WHAT SAY THE AUGURIES ?

Continuing my cogitations on voting and progressive informed government and a shift towards the right of the political spectrum, I am saddened by articles in the Economist journal and the latest polls with regard to the state of the parties in the United Kingdom.  

By the latter half of the eighteenth century numbers of people had flocked to the Americas. In 1775 there were nearly 2.5 million people living in the colonies at that time. Just under 2 million whites and just over half a million blacks, mostly slaves. In Britain there were some 8 million people. The First Continental Congress which took place between 5^th September and 26^th October 1774 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of the 56 delegates most were layers, judges. Quite a number were merchants and planters, mostly from the southern colonies, but the predominant members of the Continental Congress were lawyers, university educated and most held political office of some kind. Not all were without blemish and many were slave owners. Nonetheless they produced the Declaration of Independence at the Second Congress between the 10^th May 1775 and July the 4^th, 1776.  

 

From then on the Congress functioned as the provisional government of the United States of America through to March 1 1781 when Articles of Confederation came into force having been ratified by the 13 Colonies. Thereafter the Constitution of the United States was presented for ratification on the 28^th September 1787 and ratified by 9 of the 13 states by the 21^st June 1788. It became effective on the 4^th March 1789. The French Revolution kicked off two months later of the 5^th May, 1789. All that some 235 years ago.  

 

Before that however, the United States was already functioning as a government.  Indeed, during the drafting of the constitution at the Constitutional Convention, John Adams was in Britain serving as minister to Britain and Thomas Jefferson was serving as Minister to France. It took a while to put in together, and despite the various squabbles and compromises, these were educated men who had travelled, who were aware of the political situations in Europe, who had read the philosophies of John Locke, Montesquieu and Edward Coke, borrowed from Magna Carta, read Blackstone and a great many others. In short they knew their stuff and they ground out an extraordinary document in so far as they could to cover a number of eventualities

 

They did a pretty good job, in particular as to the maintenance of a free people’s government under the rule of law. They had supreme respect for the rights of the individual citizen –of the people, by the people, for the people:

We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

So what have we now?  People who have nowhere near the education and culture of the founding fathers led by the most divisive psychotic narcissist whose sole purpose appears to be to become dictator of America. His speeches have nothing whatever to do with tranquillity, promoting general welfare or securing the blessings of liberty, except his own ability to lie, to dissemble, to be free to crap all over the Constitution with impunity being supported by a party that sees its sole purpose but to cater to this madman. Not a single forward thinking piece of legislation is discussed. It is all about what is best for Mr Trump. They prostrate themselves to this gargantuan ego, this monster who walks among us rather than being caged as he should be. His entire rhetoric, if one can call it that, is devoted to complaint about how he is so hard done by, how the entire nation is being manipulated against him.  All the while he is succeeding in gaslighting sufficient number of the citizens to go along with his clinically childish and regressive behaviour. He speaks violence, not tranquillity. He speaks repression and vengeance, not union and general welfare. I repeat myself.

 

I don’t know how often or how loudly one has to repeat what he stands for to break through the skulls of his Maga supporters. Are they really so blind and thick. What has happened to decency in America?

 

The problems in the United Kingdom are slightly more complex. We have a Constitutional Monarchy. The Constitution is unwritten, but it is contained in the Common Law and the existing Statutory Legislation, as well as time honoured custom, going back some 1000 years. Much of what is contained in the written constitution of the United States comes from this Kingdom’s progression towards its constitutional monarchy. The individual freedoms that most British citizens claim as of right are just as much carved in their hearts and souls as any document or parchment. Yet there are some who would seek to cut them out, to remove them with surreptitious surgical legislation to stop and imprison any form of dissent.  The so called Reform Party is just a reiteration of the National Front. Are they really now one percentage point ahead of the Conservatives in the polls? 

 

Just as Trump lashes out at migrants at the start of just about any speech he makes, apart from his ‘woe is me’ element, so Nigel Farage lashes out at immigrants who are apparently overtaking the entire country and squeezing the treasury dry. That is his solution. It is why he supports Trump. It is why Ms Truss supports Trump.

 

Fortunately there is another party that is in front in the polls, now at apparently 37%, some 18 points ahead of Reform and the Conservatives, but a few points down on what they were at the start of this election campaign. There are three weeks left before the 4^th July I hope that lead will not disappear, but the trend is a worry.

 

I can only hope that a Labour victory on America’s Independence Day will be a sufficient boost and influence on America’s election on Guy Fawkes Day in the United States. The insurrectionist on that occasion failed to blow up Parliament. Let us hope the insurrectionist in chief will fail again just as he failed on the 6^th January four year ago. The auguries are there.

STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU VOTE FOR

There is a serious problem with the media and with the British public - and I include all elected representatives in this category - on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn. He is constantly being brought up as some kind of bogey man whenever a labour politician is challenged, on their current  policies, for having once supported Jeremy Corbyn.

 

When Jeremy Corbyn was being put forward as leader of the labour party the very fact of his candidacy brought about a huge influx of membership into the party. Great numbers of young people, who probably for the first time in their lives in choosing a political position to support, chose Labour because of the ideas and policies stated by Jeremy Corbyn. Is it any wonder that a number of senior Labour Party members and officials supported him as a result?

 

Nevertheless throughout his time in the spotlight he was seen as ‘unelectable’, ‘too far left’, ‘unrealistic’ ‘too radical’ ‘too old school leftist’ and any number of other things. So what was so bad that it attracted so many young people to his cause. He wanted economic and social equality for all, he wanted the Palestinian people to have a country of their own, he objected to the manner in which the Israeli Government dealt with the Palestinians, he wanted to get rid of Trident or at least stop keeping up the payments, he wanted to divert a lot of military spending towards the NHS and social care, he wanted to use Prime Ministers Questions to actually ask questions that were sent to him by his constituents and the general public rather than attempting to score debating points and clever repartee, he wanted protection for workers and tenants, he wanted to promote peace around the world.

 

So I ask what is so dreadful about any of these aspirations. If his campaigning for the Palestinian people had succeeded would we now have the appalling situation in Gaza? If his diverting funds spent on weapons of mass destruction to be spent on the NHS and providing social care, would we have the waiting lists and chaos we now have? Might we also by now have had more protection for tenants from eviction? Might we have a clearer path towards protecting the environment? There are any number of ‘far left’ and ‘unrealistic’ goals that might have been reached. We will never know.

 

He did not institute the disastrous Brexit Referendum. He did not openly lie to the British Public and to Parliament. He did not initiate a complete economic breakdown and spark a cost of living crisis across the country. There are any number of ‘realistic’ and ‘popular’ policies that he did not initiate. So why is this man, who has never held government power, or even been given a chance to do so, seen as such a bogeyman?

 

I hear journalists ask in so many words “Horror of horrors, you once supported Jeremy Corbyn, what have you to say for yourself?  How is it you keep changing your mind? How can the public trust you now that you no longer support him?” I hear conservative politicians bring up past support for Jeremy Corbyn as something to be ashamed of and a flaw in one’s character.

 

Again, who crashed the economy with wild hare-brained schemes, departure from the European Union, failure to provide adequate and safe housing, failure to maintain the NHS, continuing failure on social care, a significant diminution of the country’s influence in international affairs. One could go on and on. I do not understand why Labour leaders do not push back on ‘accusations’ of support for Jeremy Corbyn.  For goodness’s sake spin it back. Do not be ashamed of wanting a better world.

 

All political parties, particularly in this multicultural, differently educated, and multi-layered economic society, are a broad church. Each has equally centrist and extremists across its spectrum. Unless the Labour Party is pushed from the left we might never even get near any progressive legislation at all. It would just be a continuation of what we’ve already had from the Conservatives, and a lot of people thinks that is what we already have. Change? What change? Is it really a change of ideas or just a change of personnel.

 

I had started to do a piece about voting and elections generally across the world, but I was incensed on hearing Amol Rajan, on Today BBC4, bringing up the Jeremy Corbyn reference yet again. One just has to mention the name and there is a presumption that it has an actual derogatory meaning. Why should there be that presumption and why do people buy into it?

 

Here is what I started to contemplate yesterday: 

The average citizen in a democracy (and I include low-information voters in this category) does not spend their time constantly thinking about politics, nor do they meditate over the lives of their political representatives 24/7. In some democracies every such citizen however, does, at the appropriate time, think about how they will cast their vote, whether it be for a party or a specific individual, to be their representative in government.

 

In some countries, elections occur at fixed periods of time and some, even more precisely, on fixed dates. The lead up to elections that have no specific date is the time between the announcement of the election and the date itself. It is usually a short period of approximately six weeks to two months. The various parties and candidates will then campaign to solicit as many citizens as they can to vote for them. For a short period of time they will bombard the electorate with leaflets, adverts, displays, interviews, debates and any number of performances and attractions to garner the voter’s support. It is an intense undertaking.

 

That does not mean that the parties and representatives are not campaigning for support at other times, only less intently. Every interview or action taken by our representatives is always made with the prospect of further support down the line. The opportunity to gather voter popularity is never turned away, and whilst in office it is important to proclaim success in ‘delivering’ on promises achieved or yet to be fulfilled.   There is no moment when a representative does not have an eye on the next election. They want to serve their constituents, of course, but staying in office is key to being able to serve, and staying in power is equally attractive. So the performance goes on.

