The Most Attacked - Physically - Politician of Modern Times. Right.

 

@Nigel_Farage has taken to protesting that he really, really, really needs the £5 million his mate Christopher Harborne gave him out of the goodness of his heart. "I've been the most attacked - physically - politician of modern times," said the doleful Mr. Farage. 

What, more than the politicians who were murdered? In case you've forgotten, Nige, that would be David Amess (2021), Jo Cox (2016), Ian Gow (1990), Anthony Berry (1984), Robert Bradford (1981), Airey Neave (1979). May they rest in peace. 

The delightful Mr. Farage, well known for his commitment to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, says the only way he can protect himself for the rest of his life is with the £5 million 'gift'. I'm confused. Didn't he get the money two years ago, before he decided to stand as a candidate in the GE? Was he the most attacked - physically - politician of modern times even back then? And Nige, didn't you decide to stand shortly after you got the money, having declared definitively up until then that you wouldn't?

Even Trump might have a problem with Nige's protestations, given that there have been 3 assassination attempts on his life and he thinks he's the most hardly done by person on the planet. Anyway, just doing the math, if Farage’s security detail costs him say £1,000 a day, he will have spent about £750,000, and the rest will be in his bank account, right? Then he's got about 11 or 12 years' worth of security.

Which can't be the 'rest of his life' can it? Hmm. It's all very puzzling. Nige.

Sloppy Journalism from The Guardian - or Deliberate Distortion?

There are a lot of rumblings and outright disgust at how British media that purports to be unbiased or even liberal, has chosen to savage Keir Starmer and the Labour Party at every opportunity. Is that accurate? Here's a case in point. It's not outright savaging; it's creating a distorted narrative about Labour that is distinctly false.

The headline of this Guardian article reads "Nearly twice as many men as women standing in May elections in UK", which implies that all parties are at fault. Which is confusing, because it's own table shows that Labour stands out as the only party with near equity (42%) in the local elections, and full equity (50%) in all the other elections.

All other parties have lower figures, some of them dramatically. For example, Reform's figures are slightly above half those of Labour and they have no representation at all in the Mayoral races. The Green Party has 60% women in the Scottish elections, but less than Labour in all the others.

Paragraph 1: Women will be massively underrepresented on ballot papers across the UK next week, campaigners say, with research revealing that almost twice as many men as women are standing as candidates across the local, mayoral and devolved elections.

Fact: It's not the truth about Labour, whose aggregate across all 4 elections is 48% female representation. How is that in any way reflective of 'massive under-representation'? How many women, I wonder, for whom gender equity is a burning issue, would read the headline and the first paragraph and think, "Labour's just as bad as the rest of them, despite all their promises. I'm not voting for them. Hypocrites!"? Or maybe they'd read on a bit. 

Paragraph 2: Democracy campaigners say men of all political stripes are likely to dominate local government, with women’s views on issues from social care to bin collections sidelined by the huge gap between the numbers of male and female candidates. 

Fact: Except in the Labour Party. Maybe that's in the next paragraph. 

Paragraph 3: Across all elections taking place on 7 May, a third of candidates are women and two-thirds are men, with no party achieving gender parity, according to analysis by 50:50 Parliament and Democracy Club shared exclusively with the Guardian. 

Fact: Labour has total parity in the Scottish, Mayoral and Senedd elections, and 42% in locals. That gives it an aggregate of 48%. Ever hopeful for a glimmer of truth and balance, let's keep going. 

Paragraph 4: In local elections in England, which account for the largest number of candidates out of all elections next Thursday, 34% of candidates are female and no party is fielding an equal number of men and women. In the six mayoral elections taking place, 18% of candidates are women; in the Senedd elections, the figure is 38%; and in the Scottish parliament elections it is 36%. 

Fact: As I've pointed out and as the article's own table shows after the above paragraph, Labour has 42% female candidates in the locals. 50% in the mayoral, 50% in the Senedd, 50% in the Scottish parliament. It's only in the fifth paragraph that we get some hard truth. 

