The Tribulations of a Prime minister in Labour.


I don’t wish to make any comments about the West sending their missiles of indignation to Syria but what I would like to pose is the rhetorical question of whether Theresa May is overriding the concepts of political democracy? She could have recalled parliament to debate the problem immediately the missiles had become a possibility; perhaps she had her own agenda to follow which would be in her favour and would justify her personal unilateral attitude towards the Syrian predicament that should have been dealt with six or seven years ago before the Russians decided to get involved. What Mrs May might have had in her mind was something that would further incubate her delicate position as the Prime minister? By taking the decision to join the “missile gang” of three when she did, it obviated having to negotiate with parliament and experience a negative vote a second time. Risky for her indeed! Taking Oscar Wilde’s perspective that to lose one election is a misfortune but to lose two is carelessness, Theresa May couldn’t risk being voted down by Parliament by delaying several days until the following Monday in order to obtain, or not obtain, a democratic vote of approval from parliament. No doubt the fear of this would have motivated her decision to preclude a second negative vote by jumping the democratic gun. As such, she didn’t experience the denigration of the mutinous Conservative MPs who would have voted against her and joined the Corbyn set. Together, their combined votes might have relegated her ambitions to the political long grass of amnesia. This would have spoilt her chances of renewing her popularity which is one thing she lacks; the reshuffling of the situation would also damage her chances to be re-elected as a wannabe “genuine” Prime minister. Another aspect that might have been relevant, is that May might have seen this as a way to keep in balance, both the European Brexit problems and the future commercial contracts (fantasies?) that she doesn’t actually have yet, and that is without solving the Irish problem of the border between North and Southern Ireland. There is also the emerging problem of the English fishing industry and the European continuance of their rights to fish in British waters. Even if Brexit eventually becomes a reality, it won’t help the relatively small English fishing fleet if the European factory boats are still allowed to trawl the British waters to the detriment of what was once a proud industry of the Fishing ports of England.
     Theresa May must be feeling inadequate with all the problems that were not actually part of the pro - Brexit claims as promulgated by the likes of Boris Johnson who manipulated, if not ignored, the true, post referendum facts. The Prime minister is desperately ingratiating the UK with possible connections and potential deals with significant countries and most prominent is the predilection for the USA and the tweets of President Trump as she throws out Brexit advantages with a political “Catherine wheel” delivery that many political thinkers consider to be distractions with which she hopes to influence and distract the public from her flawed ability as a leader and her personal failings. The Salisbury poisoning was a god sent distraction for May but might well result in a pyrrhic victory for the world of diplomacy. I am afraid that Theresa May is rearing the ugly head of self-importance if not the incipience of megalomaniac type decisions and attitudes. Her Syrian involvement echoes the Thatcher success that followed the Falkland’s victory which she used to win her next general election. I suspect a similar ambition was at the back of Theresa May’s mind when she appeared to deliberately obfuscate the political atmosphere that surrounds the Syrian disaster. Obfuscated perhaps, but convenient for Theresa May’s dissimulation which maybe is a desperate attempt to remain the unilateral leader of a somewhat doubtful British democracy; a democracy that is undergoing covert assaults in the climate of early 21st century politics which is increasingly suffering from flawed contemporary interpretations which have a peripheral significance of its own. The recent fiasco about the immigrants, from Jamaica and the Caribbean Islands, who came over at the invitation of the government so that they could help the British rebuild a war-ravaged UK, won’t necessarily help Theresa’s public image. It was she, as the Home Secretary, who changed the law and took away the right of the indigenous “Windrush” blacks, who had lived in England more than fifty years as British citizens, to remain in England. Desperately, like the political chameleon she is, she suddenly develops Mother Theresa qualities, determined to help them stay, and suddenly the steps of Number Ten are filled with Black people leaving the Prime minister’s residence with Mrs Theresa May hovering apologetically in the background where she exhibits her new role as obsequious sympathiser expressing regrets at the sudden plight of the erstwhile Caribbean residents. Genuine or spurious? It might be just too little too late to extend her residence at number ten but it has to be said that she has had more than her money’s worth.
 
                                  

One world, one justice, one parliament...but only one race of human beings

This week’s election debacle has effected many changes in the general public’s overall perspective of politics. Why is the UK and other countries suspended in the political environment of the early 20th Century?  The world is a planet inhabited by one race with varying degrees of development, race and colour. However, it is time that we look forward to the future as a combined civilised people fused by a homogenous political mentality as opposed to the prejudiced subjectivity of individual groups of bigoted people who see the answers through their restricted wisdom and often lack respect of the diverse qualities of different races and religions.

       In July 1998, after much debate, the International Criminal Court was born. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations (1997- 2006) described the event as “a giant step towards universal human rights.” Yes indeed, a step, but nine years later, at what point have we progressed to, or have the nations of the world taken retrograde steps and returned to past perspectives? The United Nations and the World Federalist Movement, purportedly fly the flag of global idealism, but today, in 2017, one has to ask, “do their banners have significance or are they simply fluttering in soft breezes which have exoteric interpretations for something that requires mature esotericism: Advanced statesmanship, which few political egos, in charge of our fragile world, are able to conform with.

