Donald Trump and the Ten Commandments

 I had a very strange experience this morning when I woke up. I picked up the Guardian and read a column by Arwa Mahdawi. For those of you not familiar with her, she is a feminist, atheist writer. What was the subject? A staunch defence of Pope Leo in the face of attacks from Donald Trump. It finished with the comment, directed at Vice President JD Vance, who had supported his boss's stance. She said "I know you're desperate for your boss's job, JD, but I think it would be best for American public policy if there were a little less dictating and a little more morality". Before Donald Trump ascended to the throne in America, I would never have dreamed that such a columnist would write such a line. 

It got me thinking about the Orange one and his relationship with the religiously aligned people of America on the Christian right. There are two versions of Christian thinking, that which I subscribe to that leans towards The Beatitudes "Blessed are the Peacemakers", which was Jesus's keynote speech on morality, which differentiated Christian thinking from the Old Testament philospohy of an eye for an eye. 

Then there are the hardliner right, who take a fundamental view based on the Old testament and specifically the ten commandments. I thought long and hard and then the thought occurred to me, what is Donald Trumps relationship with the Ten Commandments. 

So lets have a look at them and see how Donald Trump is getting on - My observations in Red Italics

1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I can't comment on this, I don't really know what goes on in Trumps mind and whether he holds any other Gods in higher esteem than the one mentioned in the Bible.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

This! One picture says a thousand words.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Being fair to DT, I've never heard him take the Lords name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.

This! posted on Sunday April 5th. There are plenty of others on Sundays, but this is perhaps the least Holy tweet I've ever seen by a leader. 

 

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

I have seen no evidence that DT does not honour his Father and Mother, so well done.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

Prior to the attack on Iran, I'd have commended DT on his anti war stance. Sadly, he ordered the launch of the war and many have died. Blood is on his hands. And he boasts about it

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

DT's extra marital activities is a matter of public record. Why Christian fundamentalists do not mind, I cannot really fathom, but hey ho, life is complicated.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

Greenland, Iranian Oil, The 2020 election, there are many cases of DT trying to get hold of things which are not legally his. Can we give him a pass on this one, because he failed miserably. Many of his businesses have gone bankrupt, leaving suppliers etc massively out of pocket? Can we give him a pass on this? 

Businesses owned or branded by Donald Trump have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009. These filings allowed the businesses to restructure debts, largely related to casinos and hotels in Atlantic City and New York, rather than filing for personal bankruptcy. 

Key Business Bankruptcy Filings:

• 1991: Trump Taj Mahal (Atlantic City)
• 1992: Trump Plaza (Atlantic City)
• 1992: Trump Castle (Atlantic City)
• 1992: Plaza Hotel (New York)
• 2004: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts
• 2009: Trump Entertainment Resorts 

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

This! For the record 457 UK troops died in Afghanistan after the USA invoked the NATO treaty to support the Afghan operation, Hundreds of other troops from Nato countries died in the operation. 

 

10. Thou shalt not covet.

One word. Greenland. 

To sum up. Despite claiming to be a Non Aligned Christian, I can only give Donald a clean bill of health on three of the ten commandments, based on the information I have. I will add that a central plank of Christianity is forgiveness, being non judgemental and seeking reconciliation. I really don't like questioning people's beliefs as non of us walk in the same shoes. However, when people start avoidable wars and we live in a democracy, it is right and proper to question their behaviour. I do not personally blame Trump. I blame all of the people who have facilitated a man who is clearly not fit for the job, to become President. I blame all of the right wing fundamentalist Christians who support Trump, whilst ignoring his morality and character. Arwa Mahdawi's support of the Pope in light of the attacks by Trump makes a very important point. I am sure that she has little time for many aspects of Roman Catholic morality, but even someone such as her, who would never be a natualy ally of Pope Leo have a sense of fairness, honesty and decency and can see right from wrong here.

I was raised in a staunch Roman Catholic household. I was taught that the Pope was infallable. When I became an adult, I realised that the history of the Papacy demonstrated that this concept was unsustainable. This is one reason why I describe myself as a bad Catholic. But I can wholeheartedly state that in this particular discussion, not only is Pope Leo right. When people who are critics of him and his church agree, it is hard to argue. Who imagined that a feminist atheist would be defending a Pope against attacks from a conservative Roman Catholic Vice President. We live in a very strange world at the moment. 

When are we all going to stop pretending that Donald Trump is not a danger to the planet?

It has got to the stage where I wake up in the morning and don't want to put the radio on, or look at the newspapers. I used to be an avid watcher of news channels, but I have almost stopped watching them. The reason? I simply do not want to acknowledge the fact that the most powerful country on the planet is in the grip of someone who appears to me to be a narcissitic psychopath. This is not a new phenomenum, the world has seen such people from the days of Caligula in the Roman Empire, but in this day and age, not only are we painfully aware of it, he has the largest stockpile of nuclear missiles on the planet. It is patently clear that his kidnapping of the President of Venezuala was a breach of international law. From what I know of Maduro, he is a terrible man and he is no loss to Venezuala, but that does not make it OK. 

I recall my Dad telling me that when he was shot down during WW2 over Romania, he was well treated by the Germans and the Romanians. The reason? They knew Great Britain respected international law and the Geneva convention. At the end of the war, as it was clear that Germany was collapsing, those who could made their way to surrender to British forces. They knew that they would be dealt with in a legal and decent way. They were terrified of the Soviet army, they knew the French forces had no sympathy for them, after years of occupation and atrocities. They were suspicious of the American forces, but they knew the British would treat them decently. When the Nuremburg trials took place, they did so under British law. There was a good reason for this. It was deemed imperative that it was seen that justice was done. The Allies all recognised that the only way to have peace in Europe was to ensure that German war criminals were tried fairly and given proper recourse to legal process. Stalin had wanted to summarily execute 50,000 top Nazi's, but Churchill persuaded him that ultimately this would not serve the interests of peace in Europe. The Americans recognised that the German people saw British law as just and honest. The United Nations was set up with the aim of ensuring that International Law was respected. 

This was only really possible because the allies, epecially Great Britain and the USA recognised the need for a system whereby people who broke international law and disregarded treaties could be held to account. No sane person can pretend that the UN is perfect. However the alternative to it is terrifying and that seems to be the road Donald Trump is taking us down. After two election victories and five years in power, Trump has concluded that he can do whatever he pleases and there is nothing anyone can do about it. In some ways, it is a miracle that it took him so long for the penny to drop.

