SO THE CIRCUS GOES ON

So it continues.  The Trump charade is apparently unceasing and he maintains his high profile presence in news media around the world and more particularly in the United States which seems to thrive on the cult of personality more so than in any other country. This is particularly the case with elections of public officials.

 

In general a political candidate will have a campaign organiser who will seek to spread the word using as much of the media as possible to make the candidate known to the electorate. This will involve press releases and publicity of all sorts. To mount such a campaign can be very costly and many fundraising events are included in the general scheme of the campaign. If, on top of the paid-for rallies, meeting halls and any other associated events, the news media chooses to cover these events, thereby giving free publicity for the candidate, so much the better. Keeping the candidate in the news is essential. The more s/he is on the front page, seen and heard, the better the campaign and the better the chances of election.

 

Mr Trump, it would seem, merely has to stand still and the news media gathers round waiting to report his reactions to the actions being taken by various law enforcement agencies to bring him to account for the moves he has made to make himself great again. His reactions are invariably the same: “This is a witch-hunt. I am the victim. I am a victim like nobody has ever been a victim before. I am the greatest victim of all time. I am the greatest victim by a lot”. His complaint is a continuous, unending repetitive flow of his obsession with himself.   

 

The tragedy is that it appears to be working. He need spend none of the millions of dollars that have been donated to him on his campaign. The merchandising of his mug shot has already raised over $7 million. He can cheerfully cover his legal expenses (assuming he has actually paid any of his lawyers) including travel to and from courts and police stations.  The press and television news coverage is on permanent watch, so no need to pay per view. He, therefore, has no need to ‘debate’ with anyone. The bulk of the Republican Party do it for him. Even his rival candidates would support him where he to be the chosen nominee in 2024 regardless of any finding of guilt or liability in a courtroom. Such is the insanity of the current American electorate.

 

Law enforcement has taken far too long to bring on the prosecutions and they have all come at roughly the same time. It is quite likely that none of them will actually see a courtroom or come before a jury before the 5^th November 2024. After that, they will all have come to nought. Such is the tragedy of the American judicial system.

 

But what of his co-conspirators? Back in November and December of 2020, I commented on Jena Ellis, Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. As for Jena Ellis I commented on 24 November 2020: 

 

Mr Trump's continuing ‘fight’ to save the American public from fraud has a wonderful senior legal advisor in Jenna Ellis. In a statement to NPR News (National Public Radio) she said “Every American deserves to know that our elections are conducted in a legal manner, no matter who they are or where they live”…” That’s our only goal: to ensure safe, secure, and fair elections. That’s what the Constitution requires.”  Well done Jenna Ellis, by repeatedly losing in court and demonstrating that you can find no evidence of massive fraud or massive illegal conduct, you have proven beyond a doubt, to all Americans no matter who they are or where they are, that the elections were conducted in a legal manner.

 

Ms Jenna Ellis, enrolled in 2003 at Cedarville University, then in 2004 transferred to the Colorado State University in order to study journalism. In 2011, she received a law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She is a former deputy district attorney in Weld County, Colorado and a former assistant professor of legal studies at Colorado Christian University. As a private lawyer, she has litigated cases in state courts. In 2015, she self-published The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, a book arguing that the Constitution of the United States can only be interpreted in accordance with the Bible. Ellis was a stern critic of Donald Trump in 2015 and early 2016, until he became the 2016 Republican nominee for president, after which Ellis began voicing support, including media appearances. Ellis was hired by Trump in November 2019 as a senior legal adviser.

 

As to Rudy Giuliani he made the NYU Law Review and graduated cum laude with a Juris Doctor degree in 1968. At that time he supported Robert Kennedy and voted for George McGovern. Sometime, between 1975 and 1980 he joined the Republican Party. He apparently distinguished himself as Mayor of New York on 9/11 in 2001, being called ‘America’s Mayor’ and being named Time Magazine’s Person of The Year 2001.

 

Sidney Katherine Powell, who was born into a working-class family in Durham, North Carolina, grew up in the city of Raleigh, and knew from an early age that she wanted to be a lawyer. She graduated from Needham Broughton High School and went on to attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts. At the age of 19, she was accepted into the University of North Carolina School of Law, where she graduated in 1978 with a Juris Doctor degree. She began her legal career as one of the youngest federal prosecutors in the US.

 

Here they are again, from left to right:

Rudy Giuliani – the former Trump attorney was booked and released on a $150,000 bond. Charges: Thirteen counts — three of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer; three of false statements; two of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings; two of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree; one of violation of the Georgia RICO Act; one of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer; one of conspiracy to commit filing false documents.

Sidney Powell – the former member of Trump’s legal team was booked and released on a $100,000 bond. Charges: Seven counts — two of conspiracy to commit election fraud; one of violation of the Georgia RICO Act; one of conspiracy to commit computer theft; one of conspiracy to commit computer trespass; one of conspiracy to defraud the state; one of conspiracy to commit computer invasion of privacy.

