem to lack the ability to remove this pariah and his minions from office and truly make America great again.

MIROR SI NEXUM HABEMUS

There appears to be a growing vocal and active opposition to Mr Trumps administration although just how effective it is being, is open to question. The fact that court orders are being ignored, and the judiciary is under attack, in defiance of the constitution and the rule of law, there seems to be little action in bringing the appropriate miscreants to justice. Surely there must be some legitimate authority that can issue, and caused to be served, writs of mandamus and summonses for breach of Judicial order and contempt of court. Why is this not happening?

The contempt and contemptible action being taken by Trump’s stooges is beyond acceptable. I note that Judge Hannah Dugan has been indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly helping a Mexican man evade immigration officials through a back door during an arrest attempt. I am trying to imagine the scene in court. I believe she was adjudicating on a matter concerning the gentleman in question. On what basis and how  did the immigration officials attempt to make the arrest? Did they actually notify the Judge that it was their intention to arrest this man? Was she passed a note? Did the Court staff tell her what was happening outside the court room and did she personally escort the gentleman to a back door? I doubt if any of these things happened and the sworn testimony of the officials before the grand jury will, I firmly believe, be rejected by any jury hearing the case in due course. It might  never actually come to trial as being so totally unbelievable.  I know I have no actual knowledge of the case, but given the gestapo like tendencies of current immigration officials in the era of Trump (note the number of detentions of tourists, green-card holders, academics and foreign students whose phones are scrutinised and hacked) I would not be surprised if I am correct. If ever the phrase trumped up charges had significance, it is now.

This situation is not just a problem for the United States, it is a world wide problem. To have the richest western democracy go the way of the Russian Federation, Myanmar and other similar repressive dictatorships will be catastrophic for the global economy as well as world interaction and stability. This president and his followers is a monumental disaster and must not be placated to and gently pacified. This exceptionally venal bully and his corrupted stooges must be called out and to account. Every government with any integrity must stand up. It is beyond diplomacy.   The charade of what has just been happening in Turkey with Ukraine and Russian peace talks is contemptible.

There is a mood around the world that hovers like some miasmic mist that prevents us from bringing and end to the violence and chaos everywhere. What is wrong with us? Governments are terrified of interfering for fear of exacerbating the situation and escalating into a world war. Perhaps so, but surely a preventive and aggressive intervention is now necessary, particularly in the Middle East and Middle Europe. Some action was taken over the Yugoslavian debacle, surely something can be done now. Our friends and family, at times, gather together for an intervention to deal with our bad behaviour or addictions. Cannot allied countries do the same for their neighbours? Are there no serious statesman in place to lead the effort?  What representatives anywhere have been elected to fit the bill?

I complain too much and sit about, not doing much of anything on my own account. I rail against Trump and his ilk. I have not joined any political party. I have not put myself forward for any political, commercial or professional society office. Donc, as the French would say, who am I to complain. In any event I am too involved, at present, with an age specific relationship with the NHS, as are many of my friends. There are a couple of old New Yorker cartoons which currently sum up the situation: 

So forgive me and, if you can, continue to put up with my ranting  There are a number of people who have suggested that I might have some  access to the celestial ear. I cannot think why, but who knows?

THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS

There is a problem with deal making in the current climate. Various pundits on newscasts in the United States have ridiculed the supposed commercial deal between the United States and the United Kingdom. Apparently the deal changes nothing between the two countries as the 10% tariff, previously put in place, remains the same and any actual agreement has yet to be completed. So why the grand announcement that a great deal has been made? Perhaps the concept of the great deal is enough.

I may be out of touch with actual events so far as deal making is concerned, but I see little evidence that the United Kingdom economy is likely to grow to any great extent. Are luxury cars really so important? Will the sale of 5000 expensive vehicles being sold to wealthy Americans save the British economy? That seems to be the great deal to crow about. Was it really all about the car industry?  There are, so my google search tells me, about 22 million millionaires in the United States. So I guess if  0.02% of them are likely to buy a car from the UK the industry is saved. What am I missing?