     The United Nations is the only global forum that many national populaces are aware of although several nations have refused to pay their dues. Because of this, it has been fiscally delicate and approaching bankruptcy. In July 1998, the USA owed 2.4 billion dollars which wasn’t exactly an endorsement of the concept of world peace. Since then, things have improved although there is an ongoing dispute as to how much the USA remains in debt. President Clinton claimed that the American debt should be reduced because of the credit value of military activities provided to the UN. Unfortunately, when debts are so large, those who owe and are in dispute are practicably untouchable. Such arguments are permanently put on the long finger for future consideration. Private individuals can be taken to court for their debts but it isn’t the way forward for a nation where non-payment of dues cannot be resolved by sending the bailiffs round for collection of goods in lieu of the debt. I doubt that any cash strapped nation would agree to handing over a couple of fighter jets or god forbid, the President’s desk in the Oval office to a ruthless Bailiff.  

     Let us imagine the world uniting politically as one race and monitored by the specious concept of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité as the idealistic motto by which political idealism should comply with. Its concept expresses the same impossible paradox  promulgated by early communism in its nascent formation. It didn’t work with the French as they guillotined the heads of those who weren’t approved of by the takeover mob and it didn’t work after the Russian revolution or other 20th century political activities that spuriously claimed democratic idealism, and it certainly hasn’t been implemented by many nations, regardless of   numerous conferences, conventions, debates, congressional symposiums or whatever the UN and similar organisationsare giving tongue to from the safety of protected environments and secure offices.

     The Syrian disaster is the latest error of judgement and the lack of positive action taken by the United Nations in a world of modern technology is simply not  acceptable. Before the advent of the internet, it was easy to not acknowledge the reality of such disasters until they were often in their closing stages and as such it was conveniently too late to interfere. One such event was the United Nation’s passive  monitoring of the Balkans war massacres (1991- 1999) when thousands of men and boys were assassinated. For whatever reason the UN soldiers, actually present, ignored what was happening. Then there was the Rwanda massacre (800,000 in 100 days) ) of the monstrous genocide  of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Africa, basically ignored by the civilized west although they had the excuse ofthe Nelson’s eye dissimulation of only seeing the reality after the massacre had been completed. Seeing that it was Africa where UN officials were constantly present, I find it hard to believe that the United Nations were not properly aware of what was going on. A big problem is that no one wants to do or say anything that might induce the parties of a political dispute to declare war against the political do gooders.

      For what it is worth, the Syrian disaster has been known and monitored by the UN and the whole world since it began in 2011. After the spurious activity during the Iraq war, perpetrated by Blair and Bush, the west has had serious misgivings about repeating a similar mistake. Consequently, the Americans and the English ( the two main perpetrators ) have only condemned Syrian’s inhuman activities from the safe seats of Congress and Parliament, although it is beginning to looks as though Trump is making a valid attempt to improve the situation. During the latter part of the 20th century and the present century, Britain has been reluctant to vote differently from the USA although there have been some serious misgivings for both countries when one didn’t support the other

      Both the west and countries further afield have known numerous acts of inhuman blood spilling. The British troops and the unnecessary bloody Sunday in Londonderry; America’s Khartoum Tomahawk missile attack; China giving support to Pol Pot; India with Kashmir; the Shrilankan civil war  between the Sinhalese and the Tamils who massacred each other in the name of quasi-religious and national idealism.  There have also been numerous bellicose killing activities in the Middle East countries and many political philosophers share the opinion that most late 19th and early 20th century blood baths were fed and triggered by the rule of the European Colonial Powers. This is an interpretation that is difficult to disagree with. Not so long ago, between 1861 and 1865, the southern states of America fought against the northern States of America with a total of seven hundred thousand deaths which exceeds the combined total of American soldiers killed in the first and second world war!! No wonder the world is in such a mess and the concept of world government is, at present, science fiction. It takes centuries for individual nations to evolve and although things are more advance than they were a hundred years ago, there isstill a long arduous path along which every country must follow if world government and world peace is to be achieved as an efficacious reality dream. The tragedy is that although the people want it,  arrogant politicians contend that they  also want it, a claim that has the quality of mendacity that is a form ofblindness. Notwithstanding,  they take umbrage to the activities of opposing nations and stoke up the flames of nationalism before sending out armies to fight which basically expresses the political egotism of their leaders. And yet, it is so simple; everyone is a member of the human race living on a delicately balanced, over populated world that is giving out indications that we could be heading towards a final solution even though there isn’t  any need of the resultant global massacres. Lemmings commit suicide by jumping over a cliff but please, humans aren’t lemmings, even if some act like them.  

     So here we are in the sixth year of Syrian reality with Kim Jong-of North Korea threatening to take on Japan, America and China with missiles loaded with atomic warheads heading towards his paranoiacally recognised enemies with some very serious weapons of mass destruction. Possibly, he sees himself as a world leader of the “James Bond” adversary type but at least we know what to expect because he does have the weapons, unlike Sadam Hussein who didn’t. We also know that Syria has / had them regardless of the protestations of the Russians. Who can we believe ? I am reminded of the Dutch air-liner flying at 30, 000 feet and shot down by mystery soldiers, when the Russians were reclaiming sections of Crimea. Mendacity seems to be a favourite interpretation of the democratic truth. Thankfully, the president of Syria is a democratic believer; he must be because for several years he was an NHS doctor in a London hospital and presumably he took the Hippocratic oath! Recently, Afghanistan is back in the news with the Taliban monitoring everything they disapprove of with their 18thcentury mentality.  The Afghanistan death total of the allies reached 3,407.  The Americans had 2271 and the British 453. Considering they were helping to get the country back to the civilised democracy they never had, what a terrible waste of lives. With the Taliban overpowering the present government set up by the allies, they have banned female education, ordered how they must dress and imprison or flog the public for various banned activities such as listening to banned radio programs and watching films that are not on the Taliban approved list !  What a world we live in.  