 

Jenna Ellis – the attorney who advised Trump during his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results was booked and released on a £100,000 bond. Charges: Two counts — one of violation of the Georgia RICO Act; one of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer. (How can she smile for a mug shot? Brave girl.)

 

Including the above, there are 19 people involved in the Georgia indictment.  One should note that there were 22 people convicted of matters relating to the Watergate scandal. So it is not unknown for juries to take a view when it comes to political corruption, although some of the 22 in President Nixon’s case pleaded guilty and ended up with shortish sentences in minimum security detention centres. I do not think that any of the nineteen are likely to face prison. There is also the possibility that none of the trials will even take place if Mr Trump manages to delay matters till after November 2024 and he is somehow elected as the next President of the United States. 

 

Given the background and education of the above three, which is very similar to the rest of the defendants in the Georgia State Indictment, one has to ask how these people allowed themselves to be drawn into behaviour that amounts to racketeering and gangsterism to such a degree. Is Trump’s narcissistic insanity so like a black hole, with a gravity so intense, that it swallows up any and all objects that come within its orbit?  

There is a cartoon by Paul Noth in the New Yorker which expresses a view:

There is a scene from the film of The Caine Mutiny (1954) that might give some indication as to what might happen were Mr Trump to take the stand during a trial. 

 Highly unlikely though.

THE ANSWERS

Herwith the answers to quoting Shakespeare, should anyone be interested:

 