 

In countries with very fixed election dates, the campaigning aspect of political life is a bit more hardcore, and seems to be never ending. It intensifies from about 12 months before the actual election as candidates vie for party nominations and selections for the various offices on offer. The higher the office, the more intense and prolonged the campaign. Prospective candidates for high office, whether in or out of office, are constantly promoting themselves, gathering support and funding at every opportunity. They are constantly in the public eye. Indeed, unless they are seen and heard no one will know who they are. So the gathering of adherents is unceasing. It is ramped up to astronomic proportions during the six or so weeks before the actual election date, and even longer, perhaps two years, for lesser known political hopefuls.

 

Bearing this in mind, if the pundits on electorates and elections are correct, a majority have already made up their minds who and which political party they will support. That being the case, the campaigns must be directed at that small percentage that has not decided, and in the vain hope of changing some minds that have.  Whatever the problem, the propaganda and assault on the senses by political spin doctors is most certainly overwhelming and I know very few people who are not turned away from the plethora of exhibitions, revelations, disclosures and other manifestations of political agendas to make one’s life better, save the planet and bring peace to the world.  It becomes too much. 

 

The frustration of watching and listening to a debate between opposing candidates and being baffled by the failure of one’s favoured candidate to push back on the inanities of an opposing candidate is too much to bear. “Why doesn’t she say this…? “Why does he let that go…?” “What can she be thinking…?” etc. and so much else; so, tune out rather than in. You begin to wonder why you support them.

 

Hence, whilst not immersed in politics all of the time, there is a nagging and uncomfortable anxiety about what the future holds. Given the nature of democratic societies in any country with a reasonable population of very mixed and multicultural citizens it is quite natural to worry about the various things that hold the nation together and how to bring everyone on board to at least recognise and work for the essentials. Governments, whether national or local, cannot perform miracles. Democratic government cannot stop crime, prevent disease or discrimination.  It can only provide the tools to control criminal activity, places to provide care and cures for illnesses and promote well-being, help to create a climate for promoting equality and prevent all forms of discrimination within its own institutions.

 

The creation of rules and regulations does not stop individuals from breaking rules and regulations. The rule of law and duty of care exists only because people follow the rule of law and understand their own duty of care towards others.

 

The problem of how to maintain and create the best security, health and welfare of the nation is what concerns us all. Various groups have come together with a plan and philosophy on just how to go about that endeavour. They form political groups. Some put themselves forward as champions of that plan and philosophy. They try to convince others that theirs’s is the best plan. They offer themselves up to serve the general population and bring that plan to fruition.

 

In a democracy people argue over these plans constantly. They are only put into effect with the consent of the electorate. When it is clear that the plans are no longer working and are in fact detrimental to society at large it is time to change course. This will either be a complete change of plan or merely a change in direction. The electorate will ultimately decide, but that involves the politics boring into our lives, in all senses of the word.

 

The great tragedy for some of the current democracies is that the philosophies of the parties are so divided and far apart that there seems no room for compromise and there is an edge of darkness about them. Serious violent clash lies just below the surface. On the spectrum of political problem solving there is on the right a group that would narrow and control the democratic process so as to prevent any dissent from its point of view. They seek to restore order. They seek to enforce order. They seek to dictate and they have followers who would support them every step of the way on the assumption that they too would have dictatorial advantage. Some of them might, whereas many others, even amongst their own, would suffer.

 

It happens time and time again and is happening now across the world, in Russia, Hungary, Belarus, Myanmar and many other places. It could most assuredly happen in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom. Do not be tempted to believe ‘It can’t happen here’. The constitution and freedoms promoted by the colonists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, those European refugees from feudal lands, is just as fragile now as it was them. 

 

That is as far as I got before deing distracted by Jeremy Corbyn, so more of this anon.

MR STAN MINCHER

I heard Mr Stan Mincher being interviewed on the Today program this morning on Radio 4. He was born in 1926 and was 18 years old on the 6^th June 1944 when as a young Midshipman in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) he piloted a landing craft on to “Nan” beach which was a section of Juno Beach sector at Berniere-sur-Mer in Normandy France. It is well worth listening to. Go to BBC Sounds, Radio 4, Today Programme 6^th June 2024 and scroll in 2hr 14 min for the start of the interview. The time of the interview is 8:14 AM. Among other comments he said "What a waste of time war is....there aren't many right conditions for war"

A BIGGER PICTURE

Sorry to trouble you with constant and persistent mulling over of matters relating to Donald Trump, but I have just received an email from my American legal advisor Bob whose last email I posted on the 29^th April 2024 in which he made comment about the makeup of the Supreme Court. In this instance he comments on the recent trial in Manhattan. I feel it is worth a read.