      Sir Peter Ustinov, the president of the World Federalist Movement in the late nineteen nineties made the observation that “ World government is not only possible but inevitable, and when it comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love the national heritage so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the common good.” He meant well but a more  significant comment was summed up by the late Robin Cook who said, “Those who murder one person are more likely to be broughtto justice than those who plot genocide against millions.”      Albert Einstein said, “Man’s desire for peace can be realised only by the creation of a world government,” He also made the relevant comment “ that peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”  The great Anglo Irish writer, Oscar Wilde, who was destroyed by the wisdom of the 19th century British establishment stated,  “ A map of the world that does not contain Utopia is not even worth glancing at.” The terrible truth is that in 2017 the world is firmly established in a state of  twenty first centurydestructive dystopia with  no-one on the horizon capable of rectifying such deeply embedded faults of the human race; tragically, the world and its inhabitants must travel a long distance before we can expect any positive achievement; even more tragic is that it is going to be a very very long wait.                     

CopyrightDorian van Braam.  June 2017

 

0xbridge, the Passport to Politics and lucrative employments ?

I found it very interesting to hear that George Osborne had acquired a four days a month job as an advisor to a big investment company that has connections in Dublin. Blackrock Investments offer return from investments from 10% - 16%. Sounds dodgy. So does his salary of £650,000!  His MP’s salary ( £74,962 plus expenses) is dwarfed by his Blackrock salary, and today it was announced that he has been appointment as the editor of the Evening Standard; another pay cheque, unbelievable!  It was bad enough that he was appointed the Chancellor of the Exchequer with no background of economics. (Oxford, second class degree in History) but his recent two extra curriculum appointments are career advancements that can only be described as democratically immoral. In the polite format of Osborn’s Irish ancestors, it is “taking the Michael”.  Is this what he referred to in the past when, as the cash strapped Chancellor, he implied that we are all in the same boat and must pull together to improve the UK’s fiscal problems?  What right does a so called professional politician have to cash in on periphery activities that have nothing to do with politics but do have connections with the unattractive face and influence of capitalistic nepotism. Like his friend Cameron, Osborne is already a very rich person in his own family trust rights, but his recent activities with even more rich pickings and emoluments that have as no connection with politics except perhaps in the role of a covert political lobbyist who would receive lavish unspecified perks. Presumably, he was given the Blackrock appointment because, as the Chancellor of Exchequer, it was a natural assumption that he had a good knowledge and comprehensive understanding of economics? Well, like many, I have my doubts. A second class Oxford degree in history doesn’t exactly inculcate the basics essentials of economics. Osborne doesn’t even have the “must have” politician’s mediocre PPE degree. Politics, Philosophy and Economics; three esoteric subjects which implies that a degree in PPE indicates a smattering of knowledge of three subjects and an obligatory “subject skim” awareness, equivalent to reading the jacket cover of a novel so that one can hold ones own at a cocktail/ drinks party or dinner. Thankfully, the politicians and ministers have the safety factor of civil servants who have good degrees in the relevant esoteric subjects. Their advice is passed over to the politicians who promulgate the information as if the advice is theirs although the MP/Minister often knows virtually nothing about the subject of his ministry. Even the politician’s speeches are written for them. Without the civil servants help, minister’s advice and speeches would contain even more flaws than they normally have which would result in greater catastrophic political decisions. Perhaps, if they were capable of writing their own speeches it would improve matters although with the lack of many politician’s intellectual quality, that would be asking too much. Ministers swap jobs like school children swap gob stoppers although tragically, the minister’s metaphorical gob stopper lacks the efficacy of the child’s gobstopper even though he clearly shares some of the qualities of the children who negotiate the deals.  

     All government parties are made up of similar people, many of whom become politicians because of personal hubris, Oxbridge delusions of grandeur and a good dollop of personal egotism which is their main driving force. 

     I suppose some really good brains and intellectuals would be capable of changing ministries although contrary to general belief, it isn’t an essential requirement to have an Oxbridge education but an innate ability to multi task and adjust because of a natural ability. I refer to people who have a genuine quality of leadership, not the people whose ability comes from academic achievement and a successful third year education, without which they would be pushed to get a job in a retail shop. Take Michael Gove who changed from Minister of Education to Minister of Justice over night. In education he had some pretty spontaneous ideas which probably reflected his personal, somewhat unbalanced, perspective.  His appointment as Minister of War was risible considering he hadn’t even been in the army, the cadets force or even a boy scout. And yet, he was telling the Generals what decisions they had to take in relation to the three services and national and international wars!  There is no way an ordinary person can become capable in the way a newly appointed minister is expected to act. Unfortunately, Theresa May, (Oxford degree in Geography !) regardless of her important role as Prime Minister, is only an ordinary person whose position was established by the simple fact of her considerable ego being available when Cameron backed out of his responsibilities following his disappointment with the referendum. The quality of the several other applicants for No 10 / wannabe Prime Ministers was lacking and that includes the outspoken contestant, Michael Gove, who made his usual irritating and somewhat gaffe remarks during his attempt to become the Prime minster.