Reform UK has the smallest proportion of women on ballot papers in the local elections in England, at 23%. Labour is the closest to achieving gender parity, with 42% of its candidates women, followed by the Green party (41%), the Liberal Democrats (33%) and the Conservatives. That's great, but what about the fact that Labour is the only with full equity in all the other elections? The rest of the article has quotes: 

Lyanne Nicholl, the CEO of 50:50 Parliament, said: “Women are massively underrepresented on our ballot papers." Except in the Labour Party.

"Penny East, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said the analysis showed democracy was not working for women." Except in the Labour Party. 

East said online abuse and threats dissuaded women from standing. Except in the Labour Party, where female candidates are willing to fight and push beyond the abuse. 

"Men continue to dominate both locally and nationally, and without proper representation women’s views and perspectives will once again be sidelined,” Nicholl said. Except within the Labour Party. And for the record, there are 190 female Labour MPs, which is 46% of the total. It's the largest female representation in Labour's history.

[Nicholl continued;] "This isn’t about political point scoring, this is about women’s representation and how that has benefits for everyone."  

Nicholl may not be trying to score political points. But she also didn't bother to be clear about where progress is being made, and the question is, why? Or maybe she was clear, but the Guardian piece deliberately left it out. In reality, the piece is blatantly biased, which is about political points for somebody. Reform, the Conservatives, the Greens, the Lib Dems? Who knows. It's clearly not for the Labour Party. 

The Guardian had a choice of headlines, one of which would have reflected the stats in their own table: "Labour Female Representation in Upcoming Elections Surpasses that of All Other Parties." Or something like that. You get the drift. My question for the Guardian editors and the author of the piece, Lexy Topping, is, why wait until paragraph 5 to establish the plain facts? What's in it for you? Or do you even realise that you set the stage with the headline and the first 4 paragraphs, so the 5th doesn't resonate?

Is it sloppy journalism or deliberate? Either way, it's unconscionable.

The Dangers for Labour of Courting the Far Right

 

A while back I received an email from Shabana Mahmood inviting my feedback about her immigration policy. It made me think back to the origins of this Labour government and how, although I firmly support Keir Starmer, I’ve always been unhappy about what seems to me to be Labour’s courting of the far right, especially re Brexit and immigration.

For the record, I have great faith in Keir Starmer. I think he may have made mistakes, but he's had a phenomenally complex job so far, and he corrected mistakes as much as possible. Under his premiership, a lot has actually been accomplished by Labour. His international work has been absolutely sterling. In this time of massive upheaval I think we're very fortunate to have such an accomplished statesman at the helm. 

But when Labour started gearing up for the 2024 GE I was shocked at the nationalist approach it took, especially since I knew that Keir Starmer has always been an internationalist. It was what made me decide to support him when he was running for Labour leadership. Well, that and his patent integrity and lack of personal ambition. At a Labour event where all the candidates spoke, he didn’t like promoting himself, and ended his spiel by saying that all the candidates present would make excellent leaders. 

None of them said the same of him. He won that leadership contest on the first round, which I hope reflected appreciation of his obvious integrity and vision (which included, I thought, the importance of our relationship with the EU) and not of voter misogyny, given that he was up against two women; Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey.

But then suddenly the British flag was everywhere, together with the words ‘patriotism’ and ‘the British people’. The nationalistic fervour that erupted was a continuation or perpetuation of the maniacal support for Brexit and had kind of vicious negative undertones. Suffocating. It’s dangerous playing with nationalism; it’s the number one tool for authoritarians, exclusionists, racists and those harking back to ‘better times’ when social dominance depended on the colour of your lily white skin. 

Keir Starmer blatantly ignored the huge swathe of supporters who opposed everything about the far right, including those of us who voted for him to be Labour leader. I began to doubt my judgement and his.

