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.

RIP CHARLIE GARD

The disgraceful circus that surrounded the last months of Charlie Gard's life is now over. We can only be thankful.

This poor, sick child never had any chance of survival and the public battle between his parents and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie spent most of his short life, was one of the most unedifying events of the last few years. One can only wonder about the motives of his parents and those who paid their legal costs.

No parent expects their children to predecease them and seeing a child fall ill and die is heart breaking, but there also has to be a degree of sense and understanding when such events occur. A point comes at which there has to be acceptance of the inevitable in the best interests of the child; while Charlie's parents did finally accept that he was going to die, even then they still carried on an argument about where that would happen. It almost seemed that the legal fight was more important than anything else, including their child's suffering. They continually stressed what they wanted rather than concentrating on what was best for their son and, in that, they were horribly selfish and wrong.

Now that Charlie has died, one might expect that we will hear no more. Sadly, I suspect that there will now be syndication of 'his story' and 'his parents' story'; will there also be the book, the film, the stage play ? I doubt that we've heard the last of poor little Charlie Gard.

HOW DEMOCRATIC IS OUR DEMOCRACY ?

Tony Blair tells us that we, the people, got it wrong over Brexit; he wants us to understand that he's much more intelligent than we are and that he knows what's best for us.

Richard Dawkins, on BBC radio today, complained about people making decisions based on 'gut feeling' rather than on known facts. The discussion also included reference to Brexit regarding which Dawkins reckoned that too many on both sides of the argument had probably cast their votes on the basis of 'gut feeling' rather than facts about what Brexit would mean. However, he also made it clear that he considered the outcome of the vote to be disastrous for the country, as was the outcome of the US Presidential election.

Both Blair and Dawkins, as well as many others among the elite, firmly believe that they know better than the bulk of the population. They consider themselves blessed with knowledge and insight that the rest of us lack; basically, we rely on 'gut feeling' to make decisions and are too stupid to understand what's going on or to make 'the right' judgements about important matters.

What Blair, Dawkins and the rest are really saying is that they don't like democracy because it can produce the 'wrong' answers. By asking the mass of the population what they want, it risks upsetting the status quo from which those at the top of the pile benefit hugely. What the elite wants is a vast flock of sheep who will simply keep quiet and do as they're told; what they don't want is for the population to ignore the advice of their self-appointed 'betters' and take a contrary approach. This is one reason why they only hold referendums when they are both confident of the outcome and the anticipated outcome  is something that they want anyway. The Brexit referendum was a huge miscalculation that will probably ensure it's the only one of its kind ever held. So much for the 'will of the people'.

Admittedly, when the Greeks invented democracy some 2,500 years ago, life was much simpler and politics more basic. Nonetheless, we either live in a democracy in which the will of the people prevails or we don't. Which is it ?

HOW LONG SHOULD WE LIVE ?

A so-called 'health expert' from University College London has been suggesting that 'austerity' might be affecting life expectations.

Sir Michael Marmot claims to be 'deeply concerned' about this, citing data which shows that the rate of increase in life expectancy is slowing. Marmot makes the point, correctly, that there's been a consistent increase in life expectancy over the last 100 years or so, but fails to understand why this has been.

For generations, life expectation hardly changed but huge changes in health care over the last 100 years, including the discovery of antibiotics and major advances in all manner of treatments and surgeries, have allowed people to live a full lifespan, rather than having it cut short at a young age due to illness or injury. This has meant that we are now much more susceptible to the natural decay of our bodies and their natural end. A consequence has been a rapid increase in the incidence of cancers  and dementia, essentially conditions of old age, while no treatment has yet extended any human life to beyond 120 years.

Marmot suggests that 'austerity' has denied funds to our health services and, therefore, denied life-prolonging treatments. He ignores the fact that simply prolonging life may not even be either desirable nor achievable beyond a certain point but instead makes vague suggestions intended to put pressure on the government to spend more to little purpose.

Until scientists discover a way to actually keep us all young, we all have a limited life expectancy. The Christian Bible set this at 'three score years and ten', or 70, which has remained a fair target for millennia. Today, we look at the possibility of reaching 80, 90 or even 100, but very often in poor health. Marmot complains that the rate of increase is 'levelling off', but is this not inevitable, even desirable ? Do we really want a world populated by centenarians ?

Life expectancy in the UK is lower than that in some other countries, largely due to differences in diet and lifestyle. We are a people addicted to unhealthy fast food and little physical activity and the consequence is that, on average, we have shorter lives than some others. So what ? Since when is living longer and longer lives of any use or purpose ?

Death is a necessity, otherwise populations stagnate. Interfering 'experts' with nothing sensible to say, like Marmot, should simply shut up.

FOOTBALL : AN OBSCENE GRAVY TRAIN.

With the football transfer season in full swing, it's clear that supposed 'austerity' has had no effect on the spending of British clubs, with fee and wage inflation at record levels.