       Theresa May has selected several sub standard MPs to become ministers, some of which would be an enhancement of her own image. One is Liz Truss; clever but probably knows less about law than the average Taxi driver. Undoubtedly, she is an intelligent woman but with her academic background of yet another Oxford PPE, she would have insufficient depth of understanding legal procedures or the full canon of the British legal system. Her Oxford PPE degree is no base for being appointed as the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, even more so when one considers that she originally intended to study philosophy, an indication that she is a natural for shifting her interests at the drop of a hat. Internet descriptions don’t always explain everything if the minister described in its pages edits the facts and prefers a non disclosure dissimulation. Gove and Truss are just two doubtful MPs / Ministers and it is relevant to point out that when a new Prime Minister /President / or whatever, takes over the reins of government as the new No.10 incumbent, she /he will replace the preceding politicians with their own prejudiced selection regardless of their quality.  Even if there has been a revolution and all the leaders assassinated

( French & Russian), the deadand evicted ( Western Democracies) are immediately replaced by alternative leaders who might or might not be good leaders or not so good as their predecessors. Most replacement politicians would probably have remained politically anonymous if the revolution had not occurred. The significant fact is that most leaders obtain their position by stepping into the shoes of the evicted or buried and that includes our Prime Minister who is just an ordinary woman enjoying the sensation of flexing her feminist muscles and expressing her desire for power after being appointed by the process of serendipity. Already, she is showing the signs of autocracy which would be the early stages of a nascent dictatorship if the UK weren’t a genuine democracy.   

 

Copyright Dorian van Braam 19th March 2017.

The Problems of the West

Already, it’s many months since the referendum and perhaps now there are even more discussions and arguments dissecting and analysing the purported pros and cons, than pre referendum days.  We are told that the UK voted to leave but did they? Apparently the leave total was greater than the remain voters but what about those who didn’t vote which was approximately 30% of the people who are entitled to vote. Surely these people should be taken into account, after all, they will make up a large percentage of the generation that has to deal with the ultimate results, good or bad. With such a significant change of direction and the consequential emerging character of a nation state, those who participate should represent all those who have the right to vote. If that had been so, the result might have been different.  Perhaps it is time that the UK adopted the Australian election laws where it is illegal not to vote; if people don’t, they are fined. That way, there is a more genuine interpretation of the will of the people; obviously, putting a cross on voting cards is preferential to the payment of a fine.

     On the subject of Brexit, two days ago I heard a representative of the European Community argue that because the UK wanted to leave, its parliament didn’t have the right to alter club rules. Fair enough, but didn’t the original nascency of the European Community add new rules and treaties after the original document was signed in 1973?  When Westminster signed to join, they were signing away numerous rights that belonged the the English natives ( eg trawler fishing in Cornwall). The politicians accepted a way forward with little concept or understanding of things that were to come and the non political people were neither aware of the covert plans of the European community nor did they accept anything that reflected today’s function of the Euro government in Brussels. Possibly, the lack of quality leadership exhibited by people like Sir Douglas Hume, who was an important signee at the ceremony, strongly indicates why the UK joined the common Market without working out and changing what needed to be changed; where was the democratic government when Heath and Thatcher, motivated probably by their own desire to be go down in history, signed treaties, willy – nilly, without giving a genuine clarification to the general public  who simply didn’t understand what was at stake. It could be argued that joining the European Union was democratically flawed because the people thought (including numerous politicians) that they were simply signing up for a European Market place where goods could be sold, imported and exported without the pre 1973 border/ customs complications.  

      If Westminster cannot ask for changes to the structure as Brexit goes forward, then such matters should have been taken into account as part of the negotiating before final signatures validated UK’s European membership. Unfortunately, English politicians were suffering from the anti British attitude adopted by General de Gaul who had a personal agenda for excluding the English. It is muted that this was related to the WW2.        

      I respectively suggest that such flaws were the result of the mediocrities in charge who didn’t think laterally any more than Tony Blair did, when he spuriously condoned weapons of mass destruction as justification for the Iraq war against the wishes of hundreds of thousands of people who marched through London on a “no war” demonstration. Not only were the people of the UK protesting but also the Americans and millions all over the globe, all of whom expressed what they understood to be their democratic rights. Rights that were ignored by the two leading western democracies whose members were cajoled by their dictator style leaders to condone what can only be described as lies. Both the UK and the USA, (the two main bellicose participators) deliberately ignored the will of the people when they coerced the politicians into accepting the distortions of truth. Notwithstanding, Blair has come out of it well as a genuine socialist multi millionaire but not so the families of the soldiers who returned home in body bags and the men women and children of Iraq who have been murdered by the several super evil groups that took over from the comparatively mild evil regime of Sadam Hussein. Incredibly, Blair still maintains that he was right to make war and dismisses as unimportant, the accusation that he didn’t have a post war political structure worked out. Indeed, he is incredibly lucky that he conveniently converted to Roman Catholicism and was able to seek expiation in the confessional booth!