Because, make no mistake; strip away the superficial ‘love your country’ and you’re left with the core of what drives that far right. It’s not about ‘love your country’ at all. It’s about racism and intolerance that is deeply rooted here and elsewhere, underpinned by profound insecurity as the status quo shifts in society and your lily white skin doesn’t guarantee you any power at all. All of it relentlessly driven by the right wing media, which has a huge grip on the minds of so many. 

Over and over again Keir Starmer said we were never going to rejoin the EU. He could have kept quiet about it, particularly since Brexit was becoming increasingly unpopular as the devastating effects of it took root. But he did the opposite; he broadcast it far and wide, seemingly oblivious to how deeply offensive it was to those desperate to be part of the EU again and return to normalcy so that we could begin to repair the damage of Brexit to our economy and relations with European countries, severely decimated by Boris Johnson et al. Labour clearly didn't understand the danger of not just courting the far right, but having a full-blown sordid affair with it. 

The whole point of course was to win over the Red Wall and then hold onto them. Somebody in Labour must have believed they’d have the votes of British internationalists anyway because we wanted the Tories out. Again, it didn’t seem like Keir Starmer. I was sure he was being advised badly and didn’t have enough confidence in his own instincts.

I didn’t know much about Strategy Chief Morgan McSweeney then. When the Mandelson storm hit, and McSweeney was all caught up in it, I realised that they both seem to have believed that you counter the far right by getting into bed with them, no pun intended on Mandelson’s sordid friendship with Epstein.  It’s feasible that McSweeney directed Starmer’s decision to focus solely on the Red Wall and very publicly slam down a seemingly impregnable barrier to rejoining the EU. Labour won the election in a landslide because, caught between a rock and hard place, enough of us did vote to oust the Tories. 

Sure, it was a historic landslide, so the short term goal was achieved. But the problem with pursuing the far right in order to defeat them should have been self evident. You don’t win them over to your side, because Conservative opposition to Labour is deeply rooted, entrenched by years of consuming mindless right wing media (which was borne out by the 2024 GE when Labour’s vote share dropped 31 so-called Red Wall seats). What does happen, though, is that you give the intolerance and closemindedness more exposure and weight, reinforcing it and handing those who hold onto it reason to believe it’s justified. “If even Labour thinks it we must be right.” That lasts a long time and can be very damaging, not just to a Party, but to society.

Was it also McSweeney’s advice to focus on immigration as a massive problem here, which in reality it isn't? Starmer seemed to believe that Labour needed to pacify those who think it is, but all that was ‘achieved’ was a reinforcement of rabid far right, very emotionally driven belief that all immigrants are criminals and a detriment to society.  Starmer started to walk it back a little, and Yvette Cooper refrained from inflammatory comment about immigrants while working hard to reduce boat crossings.

But then Shabana Mahmood broke onto the scene. Her astonishingly punitive immigration policy seemed driven by a real rage against those who are as vulnerable as she and her parents once were, but not as fortunate. 

Most of her social media posts included bragging about herself and her unflinching policy, which to me stank, and still does, of an authoritarian, disciplinarian bent that makes her seem a good candidate for Reform. Mahmood has been blind to the arrant lack of wisdom in the strategy of wooing the far right and how  her widely publicised punitive attitude to immigrants has entrenched the widespread belief that they are the problem and are just hateful people. A belief promulgated by Conservatives and the rabid  Conservative media for generations.

Mahmood has been targeted brutally with anti-Muslim hate and general racism and for that she deserves wholehearted support and empathy. But that it drives her to want to punish other immigrants is unacceptable. 

Enduring hardship either makes people empathetic and understanding towards anybody who struggles, or it makes people harshly intolerant and judgemental of those who haven’t been able yet to overcome their own hardship. The argument is always “I did it so they can too,” which ignores that some have worse hardships and less support and are maybe dealing also with mental health issues.