 

Many have commented on the nature of the prosecution as being trivial in comparison to the other indictments Mr Trump faces. Indeed, some have commented that the defence may well be able to appeal against the convictions on the basis that, on the facts in evidence it is difficult to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Trump’s falsification of business records was intended and calculated to deceive. The case therefore should be dismissed as a matter of law. The members of the jury, however, were unanimous and clearly felt the evidence led to only one conclusion, that his actions intended to deceive. That is a fact any appellate court will have to contend with.

 

In any event, what was done to deceive the American people is no trivial matter. It is not a simple misdemeanour. It amounts to a serious criminal act which has led to serious harm and injury to Americans and continues to do so by its venal and vindictive divisive nature. That any political party or individual citizen can stand behind this man is beyond comprehension. To allow a convicted felon, who has lost his right to even vote, to stand for election, surpasses insanity. We are in the twilight zone.

 

I am generally against custodial sentences of any kind. They serve no purpose; however, there are instances where some individuals are so harmful and dangerous to others, that it is imperative that they be isolated to protect the public. Sad, but that is sometimes the case. As Bob so clearly concludes, there is a bigger picture. 

 

In Defence of Trump? 

During my legal career, I tried hundreds of matters, both jury and non-jury in California and a few in the federal courts. I spent six years as a prosecutor, and another few years on the superior court’s defence panel. I tried numerous other matters after that. 

 

The trial of DJT was no surprise to anyone with any trial experience as far as the elements that were reported on by the news media. The surprise was in how DJT forced his defence team into a corner and never called Allen Weisselberg in his defence.  

 

Weisselberg was “in the room” for the payment discussions between DJT and Michael Cohen. Clearly, Weisselberg was available only a few miles away as a prisoner serving time at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, about 12 miles from the court. The Court could have ordered him to court as a witness at the Defence’s request. Due to his NDL with Trump and the payment of several million dollars for his silence, he was not really available to the prosecution.  

 

Additionally, DJT could have elected to testify in his own defence that he had no knowledge of exactly what the payments to Cohen were for – although his signatures were on some of the checks paid to Cohen.

 

The main point of this case, which has been missed by most of the media, is that if the Stormy Daniels saga was released right after the “Access Hollywood” video was released, it most likely could have changed the Presidential election result. The whole point of the prosecution was that DJT withheld vital information about himself from the electorate just a few weeks before the election. The result of the subterfuge was a catastrophic 4 year presidency with top staff resigning every few months and a fumbled handling of the Covid pandemic leading to the unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States. 

 

Additionally, DJT has interfered with witnesses testifying in a number of Congressional hearings and trials. Everyone who has worked for him has been required to sign a “non-disclosure agreement”. His “go to” is to hide information about himself and then publicly tell untruths and half-truths that help make him look good. He’s told his followers not to listen to the “main stream” media but only listen to him. In furtherance of this tactic, he’s started “OAN” and “Truth Social” to funnel his lies and half-truths to his followers and low information voters. 

 

DJT, before, during, and after the trial, has repeatedly attacked the courts, the judge, and our judicial system to delegitimize US courts and the system of justice. 

 

So, in sentencing DJT, the Judge should certainly take into account the big picture of the significance of this case. Most who have violated these statutes in New York spend significant time in prison. If we are a rule of law country, then this case should be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENT

In my ramblings yesterday I mentioned an article in the Los Angeles Times, which I could not find at the time of writing. I mentioned “people on low level knowledge of politics”. I realise that my memory of the. article was not as accurate as I thought and that I imposed my own bias and prejudices on what I had read. I suppose we all do that in one way or another.

 

The actual article was written by David Lauter and was published in the 1^st June edition of the paper. It was titled “How Trump’s conviction will - and won’t – impact his 2024 chances”.

David Lauter writes the Saturday Los Angeles Times Politics newsletter from Washington, D.C. He began writing news in Washington in 1981 and has covered Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and six U.S. presidential campaigns. He served as Washington bureau chief from 2011-20. Lauter lived in Los Angeles from 1995 to 2011, where he was The Times’ deputy Foreign editor, deputy Metro editor and then assistant managing editor responsible for California coverage.

 

In the article he comments:

“Low-information voters matter a lot

Trump’s conviction probably won’t change very many minds among people who regularly watch MSNBC, Fox or CNN.

The sorts of voters who pay a lot of attention to politics and public affairs — the people who know who Michael Cohen is and how David Pecker figures into the hush money case — are overwhelmingly the types of people who have strongly partisan views. That’s why they pay attention.

They’re not the voters who decide close elections.