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', ( Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2 Line 295 said by Casca) you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning (King Lear Act 3 Scene 2 Lines 62-63 spoken by Lear), you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days  (Antony and Cleopatra Act 1 Scene 5 line 88, spoken by Cleopatra) , you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger (Hamlet Act 1, scene 2, lines 229-232 spoken by Horatio); if your wish is father to the thought (Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 Scene 3 Line 245, spoken by the King)  if your lost property has vanished into thin air (2 possible – Othello Act 3, scene 1 Line 21 said by the Clown or The Tempest  Act 4, scene 1, line 163, spoken by Prospero), you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch (The Taming of the Shrew, Induction, scene 1 line 14, spoken by Christopher Sly) or suffered from green-eyed jealousy (The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, scene 2, line 113 spoken by Portia), if you have played fast and loose (Three possible plays: Antony and Cleopatra, act 4 scene 12 line 11, spoken by Antony; King John, act 3 scene 1 line 234, spoken by King Philip; Love’s Labour’s Lost Act 1 scene 2, line 157 spoken by Boy (Armado’s page) and in Act 3, scene 1, line 105 spoken by Costard)   if you have been tongue-tied (from sonnets 80-line 4 and 85 – line 1), a tower of strength (Richard III, act 5, scene 3 line 12 spoken by Richard) hoodwinked (Romeo and Juliet, act 1 scene 4 line 3 said by Benvolio) or in a pickle (The Tempest, act 5 scene 1 lines 337/338, spoken by Alonso and Trinculo) if you have knitted your brows (Henry VI, Part 2, Act 3, scene 1,line 15 said by Queen Margaret), made a virtue of necessity (Two Gentlemen from Verona, Act 4, scene 1 line 62, spoken by second outlaw), insisted on fair play (King John, act 5 scene 1 line 67 and scene 2 line 119 spoken by Bastard), slept not one wink (Cymbeline, act 3 scene 4 line 109 spoken by Pisanio), stood on ceremony (Julius Caesar, act 2 scene 2, line 13 spoken by Calpurnia), danced attendance (on your lord and master) (Henry VI, Par 2, act 1 scene 3, line 175, said by York), laughed yourself into stitches (Twelfth Night, Act 3, scene 2, line 66 spoken by Maria), had short shrift (Richard III, Act 3 scene 4 line 95, spoken by Ratcliffe), cold comfort (The Taming of the Shrew, act 4 scene 1 spoken by Grumio and King John, act 5 scene 7, line 45 spoken by King John)  or too much of a good thing ( As you like it Act 4 scene 1 line 129, spoken by Rosalind), if you have seen better days (As You Like It, act 2, scene 7 line 125, spoken by Duke Senior, and Timon of Athens, act 4 scene 2 line 26 spoken by Flavius)  or lived in a fool's paradise ( Romeo and Juliet, act 2 scene 4 line 169 spoken by Nurse)-why, be that as it may (As You Like It, act 3 scene 3, line 33 spoken by Touchstone), the more fool you ( The Taming of the Shrew, act 5 scene 2 line 143, spoken by Bianca), for it is a foregone conclusion (Othello, act 3 scene 3, line 486 spoken by Othello) that you are (as good luck would have it) (The Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3, scene 5, line 85 spoken by Falstaff) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days (Troilus and Cressida, act 4 scene 5 line 14, spoken by Achilles) and clear out bag and baggage (As You Like It, act 3 scene 2, line 163 spoken by Touchstone), if you think it is high time (Comedy of Errors act 3 scene 2 line 173 spoken by Antipholus of Syracuse) and that that is the long and short of it (The Merry Wives of Windsor act 2 scene 2 line 59 spoken by Mistress Quickly) , if you believe that the game is up (Cymbeline, act 3 scene 3 line 115 spoken by Belarius) and that truth will out (Merchant of Venice, act 2 scene 2 Line 78/9 spoken by Lancelet) even if it involves your own flesh and blood (Merchant of Venice, act 3 scene 1 line 34, spoken by Shylock and other plays), if you lie low (Much Ado About Nothing, act 5 scene 1, line 57 , spoken by Leonato’s Brother) till the crack of doom (Macbeth, act 4 scene 1, line 132 spoken by Macbeth) because you suspect foul play (Hamlet, act 1 scene 2 line 278, spoken by Hamlet – also Henry IV part 1, act 3 scene 2 line 174 spoken by Blunt), if you have your teeth set on edge (Henry IV part 1, act 3 scene 1 line 136, spoken by Hotspur) (at one fell swoop) (Macbeth, act 4 scene 3 , line 258 spoken by Macduff) ,  without rhyme or reason  (Comedy of Errors, act 2 scene 2 line 51/2 spoken by Antipholus of Syracuse) , then - to give the devil his due (Henry IV part 1, act 1 scene 2 line 123 spoken by Prince of Wales and Henry V act 3 scene 7, line 118/9 spoken by Orleans) - if the truth were known (The Winter’s Tale, act 2 scene1, line 238 spoken by Antigonus) (for surely you have a tongue in your head) (The Tempest, act 3 scene 2 line 38, spoken by Stephano) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance (Troilus and Cressida, act 2 scene 1 line 124, spoken by Patroclus) and send me packing (Henry IV, part 1, act 2 scene 4 line 309 spoken by Falstaff), if you wish I was dead as a door-nail (Henry VI Part 2, act 4 scene 10, line 38 said by Jack Cade), if you think I am an eyesore (The Taming of the Shrew, act 3 scene 2, line 102 spoken by Baptista), a laughing stock (The Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3 scene 1 line 86 spoken by Sir Hugh) , the devil incarnate (Titus Andronicus, act 5 scene 1 line 40, spoken by Lucius), a stony-hearted villain (Henry IV Part1, act 2 scene 2, line 27 spoken by Falstaff) , bloody-minded (HenryVI part 2, act 4 scne 1 line 37 , spoken by Suffolk, and Henry VI Part 3 act 2 scene 6 line 32 spoken by  Edward) or a blinking idiot (Merchant of Venice, act 2 scene 9 line 58 spoken by Arragon), then - by Jove! (All’s Well that Ends Well, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolinus, Henry V, Henry VI part 3, Love’s Labour’s Lost – by various chracters) O Lord! (All’s Well That Ends Well, act 2, scene 2 line 55 and 59 spoken by Fool) Tut tut! (Henry IV part 1, act 4, scene 2 line 66 Falstaff / Henry Vi Part 1 act 2 scene 4 line 19 spoken by Plantagenet / Richard II act 2 scene 3 line 90 spoken by York / Richard III act 1 scene 3 line 370 spoken by Murderer /  Richard III act 4 scene 2 line 24, spoken by Richard) For goodness' sake!  (Henry VIII, prologue line 23 and in act 3 scene 1 line 177 spoken by Wolsey) What the dickens! (The Merry Wives of Windsor, act3 scene 2 line 17 spoken by Mistress Page)  But me no buts! (is not in Shakespeare but Coined in 1709 by Susanna Centlivre in the play The Busie Body). - it is all one to me (Henry VI Part 2 act 1 scene 3 line 105 spoken by King Henry) for you are quoting Shakespeare.

 

Bernard Levin

 

WAIT FOR IT

There is an article by Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times magazine of 11^th August 2023 entitled “Trump case shows American needs some special verdict options” which is well worth a catch up. Unfortunately I cannot give you a link, as to subscribe to the FT requires a £55 per month commitment. Not on my list of priorities, but if you can locate a copy of the mag or are already a subscriber, have a look.  

 

Mr Trump is yet again capitalising on his notoriety to gain vast amounts of news coverage without spending any electoral donations for adverts. Rather he is, I assume, using the money to cover his mounting legal expenses. He keeps himself in the public eye by swanning around the country, proclaiming his victimhood of multiple witch hunts and outrageous weaponizing of Justice Departments in New York, Washington DC and Georgia. He rails against judges and anyone he perceives as an enemy, including any and all opponents for the office of President of the United States. He relishes his lead in various polls of nominees for Republican Party candidate, even although a national poll shows the majority of American citizens have an unfavourable view of Mr Trump. Nonetheless other polls show that he may well have an edge in certain states, where there to be an electoral choice between himself and Joe Biden. Why this is so is the great tragedy of the current electorate in the United States. Unfortunately every network will give him world wide coverage, at no charge, despite the ramifications.