Apart from the fact that they may be more vulnerable in a thousand ways than she and her parents were, Mahmood’s rhetoric tars all immigrants with the same brush and that’s the danger. Firstly, from a humanitarian perspective that is not supposed to be who Labour is. It’s Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Nigel Farage, but surely not us. Also, it’s strategically short-sighted and counterproductive, because tarring all immigrants is core to the far right and Reform. So Mahmood hasn’t done Starmer or Labour, or British society, or the human race, any favours at all. She’s helped the far right though, some of whom have applauded her.

She is in a position of enormous power and needs to take responsibility for her own blind spots and trigger points. When in opposition she usually voted against tougher immigration laws. Has power gone to her head in the worst of ways, as it did Priti Patel and Suella Braverman? 

Mahood has started to tone down her rhetoric and Keir Starmer is consulting now on her new policy measures, in the face of significant  opposition from amongst MPs, 100 of whom signed a letter in early March in opposition to some of her policies. Mahmood is not easy to sway though, and seems convinced that her plan will work. My only hope is that Keir Starmer will help see the light.

You Want Military Dictatorship, Trump? Read Your History!

 

In 1989 a religious leader László Tőkés criticised Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and was threatened and beaten up. Romanians protesting were gunned down by Ceausescu’s soldiers. Protests broke out everywhere. 

Ceausescu, a megalomaniacal egotist who had destroyed opponents and surrounded himself with yes-men and sycophants, was now so enabled that he thought he was invincible and fatuously believed that a single televised mass rally playing pre-recorded cheering over loudspeakers would ‘restore his image’. On the day of the rally, he stood with his wife Elena on the balcony facing onto Bucharest’s Palace Square (now called Revolution Square), packed with people, many of whom had been bussed in. The sounds of cheering were deafening. From the speakers. 

But not from the people. Shortly into the speech, sounds of screaming and shouting came from the crowd. Ceausescu realised they weren’t part of the sound track. Elena heard gun shots, then guards shouted that protestors had broken into the building down below, beneath the balcony. 

Ceausescu and Elena yelled at the crowd, and guards managed to keep them back. But after the rally, protesters spilled out onto the streets of Bucharest, filled with frustration and rage at too many years of suppression and savage dictatorship. Ceausescu unleashed tanks, soldiers, police and his own secret army – much like Trump’s ICE – on the crowds with brutal violence. By morning there was so much blood on the streets that fire engines had to hose them down. 

Blind to the country-wide hatred for him, Ceausescu thought the danger was over. He was wrong. The next day, protesters moved en masse towards the centre of Bucharest, joined by the soldiers and police,  who now refused to follow orders given to shoot them. 

A panicked Ceausescu and his wife Elena escaped in a helicopter from the roof, with two officials and two bodyguards, minutes before protesters reached it. The pilot took them to their residence in Snagov, where Ceausescu ordered two more helicopters with soldiers as an escort. The response? "You’re on your own." The pilot took off immediately, without the officials. 

Then a message played on the radio that all flights were grounded and unidentified aircraft in the air would be shot. They had to land. The pilot put the pair down on a road with just two security guards. They managed to flag down a car, whose driver took them to an agricultural institute on the outskirts of  Târgoviște and persuaded them to hide in it. It was a trap. They were locked in then arrested and handed over to a military barracks where they were tried. 

Even during this sham trial, Ceausescu laughed scornfully, still believing he was invincible. He wasn’t, though. Found guilty, he and Elena were executed by firing squad.

The circumstances leading to their execution has some chilling similarities to the US at the moment. It’s hard to know who is directing everything but Trump is the public face and he’s the one with the power. An over-entitled megalomaniac, felon, adjudicated rapist and serial liar, he too has surrounded himself with sycophants who shield him from the reality of how unpopular he is. He’s choosing to let ICE tactics become increasingly savage and lawless, watching Americans’ outrage grow exponentially, possibly believing he can turn that into a justification to declare a state of emergency and martial law. And cancel the mid-terms to avoid impeachment, trial and jail. The cynicism is jaw-dropping. 

