WHY ARE WE STILL WAITING ?

I have been listening to a Radio Four book of the week “Adam Smith: What he thought and why it matters” by Jesse Norman MP. He values Adam Smith a great deal, and is a firm believer in Smith’s philosophy, particularly as it pertains to economics. 

 

Mr. Norman has served as a Minister of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Paymaster General, Financial Secretary and Committee Chairman under Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. He is currently Minister of State for Decarbonization and Technology. Mr Norman was educated at Eton College and Merton College, Oxford, graduating with a Second in Classics. Norman pursued further studies at University College London, where he was appointed an Honorary Research Fellow in philosophy, taking an MPhil (Master of Philosophy) in 1999 and a PhD in 2003. His doctoral thesis was titled "Visual reasoning in Euclid’s geometry: an epistemology of diagrams". His book Adam Smith: What He Thought, and Why It Matters (2018), won the Parliamentary non-fiction book award in 2018., and was described as "superb" in the Financial Times.

He is married to Dame Catherine Elizabeth Bingham DBE HonFRS HonFREng. She is a managing partner at a venture capital firm, SV Health Investors. She has a first-class degree in Biochemistry (MA) from Christ Church, Oxford, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. In May 2020 Bingham was appointed Chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, without a recruitment process. Dame Kate's work on the UK's vaccination rollout programme has been praised by scientists and international media, particularly for securing 350 million doses of six vaccines and setting up infrastructure for clinical trials, manufacturing and distribution. Bingham has expressed views on how the UK covid vaccination programme could have been better run and on how UK potential in life sciences could be improved. In January 2017 Bingham received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the BioIndustry Association UK. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2021 Birthday Honours for "services to the procurement, manufacture and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines", Bingham was also admitted to the Freedom of the City of London in that year. She was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2023 and was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering later the same year.

 

There is no doubt a great deal of academic and personal accomplishment by Mr & Mrs Norman; however, the distinction between a first-class degree and a second is clearly noted. There can also be no doubt as to who the big earner is in the family and that venture capital and capitalism in general has provided a great deal to the Norman family; hence Jesse Norman’s attraction to Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” published in March of 1776, during the Scottish Enlightenment and the Scottish Agricultural Revolution.

 

There was also a colonial revolution going on in America which had begun in 1765, erupted into conflict in 1775, continuing till 1783. Four months after the publication of the Wealth of Nations, the Declaration of Independence (principally written by Thomas Jefferson) was adopted and published in July of 1776. Seven years earlier in 1759 Smith had published The Theory of Moral Sentiments which I have no doubt would have been read by and had some influence on Thomas Jefferson and some others involved in the American revolt.

 

It was a time of conflict throughout the world, much as it is now.  The last battle on Scottish or British soil was the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Smith would have been 23 years old. He published his Theory of Moral Sentiments at the age of 36, thirteen years after this bloodiest of conflicts and it must have still been very much a factor in his experience and thought as it must have taken some time to write. One has to admire his optimism and assumption that his imagined ‘concerned person’ was a reality that could be achieved. 

 

There is no doubt that were all individuals to behave in the manner of Smith’s concerned person, with full faculties of imagination and sympathy, the world would be a better place. Indeed if every capitalist, merchant or politician behaved in this exemplary manner, then the process of levelling up and spreading of the wealth throughout the world would have been achieved long ago.

 

I do not pretend to have read Smith’s works in any great depth, but essentially his view is that we all operate out of self-interest, but a self-interest tempered by sympathy.  Smith was highly concerned about the problems of poverty. He writes:

...poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children [...] It is not uncommon [...] in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive [...] In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station.

 

He should have said poverty is extremely unfavourable to everyone in all circumstances.  Between the exercise of self-interest and the exigencies of sympathy for others, there is a Grand Canyon for most people and in particular the very wealthy. The concept that mutual self-interest will result in some sort of wealth distribution is clearly unwarranted. Smith was clearly aware of this as he was extremely critical of what is now called ‘special interest’ (bankers, corporations, oligopolies, guilds etc.). He writes:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

 

I do not understand how, a conservative party, with as firm a belief in laissez-faire capitalism as an eventual cure for all ills, can possibly believe that higher taxation of the rich stifles enterprise. They claim that by allowing them to thrive and increase their profits, they will in effect pay more taxes in the long run. They also claim that by allowing generous tax exemptions for spending profits on expansion to increase profits, they will again be paying more into the treasury. Yet somehow, that does not happen, and governments are reduced to imposing so-called windfall taxes. It doesn’t happen because corporations and ‘special interests’ do everything they can to disguise their profits and avoid paying taxes altogether, until they are found out and exposed for having “unexpected” or even “unearned’ profits.  