What really shocked me most was reading that Trump had stated that he intended for US Oil companies to run the Venezualan oil industry, after grabbing Maduro. It is a naked grab of a soveriegn countries assets. There was not even the fig leaf of pretence that the USA would oversee free and fair elections in Venezuala, something that might have put some veneer of respectability on what they had done.

The USA is a country that operates under the rule of law. I do wonder what will happen if the courts dismiss all charges against Maduro? I am not a lawyer and have no idea of the legal process Maduro faces, but I genuinely believe the US legal system's credibility is at stake and if they are not seen to do things by the book, it will cause major damage to the country. Dictators such as Hitler and Stalin oversaw rigged show trials to send opponents to the gallows (or worse),thinking it showed them to be strongmen. It actually had the opposite effect, exposing them to the the world for what they are. I simply can't see American lawyers wanting to take part in such shenanigans. It may well be that Maduro has broken US law and will be found guilty by a fair legal process, but the rest of the world will still be deeply distrustful of the process. 

You may think that none of this matters and that the USA is so powerful that it can do as it likes, where it likes and when it likes. In the short term, this appears to be true, but we may well start to see tectonic change in global alliances. It is clear to me that China will see this as a massive opportunity. That could play out in several ways. They could use it as a fig leaf for a land grab of Taiwan. My view is that they are not foolish and would not wish to be seen as being "worse than Trump", as such a move would undoubtedly be a bloody business. China plays a long game and I have no dounbt that their diplomats are looking at ways to strengthen relations with democratic countries appalled by what is a breach of international rules/ I doubt too many nations will come out and say it, many will be asking themselves whether Trump is really a reliable security partner, and whether other avenues should be persued.  I can't see China missing such an open goal. Expect a few Panda's to be gifted to European zoo's.

I am intrigued by how India will perceive this whole business as well. I genuinely don't believe that the West understands the strength of India. I can see a situation where the next century is one where India becomes the dominant world power. I suspect that Trump has hastened that process and opened doors for India's ambitions.

Then there is Russia. If I was Putin, I would be extremely worried about what has happened. It has removed a client and trading partner. It has demonstrated that Trump is serious about grabbing assets. This will not be lost on Putin who was already wary of US ambitions in Ukraine. It has been said that it will embolden Putin and tempt him to try such a grab against Zelenskyy. I doubt it, if this was possible, I am sure that Putin would already have done it. If I was Putin I'd be looking over my shoulder at whether China might be tempted to cool relations, as there are opportunities elsewhere that Russia will be a long term impediment to.

Then there is the EU. Greenland, which is part of Denmark is on Trumps wish list. Whereas before most people doubted the seriousness of this proposal, I suspect a lot of EU strategists are having very sleepless nights. What would the EU and NATO do if Trump invaded Greenland. There is zero prospect of a military response. Trmp will simply laugh at diplomatic overtures. I cannot possibly see Nato surviving such a situation. Europe, with Putin on its eastern wing, may have some very difficult decisions to make. This is not lost on both China and India.

Then there is the UK. Our "Independent Nuclear Deterrent" is under Trumps lock and keys. I suspect that Nato might end up being a rump of English speaking nations, which only endures because it would be a bit embarrassing for everyone to walk out. Sir Keir Starmer is a lawyer. He has nowhere to hide on the question of international law. What he should do is speak the truth to power. The only problem is that he is clearly terrified of Donald Trump. I don't suppose there is any fate worse than spending your life wanting to become Prime Minister, only to find yourself in the job at a time where your most powerful ally is run by a man who will ruin your reputation for ever and there is nothing you can do. Blair was faced with the same choice with Bush and Iraq and Starmer knows that Blair is forever damaged as the man who lied to Parliament and set Iraq on fire. Starmer has no easy choice because we are a very small and isolated country in a very hostile world.

And the man who fancies himself as the next Prime Minister? It is clear he knows the truth, but simply cannot resist brown nosing Trump. It is no surprise that he thinks breaking international law may be a good thing. I suspect that like many things, Farage hasn't really thought it through. 

The American actions in Venezuela overnight are unorthodox and contrary to international law — but if they make China and Russia think twice, it may be a good thing.

I hope the Venezuelan people can now turn a new leaf without Maduro.

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) January 3, 2026

Although this is a pretty long blog (and one that means I won't be going to the USA until Mr Trump is no longer King of the World), I can sum it up in one sentence. In short, it is clear to me that Donald Trump is a danger to the planet and the sooner we all stop pretending he isn't, the better. 

The BBC, Trump and the destruction of trust

 Back in the period 2010-2015, when the Barnet bloggers were at the heart of the fight against the One Barnet Capita outsourcing project and major news networks would court us as it was deemed newsworthy, there was a conversation that was had dozens of times in the pub, when I spoke to sympathisers. It went a bit like this "I've had this brilliant idea, why don't you write a blog saying [SOME BONKERS MADE UP STORY THAT PORTRAYS CAPITA/THE BARNET TORIES IN A BADLIGHT]. Everyone trusts you and it will do untold damage". My answer was always the same. Absolutely no. I will pass my opinions, but when it came to facts, I never, ever printed something I didn't have the evidence to support. Why? Because as soon as you are caught telling porkies and fabricating the truth, you are done for. 

What has this got to do with the resignation of the boss of the BBC Tim Davey and Donald Trump? Well everything really. Write this date in you diary. 9th November 2025. In the UK it is 9/11. It is the date that Donald Trump won the culture war. It is the day that the BBC admitted it had deliberately misrepresented Donald Trump. You can be blameless all of your life, but if you are exposed as a liar just once, no one will ever really trust you again. Trump will now (rather dishonestly, as differet rules apply to him) dismiss everything the BBC say and no reasonable person can disagree. The BBC can change its chairman, its board, its charter, its name, but it will never be trusted again when it comes to political comments against Trump. I don't really think anyone has taken the enormity on board. What is the point of BBC verify, if they can't even verify Panorama?

I have been the BBC's biggest supporter in the face of what I have always considered blatently ignorant criticism from extreme right and left commentators, out to destroy a trusted news source. How ironic is it that the BBC has done their work for them? I feel sick to my gut. This does not mean that the BBC has no role to play. I am 100% sure it's content is more reliable than organisations such as GB New 99% of the time, but the trouble is, there is the 1% where they have been caught with their pants down.

Trump has all the evidence he needs to shrug off any revealation from the BBC, no matter how well sourced. I started writing this blog at 10.45am. I got so far and then I got to the question "what does the BBC do now to regain the faith of its viewers and listeners?". The more I thought about it, the more I realised it is like asking how can I regain my virginity. It has gone. I can repent my sins and live the life of a Saint and when future generations look at my life, they may well decide I was a saint, but I will not get my virginity back in my lifetime. The same is true of the BBC's News organisations trust. 