Vast amounts of money pumped into a few clubs, in fact a very few, means that it is only these which are able to attract the biggest names. Greedy agents and players line up to negotiate with the likes of Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea in England, Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain, Bayern Munich in Germany and PSG in France. These heavyweights have access to so much money that, while they pick and choose, the rest are left to squabble about the dross.

When some players are transferred for sums approaching £100m and wages of £15m per year can be handed out, one has to ask where will it all end ? The big clubs no longer bother with recruiting youngsters from their local areas and attract little loyalty from their players; all that matters is the money. In England, only 3 clubs have a strong chance of winning the Premier League, while perhaps 3 or 4 more have a slim chance; barring a year like Leicester City enjoyed in 2015-16, a highly unlikely event, the rest have no chance of even finishing in the top 6. This effectively prevents them from gaining access to the lucrative world of European competitions as well as from the marketing opportunities available to the 'big clubs'.

Many ordinary people spend thousands of pounds, that they can ill afford, every year on football season tickets, travel, replica kits and assorted other memorabilia, enriching players and clubs while struggling to make ends meet at home. While some players are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds every week, most of those who contribute towards their wages can't even dream of such wealth; players can be paid as much in a single month as their fans are in a lifetime. It's wrong.

Football has become an obscene gravy train for a few very rich people. It will end, but how long will we have to wait for reality to kick in ?

ROGER FEDERER : SPORTING SUPERSTAR AND ROLE MODEL.

If there's ever been a greater sportsman, in every sense of the word, than Roger Federer I'd like to know who it was.

Federer's eighth Wimbledon single's title, won today against Marin Cilic, sets him apart from all other men who've played in the world's most famous tennis tournament. It also brought him his 19th Grand Slam title, extending his already record number, and came 16 years after his first success. Sadly, his opponent did not seem to be at his best but one can only beat what's in front of you and Federer succeeded where Cilic and his other main rivals, Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, did not. He did not lose a set throughout the tournament and his serve was broken only 4 times; he played as well as he did in his prime and who is to say that there aren't yet more titles to come ?

As always, Federer was a perfect gentleman on court and was magnanimous in victory. According to comments from one of the ball girls, he is the nicest, kindest and most polite of players, always saying please and thank you and never being sharp or difficult. He always appears to be calm and unworried, although it was clear that today's victory, when it came, was an emotional one; the Great Man shed a few tears of joy and relief behind his towel.

In the crowd, his wife and children cheered him on along with his parents, coaching team and an array of former Greats. One senses genuine love and huge affection for this sporting icon who seems able to combine a close family life with all of the demands of playing at the very highest level. When compared with the regular tantrums, griping and whining of many others, Federer stands out as the role model that should be followed.

Roger Federer, SIMPLY THE BEST !

NEXT DOCTOR WHO : A ONE-LEGGED DWARF ?

The media or at least, the BBC, seems to be on tenterhooks about the identity of the next actor to play the part of Doctor Who. Indeed, listening to BBC news coverage one would think that this is a major issue of international importance.

For me, there only ever has been one Doctor Who and that was the wonderful William Hartnell who created the character. Other early incarnations had their good points but none ever compared with Hartnell's slightly eccentric, 'mad professor' portrayal. Over the years, the BBC paid less attention to the character and more to attracting a particular audience, culminating with Sylvester McCoy who was the last Doctor of the original series; by McCoy's time in the role, the series had completely lost its way and it came as no surprise when it was ended in 1989..

Resurrecting the series in 2005, the BBC turned the Doctor into some sort of 'super hero', quite different from the original concept. Now he was portrayed by a succession of dashing young studs with an assortment of politically correct companions. The latest incarnation has seen Peter Capaldi, an actor of some note though not exactly top drawer, taking on the role but now he is set to breathe his last and is to be replaced; as has become customary the revelation of the name of the new Doctor has been turned into a media extravaganza.

There has been speculation that the chosen actor will be a woman, presumably as a sop to the 'equal rights' brigade though why such nonsense should be relevant is a mystery. It might just as well be a one-legged dwarf or a deaf, dumb and blind trapeze artist; it's simply ridiculous and it's nothing more than pandering to an ever more faddish audience and a hierarchy obsessed with 'political correctness'.

Doctor Who is an eccentric, slightly bumbling but very, very clever and very, very old alien. He, and I emphasise 'He', is not a trendy young thing nor is 'he' female. He is not disabled and he is not a super hero. David Jason would have been a good choice, possibly John Nettles, certainly Richard Briars. Michael Gambon, Deek Jacobi or Bill Nighy could all have brought their own styles to the role without betraying, the original as, no doubt, could many others but the BBC, in its determination to 'keep up with the times' chose to select a succession of very different characters.

Whoever is chosen to replace Capaldi is most unlikely to be any sort of successor to William Hartnell and his original portrayal of the Doctor. It is, in truth, a travesty to call the current series 'Doctor Who' as it bears neither similarity to nor comparison with the original. What a shame.