WHOSE DRIVING ?

I happened upon the Nicky Campbell talk-in show this morning. I have not tuned in before ‘but owing to a mistaken touch on my iPhone, I found myself listening to a few people talking about the shows theme question “Do you welcome president Trump”. Apparently an American resident in London and chair of some Republicans Party group in the UK was on, but I did not hear from her. She was apparently listening to the callers’ comments. 

Most of what I heard was anti Trump, for all the usual reasons (mainly convicted felon, sex offender, liar, Epstein, narcissist etc..) but as to the matter of his imperial style welcome, there were mixed feelings. The fact of Trumps position as President of the United States must be accepted. The fact that because of his office he is able to affect world affairs, in particular economics, must be accepted. The manner in which he performs the office of President is distinctly his own and because of his extraordinary - shall we say - eccentricity, to have any dealings with him requires a specific kind of diplomacy. He is a bully and spoiled infant with a limited attention span, living behind a wall of sycophants and protectors. Not at all an easy subject.

The modern relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States, eventually established by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill from 1941, is a strong one. It has been difficult for any British Prime Minister to navigate its waverings over the last 80 plus years. It was most significant during the days of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Bush and Blair had their moments. But Trump and anyone is a whole different ball game.  We can only hope that Mr Starmer and, now Ms Cooper are up to it. The extraordinary occurrence and coincidence that the Epstein affair should also involve a British ambassador and member of the Royal family is hardly supportive of that relationship, but it is what it is. Helpful or unhelpful in dealing with Trump? Who knows? But it is inevitable that he visit the United Kingdom as President, just as he will other nations. 

Keir Starmer appears to be a straightforward barrister with liberal leanings. In his professional life he has gone out of his way to do pro bono legal good works, defend human rights and generally represent his clients to the best of his ability. He has always sought to obtain his clients’ desired result. As to politics, he seems to be dealing with his office of Prime Minister much as he would as Head of Chambers. He has advisers and secretaries as his clerks, running his schedule and those of his cabinet of fellow KCs and Juniors, dispensing briefs, and relying on their expert opinions. I am sure he wishes his current client, the British people, will get their desired result.

Unfortunately the British electorate are not only clients, but they are also the prosecution, judge and jury as well as the victim. The Government is not a set of chambers, and more unfortunately for Mr Starmer, he, by contrast, is also the defendant who must represent himself. It is often quoted that Abraham Lincoln said “A man who defends himself has a fool for a client”. In Mr Starmer’s case, he has no choice. Is he a fool for having taken on the job? Were we fools to allow him to be put in office? Why would anyone consciously choose to be a defendant is such a case? The prospective indictment is extensive: 

R -v- Prime Minister
Failed to:
    1- Improve the NHS, 
    2- Improve the defence of the realm, 
        3- Improve social care  
    4- improve the economy, 
    5- Improve the environment, 
    6- Stop criminality
    7- Control Immigration    
    8- Establish world peace
The list of offences goes on and on.

The expectations of the public and the electorate are extensive. Achieving any of these goals is an arduous task. Promising to achieve them is a grave responsibility. Making the attempt is at least laudable. Promising them, knowing full well you cannot possibly deliver, or having no intention of making good on the promises, is the crime. 

Representative leadership in a democracy is as difficult as it gets. One cannot give the feeling that one is adrift. Although I am a great supporter of proportional representation, I pause at the possibility of right wing parties having a greater say in government legislation. That is my prejudice; however, proper representative democratic government is essential. There  must also be positive leadership. There must be a feeling of a sense of direction. 

It is difficult to describe. It is not so much strong leadership as decisive positivity. Strong leadership smacks of dictatorship, whereas decisive strikes a more collective note. It’s a kind of “I know where I’m going and I think you’d like to come with me, because I’m pretty sure we’ll all be better off”, That may be a bit wishy washy, but it starts with the positive knowledge of which way to go to make things better. It also allows for flexibility. Compromise is inevitable, but can be positive as it helps move things forward.  

Being the Prime Minister of today’s Britain is not an easy task. Being pulled in a variety of directions relating to certain peoples impossible demands and the barrage of ludicrous attitudes staged by various so called ‘influencers’ and alleged leaders in opposition, is not at all just a mater of simple compromise. It is however difficult to ignore. Perhaps a more robust stance in one’s own agenda and dismissing some of the shower of critical comment from the isolationist right wing would be better than trying to take it all into account. I don’t know the answer but something is required to stop me and some of my friends (who agree) from feeling adrift. Nothing is actually completely out of control but it does sometime feel as if it’s about to be.

Getting back to Nicky Campbell’s question “Do you welcome president Trump?” For my part, no, and I never have. I still agree with Stevie Wonder’s comment before the 2016 Presidential election:
“Voting for Trump, is like asking me to drive a car.”