Of course there is more to the BBC than just news. There is the light entertainment. Shows such as Traitors and Strictly that are top of the viewing figures and we all talk about. I listen to giants of local radio like Robert Elms and Gary Crowley, but even they cannot feel as proud of their employer as they did last week. Even broadcast giants such as David Attenborough, face having their work distrusted as a result of Panorama going bad. They have all been thrown under a bus by bad journalists.

If the BBC is to survive it needs to do something, it needs to do something radical. Something I never thought I'd say. It needs to split off its news organisation into a separate entity. It needs to be lead by professional journalists who are beyond reproach and be taken out of the control of the current management, who have clearly totally failed. This will damage the BBC severely, but without trust it has no purpose. The BBC has a world beating network of journalists and researchers, this must be preserved, but it simply cannot be in its present format. I personally would merge Channel 4 and BBC News into one organisation. I would take it out from the remit of the main BBC, with a completely different management structure. I would compel the BBC to buy news coverage from them, but renew the franchise every seven years. I would run it on a commercial basis, selling news stories to other organisations. I would make it part of the licence that they must employ a well staffed news team.

I hate saying all of this. It feels fundamentally wrong. But once an organisation loses your trust, then it needs change. It may well be that the bosses can find a way to recover trust, but I cannot see how. The BBC has been synonimous with truth since its inception. It has lost this and I do not believe that the current organisation can regain it. 

Trump!

 I had a very strange experience today. I was discussing the Middle East peace deal with someone and I realised that they had the look of someone who has just had a bereavement. It is no surprise to anyone that Mr Donald J. Trump produces rather mixed emotions, but I was mildly surprised that when he actually does something useful (ie stopping people killing each other), people can't just say "Thank God he's done something useful for once" if they hate his guts. I dislike the man intensely, but if I recognise the fact that if I was a citizen of Gaza, who was no longer getting bombed and may get a decent meal soon, or if I was an Israeli who's brother/sister/etc had just been released, when I though I'd never see them alive, I would probably not be too bothered about all of the reasons that liberal minded folk (like me) generally can't stand the fella. 

There has been too much talk about the Nobel Peace Prize and Donald Trump. My view? It was too early to give it to him this year. If he'd received it and five minutes later Hamas and Israel had resumed hostilities, the Nobel committee would look ridiculous. If thise time next year, the deal has held. Given him an extra special, super bigly amazing one in a solid gold frame. He will have done something I thought nigh on impossible. 

The bottom line with Donald Trump is that, as my Dad always explained to me, you have to deal with the realities of the world we live in, not the one we want to live in. In a perfect world (if I was the architect), we'd all be nice to each other and whatever gene makes us such a psychopathic race, would be eliminated. When there were earthquakes, floods, famines, tsunamis and meteorite strikes we'd all chip in to help the victims. When plagues hit, we'd all support the efforts of scientists and doctors to cure them, not scoure the web for bonkers conspiracy theories that it's all a plan to enslave us. People wouldn't fight or abuse children, because they knew it was wrong. People wouldn't care about people's colour. If someone was a different religion, we'd just say "Well we can all believe what we want and we will be happy with each others choices and respect them". In truth, most people (I know) already live by these rules. 

However, the rich and the powerful don't. That is why we are where we are. However much I wish I could change the way people behave, I can't. So we have to live with people in power we don't like. Be it Trump, Starmer, Sadiq Khan, Vladimir Putin, etc the world is full of leaders who I hear people despair of. It seems almost every conversation in a pub ends up with some sort of discussion about leaders and how rubbish they are. I sometimes wonder if Donald Trump is simply a practical joke played on left wing people by God (yes I believe God has a sense of humour). You put a man like Trump in charge, he fixes a problem that all rational people would want fixed and then you watch as those who don't like him try and find a reason to hate him even more. 

As far as I am concerned, all of the reasons I had to dislike Trump before the peace deal were signed are still valid. But...... And I know this upsets many readers of this blog massively, if he has managed to sort out peace in the Middle East, then people like me should acknowledge the fact that he's pulled off something good. I've no idea what the future holds, whether Israel and Hamas will stick to the deal, whether the ordinary people on both sides who have suffered will see their suffering end. What I do know is that today, it seems as if they might. So be grateful for small mercies. I heard a conversation where one party said "I can't believe that ordinary people in Gaza are chering Trump". The other person said "You'd cheer Trump if it meant people stopped bombing you and you were going to get a proper dinner for the first time in months".

The world will keep turning. I won't be around to read it, but I'd love to know how history book writers perceive what has happened over the last few days and months. Trump is not a year into his second term. There are doubtless going to be many more chapters. There is a Chinese curse that says "May you live in interesting times". Whatever you think of Trump, there is certainly many things of interest to blog and chat about. Someone, who does like Trump, asked me if I could sum up mu views of his efforts in the Middle East today. My response? Ask me in six months time, when we have seen what actually happens. Sadly, I've seen all manner of deals come and go and the reason we are where we are is because they've all fallen apart, through mutual suspicion and ill will. If Trump can put that Genie back in the bottle, he deserves the plaudits. If it doesn't, then he will join the long list of politicians like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who thought they'd sorted it all out, only to see things become even worse. I genuinely hope I have to join in the plaudits through gritted teeth, as he gets the Nobel prize next year. If I wanted it to crash and burn, because of my personal emnity towards Trump, what would that make me?

I asked for a kiss, you gave me a box of snakes!

 Dreams. What do they mean? Last night, I had a dream that it was my birthday.  We were having a party in our house and I asked my wife for a kiss. She replied that she had something far better. She gave me a lovely box wrapped in extravagent paper. I was excited, but when I opened it, it was a box of snakes. As I am extremely phobic of snakes, I actually woke up in a panic. My wife had already got up. When I came down stairs she simply laughed and said "that is quite funny". 

What does it mean? I have no idea. My mother used to say that if you dreamed of snakes, it meant there would be a death. What does a whole box of them mean? As you might imagine, I have felt slightly ill at ease all morning. I very rarely dream of snakes. What could have brought that on? Well there are several things. I went for a beer and a curry last night with a mate of mine. I sometimes have vivid dreams when I've had a curry and beer, so that is the mundane answer. Another reason? On the way home, I got a message, out of the blue, from a former friend, who I have no wish to associate with, following some absolutely awful behaviour on his part. We have not been in contact all year, but out of the blue, bold as brass, I get a message as though nothing has happened. I was absolutely furious when I got in. My wife told me I should simply ignore it. I do listen to her at such moments, so this was the course of action I chose. It wasn't my preferred course of action, but probably the most sensible. 