The above was a passing thought in the light of some of the stuff I see on YouTube. There is a lot of stuff posted on YouTube, in particular congressional oversight committees which question the various Trump appointed secretaries of various departments of state and other institutions. The likes of Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Kash Patel, Director of the FBI, are classic examples of mendacity.

The Senators and Congressional Representatives are each given 5 minutes to ask questions. In view of the limitations on time, they try to ask questions requiring yes or no answers. It is really quite a simple approach to ascertain whether or not the person in charge of a particular office knows what they are doing and understands the basic exigencies  of their office.

Trump appointees do not answer questions but have prepared lengthy statements of obfuscation and subtile prevarications in order to effectively filibuster and take up as much time as they can to run out the time the questioner has. Most committees are now being chaired by republican sycophants because they are in the majority. As a result the times are strictly enforced when it comes to Democrats or any representative who seeks the truth. The disrespect shown by these Trump appointed persons towards elected congressional representatives in both houses of Congress is an outrage.

What makes this so obvious is that when questioned by a Maga representative, like Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana, they are more than willing to provide short yes or no answers and allow the Senator to spill his poisonous views and bigotry at will. There is no other was of interpreting the spectacle. Kash Patel is the most outrageous in his disrespectful behaviour and obvious outright deceit. His display of incompetence and lies over the submission of the proposed budget for his department is in itself almost criminal  and cringe making.

What is sad is that they appear to be getting away with this type of arrogant disdain for the rule of law and present oversight of Congress. There is in effect no  oversight whatsoever.  How the American public will be able to recover from this chicanery during the next 4 years and beyond comprehension. To watch the death and destruction of what was once a proud democracy, albeit with a few flaws, is sad in the extreme. It is now “my country piss on thee, sour land sans liberty, of thee I dread”.  If ever there was a time to take action to rid the United States of these people, it is now. How you go about it is something else. When in the course of human events... think about it and good luck.

ELECTIONS FOR WHAT?

I did not anticipate that the British electorate, who voted in the local elections across middle England, would actually support the new Reform Party. I can only assume it reflects some sort of protest vote. Similarly the Runcorn and Helsby by-election was decided by 6 votes allowing the Reform Party Candidate to take the seat. The insanity of the election is that the winning candidate only had 38.72% of the actual vote. The other parties took 61.28% which means that two thirds of the people who bothered to vote in Runcorn did not support Reform. To top it all, it was only a 46.2% turnout. Which means that only 17.88% of the total electorate, in middle England, has voted in a Reform MP.

How on earth does that represent democracy. Clearly the vast majority of people in middle England, or indeed in Great Britain, do not want anything to do with Reform; but then, the Labour Party managed only 38% of actual voters to gain a large majority. So under no circumstances can any political party claim to speak for the British people There is no majority consent of any kind, so it is no wonder that there is little confidence amongst the general public for any government. The majority of citizens, by the very fact of the scattered multiplicity of votes and candidates, clearly want something other than what we have. Where there is so much discontent, how can any party claim a mandate for its proposed agenda simply because they have more MP’s than any other party.  

The object of the exercise would, or should, be an attempt to bring views and aspirations together. In essence a consensus should be found that can be accepted by the majority. Probably an impossible task, but, I repeat, for any political party, elected on such slim percentages, to claim a mandate from the British people to implement their party’s manifesto is dishonest. When one perpetuates an obvious fraud, is it any surprise there is discontent; however, that discontent is self inflicted. The low turnout is what causes this imbalance. If those who oppose sit at home and do nothing, then the active participants will mange to rule. It has been said time and again, in a democracy citizen’s have the right to vote, but voting changes nothing if you do not vote.

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, since the Anglo Saxon period (410-1066), when continental refugees and nomads from Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, came to colonise these Islands, a chequered nation was established.