 

There should be no contest. Mr Trump is a contemptable blowhard, a serial liar and a psychotic narcissist of the first order. His go-to response to any question he interprets as critical is to insult and attempt to demean the questioner. He refuses to engage in any way with the difficulties of the American people, but constantly repeats his mantra of stolen election and his status as arch victim. He identifies his base, not as individual citizens, but solely as blind supporters of himself. He claims they are him. He sees himself in them, not as individuals but as an extension of his narcissism. He looks at them as if looking into a pool of water.

 

That the Republican Party has reduced itself to such a pool is the shame of every thinking individual in America. That there is, in effect, no real Republican Party as a thought-provoking, civilised, adult, traditional party, representing the true conservative opposition, or, at least that section of American citizens who favour what they believe to be limited government and individualism, traditional family values, capitalism and American exceptionalism. They are on the whole strongly religious but not necessarily fanatical. They also believe in compromise and the multi-party system. It would appear that these Republicans no longer exist in the American landscape. Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and newly- awakened ex-governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie may in some way qualify, but they seem to be a very small minority in the face of MAGA thuggery.

 

The choice for America is glaringly obvious to the rest of the world. It is painfully agonising to watch, from this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the tortuous machinations of a great nation on the verge of total collapse and ruination as a result of an unfortunate choice.

 

We have seen in the United Kingdom, what an unfortunate choice can do to a nation. The separation from the European Union is an equally glaring catastrophe, the result of which has yet to be fully realised by still quite a number of people. Realisation is coming, but oh so slowly. That the catastrophe for the United States will have such an impact of the rest of the world is more than somewhat worrying.

 

So we all continue to live in limbo for yet another year. It will be the year of the Dragon. It is usually considered to be a year of transformation, growth and abundance. In Chinese mythology the Dragon is a yang symbol associated with the element of fire. Its positive energy is expected to intensify during this time, bringing about positive changes and opportunities for everyone. We will have from the 10^th February 2024 to the 28^th January 2025 to find out wether the ancestors will be kind to us. We can but hope.

WHEN WILL WE SEE A TRIAL ?

Finally, an indictment that partially reflects the behaviour of Donald Trump from the moment he lost the general election in 2020. I have repeatedly been of the view that he is guilty of incitement to riot, and was so from the moment Gabriel Sterling made his statement to the press, the state of Georgia, the entire country and to the world. I post the video yet again:

Trump did not stop. The continued and repeated verbal assaults on the constitution, his refusal to accept the truth and his inflaming the passions of his followers led inevitably to the violence of the 6^th January 2021. He did not say go peacefully to protest, he said “You've got to fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore” Those are his words. The consequences were entirely foreseeable. Someone did get shot. For his lawyers to now claim that what he said falls under the banner of freedom of speech, freedom to protest and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is beyond hypocrisy and an invidious interpretation of the very constitution he sought to overthrow and set aside. He continues to do so with every word that comes out of his mouth.

 

On his view there is no behaviour capable of offence. Racist comment is mere opinion and must be covered by free speech. Any lie or libel is permissible as it is protected under the banner of free speech, and so incitement to commit a felony cannot exist as it comes under the protection of free speech. Under his reasoning, anyone who suffered a perceived slight. would have the right to forcibly demand that the government redress their grievance without the necessity of the sanction of a court or legal judgment.

 

Mr Trumps attempts to take the matter for judicial review failed in many courts on numerous occasions. He presented no evidence, not even a shred, save his injured pride. So, in what way does the stoking up of his supporters’ behaviour come under a petition to redress grievance?

 

Quite apart from the first amendment, his supporters feign outrage that the justice department has failed to take action against alleged wrongs by Hilary Clinton and President Biden and his family. How does that relate to the charges against Mr Trump? Is the suggestion that because one burglar gets charged and another does not, no one should be prosecuted for burglary? I do not see the causal connection.

 

Trump’s lawyers are claiming the current indictment criminalises speech. Not at all, when the speech becomes criminal it ceases to be sanctioned by the constitution. If someone tells someone else to commit a crime, is that free speech? How is it open to debate? The rule of law does matter. It is contrary to law to incite people to commit crime. Incitement is not free speech. How often does one have to say it? If someone is told to commit a crime and they do, then the person who told them to commit the crime cannot claim it was just a joke and therefore free speech.  “I was misunderstood” or “I said fight like hell, but I didn’t mean use actual violence” Is that free speech? “Free speech does not give the right to indulge in conspiracy” So says William Barr, Mr Trump’s ex- Attorney General. 