When I got in, I watched the news. Perhaps one of the biggest snakes in modern times was the top story. To me, it beggars belief that America, the richest and most powerful nation on earth have chosen a leader with so little personal integrity. I've never really wanted to be the King. Can you imagine having to invite such people around for dinner and to have to be nice to him. A mate observed yesterday that he's had a lot of experience dealing with people like that, having Andrew as his brother.

Then there is Facebook. When I joined Facebook, all I really wanted was to keep up with what my friends were doing. These days, it almost never shows me what my friends are up to. It decides what it thinks I want to see. Oddly, this most days is videos of snakes. It turns my stomach, but I am too thick to get it to stop. This morning, oddly, it wasn't snakes, it was a man hitting a large cat with a chair. To be honest, that was more sickening than snakes. After I'd navigated away from tehe page, I realised I should have reported it. It was not a UK clip. If it was I'd have reported it to the police. 

It made me realise that there are worse things than snakes. When I was a child, my Dad, who was born in the outback of Australia, used to scare the life out of me with stories of poisonous snakes. That may be where the phobia came from. One day, I mentioned that I was terrified of snakes. Dad replied that they are nothing to be scared of. He said they are just animals and if you treat them respectfully, they leave you alone. He then said do you want to know what the worst monster of all is? I said "Yes". He

picked my up and said "I will show you, close your eyes". He picked me up and we went into another room. He said "Open your eyes". To my shock, I was looking in a mirror. He then said "all the worst, most terrible things are done by people. People Like Hitler casually killed millions of people, no animal has ever done anything like that". I was too young to understand.

It is quite attractive to think of Trump as some sort of despot, but he was democratically elected and his party has a majority in the US parliaments. He hasn't set up death camps, he hasn't jailed opponents. It is pretty clear that he lacks the gumption to actually stand up to other leaders who are breaking international law. The only people who get a kicking under the Trumpian world are those who can't defend themselves. Yesterday, he launced a £15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times. This is a man who lectured Sir Keir Starmer on 'Free Speech'. Why? He didn't like what the NYT said about him. He is extraordinarily thin skinned. 

He craves the attention of despicable people. Karl Marx wrote "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". I don't know if he had a crystal ball and saw Trump in it. I often wonder how Trump thinks history will judge him. An unkind friend suggested "rather harshly, because most of the people who support him aren't smart enough to write history books".  The strange thought occurred to me that I could draw an anolgy between my dream and Donald Trump. I suspect that from my perspective, voting for Donald Trump was like asking for a box of snakes, but getting a box of worms. Much as Trump might view himself as a King Cobra, to me, he's actually more of a lugworm in bling. (pictures courtesy of @Grok). 

How the rest of us see him

How Trump sees himself

What scares me most about President Donald Trump

 So you may be wondering what scares me most about President Donald Trump, I will tell you but before I do, I will take you on a couple of small deviations from the theme, which I hope will illiminate what I say later in the blog. It is said we all like a little deviation occasionally. I here President Trump certainly does, but hey ho, what do I know. Perhaps he just enjoyed a game of two of tiddlywink with Stormy Daniels  I was at the gym earlier, in the sauna and I was thinking about President Trump and, as often happens, strange thoughts came to mind as I was baked and dehydrated.

The first was, I wondered if he has ever been truly happy. I don't mean that he had a nice day, I mean a moment where he was blissfully happy. It has only happened to me once. It was some time, I think in the first six months of my relationship with my missus. It was an intense time in our relationship. I woke up one morning next to her, she was fast asleep with a sunbeam shining on her. She looked so beautiful, still and happy that I was overcome with joy just to be there. Despite the fact that I was a young man, at the time with raging hormones, I just lay there and appreciated the moment, realising my luck to be in the moment. She was blissfully unaware of what I was thinking. As I lay there, a little voice, at the back of my mind said "enjoy this moment, you might never be this happy again". A couple of months later, my Dad died and my age of innocence of the harshness of life departed. I'm not saaying we've been unhappy since, quite the opposite, but that was a moment of stillness, tranquility and happiness that surpasses anything. It was a brief view into how life could and should be if we could forget the petty thinngs, which don't matter, that bog us down. I think when we lose parents and have kids, it is impossible to truly have such a moment. 

The second moment? Fast forward fourty years. I was with my son, in a bar in Manchester, attached to a hotel. We'd been to football and were going to catch a train home. The bar was rather swanky and rather empty. We were tucking into burgers. As we sat there, two of the most physically perfect young women I've ever clapped eyes on came in. It was impossible not to admire their beauty. Shortly after them, a pretty average looking guy, not too much old than my son entered. He started chatting to them, they puchased a bottle of champagne, took three glasses and disappeared in the lift upstairs. I am not one to judge, but it rather looked as if it was a financial arrangement. Not knowing any of them, I'd be guessing if I jumped to any conclusions. But as I sat there, a strange thought came to my mind. Just suppose the chap had won the lottery or some such thing and wanted the best night of his life. I idly thought back to my own story above. I am sure the night before had been special, but it was that moment of trusting togetherness that really stayed with me. However desirable the trappings of money, I don't believe they can buy you that. 

Which brings us back to Trump. He's been married three times. He has a few kids. It would be theheight of ignorance to think he's not found some blissfully happy moments on the way. The trouble is that whenever he talks about sex, it never seems to come from a place of warmth and contentment. I don't intend revisiting his rather course comments. I am sure that such men say these things because they believe it makes them look strong to other men. In truth, it does the opposite (unless the men are complete imbeciles and have never had proper relationships with women). You may think I am a waek minded, browbeaten delta man, with low testosterone levels, who simply can't cope with the way alpha males behave. If you think that, you probably don't know me and you definitely don't comprehend my thought processes. But I wasn't brow beaten into these views ba a domineering wife. They were passed down to me, by my Dad who was a WW2 bomber pilot, war hero, successful busnessman and one of the hardest men I've ever met. Yet he always treated women with charm and respect and drummed it into me that men who talk badly of their wives are insecure and usually semi impotent fools, who lack the charm, intellect or sense to behave any other way. 

Which brings me to what scares me most about President Donald Trump. He is the most powerful man on the planet. Kings, Prime Ministers and Presidents kow tow to him. A simple presidential order can wreck the economy of a far flung country. What does he see when he looks around at the rest of us? He sees what he considers to be lesser men, with something that he doesn't really understand. He sees men who are happy in their own skin. Men who don't need to behave like bores or rely on the trappings of money to find a womans arms to take solace in. Trumps businesses are things like casinos, which rely on mugs to part with their hard earned money, golf clubs, where rich old men can discuss enlarged prostate issues with other rich men and property deals, where anyone who has dealt with estate agents, knows how much fun that is. What sort of strange hell is it, to have everything you want and nothing that actually matters. Maybe I'm wrong, but I actually feel sorry for the poor sod. I think he wants to be loved, which is why he keeps claiming he's ended six wars, but when it actually gets down to it, doesn't know how to do it. 