      International problems tend to shift with variable perspectives created by the personal subjectivity of eminent individuals as opposed to ones with wisdom and political intelligence. January / February 2017 London/ Houston, we have a problem; Theresa May appears to be becoming more authoritarian as the weeks go by. Thankfully, at the moment we could get rid of her should her ego develop megalomaniac proportions but one can never tell. Past democracies have often been shifted subtly by adopting legislations of prohibition. Theresa May has dug in at No 10 and has no intention of leaving which isn’t exactly a hundred percent democratic. She was neither elected by her peers nor the bulk of the voting members of the Conservative party. In my opinion she has changed from a woman who exuded an attractive deference to a cocky middle class person who has got the power bit between her teeth. Already, she has held Trump’s hand on the steps of the White House; gimmick or a necessary obsequious ploy to ingratiate with Trump with chameleon style negotiating. I suspect that her trip is partly like her red shoes; an aspect of her vanity that says “look at me, look at me!”  Good timing though; she got in first when the world was holding back condemning Trump and I am certain that Trump was effected by her friendliness. Outsider as Trump is, even outsiders need the empathy and sympathy of a friendly person who is prepared to hold the hand in the hour of need. The intention is there but I don’t think Theresa May has the empathetic negotiating skills or a natural charm that makes such tasks easier. Obviously, she is capable of using the charm of the oldest profession in the world but apart from the speciousness of such relationships, it often lacks the sincerity that is essential for a much desired global democracy and peace the world needs for the ultimate survival of the human race. On the recent Andrew Marr interview TM the PM, proved that she was no better than other dodgy politicians. Andrew Marr asked her whether she knew that an unarmed missile had been fired, a few miles from the American coast and had deviated from its set course and headed towards America. Imagine the possible consequences.  Ms May refused to answer the question four times! That is very frightening; was it because she knew that the truth would influence the debate and would justify the mega cost of constructing the latest, state of the art, atomic missile firing submarines? Right at the beginning of her No 10 status she was quoted as saying that if a rogue country should despatch an atomic missile towards the UK, she wouldn’t hesitate to retaliate with a UK atomic weapon. Such an attitude is tantamount to global annihilation of the world; as for money well spent, wouldn’t it be better to spend billions of tax payer’s money on systems that would warn England of an alien missile’s approach and destroy it before it arrived at the shores of England?

      May’s attitude was analogous to North Korean’s cloak & dagger style when they launch their missiles. It also reminds me of the Bush/Blair promulgation of the phantom weapons of mass destruction and the death of Professor Kelly who tried, unsuccessfully, to tell the truth. Was Theresa May’s’ reluctance to answer Marr’s question motivated by her intention of  spending  billions of tax payer’s money renewing the atomic missile launching submarines? She was prepared to use “political mendacity” to justify her obstinate refusal to answer Marr’s question with a disingenuous style that Kim Jon himself would have been envious of. Apparently, she has every confidence in the situation. Interesting to know just how she imagines that she has sufficient military / defence knowledge to correctly assess military solutions of atomic warfare when she wasn’t even the possessor of a leadership survival badge of the girl guides.   

 

      To enhance her self evaluation, Ms May is visiting Trump as the first international politician to make what could be described as a sycophantic visit. Apparently, she intended to tell him that he must stop his misogyny which, I imagine, he might have already decided and I wonder if she told him off for that misdemeanour. I doubt that anyone would be stupid enough to entertain females a la Clinton, in the Oval office!                                                        

      Theresa May should never have been able to take up residence in Downing Street and if it hadn’t have been for Cameron’s pusillanimous exit from politics, she would not have had the chance to live the politician’s dream: -  No 10 with all the perks!  However, there is an aspect of Theresa May that has already come to the fore as to whom or what she is and what she represents apropos her personal integrity and philosophy, if she genuinely has them. Her role model image if I may refer to her, is the Queen herself. Whether it is backtracking on Princess Diana’ behaviour or condoning her son’s very safe marriage to a very ordinary member of the public, agreeing to royal divorces, or even calling hounds dogs, to curry favour with the anti hunting people, she takes first prize for the chameleon factor.        

    And, shifting to our self proclaimed prime minister who has already proved her chameleon qualities; stay in the European market then fight to ratify Brexit ASAP; book a ticket on the first plane (private or public ?) for the USA to hob nob with the Trump with all that implies ( including holding hands) then take off immediately to Turkey to fraternise with a president whose reputation of dictating a democracy by imprisoning just about everyone who says a sentence against his regime ( including journalists). Nothing could be a louder “de Prufundis”  cry for a democratic election to elect a new president that represents the will of the people.

     With all the recent political shenanigans, I am reminded of the Duncan Smith’s Conference threat when he warned the faithful not to underestimate the words of the quiet man. I thought that his words were more appropriate as a joke than a political statement. Whatever it was, like so many policies of self appointed leaders, it was not efficacious and had no connection with true political leadership. In a matching “Theresa May style” it is significant to consider that she didn’t make her recent “Brexit” speech at the House of Commons, probably because at Westminster, and in the name of democracy, she would have been drowned out with howls of disapproval and derision. At Lancaster House, the audience listened politely and the howls of derision were left to the press for the next day’s editions and the editorial leader articles of disparagement. Was she avoiding the conservatives dissenting voice by not making the speech in the House of Commons and thereby establishing another notch on the political bedpost of Conservatism?      