 

Mr Trump is constantly portraying himself as a victim. “Woe is me!!!” is a persistent refrain. He plays on this victimhood of persistent grievances. He seeks support and help from his MAGA crowd and even demands their financial support all the while claiming he is so rich, he is immune from corruption, and they line up for him. Not only do they donate their hard-earned dollars, but they buy the T shirts and the hats. With that, he threatens retribution once President again. He claims the justice department is weaponised against him and then threatens to use the justice department of his possible administration as an even more forceful weapon. Because he is very clear about threats, he assumes others are doing the same. Why else should he remark, in consternation, to his former Vice President “You’re too honest”?

 

What can the members of the Republican party (in the country or in congress) see that is in any way laudable about Mr Trump? Do they not see his psychotic narcissistic behaviour continuously displayed before their eyes on every form of visual media? Do they not hear the inanities, thuggish vocabulary and persistent lies that come out of his mouth? How can they ignore and even defend his wrongdoing and culpability?

 

There appear to be a multitude of voices declaiming the need for the rule of law to be followed. MSNBC, ABC, CBS and many others have voiced opinion on the matter. Again, I ask, why is there a serious danger that Donald Trump could be elected as President of the United States for a second term? 

One might also ask, is there any danger of Boris Johnson making a return?

DO YOU KNOW YOUR SHAKESPEARE ?

I asked the question on the 12^th of July – I have received not a single reply to the Shakespeare quiz, I am nonplussed.

I feel as if I am (Richard II, Act 3, sc.4 line 95) and perhaps I have been (Romeo & Juliet Act 2, sc.4, line 169) but (As You Like It Act 3 sc.3 line 33), I am (`Julius Caesar Act 3 sc. 2 line 101) and at the risk of being (The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 3 sc.1, line 86) I will extend the deadline for another week.

HEALTHCARE - A PERSPECTIVE

There is an articles by Roger Steer entitled Alternative European Healthcare Perspective published this month. For anyone interested in the future of the NHS and Healthcare generally it is, in my view, a must-read. It certanly gives one a view of what is going on in France as well as the UK. 

He brings together a number of texts, all providing very useful insight into the problems of Healthcare and the contributory factors directly affecting the nation's health. I found the references to the Health Foundations conclusions of particular interest:

Findings include

Money and resources: people on the lowest incomes (the bottom 40% of the income distribution) are more than twice as likely to say they have poor health than people on the highest incomes (the top 20%), and more than 5 times as likely to say they have bad or very bad health. Poverty in particular is associated with worse health, especially persistent poverty.

Employment: employment, or the lack of it, can have considerable influence on health and wellbeing. Poor health can limit people’s ability to have and sustain work. The nature of people’s work matters for health, but also impacts other factors that influence health, such as having sufficient income and forming social connections.

Housing: housing affordability matters for our health. Difficulty paying the rent or mortgage can cause stress, affecting our mental health, while spending a high proportion of our income on housing leaves less for other essentials that influence. health, such as food and social participation. People on the lowest incomes are hit particularly hard – 26% of households on the lowest incomes spent more than a third of their income on housing costs in 2019/20, compared with only 3% on the highest incomes. Ending the freeze on housing benefit and increasing support would help people who rent their homes to meet their housing costs. Alongside this financial support, there needs to be an increase in the proportion of social homes and new affordable homes for the future.

Transport: increasing physical activity and minimising time spent sitting down helps to maintain a healthy weight and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and depression. The NHS recommends that adults should do at least 150 minutes of moderate activity, or 75minutes of vigorous activity, each week. Walking and cycling as part of one’s travel routine – whether for an entire journey or to access public transport – can help meet these targets. There will be little benefit, however, if this means of exercise merely displaces the time for physical activity, or if the activity is not prolonged or intense enough to affect health outcomes

Reading the above acrtually comes as no surprise and more or less fall into the category of "we hold these truths to be self evident". Comments relating to Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves are a bit of a worry, but I urge you to read the piece for yoursleves: It is at:

Aug 2023FINAL.pdf(Review) - Adobe cloud storage

WHO'S GOT IT RIGHT?

In the United Kingdom there appears to be a general feeling of discombobulation. The advances and developments across the globe in industrial and economic growth, whilst initially seen as beneficial, have clearly caused havoc to the environment to such an extent that the survival of the planet is in doubt. Rapid deployment of new technology, and the restraint and phasing out of the old, is urgently required.  The social and economic difficulties being experienced throughout the world however, show little sign of allowing the programs, already discussed and approved at numerous environmental conferences, to take effect. Therein lies the confusion and perplexity of the current government as well as the current opposition.  The same can be said of a number of other countries.

 

Rising inflation and corporate greed do not assist in providing the immediate and necessary funding for a National Health Service, social care, housing, secure employment in education and public transport. None of this is helped by the current war in the Ukraine and other strife-torn parts of the world. All that coupled with a move towards isolation and misplaced nationalism away from global co-operation, is even more disconcerting.

 

The complete overhaul of the economic and industrial complex into remedial and pollution-free enterprise will take time and effort. The transition towards an electrical and solar powered world no longer reliant on contaminating fossil fuels is proving difficult, and in any event, the production of energy without polluting side-effects is probably impossible.