I wonder if he's ever made a bowl of chicken soup for Ivan, Marla or Melania when they are feeling poorly and sat with them to cheer them up? I wonder if he ever made his kids egg with toast soldiers when they had the measles? I can remember talking to one very wealthy public figure, who shared a nursery with my daughter. My daughter had been off for a couple of days with a cold. I told him, I'd made her egg and toast soldiers, as my mum did for me when I was poorly and a bit sad. He replied that he "could afford a nanny to that sort of thing". 

He thought he was really clever, but all I could feel was sorry for him. I suspect that if I ever met Donald Trump, I'd end up feeling the same, even though it is the last emotion he'd want from a pleb like me. But when it comes down to it. The scariest thing of all, which I've said in a very long and round about way, is that I think the man completely lacks empathy with the rest of us. With all that power that might just be a very dangerous thing.

Blogging - What a load of rubbish! Getting it wrong!

Every so often, I write a blog, usually spending ages on it, then I realise it is as dull as dishwater and if someone else had written it, I'd think "How could anyone write such drivel". I know some of my readers (Hi Brian Coleman), think all of my blogs are drivel, but I get nice feedback on enough of them to think most must be OK. I don't actually mind when people tell me I've written a load of old cobblers because they disagree with me. I have strong views and share them freely, so that is part of the job, but occasionally people pull me for simply writing a duff blog and on occasion I have to agree.

Generally, the blogs I wrote about Barnet Council didn't fall into the complete drivel category. The reason was simple, I'd see something that no sane person would think was OK and lay the facts out. A reader may disagree with my analysis, but I cannot recall a single occasion where I was called out for having written simething stupid about Barnet Council. When I write about more subjective things, it is easier to waffle and talk complete nonsense, if  not careful. On a few occasions, readers have taken such exception that they've written and complained. The best example was when a reader, Andrew Evans, who was an atheist, took exception to my views about Richard Dawkins. My response was simple. Write a guest blog as a response and I'll share it. Andrew did and I was really pleased with his response. I thought it was a pretty intelligent exchange of views and the world is a better place when we do share our opinions in a civilised way. 

Although I am sure Andrew would categorise the blog he responded to as not one of my best, I thought it was actually pretty good. I tend to like provoking such a response, so it has to be classified as OK. The blog I wrote yesterday and didn't publish was not OK. I suspect that if Andrew had seen it and responded, he'd have conclusively given me a verbal kicking. I try and write blogs that people who hold diametrically opposed views will find interesting and challenging. Sometimes this is easy. Some of the blogs I wrote during the Brexit referendum campaign, I thought were very good and even staunch Brexiteers conceded I may have a point. One recently told me that he was dismayed to realise that I'd been right about the effects on Eastern Europe. But one thing I've learned is it is always the unexpected consequences that are most interesting, when the dust settles. A good example is that now Trump is in the White House, Brexit does have an upside no one, especially those in the Leave camp predicted. Having said that, I suspect that the early promise of a better deal for Britain is a pipedream, as all Trump really wants is a better deal for America. What really worries me is that Trump can kick us harder than Europe, because they are bigger. We will just have to see how that will play out and I genuinely think that Mystic Meg has as much chance of predicting Trumps next action as any other commentator. 

The one thing I know for certain is that if Mystic Meg could accurately predict Trumps next action, she'd be a rich lady as she'd be able to make a fortune shorting the latest stock market sector Trump has shafted. But for poor, humble, ill informed bloggers like me, Trump presents a real dilemma. The problem is that there is almost nothing interesting to say about him. He's Mr Marmite, those that love him and think he's a genius are convinced, those that think the opposite equally so. I suspect that Trumps saving grace is that no one knows what he will do next, so everyone is terrified of upsetting him. I think that the recent, outrageous missile attacks on Ukraine are Putin seeing how far he can push his luck. Unlike Trump, I think Putin is wholly predictable. The problem for every country with the exception of perhaps the USA and China is that we can do very little. What we do know is that Putin wants to decouple the USA from NATO. He wants this for one simple reason, if he acheives this, he can push Europe around. Whatever you may or may not think of Trump, Putin or any other world leader, in twenty years time, neither are likely to be around. Putin will be 92 and Trump 98. But I suspect that the legacy of their respective reigns will still be casting a shadow.

Personally, my assumption is that by 2045, the USA and Russia will no longer be the powers of note. I believe that this will be the century of China and India. Both have populations that dwarf the USA and China and both are growing far faster. Trumps policies seem to me to be aimed at putting the genie back in the bottle. I suspect that all he's doing is forcing these countries to open up new markets, that the US cannot dominate. It seems to me that the leaders of China are planning for the next 20 years, whilst I am not convinced Trump really knows what he will do tomorrow. China know that in less than four years, there will be a new President of the USA. Whatever happens, the direction will change. It may well change another three or four times over the next 20 years. China's economic policy is very likely to adapt, but remain focussed on what the ruling elite in China think is important.

Of course, there is always the unexpected. Few predicted the dissolution of the USSR and it is always possible that the central control of China may go the same way, but unlike the USSR, China is prosperous. People tend to rebel when the economy doesn't work for them and they feel there is nothing to lose. China is robust, I believe it will easily withstand the seismic shock of Trumponomics. It seems likely to me that Trumps policies will hit global growth and we will all suffer to some degree, but markets adapt quickly. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that Trump is simply generating a bear market so his mates can make a fortune shortings stocks (which I don't), the turmoil will die down fairly quickly. The trading models that do not respond well to unforseen shocks, will start to price in a 'Trump Announcement factor' and market swings will be less pronounced. The ride may still be bumpy, but it will be potholes rather than off the edge of the cliff.

But all of this is purely my best guess. I may be spouting a complete load of rubbish. Getting it wrong is a way of life for bloggers. When Boris won in 2019, I woke up in the certain knowledge that the Tories would run the country for a decade and Labour were in permanent decline. It appeared Nigel Farage was riding off into the sunset, telling all who would listen that "It was Nige who won it for Boris". We all know how that went.

Anyway, at the start of the year, I made a few predictions in my new years blog, here's the ones we can pass judgement on. I didn't do to bad, did I?

