TRUMP FAILS TO BRING ABOUT MOB RULE.

In an appalling act of anti-democratic bile, Donald Trump encouraged his 'supporters' to march on the Capitol, the heart of United States government, in Washington. Inevitably, it was not just his fanatical 'supporters' who marched but also hordes of others who join in with any attack on democratic institutions. The result was mayhem and 4 people killed.

In ancient Rome, it was well known that 'the mob' (not be confused with "The Mob") was a powerful force; whoever controlled 'the mob' controlled Rome. In more recent times 'the mob' has been deployed in various countries and by various claimants for power, dictators and the like, usually with bad outcomes. Lenin and Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany, Mao Tse-Tung in China, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and many more. While the outcome of Trump's attempts to rouse the mob pail into insignificance besides these masters of revolutionary action, they are nonetheless a shocking indictment of the man.

Whether or not there were any irregularities in a tiny proportion of the votes cast in November's Presidential election is not the point. From the outset, Trump whined on about fraud and having the election 'stolen' from him; he has never produced any evidence to support his claims and courts and legislators across the country have rejected his attempts to use legal process to further them. Having failed by legal means, Trump tried to coerce officials and when this also failed, he did what every would-be dictator throughout history has done and called upon 'the mob' to back him'.

Thankfully, Trump's mob proved to be rather less effective than some in the past and even the most senior members of his own Republican Party have now deserted him. Any plans he may have had for making a dramatic return in 2024, whether personally or through a family proxy, must now lie in tatters. The Republican Party will never go near him or his family again and attempting to gain office as an Independent, regardless of wealth, is virtually impossible. 

Far from being remembered as the man who 'drained the swamp', Trump will go down in US history as the worst President of all, a man whose ego and arrogance threatened the very fabric of the nation's democracy. For their own good, the Republicans must distance themselves very quickly and very far from Trump and his Presidency. They must look to find a candidate for 2024 who will reflect the values of American society while also respecting its democracy and traditions; otherwise it will be President Kamala Harris in 2024, by a landslide, and probably in 2028 too.

At the moment, the Republicans have been roundly rejected by the electorate, courtesy of Donald Trump, and it looks as though President Joe Biden will have a free hand to do almost anything he likes, at least for the next couple of years. The 'Grand Old Party' has only itself to blame for the mess it's now in; only it can revive its fortunes.

UNITED STATES OF EUROPE ALWAYS WAS A BAD IDEA.

Donald Trump is a rich man who bought the US Presidency. To that extent, he is now no different to many who've gone before him. In his behaviour as President he has been very different.

Whatever anyone may have thought of his policies and approach, and putting political views aside, Trump has devalued the Presidency and US democracy by his behaviour since the November 2020 election. Whatever the shortcomings of the US electoral system, it's their system and all parties sign up to it BEFORE it's put into action. Any President who believes that it's really flawed and needs to be fixed has the option of making the necessary changes to electoral law BEFORE any election is held. NOT AFTER.

However much Trump may be worth financially, his political sense is around zero. Politically he's an ingénue. Sadly, whatever good he may have potentially done during his time in office has been more than cancelled by his utter  political incompetence and failure to accept the result of the perfectly legal electoral process.

If President-elect Biden has any sense, he will act to ensure that such post-electoral nonsense cannot occur in the future. Of course, the federal system in effect in the United States of America may prevent him from doing this as his powers in such matters are limited.

How fortunate that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland no longer has to deal with the nightmare prospect of being part of a federal United States of Europe and a perpetual German Kaiser in a dress. 

TIME FOR TRUMP TO GO GRACEFULLY

 What does Donald Trump think he's achieving ?

4 years ago he effectively bought the Presidency of the United States, something that, in itself, is nothing unusual. Rich families, think the Kennedy and Bush clans for starters, have habitually attempted to buy power in that, and most other supposed democracies, but Trump is one of the few to have achieved his goal while not being a member of the political elite. In fact, Trump wasn't even a politician of any sort and yet he still convinced the Republican party to back him and enough states to vote for him.

However, in 2020, it seems that his charisma, money, or whatever else earned support in 2016, has deserted him and he's now joined the ranks of the 'one-term Presidents', except he doesn't see it that way. In Trump's mind, he actually won the Presidential election but has been denied his just victory by various nefarious manoeuvres on the part of his opponent, Joe Biden. He has challenged the results in several states but despite finding that even Republican legislators will not support his claims, he has continued to refuse to accept the overall result. The consequence is that the usual smooth handover of authority from one administration to the next is being imperilled. 