 

The conservative party sees this extreme example of self-interest in operation daily, and they still cling to the notion that lower taxation helps big enterprise, which in turn will help the general public. If that is the case why is the National Health Service struggling for funds to replace outdated equipment, outdated buildings, pay all its staff better wages, and recruit more people to reduce the waiting time for treatment?

 

Smith’s publications occurred during times of crisis. His theories have been lauded but clearly impossible to put into practice. Some 160 years later during another time of crisis a certain William Beveridge was part of an inter-departmental committee created by a conservative leaning coalition government to produce a survey of Britain’s social insurance and allied services. The report was published in November of 1942, officially entitled Social Insurance and Allied Services (Cmd. 6404),

The Report offered three guiding principles to its recommendations:

1. Proposals for the future should not be limited by "sectional interests". A "revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching".
2. Social insurance is only one part of a "comprehensive policy of social progress". The five giants on the road to reconstruction were Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.
3. Policies of social security "must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual", with the state securing the service and contributions. The state "should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family".

Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor (the "poverty trap"). 

There were later attempt to implement some of the recommendations by the Labour Party who came to power in the 1945 general election, most notably the Family Allowances Act 1945, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries Acts 1946 and 1948, National Insurance Acts 1946 and 1949, National Health Services Act 1946, Pensions (Increase) Act 1947, Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949.

The notion of creating a democratic welfare state whilst keeping up with a market-led, capitalist economy is very much part of what most countries in the western hemisphere are about. Various governments along the line have leaned more towards welfare whilst others have bent the other way in letting the “market decide” and for individuals to fend for themselves. Today’s world unfortunately makes it extremely difficult for populations to fend entirely for themselves. The state has to intervene. Smith’s concerned person is no longer an individual, it is the state. Beveridge’s report should be more carefully examined and perhaps a new investigation should bring it up to date. What is necessary is not so much minimum wage legislation, but minimum income legislation. I see entrepreneurs and corporations lauded for their supposed creation of wealth and employment but I see no entrepreneurs or venture capitalists lauded for their elimination of poverty, which, for some reason, is seen as a by-product rather than the main goal.

It is not just about economic growth, it is about ensuring that every human being has the possibility of benefiting from very basic human rights and partaking in the world around them, free to learn, free to work, free from want and disease. That has been the goal for the last 10,000 years. Numerous individuals have come up with strategies and plans to that end, and, still, it would appear, not one of them has succeeded. Why is that?

GOING WITH THE FLOW

Fluid. Is it a liquid, is it something flowing or is it a matter of being adaptable? It is a word that is more appropriate to the thinking or our current political representatives than consistency or immutability. It is the antithesis of being steadfast to the party line.

 

Our current Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps is the epitome of the fluid politician. He has been Minister of State for Housing and Local Government (2yrs 3 months), Minister without portfolio  whilst Chairman of the Conservative party (2yrs 8 months), Minister of State for International Development (just over 6 months) Secretary of State for Transport (3yrs 2 months), Home Secretary (6 days), Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (4 months), Secretary of State for Energy security and Net Zero (7 months) and now secretary of State for Defence (24 days).  

 

He has moved about in the last 13 years like no one else. In the last year he had had four jobs as Secretary of State. He has served under Cameron, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. On many occasions he has been trotted out to defend absurd positions of the Conservative Party and he has managed to obfuscate his way through interview after interview with consummate ease to support whatever the current government wishes to justify. His fluidity and adaptability is without peer in the conservative party, which is why he is invariably put forward as the spokesperson, following clumsy and ridiculous pronouncements by the party leaders. He has come out time and again to put on a brave face, without any concomitant embarrassment one would normally associate with defending the indefensible.

 

During his latest interview he has boldly stated that one must be changeable in controlling public expenditure and keep in constant review any public undertaking instituted by the government. Fluidity is essential regardless of commitment to policy. He may not have stated that specifically, but that is in effect what he implied. There is much to be said for that view. Indeed one has seen it in operation within the leadership of the Labour Party as well as the Liberal Democrats.