Those who do — the people who can swing back and forth between the parties — are mostly folks who tune out politics and public events in general.

Political strategists refer to them as low-information voters because they don’t have a great deal of knowledge of who the candidates are or what they stand for.  (my italics)

But many still vote — especially in presidential races. They’re the voters to watch in the weeks to come.

Don’t expect big shifts

The race between Trump and Biden was very close before Trump’s conviction. It’s almost surely going to be close afterward.

A lot of people — especially many liberal Democrats — consistently have had trouble wrapping their minds around that basic fact.

Ever since Trump first entered electoral politics almost nine years ago, some of his ardent opponents have believed that a single event — the “Access Hollywood” tape, the Mueller investigation, the chaotic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a criminal case — would disqualify Trump in the minds of most voters.

That hasn’t happened and almost certainly won’t now.

We live in a highly polarized political era in which partisans on both sides vote against the other party as much as — sometimes more than — they vote for the candidate on their own side. That’s doubly true with Trump, who inspires deep loyalty from his supporters and intense loathing from his foes.

The vast majority of voters in this election — well over 80% — made up their minds long ago.

It’s hard to know what could change their vote; this won’t.”

How sad is that conclusion. In my blog I referred to ‘low-information voters’ as ‘people with low level knowledge of politics’. Mr Lauter also stated ‘That doesn’t mean they’re unintelligent or ignorant. It means they’ve chosen to focus their attention on other aspects of life’. I remarked ‘I find, on reflection, that the author was attempting to excuse the stupidity of a large uneducated and ignorant section of American society without causing offence.’

 

The tone of Mr Lauter’s piece is matter of fact and even handed. Have I read too much into it? Am I wrong in my view and liberal bias? Is it a matter of education over blind ignorance? Is that what is polarizing America? The full article can be found at:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2024-06-01/hows-trumps-conviction-will-and-wont-impact-his-2024-chances-politics

 

I leave it with you to decide should you bother to read the full article.

 

What is clear, from everything I see and hear about the United States, is that the Nation is seriously divided. Is it on the brink of equally serious violence? Are those decision making undecided low-information voters so confused that they don’t know which way to turn and may not vote at all? Would their not turning out to vote favour Mr Biden or Mr Trump?

 

I would like to think that the majority of the probable 80%, who have already made up their minds, will favour Mr Biden over Mr Trump.  The Census Bureau has released new educational attainment data:

 

“In 2021, the highest level of education of the population age 25 and older in the United States was distributed as follows: 8.9% had less than a high school diploma or equivalent.

• 27.9% had high school graduate as their highest level of school completed. 
• 14.9% had completed some college but not a degree.
• 10.5% had an associate degree as their highest level of school completed.
• 23.5% had a bachelor’s degree as their highest degree.
• 14.4% had completed an advanced degree such as a master’s degree, professional degree or doctoral degree.”
  

 

This would indicate that 48.4% had some sort of academic degree and at least 14.9% had attended some form of higher educational institution. Of those perhaps some 1.7% will bring the figure to 50.1% which I’m hoping is in the anti-Trump category of American voters. Of course this speculation is just that, and has no real relevance, but it is a faint hope that my hope is warranted. 

 

Here in the UK, the electioneering is grinding on. The Home Secretary, James Cleverly comes up with inane nonsense. In an interview on the Today Program on BBC 4, he was asked, inter alia, why it was that in the 14 years of Conservative government, and repeated promises to bring down immigration levels, they have failed to do so. He responded by stating that the conservatives have made plans to do so and that labour has consistently voted against them. They have a plan and labour does not. 

 

Given that the Conservatives have had a big majority in Parliament, whether or not Labour has consistently voted against their plans matters not. The plans would presumably have been approved by Parliament given that majority. Clearly their plans have failed which has nothing to do with how Labour has voted.  Does he think the British electorate are low-information voters? He avoided answering any direct question and babbled on about ‘plans’ and ‘no plans’, revealing that the conservative party really has no plans either other than mouthing nonsense. 

 

The English expression “all mouth and no trousers” comes to mind. Loud and boastful is all that can be derived from this man and all his colleagues. 

 

The mouth and trousers man in chief is of course Nigel Farage who is once again taking the stage. He is apparently hoping to be elected as MP in the Clacton Constituency. The seat has been held by the conservative party since 2005. John Carswell served as MP from 2005 to 2017. He co-founded Vote Leave and currently serves as president and CEO of the Mississippi Centre for Public Policy. The seat has been held by conservative Giles Watling since 2017. Mr Carswell left the UK in 2021 and now lives in Jackson Mississippi, USA. No doubt a Trump supporter.