It's been suggested that Donald Trump or one of his children may run for the Presidency at the next opportunity in 2024. Surely they must realise that the present situation makes any such ambitions untenable. No democracy is perfect and voting systems can be subject to abuse but President Trump's continued refusal to accept the result of an election in one of the world's premier democracies is akin to that of some dictator in a third world nation. His behaviour has done nothing but bring him into ridicule and to make any further political ambitions either he or his family members may have subject to the closest scrutiny.

This has not been a close fought election, Joe Biden has won decisively. It's not a 'hanging chads' moment, it's a clear cut result. If Donald Trump is to salvage any semblance of respect from what has become a debacle, he needs to acknowledge this result very quickly; otherwise he will go down in history as the least democratic of all Presidents as well as being remembered much more for the manner of his exit than his entrance and achievements. 

BIDEN VICTORY OPENS WAY FOR REPUBLICANS IN 2024.

Well, the American population has voted but the question now is "What have they really voted for ?" Indeed, have they voted FOR anything at all or has this been more about voting against the outsider, Donald Trump ?

Despite the almost universal vilification, lampooning and virtual demonization of Donald Trump, many millions more cast their votes in his favour than did so 4 years ago. However, many more also cast their votes for his opponent, Joe Biden, than voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 and it seems that it will be Biden who is sworn in as President in January. 

It may be relevant that, although Trump was elected as the official candidate of the Republican Party and stood again in that capacity, the Party has been remarkably quiet throughout the campaign - basically, it doesn't like Trump who is not, and has never been, a member of the political elite. It may even be that the 'Grand Old Party' will be quite happy to see the back of a man whom they despise and perfectly willing to accept 4 years of a Democrat in the White House as the price they have to pay. After all, things will be very different come 2024.

Biden will be 78 in a few days time and surely will be a one-term President; no one can believe that he will consider remaining in office until the age of 86, or that voters would want him to. Consequently, the Democrats have almost certainly already selected their candidate for next time around - Biden's Vice-President Kamala Harris. 

Harris's political experience is limited to say the least; she has been District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General for California, neither post being truly representative, and has been a junior member of the Senate for only 4 years. Her selection as Biden's running mate also seems to owe more to her sex and ethnicity than political background. As the candidate in 2024, Harris is likely to be another highly divisive figure, with many Americans strongly opposed to her left of centre approach. 

In truth, the Republican Party must surely be preparing itself already to regain power with what it will see as a 'true' Republican in 2024. It knows its probable opponent and has 4 years to find and promote suitable high profile and high calibre candidates for the primaries of that year well in advance of any voting. 

 If it fails to discover a winner it will have only itself to blame.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE, POPULISM TO THE FORE.

The Swedish Prime Minister and, no doubt, other members of the Swedish liberal elite, are getting worried. After having things all their own way and running the country for decades, they're in danger of losing power. A party with an anti-immigration stance, Sweden Democrats, is expected to win a significant proportion of the votes in the imminent General Election and Prime Minister Stefan Lofven has been chucking mud. He's 'warned' voters about the dangers of what he sees as extremism and fascism, and said that a vote for the Sweden Democrats would be "dangerous" and "counterproductive".

This is, of course, not the first time that a ruling elite has reacted to the rise of a bit of competition in this way. In the UK, Ukip has been accused of being extremist, alarmist, racist and more while in France, Germany, Italy, Hungary and Austria right wing parties have been similarly maligned. In their desire to keep power at all costs, the establishments of these and other countries impugn any right wing group, referring to them as being extremist, 'far right', nationalist, racist, fascist, and even comparing them with Hitler's NAZIs.

That it is the 'soft left' which is attacking anyone who is vaguely right wing in this way might be expected, but  why is it that those on the right do not habitually refer to the left wing in similar terms ? Communist, Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, elitist, or simply 'far left' could be levelled as slurs against most supposedly liberal but actually left wing governments with as little relevance or truth as the words used to denigrate parties of the right. For some reason, politics of the liberal-minded soft left is automatically 'good' while anything which is 'bad' is immediately labelled as being 'right wing', and anything that is 'right wing' is automatically 'bad'.

In the USA, whatever Barack Obama did was considered 'good' by the ruling elites, to such a degree that he was even awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace before he'd actually done anything. In contrast, Donald Trump has been vilified since before he was even elected and is now subjected to every possible slur, regardless of what he actually does. Trump is also accused of one of the new slurs, 'populism', which seems to be an invention of the left designed to apply to politicians who do what their electorates want, and yet is considered 'bad'. In other words, the liberal elite knows what is best for us and must be allowed to carry on doing it, regardless of what we, the people, actually want.