There are a couple of things he hasn’t thought about though. He’s popularity is plummeting as Ceausescu's did, and his base could be diminishing. At all events, he's losing Independents. His own party writhes under his stranglehold, longing to be rid of him because being loyal means betraying angry constituents. Also, lot of people in the military and police do not want to visit misery on regular Americans, or see their democracy destroyed. They certainly don’t want to be the tools. The momentum to get rid of Trump is growing visibly by the day – from politicians to people in the streets – and though Trump is trying hard to destroy the free press and present a false narrative, he isn’t succeeding with the majority.

Ceausescu’s Achilles heel was his entitlement and oblivion to how much his own people wanted to get rid of him. They had clearly plotted behind his back for some time. It’s the consequence of surrounding yourself with yes-men and women. It also never occurred to him that the good men and women in the military and police would refuse orders. Trump, hell bent on using the military in the same way, would probably face the same kind of rebellion, then where would he be?

He would do well to read up on history. Obviously he wouldn’t be put on a sham trial or face a literal firing squad, but a real trial ending in a jail cell would be better, anyway.

The Fight in America Against Trump's Authoritarian Ambitions

On 14 May 2025, Yale Professors Marci Shore, Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley, who have all written extensively on the nature, causes and effects of authoritarianism, published an opinion piece in the New York Times, announcing that they are leaving the US for Canada, where they will all be embraced by the University of Toronto. Essentially they are moving in protest against the onslaught of the Trump administration against American democracy and the lawlessness of it. And they feel they can fight better outside of the country, because freedom of the press is under such threat.

My thought is, if that were the best way, then Harvard should pack up its bags and relocate outside of the US, as should the law firms and lawyers who have to stood up to Trump, at great cost to themselves. In fact, all Democratic voters should leave.

I understand why they want to go and certainly everybody has the right to protect themselves and work in an environment that keeps them safe. They don’t need to justify themselves; it's their right to live and work where they choose. But they clearly feel they have to justify themselves. Professor Shore says, “The lesson of 1933 is that you get out sooner than later.” Professor Stanley believes it’s essential to “set up centres of resistance in places of relative safety,” to which Professor Snyder adds, “we want to make sure that if there is a political crisis in the US, that Americans are organised.” It's a wee bit grandiose.

They cite Poland’s recent success against a shift towards authoritarianism, saying that it was due to freedom of the press still existing. Which would imply that it was never under threat. It was, though. In fact, Poland was a battleground for press freedom. Did democracy triumph because all the good people left to fight from 'a place of safety'? I don't think so. People stayed and fought from within. 

The video is creatively alarmist, deliberately using extreme imagery that's bone chilling. These three accomplished academics are right to sound the alarm, but they don’t present a balanced picture. They neglect to show that within America there is a huge backlash against Trump. It's outspoken and passionate and taking place across all sectors of the country, within the justice system, the Supreme Court, universities, the press, small and large communities, State governors, the House and the Senate.

Even comedy shows and celebrities like the legendary Bruce Springsteen are taking a stand. These are all people who are staying. Well, Springsteen is travelling around Europe with his Land of Hope and Dreams tour. But he's still living in the US. And the message he's spreading makes your heart, soul and mind soar. 

Regarding legal challenges alone, according to the New York Times, there have been 180 rulings against the Trump Administration to date, with a broad range, including immigration, birthright citizenship, Doge, firings, climate and environment, budget freezes, trans rights, federal access restrictions, tariffs and 31 various others.

America is not Germany in 1939. Americans like their freedom, they are quick to protest, and by and large they are a whole lot better informed than Germans were when Hitler rose to power. The world is different, people are more politically aware than ever before. Trump wants America to be like Germany in Hitler’s time, and he's doing his best to destroy democracy through the frighteningly sinister Project 2025, which often uses Hitlerian tactics, but frankly, given the intensity of the assault, he hasn’t made much headway. He’s a stupid man, his brain is deteriorating and he’s alienating the whole country. 