       All these problems have a tenuously related connection with the newly elected  American president.  Donald Trump, notable demagogue seeking attention or potential Republican tyrant?  Whatever he is, Trump was voted in and has been inaugurated although there are still hundreds of thousands who continue to protest against his success and would have been happy to see him shot and replaced with Hilary Clinton. Feminist protestations continue globally with an international flavour; protests fill the streets of Washington and numerous international cities world wide. The democrats and other esoteric organisations have been supplying false information in an attempt to denigrate Trump’s persona, regardless of whether the spurious promulgation of such, so called, intelligence is fiction, non fiction or simply downright lies. The American Press continue to distort the truth. Using photos (pre inauguration?) to back up the claim that the crowds that gathered for the ceremony were smaller than those of Barak Abama which, even if it were true, is hardly significant.  Even the BBC has low keyed and dissimulated when presenting the facts and they must know that their transmissions engender anti -Trump propaganda which is clearly the intention.  Some sixty Democrats refused to attend the inauguration as a powerful protest and one famous black man attempted to disparage Trump with the claim that his right to be the president of the USA is illegal.  So many people are jumping on the anti Trump bandwagon and it must be pointed out that it is an example of Trump’s potential ability that he hasn’t lost his temper and freaked out in the way that the opposition would prefer. A few hours before the inauguration, James Naughtie, of the BBC, was interviewing people who had lost their jobs in Trump’s defunct Casinos in Atlanta. Not exactly relevant but obviously an implication that Trump is not for the people as much as he would like people to believe. So many BBC journalists, give their opinions and present the facts with a personal subjectivity. Many of the presenters are desperately seeking recognition as politically esoteric personalities or wannabe authors who, as artists, write books of fiction, or as academics, produce non fiction publications. It also confirms the partiality of the BBC which favours the comfy political establishment be it American or the UK and upholds the inveterate antagonism towards the Russians.

   Trump definitely has a wild quality with both his words and actions. He has just banned all Muslims from entering for a few months. The BBC program has said that this ban has been modified which implies success by the anti Trump people; but it could be a clarification by Trump as opposed to a modification? The streets are filled with protesters, but who are the thousands, nay millions who are thronging the streets? It could be the pro Hilary brigade who will be smarting for many months. As for the invitation to ban his invitation to visit the UK, one could say that there is an argument for this attitude like there was when the Chinese president visited the queen. Oh, of course yes, but that was different. The English wanted trade contracts with the Chinese in the same way that English politicians suddenly have a Nelson style blindness when it comes to selling arms to the super rich Arab states and similar countries. The world is run by many people who have under graduate student style idealisms when they enter parliament but which they soon abandon when they become involved with the reality of the role of the hustler seeking politicians who masquerade as honest and principled business men.    

       Personally, I make no claim about anything; like so many I don’t know what the truth is but I instinctively feel that much of it is a vindictive expression of jealousy. I also believe that such misogynistic attitudes are irrelevant to the present and future and belong to Trump’s bygone years. Needless to say, by continuingly attacking Trump with vicious denigrations, will only damage the image of America. Numerous organisations are trying to damage the newly appointed President; they want to destroy his confidence. As for the international protests, there are thousands of active feminists who are demonstrating against his presidency because of his apparent erstwhile attitude towards woman. I am sure that many men have or had similar attitudes of misogamy but their viewpoints have perspectives that relate to past decades. I agree with the women’s assertions if there is substance to their claims, but I have to wonder how such world wide mass protestations were organised, and indeed, who set them up with such precision timed context and continuity ready to be exhibited on the first day of Trump’s presidency. So many groups and organisations want to knock him off his newly acquired, but relatively secure perch. They were probably politically manipulated at a time when the superiority of women is making itself known in politically correct societies as they are slowly taking up the reins of government, academia, and the arts.  Perhaps Hilary’s ambitions have finally been delegated to her personal political twilight but notwithstanding, a female will soon become the President of the USA. In the meantime, good luck to Trump and may he triumph and seek good advice before voicing too many inadvisable decisions that will be detrimental to his presidency. I hope he proves that the old order of a senile establishment will be proved wrong and he doesn’t perform his duties in a way that his enemies are hoping, so that the possibility of destroying his reputation, is increased. Two important ones that come to mind is his erroneous attitude towards climate change and the prohibition of abortions which is an outrageous subjective opinion on a subject that doesn’t concern men but actually has significance for the future of the world and the over populated populations !

 

The American Punch & Judy show and Brexit, the Shadow of English Democracy.