In the UK, something similar has happened with Brexit. The liberal establishment is desperate to keep us in, or at the very least closely tied to, the European Union, regardless of the result of the referendum. Their arguments include claiming that the people were misled by the right wing 'Brexiteers', that we did not understand what we were voting for or that we'd vote differently now. Worse still, supposed right wingers such as many members of the Conservative government have shown themselves to be, in reality, members of the soft left, liberal elite in disguise, as they have done their best to undermine Brexit in pursuit of continued membership of the strongly socialist and centralizing European Union.

We should start calling spades 'spades' and we should stop accepting that 'mother knows best'. The EU is an abomination and wanting to leave it is not 'populist', although the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell most certainly are. Wanting to control the extent of immigration is neither nationalist, racist nor populist, it is common sense. Donald Trump may be erratic and rather unusual as President of the US, but he's not the lunatic that the left wing portray him as; his policies are only portrayed as being 'populist' by those who don't like them. The condescending arrogance of others, such as Christine Lagarde, Mark Carney, Messrs Juncker and Barnier, and others, should be clearly stated; these all have the same dislike for the 'populist' views of the people they claim to act for.

Here's hoping that the Sweden Democrats really do cause a few waves, and that the 'populist' backlash which has been building momentum over the last few years in many parts of the world continues to build.

SIGNS OF SANITY OVER US GUNS ?

Good Lord !

Are at least some of the people of the United States finally waking up to the lunacy of allowing free access to fire arms to pretty well anyone who asks for one ?

While the National Rifle Association continues to prattle on about "rights" under the Constitution, and conflates any form of gun control with an attack on the "rights" of the people, a movement has started which has prompted several very well known companies to announce that they have stopped their support of the organisation. The car rental companies, Hertz and Enterprise, software firm Symantec and a number of others have decided that they'd rather fall in behind calls to limit the availability of guns than see their profits fall.

Of course, this is early days and everything might settle down and return to 'normal' in a few weeks, 'normal' meaning that the regular shootings will continue. With President Trump seeming to be firmly on the side of more, rather than less, guns and suggesting that the solution to the perennial problem is to give guns to school and college teachers, it's perfectly possible that there will be a true massacre in the not too distant future. Nonetheless, it appears that some in the United States are showing signs of sanity at last.

Let's hope it's catching.

IS NUCLEAR WAR ON THE HORIZON ?

The posturing between the United States and North Korea seems to have reached a new pitch with yesterday's outburst from President Trump.

Following intelligence reports that the North Koreans may now have succeeded in developing a missile which can deliver a nuclear warhead, allied to suggestions that they may consider targeting US bases in the Pacific, President Trump stated that any further threats against the US would be met with "fire and fury".

While rhetoric is one thing and actual war something quite different, the brutal and tyrannical North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, and the frankly bonkers US President are probably the 2 most frightening people in the world at the moment. Neither will want to be seen to be weak and so neither will want to back off; both are bombastic and could easily reach a point of no return. Both have a finger on the nuclear button.

For decades, the threat of nuclear warfare has revolved around relations between the US and Russia, although several other countries with enmities have also achieved nuclear capability. China, India and Pakistan, Israel and others all have that capability and any of them might conceivably resort to its use under extreme provocation, however, North Korea is a very different 'kettle of fish'. Here, a dynastic megalomaniac rules the roost and normality doesn't apply, while Donald Trump is the most unpredictable US President ever.

Could we really be headed for war, even nuclear war ?

TRUMP'S CATASTROPHIC FIRST SIX MONTHS

Just 6 months into his Presidency, Donald Trump's administration seems to be in utter chaos. Public rows, leaks, back-biting, sackings, Twitter rants; is this any way to run a country ?

Trump seems to have few allies outside of a close circle of likeminded friends and his major policy pledges are already experiencing serious difficulties. The abolition of 'Obamacare' has been rejected and the proposed wall between the USA and Mexico has few supporters. Trump's budget, which must be in place by the end of September, faces a turbulent time on its passage through Congress. He, himself, is under severe pressure as stories of links with the Russian government continue to circulate.

Several of Trump's original team have already fallen by the wayside, the latest being his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus. Priebus was prominent as one of Trump's most ardent supporters but has clearly had enough of the quagmire now surrounding the President. The new Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci, seems to  believe that foul mouthed abuse is little more than 'colourful language', and has launched disgusting tirades against his own White House colleagues soon after taking up his post.