 

It is never good policy to be so totally rigid as to not see the alternative available when obstacles crop up, as they invariably do with strict adherence to a position. The battering-ram politician is never capable of fluidity and the possibilities of alternative propositions. It is a matter of going with the flow. The likes of Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and others on the right of the party will never adjust.  They are constantly pushing and punching and assigning blame on others for the failure of their blows. The tragedy is that they sometimes succeed; however, with such density comes erosion, and the ravages of time will reduce them to rubble. One would hope that the next general election will do the necessary.

 

As to Grant Shapps he has always managed to flow with the go. He has 5 ‘O’ levels from Watford Grammar School for Boys and a Higher National Diploma from Manchester Polytechnic having completed a business and finance course. He started his working life as a photocopier sales rep, and from the age of 22, in 1990, he had a not too successful career in various business ventures. A short entry from Wikipedia state the following:

Shapps's use of the names Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox attracted media attention in 2012. He denied having used a pseudonym after entering parliament and, in 2014, threatened legal action against a constituent who had stated on Facebook that he had. In February 2015, he told LBC Radio: "I don't have a second job and have never had a second job while being an MP. End of story."

In March 2015, Shapps said he had made an error in his interview with LBC and was "mistaken over the dates" of his outside employment. He said he had "over-firmly denied" having a second job. David Cameron defended Shapps, saying he had made a mistake and it was time to "move on". In March 2015, Dean Archer, the constituent previously threatened with legal action by Shapps, threatened Shapps with legal action.

Please note the phrase “over-firmly denied”. Also note David Cameron’s use of “time to move on”, a phrase used by just about every conservative prime minister since the 2010 election, to cover embarrassing situations. As to over-firmly statements, they are the stock in trade of the politician used to adaptability and the non-denial denial. Sadly, Grant Shapps is not alone in this type of exchange, nor is his party the only party responsible for such rhetoric. It goes with the flow, and whether alone or not, Mr Shapps is extremely practiced in the art of fluidity.

Our current prime minister has spoken frequently of integrity, responsibility, and adherence to codes of conduct. He has clearly fallen short of that initial promise, but do not forget that everything is changeable, and adapting to circumstances, real or imagined, is the name of the game. If the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party seek to dislodge the current government and remove as many of their representatives as possible, they are going to have to adapt their strategies to get around the first-past-the-post obstacles in any number of constituencies. They will also have to provide real meaning for the electorate to gain their vote and show a genuine interest in actual public service as opposed to mere political positions.

A FEW CONCERNS AND OBSERVATIONS

To whom it may concern,

I’m not sure who is the whom I am addressing. I do not know whether or not they may actually be concerned with, or indeed interested in, the matters which I presume them to be concerned with.

Concern is a rather fluid word. Someone who is involved in a concern may be quite happy about the tasks and responsibilities associated with that enterprise. It may be an individual who is involved in the care of others or simply the attribute of a concerned person as envisaged by Adam Smith.   It may also relate to a person/s anxiety, apprehension and unease about their personal situation or the general state of the world around them. 

I could also be grossly mistaken and the whom is someone who is totally unconcerned with any of the above. In which case my opening remark is completely inappropriate. On the other hand it is difficult to imagine any individual who has no concerns or is not involved with anything or anyone. The simple matter of being alive is a concern, and the brain is never completely inactive, unless it has ceased to function entirely. In the absence of death we all have concerns of one kind or another.  So I presume to presume.

I was having breakfast and listening to More or Less on Radios 4.  The claim by Housing Minister Rachel Maclean that the government had built a record number of social rent homes was manifestly wrong, if not an outright lie. By carefully choosing her own definition of ‘social rent’ and massaging certain statistics, she could almost be correct. It was however an extremely misleading claim, if not a complete prevarication. In effect it was a lie, The presenter, Tim Harford demonstrated, with clinical examination and evidence from the Governments own statistical analysis of housing, just how misleading the minister was. He did the same for Liz Truss’s latest claims that her mini budget was correct, with clear analysis showing just how disastrous it was, and how flawed her thinking.

These are matter of concern, particularly when current conservative ministers continue to mislead and prop up disastrous government policy, retreating from critical environmental decisions, all the while claiming it to be in the economic interest of the public.  Having created the current cost of living crisis, they now claim to resolve it by stating that they are holding off implementing net zero commitments, and telling the public that by doing so they are saving the public from additional expenses on cars and boilers.   What kind of insanity is that?