Individual little kingdoms eventually coming together - at times reluctantly or forcibly - under a single sovereign. It is now Great Britain, a hierarchical nation, no doubt, which still maintains a monarchy. It had at one time ruled across the world, exceeding every previous empire, but which, despite its chequered history of colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity, nonetheless established the bedrock of the rule of law and human rights in world affairs.  That is something to hold on to. Not the colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity, but the rule of law and human rights.

I am afraid that what the Reform party seeks to hold on to, is the vestiges of colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity. Their vision of an isolationist populist commercial Britain is seriously flawed. It is based on blame and suspicion of the foreigner. It wants to separate and not incorporate. Instead of connecting with the rest of the world it seeks to do ‘deals’.  Like Mr Trump, who claims to be the master of the art of the deal, the vision is narrow, entirely stupid and short sighted. There is no art in what they do.

Most citizens recognise that shortsightedness but somehow fail to see their own. Because they find it difficult to support any political party, their discontent with politics prevents them from making a decision. As a result they fail to exercise their historically fought for enfranchisement. The right of every citizen to have some say, no matter how insignificant, in the governance of their country has taken a millennium to establish. To find a way to ensure that the freedom and rights that have evolved over the this period is surely an imperative. Making a political decision in order to elect a political party that is most likely to ensure that security is, I would have thought, very necessary. Of course there are difficulties and one single ideology may not fit every point of view. In fact, there are so many political agendas it is very difficult to make that decision. Nonetheless, by bringing together, in a democratic manner, a consensus of representatives to form a government which will maintain the basic uncontested human rights and freedoms under the rule of law, is surely something to achieve. There are indeed some truths that are self evident. The present system of first past the post has got to go and some proportional system must be sought in the interest of the public to maintain the peace. It is a compromise, but there are too many victims to maintaining the status quo.

Allowing the populists and nationalist agenda to pressure every progressive agenda from coming to fruition, is not the answer. Most people are willing to deal with transition. Tempering necessary action, under pressure, in order to gain votes to maintain power is not compromise. Achieving a consensus is what is required. This is done through reasoned argument and acceptance of possibilities.

The tragedy of the present situation is that too much emphasis is given to  the election results for the Reform party. The actual vote is small. They have a number of individuals elected from a minority that went to the polls. This is being played up by the media as some great success and given a large amount of coverage in the press, on television and on line. That does not change the actual maths. It is a minority movement and should not put the fear of God in other political parties. The others should concentrate on governing, on getting the vote out and on making the voting system more relevant to the current situation and the state of democracy. Reform may well have a roll in parliament under a system of proportional representation, but it would never be in a position to lead a government. Continuing with the current system under first past the post and the easy publicity given by a populist press will only promote continued voter apathy and sad electoral outcome.  

It is too disconcerting to contemplate a United Kingdom sinking to the appalling level of the United States. A country led without a shred of decency or integrity by a convicted thug and his unelected stooges. None of the executives in government, bar the president and his vice president (bearing in mind the vice president is coupled with the president on the ballot - it’s a sort of buy two get one free) is elected to office. The cabinet is chosen by the president and although approved by the Senate it ends up, in effect, the president’s choice. There is no such thing as cabinet responsibility. The so called checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers and the constitution has been virtually eroded. Trump rules by decree. He believes his executive orders are the law. L'État, c'est moi. He says as much. He even disappears to Mar-a-Lag, his puny version of Versailles, at the week ends to play golf. His own family clearly have no wish to live with him in Washington, and are probably grateful he spends his time there on a golf cart. How is this man not ostracised by rest of the world? He is so below contempt it is difficult to understand why people tolerate his criminality.

So, can His Majesty’s Government please step up to the intellectual integrity and gravitas it once held around the globe and stop weaselling to gangsters in the shape of Trump and Putin et al. They are not statesmen, they are imposters. Can we show a little grit please?