 

This is the seat that Mr Farage hopes to claim as his entry into Parliament. Given what the electors in Clacton have chosen as their representative in the past, he has made a reasonable choice. As a supporter of Mr Trump and his previously stated desire to head to the United States to help Mr Trump in his campaign for President, if he loses to Mr Watling on the 4^th of July, he may well join Mr Carswell in Mississippi. 

 

Mr Tony Mack had been the Reform UK parliamentary candidate until Mr Farage stepped up. Previously Reform UK stated:

Tony Mack

PPC Candidate Reform UK Clacton

Tony Mack Top Choice

Tony Mack is the best-choice PPC for Clacton Constituency. With a track record of leadership and dedication to the community, Tony is the best candidate to represent your voice in Parliament. Vote for Tony Mack for a brighter future for Clacton.

You can find his full biog at: https://reformukclacton.website/meet-tony-mack/  in which he states: 

"I have lived in Clacton for several years. I spent lots of time here, growing up with weekend caravans at Point Clear and Jaywick. Furthermore, I always dreamed of living by the sea in Clacton and was lucky enough to be able to buy a house here in semi-retirement. I grew up in East London, Bethnal Green. I was a black cab driver from my early twenties to my 40s. Then I went on to study and qualify as an integrative psychotherapist, and I set up practice several years ago. I am a father and a grandfather. The reason I am in politics is because I want my children and my grandchildren to grow up in a free, democratic, common-sense country like the U.K. used to be."

"The Reform UK candidate forced to make way for Nigel Farage has told supporters the decision “came as a surprise”. Tony Mack, who was campaigning to be the next MP for Clacton-on-Sea, said he was “disappointed” to no longer be running."

 

I assume that,  as an integrative psychotherapist, he will be able to process his disappointment. Whether Mr Farage’s decision to stand in Clacton is an attack of moral outrage, as suggested by Mr Bowater, is indeed problematic. No doubt Mr Mack would have something to say about that.

 

It should be noted that Mr Watling had a majority of 25,000 at the last election and that Mr Farage has a 1% chance of winning, which will be of some secret comfort to Mr Mack.

 

WHERE DOES ONE BEGIN ?

Where does one begin? The last couple of weeks have been as deplorable as ever.  The most appalling event being the continuing support for Donald Trump for a return of his presidency of the United States. What can the American citizens be thinking? His story at his trial was a non-denial denial, not even given under oath and mouthed to the press by his mindless supporters of republican party representatives. How these people ever got elected to the Senate or House of representatives is unbelievable.

 

Twelve ordinary citizens of New York City, chosen and approved by his lawyers and consequently by himself, chose not to believe his babbling denials and instead concentrated on the only evidence they had before them. That he was lying without giving evidence was glaringly obvious. To claim afterwards that he wanted to give evidence is so clearly a lie, that it beggars belief his supporters accept his nonsense. If he had really wanted to give evidence, he would have done so. Since when has he ever followed anyone’s ‘advice’? Is it any wonder he was found guilty?

 

Yet two days after his conviction he manages to fund raise over $35 million. Why does this avowed rich man need funding? He claims he is so rich he does not have to answer to anyone. So why are his simple down to earth MAGA base sending him their hard earned cash? What is so wrong with the citizenry of the United States of America? Have they all become stupid and unable to think?

 

I recently read an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times wherein the writer comments on people with low level knowledge of politics, who tend to shy away from political debate and rely on their general feelings about the state of the nation, or rather are more concerned with their own individual lives, trials and tribulations and feel a sense of neglect by the State. These are the disaffected who make up his Maga base and apparently they are legion in the US.

 

From what I can make out, they rally to what can only be decribed as a demagogue who prefaces his remarks to the nation by claiming foreign states are sending their convicted criminals and mental defectives to the United States. They are pouring in and taking over the country, he claims, from South America and Africa no less. The atrocity of these remarks is unquestionable and yet he is believed by sufficient numbers to place him in poll position to be elected President. Not one of the so called educated elected representative of the Republican Party in Congress has disputed this outrageous nonsense, or even attempted to downgrade its terrifying implications. What is wrong with these people?

 

As to the article in the Los Angeles Times (which unfortunately I have not been able to find again) I find, on reflection, that the author was attempting to excuse the stupidity of a large uneducated and ignorant section of American society without causing offence. He was also of the view that most people had already formed very firm views about how they will vote or who thy might support. There was however a sufficient number of undecided voters who would probably only make their decision on the day or not vote at all. Hence the serious problem facing us all.

 

What is even more extraordinary is the number of politicians who railed with real feeling and vehemence against the lies and distortions of a Donald Trump presidency before the 2016 election and who now give him unconditional support. One can find them easily on YouTube expressing their before and after views, which are cringemaking. How is it possible that Niki Haley, a one-time candidate vilified by Trump, can possibly claim she will vote for him in November? Have they not heard themselves speak before? Do they suffer from trans global amnesia?