Despite repeated claims that their actions are to support and benefit their poor constituents, it is painfully apparent that every turn by the current Prime Minister and his associates is a scrambled attempt at cajoling the electorate into re-electing a conservative majority. Their only program is to turn the polls around. They do not care what they do to preserve power. This is of concern. Government, it would seem is no longer about public service.

Additional note since yesterday: I have just listened to the Prime Minister being interviewed on the today program by Nick Robinson – The word disingenuous is all that can be applied to Rishi Sunak’s effort to claim he is thinking only of the economic pressures being put on the populace, that he is a new broom bringing about a change in political leadership and that he is initiating a new way forward for the British people. He defies anyone to put forward a better plan whilst claiming Britain has been leading the way forward in carbon emission reduction, and will still meet its net zero commitments. Having been party to creating the cost of living crisis, for which he accepts no responsibility, his current proposals are a connivance to persuade the electorate to turn back to the Conservatives. What is extraordinary is that there are still members within his party who defend his garbage and claim they actually believe in it. So what we get is a lack of frankness, candour, or sincerity. They are being falsely and hypocritically ingenuous; hence disingenuous, which must be of concern.

Mr Sunak had said in his speech, inter alia:

“The proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car. I’ve scrapped it,” he said.

“The proposal that we should force you to have seven different bins in your home. I’ve scrapped it.

“The proposal to make you change your diet – and harm British farmers - by taxing meat. Or to create new taxes to discourage flying or going on holiday. I’ve scrapped those too.”

Herewith sample exchange from interview:

Nick Robinson: “Hold on a second prime minister, you stand up with the authority or prime minister in Downing Street and you say you’re scrapping a series of proposals, and when I ask you about them yourself, you say ‘oh, somebody considered (them) and it was in the appendix of the document’.“There’s nothing to be scrapped, which is why your former environment (minister) says you’re pretending to halt frightening proposals that simply do not exist.”

Mr Sunak said: “I reject that entirely. These are all things that have been raised by very credible people.”

I would ask, raised by which people, where and when?  A complete nonsense. Pretending to deal with things that do not exist. What fantasy prime minister is this? This is straight out of the Trump book of political leadership. Repeat the fantasy. “These are things that have been raised by a lot of credible people, so many you wouldn’t believe, more than ever before”

Indeed, this is even more hideously demonstrated by what is going on in Russia, Hungary, Belarus and most assuredly in the United States and the outpouring of venom by Donald Trump and his supporters’ railings against the entire democratic process and rule of law. The avalanche of threats to judges, officers of the courts, law officers and potential witnesses since he has been indicted is of considerable concern. So much so that the prosecutor has petitioned the court to hold Mr Trump accountable and make him cease his harmful rhetoric.  His MAGA base has been referred to as a dangerous cesspool. He is more than prepared to stoke violence in this pool. The shit hitting the fan has never been more relevant.

On a different note, regardless of political concerns, there are other matters of import to the populace. The Rugby World Cup is in full swing. Twenty nations are represented in 5 different pools. France, Ireland, South Africa, Wales and England are all 2 for 2 at present. This is of concern to a great number of rugby fans across the globe.  The NFL season in the United States has begun. Attempts to spread the popularity of the game will involves 5 games being played in Europe. Two in Frankfurt, Germany and three in London. The Jacksonville Jaguars will be involved in two of the games in London, one of which will be at Wembley Stadium and the other at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which will also host the Tennessee Titans against the Baltimore Ravens in week 6.

We all have a variety of concerns, to wit family, friends, jobs, daily activities, cooking, shopping, subsidence, home maintenance, teeth, remembering to take the pills, what to drink, staying reasonably healthy, and the list goes on. This is that last day of my four score years and I move on to the next decade wondering if I’ll make it to 2032, by which time Mr Sunak’s deferments on scrapping petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers may have come into effect. It would be nice to find out. Tee hee.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED

There is a YouTube video from 2016 (prior to the 2016 presidential and general election in the United States) in which, the writer, Tony Schwartz describes his views on Donald Trump to the Oxford Union. He predicts exactly what Trump would do in the event of losing an election and many other characteristics of Donald Trump. It is worth another look and should spurn every possible American voter to make every effort to vote against Donald Trump should he be nominated as a presidential candidate. Nothing has changed about Trump exept he has become even more dangerous.

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.