Republicans in the House and the Senate are engaged in a civil war right now over Elon Musk and warfare that’s broken out between him and Trump, so despite their power on paper - controlling the House and the Senate - they are a weak body. They are also trapped in appeasement by their fear of Trump and are betraying their constituents by supporting him in his assault on their rights, their freedoms, their incomes and medical security. Come the mid-terms Republicans will lose the House and the Senate. Trump can be impeached then. All of this is reality.

So I wish these three well, and I'm sure they will continue to contribute meaningfully to the fight to preserve democracy, but personally I think the people who stay and fight from within deserve the greatest accolades. They will effect the greatest change and determine a victory over Trump’s attempt to turn America into an authoritarian state.  

As Rachel Maddow said, “Authoritarians fight hard to make change seem difficult, to make ousting them seem impossible, to make opposing them seem hard, or pointless, or dangerous. But everybody else knows better, all over the world. Including us.”  

The Original Sin - of a Once Reputable Journalist

 

Surely everybody knows now that Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book 'Original Sin' accused the Biden administration of covering up Joe Biden's alleged monstrous cognitive decline. Naturally it hit the headlines and the content spread like wildfire, fulfilling the book's intended mission. To cause a stir and make money.

I've worked with patients in various stages of cognitive decline, from early onset of dementia where short term memory sometimes functioned but mostly didn’t, to severe dementia where communication was impossible and there was nothing left of the executive function in the brain. 

None of the people I worked with were capable of running their own lives, let alone a country, which Biden was doing with astonishing skill, something Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson could have presented evidence of with a minimum of effort. Instead they went looking for a specific type of 'evidence'. Why? Because it was clickbait? I don't understand it. I've never thought of Jake Tapper as that kind of journalist. 

But did he and Thompson investigate the motives of the people who spoke to them? Did they question what they said? Did they look for evidence to show that Biden was cognitively sound, so they could in all conscience present an unbiased account? Did they look at all of Biden's achievements right up until he stepped back from running? Did they ask all the people they spoke to why not a single one of them ever said anything? Did they remind their intended audience about Biden's speech difficulties and make sure they didn't conflate that with cognitive decline? Did the authors remind themselves of the same thing, in the interests of presenting a truthful account? Rhetorical questions, these. 

Tapper and his fellow anchors at CNN have shamelessly used the channel to market the book as the truth. But it's not the truth. It is good clickbait though. If truth were an issue, Tapper and Thompson would have acknowledged that it’s a biased opinion and speculation based on the ‘evidence’ of anonymous sources. A right rabble rouser. 

But more than anything else, why did these two choose to write this superficial tabloid-type book when what's really needed is an in-depth expose of Donald Trump, who is destroying America, causing chaos with the global economy and global alliances and is a thoroughly evil man with serious cognitive issues? Why publish a book that would give that thoroughly evil man a weapon against Democrats? I can’t think of a single rational reason other than the desire to raise their profile as authors and make a pile of money. 

I don’t know anything about Alex Thompson, but I do know something about Jake Tapper. I thought he was doing a good job covering the mess that is the Trump administration, speaking truth to power without fear, which made me respect him as a journalist, particularly since Trump's witch hunt against freedom of the press is on full display. I'm disappointed. I really thought he was better than this.

Fortunately, Joe Biden's cognitive capacity is also on full display. It's there for all to see, showing that even now he's not in a state of cognitive decline. Despite having cancer he's still functioning and looks physically fit. As for his legacy, it's already cast in stone. He will be remembered as the iconic president that he was.

Musk and Trump Inhabit a House of Cards

 

Musk and Trump. The media is in a frenzy about them, about the power they allegedly wield, and where that will lead the US and the world as Musk sniffs around for new meat; Neo-Nazis in Germany and Reform in the UK. 