Listening to all the opinions that have recently filled the much overloaded media in cyberspace, I was reminded of G.B Shaw’s intuitive perception in his play “Back to Methuselah”. Hidden in this gem of literature, is Shaw’s disparagement of the stupidity of politicians from the history of earliest man to a future in centuries yet to come. Several acts presaged the attitude of England’s so called democracy which was claimed as the reason for going ahead with the referendum which has already faded into a memory. Notwithstanding, the present tense aftermath, has already replaced it with a consequential significance that becomes more convoluted with the passing of every week. The general public are in a daze apropos both” for” and “against” factions and both factions carry a sense of betrayal. Sharing this confusion are the politicians who are bitching over numerous aspects of specious arguments given by Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the noble interpretations that emanate from the crowded House of Lords. Recently, more turmoil resulted from the High Court’s judgement as to whether it is legal for the government to activate section 50 without first ratifying the action with legislation. This newly created, bewildering argument and the considerable, political discombobulations expressed by the vulgar headliners of the press, only extended the confusion. The red tops, the Sun and the Mirror, the in-betweens, the Mail, the Express, and the intellectually upmarket, Guardian, Telegraph and Financial Times, together with the BBC, Radio 4’s Today program, all of whom compete for celebrities who want to promulgate a diverse conglomeration of disparate political perspectives.  I was very surprised that Theresa May (she of the red shoes of vanity) recently referred to the UK populace as the ordinary working classes. That’s an epithet that large numbers would object to. Ms May wants to help the ordinary people of which she implied that she was a club member. However, her annual salary of approximately £143,000 plus expenses and a considerable drinks/entertaining allowance would be the equivalent of approximately seven years of Ms May’s ordinary working class person’s wage. Already, there are chinks showing in her armour pertaining to the newly elected American president who has had a meeting with Nigel Farage. Theresa May has given the thumbs down to using him as an intermediary contact; this gives an indication of the beginning of prejudices that will develop as she gains confidence and feels at home in the No10 slot. I have doubts about Theresa’s ability to communicate and negotiate with an instinct and empathy that will get the necessary results and there are many who agree with me. 
       
      So, Trump isn’t approved of because of his hustings activities. Well, he did go over the top as indeed did Hillary Clinton, but it isn’t only the Americans who create political fantasies that are forgotten as soon as their efficacy achieves the desired result of winning election. The English certainly took a well established second place during the recent referendum although their political creativity is better disguised and more hypocritical than the Presidential elections of America. Both England and America are in a mess. The Referendum activities of England competed with the “all American conflict” Trump v Clinton, the present Punch & Judy performance of the United States show. Both the Referendum and the American pantomime created obsessional problems of a political nature which are a long way from a frictionless solution. However, there is one big difference between Trump and May. Whatever he is, Trump, has incredible confidence, probably sourced by his role as a billionaire which does help! He also has a powerful personality and apparently, a seductive charisma, also rooted in his multi billionaire status. As for the UK’s referendum aftermath,  I sense that Theresa May’s motivation is a subtle, if not inscrutable, vanity.       
    
     So where did English politics go wrong? Perhaps the referendum should never have happened. It was a gamble that Cameron took thinking that the public would vote to stay within the community. He didn’t have to have the referendum but one supposes that he wanted to be known as the man of honour who keeps his pre election promise even though few politicians bother to. He kept his word but sent the UK into utter confusion when the “stay ins” lost; then he showed his lack of fibre by not only resigning as the Prime minster but also giving up his constituency seat. So much for his passion for politics, which evaporated like a morning mist! I wonder if he ever had a real passion for politics other than the Eton/Oxford, politics of “de rigueur” ambition. Of course it is possible that he was obeying the dictates of a strong wife imposing her matriarchal suggestion of spending more time with the family. This excuse has been used by numerous failing politicians although Cameron gave no proper explanation as to why he simply gave up. I suppose he doesn’t have to worry with his considerable pension of £ 56,000 which, together with books lectures and numerous peripheral incidentals, will raise him far above the suffering of fiscal torture of capitalism and its association with the ruthless banks that initiated the 2008 recession; a recession that continues to hold the economy in a downward spiral of massive borrowing which is only partly saved by Theresa May’s “ordinary working class” people who pay their taxes and the middle classes who nobly saved for old age and have been rewarded with an insulting 0.05 % interest. If it doesn’t reward the saver, at least their savings are happily received into the coffers of the major banks before being lent out to companies and organisations that see eye to eye with the establishment. Even George Osborne put in his half penny legislation, purportedly for the benefit of the army of impoverished residents who lacked the finances to survive the rigours of survival debt. Both Cameron and Osborne mouthed trite clichés of doubtful authority about the wonderful things they had planned for the benefit of the poorest members of society. Meanwhile, the IMF supplied handy cheap loans for the government although the noble savers have to suffer the indignity of middle class poverty, wondering what happened to the 5% interest on their savings and where had the promised social assistance disappeared to? 
     Frankly, I have always had suspicions about the validity of the altruism of Cameron & Osborne both of whom have the comfort of being in line to inherit trusts of considerable fortunes. It was also convenient for them to exit the stage before embarrassing questions could be asked. As for Osborne, the erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have a pronounced scepticism about his knowing how to handle the financial problems that beset the nation, and frankly, I don’t think he is even aware of the difference of gambling at the tables and gambling with political economic pragmatism. One thing is certain; the answer does not lay in printing money or, as it is portrayed, “quantitative easing” which I consider to be a fiscal dissimulation which helps the wealthy, the major banks and big business.