Politics

Donald Trump will not end the Ukraine war on day one of his presidency as promised.

Nigel Farage will continue to be the bloke most invited onto #BBCQT whilst claiming that the 'mainstream media' gives him a hard time.

The Weather

Winter will be cold and miserable and at the end of it, we'll be told it's the hottest winter on record.

So there you go! Bloggers do occasionally get something right, even in the most challenging of circumstances!

The Sunday Reflection #44 - Don't despair, this will pass

On Friday, as I mentioned yesterday, I had a lovely day. This was brought to an absolute juddering halt, when I returned home, put on the telly and Sky news appeared with the news that Donald Trump had sent President Zelenskyy packing from the White House. I was in an absolute state of shock as it unfolded in front of me. I've never seen anything like it, ever. The footage of Trump and Vance attempting to bully and belittle the Ukrainian president reminded me of a bad gangster movie, where the Mafia bosses are putting a lackey in their place. The total lack of respect Trump and Vance clearly have for Zelenskyy was paraded in front of the whole world. I have watched the footage a few times to try and understand and make sense of it. The more I watch, the more it appears to me that Zelenskyy was ambushed by Vice President Vance. I suspect that if it had just been Trump and Zelenskyy, the meeting would have been reasonably cordial and the deal would have been done. Vance had a different agenda. He clearly wanted to put Zelenskyy in his place. This triggered Trump. I suspect that Trump is less than happy with how it all went. He wanted a juicy deal and to be able to boast he'd ended the war. The deal disappeared before his eyes. The right wing in the USA were thrilled to see this display, but any sane person should be deeply worried. 

The first thing that occurred to me is that Trump has forced Europe to step up. One of the reasons that the USA is far more economically powerful than Europe is because historically Europe is divided and cannot get its act together. It is clear that Starmer and Macron have realised that they simply cannot bury their heads in the sand. Trump may have done the pair of them a massive favour. Forcing Europe to get its act together will make two leaders, who had looked as effective as a melting jelly, look like effective and assertive statesman in a way most of us couldn't  have imagined. Starmer has taken a lot of criticism for his attempts to snuggle up to Trump. The narrative is that Zelenskyy showed Starmer how its done. The opposite is true. Starmer simply tried to develop a sane, grown up relationship with a very unpredictable man. The realities of global realpolitik dictate that this is how it's done. Whatever you think of Trump, he was legitimately elected and whether we like him or not, God willing, he'll be in the job for the next three years and ten months. If he drops dead, we'll have Vance, who seems to me to be even worse. So careful what you wish for. 

If things carry on the path that seems to be emerging, when the next President walks into the White House, the USA will be a very different place. It is clear that Trump sees foreign policy only as a business transaction. My view is that the end result of this will be a Europe which is far stronger. We really have no choice in this matter. I suspect that this will have the opposite effect to the one Trump wants. Whilst Trump plans to stick massive tariffs on EU goods, to reign the EU in, it seems to me that this will be another driver for the EU to get its act together. One interesting development that the Musk/Trump bromance has seen, is a collapse in sales of Tesla cars in Europe. It is all very well having deals, tariffs, etc, but if your brand is tainted, it will cost you money. If people don't want to buy your products, then it will damage your business. I am not sure that having the stars and stripes on US products will help sales around the world at the moment. If I were the CEO of a US company operating in Europe, I would be concerned. When sales slump, CEO's get the sack, even when it is the policies of an idiot that have caused the collapse. When the bottom line of US corporations start to feel the pinch, I fully expect to see the narrative change. Trump is banking on loosening regulation, increasing oil production and savings on Federal budgets to get the economy booming. I think there are two problems with this approach. The first is that any oil company making large, long term investment decisions will have to gamble on the post Trump administration sticking with these policies. I don't think that's a slam dunk and if the mid term elections see a swing to the democrats, then the bubble may be popped before it's inflated. The second is that stripping down the federal infrastructure might save tax, but it may also badly effect the ability of Trumps administration to govern. I've worked in companies where there have been mass redundancies. People down tools and some sabotage things. It is awful for morale. For any organisation to work, you need goodwill from the staff. Painting your own staff as the bad guys is insanity. 

Business thrives when there is certainty and a stable economic environment. When there is chaos, you really don't want to start investing in long term developments. There may be short term tactical wins (selling bullets and bombs), but ultimately for a vibrant world economy, chaos is the last thing you need. Just about everyone on the planet expected Zelenskyy to sign the deal with Trump, the war to be wound down and a degree of stability to return. Trump's hissy fit showed that nothing can be taken for granted. All leaders who are invited into the Oval office will now be aware that it can go tits up in a spectacular manner. After the cordial meetings between Trump and Starmer/Macron, many leaders who were a bit wary of Trump probably thought "Maybe he's not so bad". The brutal truth is that they cannot escape the fact that a meeting with Trump and Vance is like playing catch with a live hand grenade.

And one last observation on the world scene. Don't overrate the capabilities of Putin. He invaded Ukraine because he thought Ukraine would collapse. It didn't. He's had to shore up his army with North Korean conscripts. His biggest Middle Eastern ally in Syria got booted out. He is reliant on China to shore him up. Putin desperately wants a way out. He had hoped that Trump would strike a dea with Zelenskyy, so that the war could end, he could nick some territory and claim a victory and the sanctions would be lifted. What happened was not a victory for him. If Europe does get its act together and shore up Ukraine without the US, then that is a real disaster for Putin. The idea that an army who couldn't beat Ukraine is a threat to the rest of us is lunacy.  

The only real solace for me, is that this will pass. The Trump era will not last forever. So long as Tangoman's ineptitude doesn't blow us all up, I am pretty convinced that this will eventually come to be seen as a rather odd interlude in history, when people wonder how the hell we ever got into this mess. 

Tangoman's behaviour inspired me to put this together, it uses a live track from The False Dots recent gig.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Roger Tichborne (@rogtex)

Donald Trump has just started the Third World War but no one has noticed!

 Something very strange is going on in the World today. We have a war between Russia and Ukraine. We have a terrible conflict between Hamas and Israel, where tens of thousands have died and despite a ceasefire, it is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where there will be a fair, just and lasting peace deal. You would think that a new President, taking over the mantle of Leader of The Free World, would be looking at this situation and thinking "How can I make sure all of my allies are lined up behind me, so we can present a United front and ensure maximum leverage on those parties that we need to force to the negotiating table". That is not how Donald Trump thinks. His first major foreign policy moves are not in these regions. He has targetted neighbours and allies, Canada and Mexico with trade sanctions. The most bizarre aspect of this, is that the pretext is to stop the cross border trade in Fentanyl (a super strong opiate). He has also informed Denmark that he wants them to hand over Greenland to the USA, starting a row with a small country on a different comntinent that has, up to now always been a staunch ally. He has told the EU, an organisation I would have assumed he'd want onside against Russia, that he is planning sanctions against them. China, not an ally, but the one country with some sort of leverage against Russia is also in his sights. 