The facade these two men present looks powerful and it’s easy to assume that strategy underlies all their behaviour, then to extrapolate from that into what the future might hold. But given the underlying dynamics of their personalities, it’s more likely that they’re just shooting from the hip whenever they feel like it. They're both massively over-entitled and assume, for different reasons, that they're invincible and can get away with anything; that consequences are for the little people, not giants like them. 

However, they're also both intensely dysfunctional, neurotic and consumed with lust for power and attention. We don't hear much about the war of egos between them, but of course it's happening. Trump wanted Musk for his money, but he can find that elsewhere; I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy sycophants queueing up outside his door, salivating. He’s terrified of going to jail and that’s his main driver, but he’s aging fast, often looks exhausted and drained, and what little mental acuity he had is deteriorating rapidly. He can’t control Musk, let alone himself. 

Musk, on the other hand, is getting increasingly reckless, flying close to the sun, making enemies everywhere and a fool of Trump. But his wings are made of wax. He has periods of depression and has been microdosing ketamine for a long time. He insists it’s is under control but when has he ever told the truth? He is reported to take extra doses of it, and LSD, cocaine, psychedelic mushrooms and ecstasy at social events. There is concern in the business community about the effects of his drug use on the six companies and billions of assets he oversees and that he’s neglecting them for the bright lights of politics. 

Which he’s failing at abysmally. Tesla sales in Europe have dropped by 40%, attributed to anger at Musk’s support of Trump. Tesla investor Ross Gerber was highly critical of Musk’s promotion of the far right. 

Musk is making as much of a mess in the political arena as he did with Twitter. A lot of advertisers and users left for BlueSky but many of the latter kept both accounts and use their Twitter to attack him. ‘Elon Musk’ was trending the other day, with 1.15m posts. A cursory glance showed only negativity, derision, hatred. 

Over-entitlement is a deadly disease for those infected with it. It always provides fuel for initial success in the world but it’s inseparable from self-delusion so the success trajectory has a limit. Once it’s reached, it’s downhill all the way, baby. 

To get back to politics, Musk and Trump, surrounded by equally neurotic and dysfunctional sycophantic politicians, are randomly creating havoc, unaware that they’ve already reached their peak, both of them. Early reports after the election that Trump won a huge landslide and has a thonking majority have turned out to be a myth. The recent debacle over the debt ceiling illustrated that beautifully. In the House, Republicans can get nothing done without Democrats. And this time, 38 Republicans rebelled against Trump and Musk. 

The whole Republican structure is a fragile house of cards. Republicans may not want to admit it, and the media may not be reporting on it much, but they share the political arena with Democrats who are determined, strong, united, smart and capable of insightful and effective strategy. They’re also committed to protecting democracy and to serving those they represent. During Biden’s term of office they have worked consistently with Republicans to save spending bills, but when Trump is president they won’t be so accommodating, so he’ll have to take the heat for his and Musk’s out-of-control incompetence. If Musk is even around by January 20. 

This writer believes that despite the trifecta – Republicans controlling the Senate and the House and the White House – Democrats will prevail; they will regain control in mid-terms and the White House in 2028. And Musk and Trump will eventually be consigned to the dirt bin of history. Where they belong.

Global IT Crisis - or Media Frenzy?

 

Global IT crisis! Media goes crazy. Catastrophe! Chaos! Thousands of flights grounded! Hospitals disabled, GP surgeries disconnected – people will die! Disease will spread. World could conceivably grind to a halt. It could take months to fix, small businesses could go under. Stock markets will plummet. Economies will crash. The blue screen of death!

Anxiety, anxiety, anxiety. The media licks its chops: clickbait galore. I fall for it for a while. Then Microsoft identifies the problem – a faulty driver deployed by a Crowdstrike Falcon cybersecurity tool used to protect computers from cyberattacks.

All you have to do is reboot your computer in safe mode. But, shouts the media, that’s still a global catastrophe, because small businesses may not know how to do it. Big businesses will be fine but small businesses won’t be able to get hold of experts even on the phone – they’ll be too busy. inequality could skyrocket! Mass unemployment looms.