Donald Trump may have been a highly successful business man but politics is a different sort of business and he doesn't understand it. Shouting and throwing his weight around may work in a boardroom when he owns the company, but being President isn't the same as being Chief Executive. He has to learn to listen to others and to conciliate; he must understand how to cajole quietly and convince through argument. If he doesn't learn these skills very quickly, he has little chance of success and no chance of a second term, in fact, he will go down in history as America's worst ever one-term President.

TRUMP MUST BE MORE PRESIDENTIAL.

Although he may have some of the right ideas, President Donald Trump seems to be going about things in a very heavy handed and wrong way.

Not only has he created a storm with his attempt to ban migrants from various countries, he's also reported to have had somewhat acrimonious conversations with the leaders of at least 2 other countries, while he also has a rather unhealthy addiction to airing his views on the social media platform, 'Twitter'.

As the boss of a business, these ways of operating may be acceptable but running a business that you own and running a country are not the same thing. The President does not seem to understand this. His attempts to bully the courts into acceding to his wishes demonstrate a serious flaw in his reasoning and resorting to Twitter to voice his annoyance is simply not worthy of his office.

Trump may well have the good of his country in mind and at heart but he must learn that politics requires a different approach to that which he is currently applying. He needs to make alliances and form partnerships, neither of which does he appear to be doing; instead, he seems to be relying on rabble rousing, which will ultimately create nothing but chaos.

If President Trump is to achieve anything in office he will have to slow down and be more thoughtful. A slightly different and more considered approach may well succeed where bombast and bullying will not; in short, he must be more Presidential.

HEAVY HANDED TRUMP HAS THE RIGHT IDEA.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump promised to take steps to protect his country from terrorists. Now, as President Trump, he is trying to fulfil that promise by introducing measures to control immigration; specifically, he is targeting migrants from countries which have a history of producing terrorists.

Inevitably, there has been a huge backlash from the liberal left as well as the liberal right, those who see themselves as occupying the entirely mythical 'centre ground'. President Trump is being vilified from all directions and by most of the media. In the UK, the BBC has found it almost impossible to avoid being negative about Trump, almost every comment by every newsreader being couched in a way as to indicate disapproval; ITN has similarly failed in its duty of impartiality.

President Trump's actions may have been a little heavy handed but can anyone deny that there is a serious need for much stricter border controls, not only in the US but in most other countries too ? For far too long western nations have accepted vast hordes of immigrants whose economic and cultural backgrounds are alien. These immigrants have been allowed to establish separate 'communities' in which extremists have been able to flourish and in which terrorism has been encouraged.

The vast majority of terrorism around the world now is from Islamic extremists, people who apparently want to see a world-wide Muslim Caliphate established; these people believe in abduction, rape, torture, murder and more. There are many instances of acts of terrorism being carried out by people who had previously shown no obvious signs of having been radicalised and yet we have done nothing to stem the flow of migrants, indeed, under pressure from the 'liberal elite', we have accepted more and more.

At long last, a major political figure has cried "Enough !", but has been met with almost universal condemnation. President Trump is no politician and has acted more out of a gut reaction than would other leaders, but is he really wrong ?

TRUMP - MAY : A PARALLEL FOR REAGAN - THATCHER ?

With the election of Donald trump as the next President of the United States, we have a most timely and unexpected parallel.

Back in 1979, Conservative Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and, a few months later, the voters of the United States elected the former film star, Republican Ronald Reagan, to be its next President. The following years saw the forging of a stronger-than-ever relationship between both the countries and their leaders, as well as huge changes in both economies.

Roll forward 37 years. A few months ago, Conservative Theresa May most unexpectedly became the second female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and, today, Republican Donald Trump, a businessman but also a television star and personality, has been elected as the next President of the United States. Can we now look forward to the type of UK-USA relationship that existed in the Thatcher-Reagan era ?

We already know that Trump is not as keen on the European Union as his predecessor or opponent, but has made encouraging noises about a future trading relationship with the UK, in stark contrast to others. Several European politicians have chosen to greet Trump's election with highly guarded and even hostile remarks, while Theresa May has been much more circumspect and done nothing other than congratulate him and say that she looks forward to meeting him. Good for her,

The London stock market has been mildly positive so far and this must be a good sign. What price a new and extra-special relationship between the UK and USA, coupled with the breakup of the European Union ? Add in the prospect of elections in France and Germany next year and  could we actually be in for a period of dramatic political and economic change ?