 

In the meantime, the United Kingdom has chosen the American Independence Day celebrations of July the 4^th to elect its next Parliament. 650 individuals will put themselves forward for election on that day. The leader of the party with the most elected representatives will be appointed Prime Minister. He will choose a cabinet whose responsibility will be to manage how the state will provide for the security, physical, mental and economic health and education of 67 million odd citizens.   That means that each representative will be responsible for some 103,000 citizens in their constituency, with approximately 73,000 who are registered to vote in each constituency. It is an enormous duty and obligation to have the interests of so many in their hands. Likewise it is an equally serious responsibility on behalf of the citizen to vote for the person most likely to fulfil that obligation. It is therefore imperative that there should be no voter in the low level knowledge category as in the United States.

 

I cannot be certain that that is the case; however, so far as one can tell, there is a plurality of electors leaning towards the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. Whether that will remain the case over the next 5 weeks is the question. Do not forget that there are some candidates in this general election who would actually welcome Donald Trump as President of the United States. How insane is that? As I stated at the outset, where does one begin?

NATIONAL SERVICE

 We have been here before

CAN WE HANDLE THE TRUTH ?

In his current trial in New York, Donald Trump has clearly been convicted by various sections of the media, in particular MSNBC by various pundits. Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ari Melber and others.  There has been a plethora of ‘forensic’ examinations of the prosecution evidence. Tape recordings and paper exhibits explained in great detail. I do not know whether the members of the jury, whose decision is the only one that matters, have access to any of these broadcasts or publications, but if they have, it could be cause for concern.

Despite all this, from what I have been able to glean, the question is, does all this stuff add up nothing more than Mr Trump paying legal bills in the ordinary course of business, or can one infer from all the activity, a criminal conspiracy? It will all depend on whether the jury are prepared to give Mr Trump the benefit of the doubt. Will they believe him, or whatever witnesses his defence team may call, that he was just paying for legal services?

 

As to the members of the jury believing Mr Trump, sadly, the real test is whether or not they believe him when he so loudly proclaims he never had sex with Ms Daniels. The problem he faces is that if they think he has lied about that, they will be less willing to believe him about anything else.  That’s only human nature. A man who has bragged about his fame and ability to have any woman he wants, does not have the best credentials to persuade a New York Manhattan jury.

 

In addition, it is highly unlikely that Mr Trump will give evidence on oath and subject himself to cross examination. If he doesn’t, then the Jury will most certainly think “Why not?”. If he does (and I’m sure his lawyers are terrified he will) then a careful and extended cross examination will surely reveal his character. If he reacts to questions that he feels impugn him or are contrary to his thinking, he may resort to insult and verbal abuse as he does when questioned by the press he hates. His childish and neolithic bravura will come out. His psychotic narcissism will be exposed. The scene might not be quite as dramatic as Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Col. Nathan R. Jessep in A Few Good Men, but will be just as telling. The equivalent of shouting out “You’re God damned right I did!”

 

Indeed, given the verdict in the lawsuits brought against him by Ms E. Jean Carroll, despite his denials and his video defence, the unanimous jury clearly did not believe him. So, as far as the present members of the jury are concerned, there is precedent relating to his sexual conduct and denials.

 

In any event we will no doubt soon find out just who can handle the truth or not, as the case may be. He will either get away with it again, or finally be brought to book. If he does get away with it, we will all have to handle it.

LET RIGHT BE DONE

A correction must be made to the information about University of Chicago Law School. At the time of my visit in February of 1965, Chicago was the premier Law School in the United States. When I mentioned the list, I should have specified Stanford and Yale were tied for 1^st place, Chicago 3^rd followed by Duke and Harvard tied for 4^th place. Chicago, however, so far as I am aware, has, for a long time, been above Harvard in the rankings of Law Schools. It would appear that Harvard has had better press.

 

The ratings of Law Schools in the United States is a rather mixed bag. It would seem that two schools ranked number 1 for Trial Advocacy are Temple University (Beasley) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ranked 54 the overall) and Stetson University, Gulfport, Florida (ranked 98^th overall).

 

Speaking of standings and ranks, Todd Blanche is the lawyer defending Mr Trump in his current case in New York. Mr Blanche attended the Brooklyn Law School in New York which is ranked at number 114 of best law schools and at number 52 in trial advocacy. It is curious that Mr Trump is seeking a second term in the White House which is Maison Blanche. Let us hope the only invitation he gets to Maison Blanche is Todd’s apartment for supper. Todd, by the way, would appear not to be doing too well with the judge. Ho Hum.