24 hours later

It's nearly sorted out. Oh. Microsoft says you may need to reboot your computer 15 times. Chaos and catastrophe downgraded to inconvenience, predicted to last for days, not months. Media hunts around: what can we create anxiety about now?

Hah! What if it happens again and this time it really does destroy the world. Or we could go back to hounding Joe Biden.

Keir Starmer Changes Our World for the Better

It's been an extraordinary few days, hard to take in. Since 2019 politics in the UK has become increasingly depressing, with arrogance, corruption and ineptitude mixed up in the ugliness of the far right. Social media was full of anger, some of it a fight for social justice, some of it with a sinister agenda, opposing social justice. With so many wars going on and the far right traction in Europe and the US, the world felt like a very unsafe place. 

When the election date was announced, the campaigning became almost unbearable as pundits and even the liberal media tore into Keir Starmer and the Labour manifesto. 

In the face of such negativity and relentless accusations of being boring, uninspiring, vapid, bereft of hope, Starmer could have resorted to playing the snake oil salesman, offering miracles he knew Labour couldn't deliver on. 

But he didn't do that. He and all the Shadow Cabinet stayed focused and never lost sight of their integrity. Starmer's former Chief of Staff Sam White likens Starmer's achievement to the Avengers' fight against Thanos. Dr. Strangelove sees a million possible futures. They win by taking "an incredibly narrow path full of self sacrifice and bravery. That's the path that we decided to take." 

                                        

Many didn't see it and, believing they were terribly clever, underestimated Starmer. That's an age-old story. People told Einstein he was stupid. They told Elvis he couldn't sing. Record labels rejected the Beatles. Publishers rejected J.K. Rowling. A black American President? Never! Keir Starmer revive Labour in one term? Absurd!  

But, like Sam White, millions of us believed in Starmer. On the 4th of July, we were vindicated. Britain regained its independence from the stranglehold of Conservativism. The ugly, egomaniac, divisive, racist element in government is gone. It was like a menacing dark cloud enveloping everything, creating so much anxiety. An anxiety that we all lived with without always perhaps realising how much it was affecting us.

It's gone. In its place a government filled with intelligent, capable, integrity-driven, hard-working MPs, many of them with a lot of experience, who have transitioned from their posts in the Shadow Cabinet. And we finally have a real statesman for a Prime Minister who we can be proud of, who's respected internationally.

Social media is alight with sheer joy and relief. As Gary Lineker said last night when England beat Switzerland in its nail-biting penalty shootout, "the world is a better place at the moment." I don't think he was referring just to football.

If at First...

 

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."

 Samuel Beckett

As a young man, Abraham Lincoln went to war a captain and returned a private. Then he was a failure as a businessman. As a lawyer in Springfield, he was too impractical and temperamental to be a success.

He turned to politics and was defeated in his first try for the legislature, again defeated in his first attempt to be nominated for congress, defeated in his application to be commissioner of the General Land Office, defeated in the senatorial election of 1854, in his efforts for the vice-presidency in 1856, and in the senatorial election of 1858.

Winston Churchill failed sixth grade. He was subsequently defeated in every election for public office until he became Prime Minister at the age of 62. He later wrote, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up." 

Sigmund Freud was booed from the podium when he first presented his ideas to the scientific community of Europe. He returned to his office and kept on writing.

Robert Sternberg got a C in his first college introductory-psychology class. His teacher commented that "There was a famous Sternberg in psychology and it was obvious there would not be another." Three years later Sternberg graduated with honors from Stanford University with exceptional distinction in psychology.. In 2002 he became President of the American Psychological Association.

Charles Darwin gave up a medical career and was told by his father, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching." In his autobiography, Darwin wrote, "I was considered by all my masters and my father, a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect."

Thomas Edison's teachers said he was "too stupid to learn anything." He was fired from his first two jobs for being non-productive. As an inventor, he made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

"Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall."
Confucius