 

A lifetime of human habit is indeed difficult to change, particularly where the economics of desired and required change is concerned. An example of this problem is illustrated by the proposed extension of ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) in London, as well as the imposition of LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods) and cycle lanes. All of this to encourage the move away from vehicles reliant on fossil fuel. LTN’s and cycle lanes restricting the passage of vehicles has created congestion and slowed traffic to such a degree that engines remain running for longer in built up areas. How many citizens used to driving have actually abandoned their vehicles or have even been able to do so? The cost of switching to electric or other non-ordinary petrol driven vehicles, is outside the reach of many. Providing the financial assistance needed, from the state, to enable that to happen is prohibitive in the face of other national commitments. 

 

As a  consequence, the by-election held in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, gave voice to the local citizens’ discontent with the ULEZ extension. This result saved the seat for the Conservative Party, who shamefacedly used that discontent with the London Labour Mayor’s policy, to retain the seat, whilst shying away from environmental concerns, which they allegedly seek to deal with. How two -aced is that? On the other hand, the Labour leadership finds itself in difficulties over whether or not the mayor’s policy is in fact counterproductive to winning elections, all the while itself claiming to champion environmental issues. A dash of hypocrisy perhaps?

 

Clearly the politics of change and the necessity for change does not run smooth. However one approaches the problem there will be a cost, hence the requirement for economic growth called for by Labour and Conservative Parties with varying degrees of enthusiasm, each claiming their way is better that the other’s.  The trouble is no party is prepared to take the drastic affirmative action that the London Mayor is willing to take. What he is saying is, if you want to have your particular polluting vehicle, then pay a contribution toward the cost of cleaning up after you. It is essentially no different from picking up your dog’s poo in public spaces. People have become used to that, but £12.50 a day is another matter. £4,562.50 a year per car will raise a lot of revenue, and that’s not dog poo. The cheapest fully electric vehicle is in the region of £25000 plus, which is about 5 and a half years of ULEZ charges. I suppose one could scrap one’s current vehicle and just put £12.50 a day in a savings account for the next 5 years and 6 months and buy an electric vehicle to be back on the road. That is of course if you can afford to put by £87.50 a week, and you’d be helping to save the planet.

The United Nations secretary General, Antonio Guterres has announced the era of ‘global boiling’ has begun “This is just the beginning” he says. In fact, it is the continuation of what started some time ago. The impact is just becoming more apparent. His call for worldwide cooperation in dealing with what is manifestly a world crisis is perhaps a bit late, but nonetheless welcome. What effect he will have is questionable.

 

Whatever the economics, in Britain, it is difficult to ascertain just what any government can do to tackle climate change, invest in and stimulate the economy, while at the same time, getting the NHS on line with properly paid staff, social services, teachers and transport workers properly rewarded, able to do their work successfully, and secure affordable housing for those in need of accommodation. There will be a cost. The era of global billing has begun.

 

PS - Since writing this blog it has been pointed out to me that global warming and pollution are two separate matters, although they are part and parcel of the same problem.

A MIXED BAG OF THOUGHT

There are two articles in the Observer, one by Kenan Malik - It’s in Milan Kundera’s ambiguities and contradictions that we find his truths, which can be found at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/in-celebrating-europes-glorious-diversity-milan-kundera-confounds-its-bigots

and the other by Will Hutton - Europe is surging rightwards. But, as Britain has shown, the populist tide will start to ebb which can be found at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/europe-surging-rightwards-but-populist-tide-start-to-ebb?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

which are well worth a read. One deals with the recently deceased author Milan Kundera’s writings and his views on the question of European identity, and the other deals with European identity from a political perspective

 

How the European continent will emerge from the current financial and climate crises, as well as the Ukrainian war, is dependent on how individual European states chose their representatives in government. Is it really a matter of how the individuals in each state finds or defines their identity as citizens of the state?

 

There is a view that as the individual European states become more closely aligned economically and politically, they will merge into a single state and citizens will lose their individual identity as Frenchman, Germans, Italians Greeks, Hungarians etc. It is being suggested that as a result of the European Union, people are losing their cultural heritage to the extent that they no longer understand what it means to be French, German, Italian etc. and that consequently there is a backlash being fermented by individuals who are dead set against any further deterioration of what they perceive as their patriotic identity, which includes their historical myths and specific cultural history. Hence there is an instinctive reaction by some to conserve and preserve that narrative. This fear of loss is what appears to be driving the movement towards a conservative right, intent on stopping any other form of movement. It is a matter of battening down the hatches and stopping any further leaks, or influx into the existing mix. It is an attempt to return to what was before the rot set in, all the while maintaining an economic link and remaining in the European Union. Quite a feat.  To do that one needs to employ whatever means it takes to stop and prevent dissent or wayward thinking of any kind. Once that is achieved and equilibrium restored one can move on.