Now the obvious observation is that he is cracking the whip to show both foes and allies who is the boss. He is laying down his cards to get massive trade concessions. He is acting like a property speculator, ruthlessly trying to put together a mega deal, and using every trick in the book to maximise his profits. That was my assumption when I first started to hear of these proclamations. Then I thought about it and analysed what he is doing and saying. He has said that he wants both Greenland and Canada to become part of the USA. He's not talking about doing nice trade deals that are a bit better for America, he's talking about a full on land grab. Western Democracies have made the mistake in the past of misreading the territorial ambitions of despots. Wars rarely start with armies marching across borders. They start with a period of economic attacks on the enemy, ever increasing claims a false flags, negotitations that are designed to fail and when all of these have set up a permissive environment, the troops walk in. 

When I first heard about the link between Fentanyl and the sanctions I was completely baffled, but Trump is portraying this as a threat to Americans that needs to be dealt with. The genie is out of the bottle. He has to do something that demonstrated that his policy is working or he will look like a fool. If he'd said that Canada and Mexico simply had bad trade deals, that would be a completely different thing. He hasn't. The USA has the most robust economy on the planet, Mexico and Canada combined do not have the GDP of California, let alone the USA. The concept that these economies are a threat to the USA is ridiculous, so Trump has chosen drugs. There is no doubt that Fentanyl is killing a huge number of Americans. Nearly 90,000 died of drug overdoses in 2024. If this many people were killed in an atatck by a hostile power, it would be a devastating act of war. Trump playing this card against Canada and Mexico is one that is hard to see as anything other than the start of a very hostile campaign against his neighbours. The sad truth, one which Trump ignores, is that it is the failure of US policies that has caused the crisis, but one that suits an expansionist agenda.

It is highy unlikely that trade tariffs will disrupt the movement of narcotics across the borders of the USA and I don't believe that this is what Trump is looking for. I believe that his goal is to enshrine himself in history as the greatest ever US President and I am coming around to the idea that he believes his lasting legacy will be to expand the territory of the United States of America. So what does he really want? Lets start with Mexico. I don't believe that Trump wants to conquer Mexico. If the country becomes the 51st State, then every Mexican could move to wherever they wanted in the USA, which sort of defeats the policies he's been espousing for years. Far more likely however would be a limited operation to carve out a buffer area between the USA and Mexico. Just suppose that between the current US border and Mexico, there was a 'sterile corridor' 20 miles deep, then it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to climb over fences or tunnel under them. Mexico couldn't hope to win a war against the USA, something Trump knows. Maybe he could bully them into such an idea or maybe he could just send the army in to do it and tell Mexico that if they shoot at his troops, he'll send a full scale invasion. Would Mexico risk a retaliation? The one thing we can all be 100% sure of is that Trump doesn't give a stuff for Mexican sensibilities. 

Then there is Canada. Trump has spoken openly about Canada becoming the 51st State. The USA and Canada are democracies. I really can't see how Trump could compel Canada to join the Union if they didn't want to. If the USA was set on invading Canada, they clearly could with not too much of a problem, but sooner or later, Canadians would have to vote to ratify the union and that might prove rather embarrassing all round. I'd be surprised if bullying Canada to do anything would prove to be anything other than very counter productive. But who knows the mind of Donald Trump. Canada is a rich country with huge mineral wealth, which Trump clearly feels is ripe for picking. His property developer mentality will surely not take much convincing that a bit of bullying, a few threats and some sort of nice carrot to go with the stick, might get him what he wants. 

As for Greenland, again there would be no obstacle to the USA if he just chose to annexe it. Denmark is clearly not in a position to defend itself. I can see no reason for Trump to raise this issue if he isn't serious. Given that Denmark is a member of NATO and the EU, any annexation would surely spell the end of NATO and a huge stand off with the EU.

In George Orwell's 1984, there were three great political blocks. Oceana, Eurasia and East Asia, all constantly shifting alliances, all in a constant state of war, but mostly conducted as skirmishes in remote places. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Trumps shenanigans will push the EU closer to China. It strikes me that if China play their cards right then they can be the big winners of the Trump era. The US sanctions will make them keen to open up new markets and do new trade deals to fill the gaps. The US seems intent on upsetting its friends, so this opens up possibilities for a regime that can take the long term view. By the time the US has a president who is interested in engaging with the outside world as friends and partners, the damage will be done. It is not a given that the next President will be any more international in their thinking than Trump.

I've long been of the belief that the third World War will not be fought with guns. Nuclear weapons make the concept of a large scale conventional war ridiculous. Putin has found that having half the worlds stockpile of nukes has done him no good at all in Ukraine. Israel has seemingly had a major victory over it's main Geopolitical adversary, Iran, without a single boot setting foot in Iranian territory. Blowing your enemies to bits with dodgy pagers and mobile phones is a very 21st century way of doing war. I suspect that before the end of the century, we'll see a country lose it's sovereignty purley as a result of hacking of it's computers, banking systems, transport systems and finance systems. If you woke up one day and your computers didn't work, all your cash was gone, there were no trains, buses or planes and no TV or Radio, you might find yourself under a foreign juresdiction without even realising and without a bullet being fired. Information will be the new weapon. 

Which brings us to today, 3rd February 2025.  I believe that Donald Trump has started this war. I believe it will escalate over the next few years. It will cost us all a lot of money and make a lot of things we currently take for granted a lot more difficult. I don't think too many bullets will be fired, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a few maps need redrafting in the not too distant future. 

Oh yeah, one thing I forgot to mention. The US economy has always done very well when there is a war and I am sure that Trumps rich backers are all too happy to see the benefits of what is going on. 

Welcome to the new world!