Through a Glass Darkly

On June 23rd 2016, the UK went to the polling booths to take part in a referendum   mandated by the Conservative party. In or out of the Euro union, it was a pretty serious activity and the person in charge of the operation who actually made the “stay in “vote impossible, was none other than the Prime minster, David Cameron. Undoubtedly, he clearly misjudged the possible situation and the consequences of what can only be referred to as political hubris. He must have made the decision with the help of his Oxford Bullingdon drinking associate George Osborn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That’s the trouble with getting to the top with the assistance of Oxbridge nepotism, especially when the chips are down. Leadership requires the applicant to be a leader. Cameron has the nepotism factor but lacks the leadership and even having a clever ambitious wife pulling the strings in privacy, wont help with the more serious problems. Cameron had no doubts that he would achieve his Euro dream and must have been devastated when the “leave the union people” won the vote. Within twenty four hours all hell broke loose; plans were in situ for the Euro mafia to remove the UK from the European market making Heath and Thatcher turn in their graves as both had used the common market believing that their negotiations was a way to enter the history books as political giants. One can understand how they must have thought, but such covert megalomania that so many politicians suffer from, is dangerous for both national and international politics. One wonders what happened to the Euro market place which the British public believed they were voting for in 1975 as opposed to the bureaucratic behemoth that would slowly depose the national governments of some of its members. The British public were conned into signing up for their national political death and that included many naive politicians. Few people realised the advent of the slow insinuation of the United States of Europe until, forbidden misshapen carrots and bent bananas were an indicative precursor of the political emasculation that was being created. This covert insinuation greatly helped the “leave vote” achieve victory.

     The “stay in defeat” was partly caused by the Osborne/ Cameron shams which they spuriously promulgated, hoping that the people would believe their dissimulating lies and and fiscal fantasies. Well they didn’t; the public are not that stupid. Cameron with his chubby face might well believe what he was saying, even if they were based on self deceptions, but Osborne is clearly a gambler like his blood relative ancestor, John Aspinall, the Oxbridge trained gambler. Our chancellor reminds me of Richard Nixon’s attempt to become the president of the USA. Nixon lost out to Kennedy when a photograph appeared showing him with a four-day stubble with the significant text :-“would you buy a second hand car from this man?” Osborne might not have similar photos in circulation but I would neither buy a car nor rent a property from him.

The Victorians thought they could tell what a person was by a psychological fantasy called phrenology, a medical diagnosis that apparently indicated the personality and character of a person by feeling and interpreting the bumps on their craniums. Doubtful indeed! Phrenis is Greek for mind and continuing with creative etymology, we arrive at the Middle English word “expression” derived from the Latin word exprimere which means “press out”. Continuing with the Greek style of esoteric interpretation, I have created the word exprimology, meaning assessing a person’s character by the often nebulous obfuscation reflected on his or her face. Confused? Not when you examine the expression on Osborne’s face and know that Charles 1st gave the Osborne family their Baronet’s title for his successful role as Tax Collector extracting taxes from the indigenous Irish; a profession that continued even when he worked for Cromwell after Charles had been beheaded. Later, after Cromwell had left Ireland, the Osbornes stayed in Ireland until the uprising in 1921when they dropped their Anglo Irish status and fled to England. Perhaps, it’s in Osborne’s genes and DNA that makes me wonder, Chancellor or Chancer ? Perhaps both !

     Thankfully, thanks to his mendacious claims, prior to the referendum, he wont be taking over the leadership of the Conservatives although there have been indications that that was what he intended when he hid his Irish heritage from the voting public with a significant silence. Maybe his plans have a futuristic quality. He is still a relatively young man and taking the essence of Duncan Smith’s famous words, one must never underestimate a person’s silence.

   To revert back to the consequences of the result of the referendum, those in favour of staying in,  claim only future gloom  with very serious  repercussions dominating   the state of the nation, although nobody but nobody knows how things will eventually develop, least of all those who mouth flawed theories. (including some of the sanctimonious BBC and media/press pundits) It might have been better to stay with our European contemporaries but for now it would appear that we are stuck with the dictates of a democracy, an oxymoronic statement if I have ever heard one. On the other hand, it could be the political phoenix rising out of the ashes of a burning establishment. Only time will tell, but one thing is certain, good or bad, there will be massive changes and an intensive shake up of the governing educated working/middle classes, who have possibly met their hypothetical nemesis in waiting. These wannabes are desperately unhappy to see their egotistical political ambitions, as heir apparent to  the “Throne of Politics”,  have been shattered. I believe that most pretenders are in the mould of Oxbridge created mediocrities which even includes Boris Johnson. He might suffer from personality peccadilloes but he was a competent Mayor of London. Under pressure he made some good judgements and it would have been possible that a deeply buried wisdom would have enable him to lead the Conservatives forward progressively regardless of his considerable ego. Perhaps he was frightened by the threats of the Conservative Mafia?

   Another problem on the political horizon is Jeremy Corbyn who is suffering the victimisation of jealousy felt by the Labour wannabes whose envy manifests what the Red Indians referred to as speaking with forked tongues.  Such politicians might start off as idealists, straight out of university, but after a few years, instead of upholding genuine pragmatic politics, they often drift into the iniquity of party politics, give speeches of specious logic and uphold anything that will maintain their personal status quo. The Labour politicians are attempting to destroy what they consider to be a dangerous rival by publically denigrating Corbyn with fictitious accusations. Notwithstanding , instead of victory it might well end with an internal labour coup d’etat that usurps the seats of the existing power that is so dear to both the Labour and conservative parties.


Copyright: Dorian van Braam August  2016  (Goatpresspublishing@gmail.com)