 

Trump’s asides to camera as he goes in and out of court show an extraordinary petulance that one would have thought people grew out of. His infantile outbursts and language reinforce the view that he has never quite grown up. Perhaps his narcissism and peevishness speak more of infantile behaviour and retarded development than psychosis?  He has limited vocabulary and his humour is of the playground. He has the sticks and stones persona or the schoolyard bully.

 

It is something that makes me ponder. I heard an interview this morning on Radio 4.s program Life Changing between Dr Sian Williams and Tier Blundell. The blurb reads:

 

Tier Blundell was never a bad kid, he was bright and curious but also disruptive. He grew up sandwiched between two cultures and felt excluded from society. Those feelings were amplified when aged 11 Tier was informed by his school that he wouldn’t be welcome back following the summer holidays and was instead sent to a Pupil Referral Unit. He left there with no qualifications and a sense of shame, until the day he puts on a suit, turns up for an unscheduled meeting and demands another go at education —

 

During his childhood he probably exhibited symptoms of ADHD and hyperactivity. He was mixed race and suffered racist abuse and wad generally regarded as a trouble maker. As a child he keenly felt a strong sense of injustice at his lot and the resultant frustration caused his outbursts of violence, theft and disruptive behaviour. After leaving the Referral Unit he had a variety of jobs, as a bouncer and also got into cage fighting.

 

When he was 24, after a difficult childhood he was without qualification he put on a suit and went to a college, with no appointment, and spoke to someone about getting back into education. He was accepted. From that time on he never looked back and set about learning how to learn and how to educate himself getting a degree from Warwick University and now being a DPhil student at Lincoln College, Oxford University.  

 

Hearing him talk about his early school years between 5 and11 and the referral unit till 15/16 it was clear that, like most children, his resentment resulted from feelings of isolation and being the boy to blame. A lot of stuff was put on him, that had nothing to do with him, but he was the bad boy. That feeling of injustice, of being hard done by, and the need for some retribution or revenge to compensate for his grievances was what led to the attitude and antisocial conduct. He may not have realised it at the time, but listening to him speak now, about his feelings at the time stuck a chord.

 

I believe from a very early age people have a strong sense of what should be right. It’s like learning a language. It’s part of how we speak. Growing up we navigate the world using that sense of what is just and how we relate with others. The simplicity of right and wrong is no accident. It is that sense of equity that has driven the establishment of the rule of law. I am a firm believer in that rule. How often have we heard a child left out of something call out “That’s not fair” and having to explain why some things might not be fair, or having to explain that they had already had their share and to give someone else a chance. Indeed the child might be operating on an untruth and need to be taught their mistake and how to accept it. That is what growing up is all about, learning what is true, what is right and what is wrong. Some people do not seem to adjust. which is why we have vendettas and wars.

 

Real injustice or behaviour perceived as injustice can cause deep resentment. When that sense injustice, real or imagined, manifest itself in violence. The victims of that action, so far as humanity is concerned, is entitled to defend him or herself, or react in such a way as to reflect an appropriate response or find some means of rectifying or compensating the hurt. Too often it leads to an acceleration of the violence. Rules therefore have been set up by individuals societies to enable them to interact in peace. The rights and equities between parties is set down. Call it the rule of law, human rights, or simply good manners, whatever, it is vitally important to keep the peace.  

 

I am sure this is something we have built into our brains and just as we learn language we learn what is right. If our learning is impaired through bad education or teaching, or we are educationally challenged, then there is no growth and no real understanding of equity and justice.

 

Mr Trump is just such a retard. His infantilism has been pandered to his whole life, leaving him ill-equipped to deal with anything that does not suit him and he expresses disdain and insult, like a child feeling it hasn’t got its own way. No one seems able to explain it to him like he’s a six year old, because he is a six year old unwilling to listen. He has not got beyond the mirror stage in life. All he sees is himself. End of. Those who adore and pander to him are indeed the same. They all play in the same sand box, only Trump is on top of the slide. They have no idea of what will happen when he comes crashing down on top of them. Unfortunately it might spill over on to the rest of us, and this is the man to whom a so called Supreme Court is contemplating giving total immunity.  What world are we lining in? As Joan Rivers often said “We have to talk. GROW UP !!’

 

A little something extra that perhaps the promoters of the Rwanda policy might ponder.  A bit racist in tone, but it fits the bill of,  Let Right be Done.

 

Fiat Justitia ruat caelum. Meaning “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”. The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences. It was cited in the case of Somerset -v- Stewart from 1772 98ER499. The judgement of the English Court of King’s Bench relating to the right of an enslaved person on English Soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale.

 

According to one reported version of the case, Lord Mansfield decided that:

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral of political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England, and therefore the black must be discharged.