The economy, stupid - Why Kamala Harris lost

Six weeks ago, I thought Harris was a shoe in. Six days ago, it was clear to me that Trump would win. Harris blew it. Why? To quote Former President Bill Clinton, The Economy, Stupid. The Democrats are historically the party of the blue collar workers, the lower middle classes, the workers. The people on the sharp edge of the economy, who suffer when times are bad. This is the core of the democrat vote. They want a candidate who talks about their problems. Whilst issues such as 'reproductive rights' are important, they are not what talks to the Democrat core. In the rest of the world, we see Trump very differently to the average American. They see him as a 'regular Joe'. They see him as a guy they could have a beer with and watch Baseball. They see him as successful and decisive. His message is simple "Make America Great Again". He talks about putting America first. Harris never addressed this. How can you hope to be become President when that's your opponents pitch and you have no catchy riposte? You might not like it but he ordinary Joes voted with their pockets. Biden won in 2020 as Trump was running on his record, which was awful. Kamala Harris wasn't associated with Bidens successes and Trump successfully painted her as the author of the regime's failures. That's how election in democracies work. Whether you like it or not, Trump won and he will be the President in January. Its not the end of the world, we had four years already of him and we survived. My Dad gave me one bit of important advice. Things are never as bad, or as good as you think they are at the time. 

A Poem For Donald Trump

 When Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, I wrote a special poem for him. I thought that was it, we'd seen the last of him. How wrong I was. Seems like a good time to run it again. 

 

Donald Trump

It shouldn't concern me, but I've got to speak,

About the end of the era of Donald the Thick,

It's been quite 'interesting ', I've got to say,

To witness all the fun in the USA

President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump

Why don't you move to Russia, do us all a favour?

But what will you say when you meet your maker?

What will the history books say about you 

The shame of your reign, you just can't undo

From  travel bans, to covid, from BLM to bust,

"grab them by the pussy" mate, you can't control your lust

I don't want to share my world with you

But your time has run out now, there's nothing you can do

President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump

Maybe if there's Aliens they'll do us all a favour?

Take you on a one way trip, to the planets around Vega,

What will the history books say about you

The shame of your reign you just can't undo.

Biden quits - what does this mean for Donald Trump?

 I am not in the least surprised that Joe Biden has stepped down, I was amazed he ran for a second term. Over the course of his Presidency, he's looked increasingly infirm and it has been quite upsetting to see. It is beyond me as to why it took until now for his friends and colleagues to persuade him to step aside. Back at the start of the year, I predicted that time would catch up with both Biden and Trump and I have to say that when I see Donald Trump, I do not see a man who looks in full command of his mind. A few years ago, a much loved person in my life developed dementia. I learned much about the condition. He would be quite able to read, to have a lucid conversation and at times he seemed perfectly with it. On occasion though, he'd start rambling, repeating himself and worst of all, getting angry (often for no reason). When I watch Trump speak, I see echoes of such behaviour. The worst aspect of this was how he would start ranting about random people. I have a friend who is a doctor and I discussed this. In laymans terms, he explained that as the brain realises it cannot process information correctly, it becomes agitated and this is directed at whatever is perceived as a threat or an irritant at that time. I'm not an American, I have no skin in that election, but every citizen of this planet runs the risk of being affected by irrational behaviour of the most powerful man on the planet. I was watching Trump speaking about Kamala Harris. There were two things that worried me. The first is the total lack of diplomatic language in Trumps words. The second was the almost irrational anger. I get that Trump is not a fan of the Vice President, but it used to be the case that we expected a modicum of decorum from Politicians. 

So what do I think of Kamala Harris's chances? It is almost impossible to tell at this point. The demographic shift in the USA since Trump won in 2016 should favour Harris. She is clearly completely sound mentally, so any democrats who were waivering due to Bidens failings, should be back on board. We've not seen her up against Trump. I am sure that will be an interesting debate. I doubt she'll make Biden style gaffes. Trump will try and portray her as a left winger who will drag America's economy  down the pan whilst opening the borders. Harris will have to have a decent strategy to counter this. On the plus side though, the issue has moved to Trumps mental capacity and ability to complete a full term. Being almost the same age as Biden, Trump may well set a trap for himself. The Democrats will be keeping a beady eye for any signs of dementia or any other infirmity. 

Sadly, it seems to me that this election will be more about who is fit to run the country, than about setting an agenda to take America forward. Trump was undone by the pandemic. The USA's response was appalling. Have Americans really forgotten?

My concern for Harris is that she seems to be very low key. My gut feeling is that to beat Trump, the democrats need a charismatic candidate who can give people some hope. I suspect that Harris will do very well with liberal Americans, who don't want restrictions on abortion, who want affordable healthcare and who do not like attacks on immigrant communities. On the other hand, there are few areas where Trump is strong that she will make a dent in. The hard core of blue collar white men who love Trump will never vote for Harris. The issue is that elections are not won in these areas. They are won on the margins. It is too early to know whether Harris will make inroads here. I suspect that if she does, Trump will lack the capacity to claw back people who are won over by calm debate rather than insults and bluster. I expect that we'll soon see the Crooked Kamala jibes come out. Trump will reprise his greatest hits, the ones he believes served him well. It is anyones guess how they will go down against a confident woman who has spent her whole life ignoring barbs and insults. 

It seems to me that Europeans have a lot of difficulty getting their head around why so many Americans seem to like Donald Trump. There have been comparisons with Boris Johnson. To me, such comparisons are wide of the mark. Johnson was around the political landscape for a very long time befoe he became PM. He was a popular Mayor of London and was seen as a 'bit of a laugh' by many. Trump wasn't involved in politics at all before he won in 2016. My view was that I thought many Americans thought Trump would be a good leader because he was seen as a strong leader through his TV appearences on The Apprentice. They felt that Trump was straight talking and would simply sack people who were not up to it. As a lot of Americans thought the politcal system was broken, they felt someone who would sack half of Congress was a great man. Trump failed miserably when he had his first term, but his supporters fell for his "We was robbed" rhetoric. In some ways, Trump losing and claiming he was robbed was something that disaffected Americans could buy into. The thing that interests me is how many Americans are disaffected with the political system and are attracted to this. It seems to me that they are not traditional Republicans. There is a certain lack of coherence in claiming to be a patriot to the flag, whilst wanting to tear down all of the traditional structures of government and follow someone who promoted insurgency. An American friend who is what might be called a 'sensible Republican' told me a month ago that Trump Biden was an impossible choice. I asked about Kamala Harris and his view was that the Democrats would be mad to pick her, but could win with a better candidate ( probably a white, middle class male). His view was that Harris would make him more, not less likely to vote Trump, but he also felt Harris may drag over constituencies that were turned off by Biden (the pro abortion lobby). I suspect when it comes down to it that the truth is that for many Republicans, Trump is the worst possible candidate, apart from whoever the Democrats pick. I have no idea who else in the Democrats would be better than Harris, I don't really follow their politics, but one thing is clear. Americans have a very clear choice if Harris stands. 

You may wonder why I've not mentioned the possibility of a different democrat candidate. I am not ruling it out, but if they are to do it, they will have to get a move on and there is no evidence that they have an appetite for another candidate.