 

As to the UK one sees that happening with legislation preventing protest and freedom of expression, as well as illegal draconian legislation in an attempt to stop all immigration. The list goes on. (The UK has unfortunately cut ties with the European Union , making isolation far more costly) Under the guise of acting in the public interest, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel have crafted legislation that would have prevented their parents from entering the United Kingdom.  So much for filial responsibility. But I digress.

 

The problem for them all is that the hatches no longer have their covers. They’ve been blown off ages ago and the current attempts at closure is the equivalent of using a sieve to stop the flow. The internet and all forms of media, social or otherwise, has opened access to all forms of ideas, new myths and cultural output from across the globe. The output from streaming media companies conclusively demonstrates the similarity of global output. United States crime series, such as CSI, Law and Order, NCIS, Criminal Minds etc. are being eclipsed by similar output from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, South Korea, Italy etc. Every country does cop shows, soap operas, sitcoms etc.. They depict human beings doing the same things all over the world, having lives and living in societies that have the same problems, seeking solutions in their own ways and in their own languages. Any number of Netflix, Prime, iPlayer, channel4 or My5 box sets are available to us all.  Every country has its own version of reality television as well, mostly in the same format but with their own particular national quirks. Most successful shows are shown in just about every country in translation voice over. It is no longer surprising to see Upstairs Downstairs, Downton Abbey, Unforgotten, Friends, Neighbours or The Big Bang Theory dubbed in Spanish, French, German, Dutch etc. Fortunately, the UK have taken to broadcasting Scandi noir and French policier in the original language with subtitles, as does Netflix and Prime. This does preserve the cultural aspects of the shows does it not? I digress again.

 

My point is, we all see and hear it all, so why is it so difficult for nations to get together. We all go through the same crap. Why is it so difficult to find global solutions? Why do we elect representatives that are so totally partisan that whenever they are interviewed their sole reaction is to slag off the other party.

 

There are problems which are now so exacerbated that any incoming administration will find it exceedingly difficult to resolve. The Labour leadership is currently floundering as to how, should they achieve a majority at the next election, they will go about getting the NHS back on track, how they will cope with social care, supplementary benefits and housing, getting educational institutions back on track, in effect getting public services fully functional and properly rewarded. There is also the question of the environment. Will we have a planet that is habitable?

 

So far, they keep coming up with words like ‘reform’ and negotiating and resolving pay claims with the various public service unions. There has been no mention whatsoever of what is actually meant by reform. Reform what and in what way? Resolve pay claims, how? There are financial commitments that need to be made and the gathering up of sufficient funds to back up the reforms and resolutions has itself to be resolved. They also keep going on about economic growth and investment in growth. How do you get growth having closed off the market for the last seven years? From where will the funds be gathered?

 

One wonders whether the current government has maxed out the nation’s credit card or whether there is still some credit left? If so, is there another card available with a similar credit limit? Or is it a matter of extending the current limit? Make no mistake, there can be no lowering of taxation in any area, and, if anything, will need to be increased. Any notion that ‘growth’ will automatically increase the state's income sufficiently to cope with the required expenditure is pie in the sky thinking. Any prospective government that holds out that promise is being dishonest. Running a country as if it were a business is not a solution. Governments are about people and the needs and resources of individuals vary to a very great extent. Income, corporation, and windfall taxes won’t cut it. Nor will value added tax. Return on investment is equally unfounded as a backstop. There is no guarantee, unless, I suppose, you’re a shareholder in a water utility company.

 

There is an article in The New Yorker July 17, 2023 issue by Louis Menand entitled The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism. (Sub title: The free market used to be touted as the cure for all our problems; now it’s taken to be the cause of them). The opening paragraph reads:

"Neoliberalism” has been called a political swear word, and it gets blamed for pretty much every socioeconomic ill we have, from bank failures and income inequality to the gig economy and demagogic populism. Yet for forty years neoliberalism was the principal economic doctrine of the American government. Is that what has landed us in the mess we’re in?

 

In effect it can be translated as Thatcherism. Menand posits that Friedrich A. Hayek and Milton Friedman still exert their peculiar influence. The idea of an idealised market place, where everyone behaves in an exemplary ethical manner, where wealth is accumulated by the few and trickles down to some amenable workforce fully accepting their lot, is as fanciful as Adam Smith’s other concerned person, as depicted in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, let alone his inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations so influential to Milton and Hayek. The difficulty with their theory is that it takes no account of the reality of humanity, and any concept of the totality of human rights.

 

The market place is there to serve the interests of humanity not the other way round. Human beings have devised nations and their constitutions to be able to guarantee their rights and freedoms. That guarantee is extended to each and every individual citizen under the rule of law and duty of care. That is paramount. Democracy is about ensuring that the theory is applied equally to each and every human being. It is also about sharing the cost of maintaining the structures and institutions that provide for the health and safety of all. There is no guarantee the enterprise will be successful; however, that being the case, what you can guarantee is the increased need for the services of an NHS, social services generally, housing and a planet to protect. For the next UK government to get all that together over the coming five years before another general election, is going to take more than whatever ‘reforms’ are being contemplated. Funding is required. We will have to pay.

 

MORE SHAKESPEARE

Thanks to Ernie I was taken to this video on YouTube with a performed version of Levin's piece. Enjoy.

DO YOU KNOW YOUR SHAKESPEARE ?

As one is still in Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare keeps popping up. Some years ago, journalist and writer Bernard Levin wrote a short paragraph on the notion of quoting Shakespeare. It is a corollary to Cole Porter’s Kiss me Kate and Brushing up Your Shakespeare:

So, in line with that, I post here Bernard Levin’s piece on Quoting Shakespeare:

 

"If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger; if your wish is father to the thought; if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise -why, be that as it may, the more fool you , for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut tut! For goodness' sake! What the dickens! But me no buts! - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare."

 

All the quotes come from the works of William Shakespeare. Some were coined by him and others just part and parcel of the English language in and around the time of Shakespeare, of which he made good use and popularised.

 

My question to you all is, can you identify the phrases and who spoke the line. To be fair, some phrases appear in more than one work. Also, there is one phrase that does not appear in any work by Shakespeare.

 

Whosoever can provide me with the most complete and correct list of the above phrases contained in Mr Levin’s paragraph, by the 2^nd August 2023, will win a bottle of Champagne. I will post all the answers on that date.

 

I should warn you that my decision on what is or is not a correct answer will be final. For the nonce adieu and more of this anon.

COMMENTS ON THE SUPREME COURT

There are two YouTube videos that I think are worth a view in relation  to the Supreme Court of the United States of America:

 

MANAGING THE NHS

I was listening this morning to an interview with Amanda Pritchard who is the Chief Executive of NHS England and has been since 1^st August 2021. She was asked for comment on a joint statement made by the three main health think tanks in the UK, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and The Health Foundation, which said that the health service suffered from “insufficient resources to do its job, fewer hospital beds than almost all similar countries, outdated equipment, dilapidated buildings and failing IT”.

Amanda Pritchard

She did not make any comment on the matter. She did not even address the question and began with an upbeat message about the 75^th anniversary of the NHS and what a great thing it is. She also started her comments with the word “look”, as if to give the appearance or semblance of an answer to the question, being all chummy and down to earth, but is in fact a classic bit of condescension moving away from the question as if to suggest ‘that doesn’t matter, this is what matters’. She behaved like a politician, all the while suggesting “I’m not a politician, wages and funding is down to the politicians, I’m only the Chief Executive”. When it was suggested that she could put pressure on the politicians to resolve some of the issues causing the current difficult and possibly damaging industrial action, she again shied away from an answer. 

 

In the event she came across as ms pollyanna, speaking joyfully of planning for more trained staff in the future and generally looking forward. It sounded all very positive but was, in my view, merely a classic ministerial projection of neverland. She made no mention of the outdated equipment and dilapidated buildings and other basics which make it impossible for the staff to do their job. I do wonder just what the new trainees do, if they don’t have the facilities to actually perform the tasks they have been trained to do?

 

Look, she was, I’m sorry to say, all management speak. What can you expect from someone with a degree in modern history who served as a librarian of the Oxford Union, and, I’m guessing, after graduation, joined the NHS Management Training Scheme in 1997? Indeed, she has worked for the NHS her entire career. She has been in the system for over 25 years. So, you would have thought she would have developed some solidarity with the medical staff; however, that is clearly not the case. She is management and they are the workers. Her career path has been in support of management and hence in support of government (be it Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid etc..) as opposed to the staff. Consequently, she will not be critical of government and mildly extolling the staff towards compromise.

 

What she should be doing is taking up the report from the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation and battering the Minister and government to deal with the failing infrastructure. Hospitals need urgent repair and maintenance. Hospitals need functioning and up-to-date equipment. Hospitals need the latest technology. Hospitals need the best and most efficient IT. Hospitals need staff trained to deal with the latest and best kit available. To train staff in, and with, crap facilities and equipment is counterproductive as they will have to be trained all over again. What reduces waiting and mistakes is effective efficiency. What makes efficiency effective is knowledge and training with the right tools. With effective efficiency you get savings and with savings you get more productivity. To get productivity you need the best staff, and to get the best staff you need to pay them accordingly. Corporations have been going on about this for years (The BBC is an instance in point – they claim they must pay high wages to keep the best talent).

It is not a difficult formula. Ms Pritchard, with her management skills developed over the last 25 years, should be able to push for that goal. There may be difficulties along the way, but the promised objective is in sight, surely, it’s just a matter of going there. Once again there is a lesson from Lawrence of Arabia. Think of Acaba as the ultimate NHS: