Foghorn politics.

Anything strike you as odd about this article on the BBC web site?   I had to look at it a couple of times before it clicked.  This is not a news item.  This is a view by a journalist, and given it was prominent on the BBC web site, the view of the BBC.

I should say from the outset that I do not agree with the ban imposed by the USA.  It is a remarkably blunt weapon to deal with a serious problem. Indeed, it is probably totally counterproductive as argued by Shashank Joshi. An own goal.

But that's not my beef here.  It is about the BBC web site.  Read it again.  It includes a politically biased value judgements in the use of the words "condemn" and "fails".

First, look at the headline.  It is biased in favour of the position that the President's policies on refugees are wrong and therefore should be condemned.  Now, you and I may think that President Trump is wrong and are free to say so.  But this is obviously a political position that the BBC are adopting.  It is one also being made by the losing side in the recent US Presidential Election.  This is a political position.

Secondly, it is biased in favour of a position that the PM should intervene in the democratic process of the USA to the probable detriment of trading relations.  Again, this is clearly a political position.

With no balance in the debate, not even parenthesis around the words “condemn” and “fails” we are left reading material that is nothing short of propaganda against US and UK government policies.  It seeks to influence a view rather than introduce a debate.

Mrs May told reporters: "The United States is responsible for the United States' policy on refugees”. And she is right.  Those who try to suggest otherwise are simply trying to cause trouble.  There are more appropriate ways for Mrs May to express her views than by the public foghorn that her detractors would wish her to use.

How would we like it if anther government condemned our democratically elected government?  No, we wouldn’t like it, would we?

As George Galloway - of all people - has so shrewdly remarked, the Clintons and Obama governments are responsible for a million deaths in the Muslim world.  But BBC wants to demonise President Trump for some flying restrictions.  Five of these countries in the Trump list Obama sanctioned the bombing of.  Where then was the outrage?

It does strike me that if the Democrats didn't like Trump's platform, all they had to do was field a credible candidate with a popular manifesto.  But as we know, the Democrats were too arrogant for that.  And if they think Trump is a problem, which indeed he may well be, it’s a problem of their own making.  

Shame on them.

Legitimate, like it or not.

I am sure I am not the only person struggling to think of any Head of State or President or Prime Minister that I agree with 100%.   Some could take our own Prime Minister.  You may not agree with her.  And you have the freedom to say so.   Though Mike Russell, SNP negotiator on behalf of the SNP in relation to the UK leaving the European Union, needs to be careful how he phrases his opinion.   He should not call the people on the other side of the table “liars”.  A different perspective yes, but liars, that is inflammatory.  And hypocritical toboot.

Anyway, today we learn that Graham Guest, a solicitor from Leeds, has started a petition that he aims to use to "put the spotlight" on Mr Trump.  All fair and good.  So far.

On Sunday, he told the Press Association news agency: "A state visit legitimises his presidency and he will use the photo opportunities and being seen with the Queen to get re-elected."

Now, he says a state visit legitimises his presidency.  I don’t think so.  The democratic process in the USA legitimised his presidency.  Nothing we do or say can alter that.  Like or loathe President Trump, it is the Constitution of the USA that gives Trump legitimacy.  I would have thought that a lawyer would understand that it is the law that gives legitimacy.  Hence the Supreme Court giving its judgement on the calling of Article 50.

I don't know him.  But I do wonder if Mr Guest is one of a cheerful band of people who quite possibly grew up in the age when no one “won” school races; everyone got a medal for taking part.  Part of the generation that doesn’t realise that failure or not winning is part of life, and how we address that is part of how we build our character.  Part of the group of people in the UK that think 48% has more legitimacy and weight than 52%.   A generation that thinks if we don’t like a result then we have a right to demand it be over turned. 

In my own country of Scotland we voted in a once in a generation referendum to remain in the UK.  I didn’t like the result.  But I accept it.  It had legitimacy.  It was legitimate in law.  But the SNP never accepted it talking after the result, not before you will note, that if circumstances changed then they would call for another vote.

Then the UK, of which Scotland voted to remain part of, voted to leave the European Union.  But once again people began to say, oh the people didn’t really vote to leave, they meant something else.  In other words they think everyone except themselves is stupid and doesn’t know what they are voting for.  But before the vote everyone accepted that Leave was Leave.  That was until the result went the “wrong” way.  Then the LibDems and the Greens in particular, became the cheerleaders for the idea that people didn't really know what they were voting for and should be given a second chance.

You may not like someone. You may not like President Trump.  You may not like what they do or say.  You may not like the result of a vote.  But in a democratic society you change things via the ballot box.  Not populist crowd hunting.

How to negotiate. Not.

I went into a car show room the other day.  I went prepared.  I knew what the list price of the car I wanted was.  Yes, I had checked on line on the manufacture web site.  So I knew what it would cost, including the extras I wanted.  So no sales person fooling me!  Right down to the rather nice carpets I wanted added to the foot wells.

In I went.

I’m glad I was so well prepared.  When the sales person asked what I was interested in, I told them.  No messing about for me.  “What is your price on the car I’m looking for, including all the extras”, I demanded.  They told me.  It was the same as I had worked out on the car manufactures web site.  Amazing.  Tick that box!  They didn’t get me there.

And when the sales person asked how much I wanted for my car, I told them.  Oh yes, I told them.  Exactly.  I was prepared.

“Shall we do a deal then?” they asked without another second passing.  Deal done.  Money paid.  

And off I went.

Unfortunately I had left my scarf on the chair I had been sitting on, so returned to the showroom.  Still sitting at the desk, facing away from me, was the sales person.  They were laughing.  They were telling a story.  They were telling someone on the other end of a phone line about this complete tube who had just been into the show room and declared what they were willing to pay and what they wanted to get for their old car.  “Couldn’t believe it, just told me what they wanted, so I gave it to them.  No need for any negotiation.  Made a fortune on that sale I did.”

You will be pleased, or relieved, to know this is of course all made up.

But it does show what would happen if the government were to declare their negotiating hand on their strategy for exiting of the European Union.  We'd be trashed.

Fifty shades of Amendment

Well, the votes of the Supreme Court Jury are in.  8-3.  Interesting that it was a split vote.

Then two things happened almost immediately.  One was the lady who was the chief cheerleader in the bringing of the case, Gina Miller, spoke.  Well, she actually wrote an article in the Telegraph.  And it’s interesting to see a less than subtle shift.  In the case she fronted, it was all about rule of law.  That’s when she repeatedly told us.Now that has metamorphosed into it’s a journey to get parliament to frustrate the will of the people.  She didn’t use these words.  But why else would she so lucidly push the case she is now advocating.  But I guess we all knew the narrative would change to a more open stance against the UK leaving the EU once the verdict came in.  She clearly is of the same mindset as people like Nick Clegg who think there is still a discussion still to be had. 

Does she not realise that the people of the UK did have a debate, they listened to all sides, they balanced the different views.  And by a majority, they rejected the views of those who sought to remain in the EU. The Remain camp seem to be saying Remainers are right, everyone else is stupid. As David Davis reminded the House in his statement, that is an old debate.  We're leaving the EU.  It is just a matter of when.

Then there was Ms Sturgeon.  Always guaranteed to seek the headlines.  And this time it is fifty amendments.  To a Bill that hasn’t even been published yet!  Not really too sure how you can amend something that hasn't yet been created. Has she forgotten what she surely had drilled into her in the fine debating halls of Glasgow University where the likes of James Wilson, Bonar Law, Henry-Campbell-Bannerman, Charles Kennedy, Vince Cable, and "Ming" Campbell preceded her?  They honed their fine debating skills there. 

Nicola clearly has some way to go to join such illustrious company. But why miss yet another opportunity to bang the Independence drum. The people of Scotland voted, she reminds us.  Yes 63% of those who who voted cast their vote to Remain in the EU.  The other 38% didn't.  And as she now knows from the rulling of the Supreme Court, Scotland cannot stop the UK leaving the EU and she should stop pretending otherwise as Tom Harris carfully argues.

Anyhow, let us for a moment consider a situation where the UK government gets an astonishingly good deal for the UK and all its constituent parts, including Scotland.  After all, it is in the interests of the car, wine and cheese makers in the EU and many others across the channel that we do indeed get a good deal that satisfies both sides.

Will the SNP vote against it?

Which story tells the truth?

I went to see Jackie last night.  A very moving film, it showed the emotion, and brutal side, of politics and the transfer of power in the USA.   Instant.  No longer was Jackie the First Lady. 

But, as the film showed, she wanted her stamp to be on the narrative that defined her and her late husband, John F Kennedy.  Not rewriting history, but certainly having it written in a way that tells the story the way you want it.

And so it is already with Barack Obama.  Former president.  Eight years in office.  Over the past few weeks we have been treated to a list of his achievements.  It’s like he is getting his story in first in the hope that it will be the one that survives.  All well and good. It sounds like a good story.

But sometimes the un-spoken things tell a story that is less comfortable as a legacy.The untold story.

Obama hasn’t talked about the $20 TRILLION debt he leaves behind, double what it was when he came to the office of president.

What of the 13 million more Americans on food stamps than when he came to office, that is a staggering total of 1 in 7 citizens in the USA relying on them?  Or the increase in gang and gun crime which are completely out of control in Chicago.  What of the fact that most black people are worse off than ever?

Or the greatest wealth disparity ever?  The militarised police?  The most extreme use of executive orders?

On the international stage, what of the USA dropping bombs on 7 countries it is not officially at war with? Or Presidential authorisation of those to be assassinated by drone or supporting the overthrow of the elected government in the Ukraine?  How about Special Forces operations in 138 countries or having the security state apparatus unconstitutionally spy on people at home and overseas including Angela Merkel.  

And not closing Guantanamo.

Which story will be the one that is remembered?

Now, so far, all we have had from incoming president Trump are words.  Some of them not very pleasant it has to be said.  But he clearly has defined the issues as he sees it.  From the crumbing infrastructure to the spiralling poverty that both Republican and Democrat politicians have done nothing about.   

In four years’ time we will be able to judge him.  And be able to start to write his story.

The train has left the platform.

Well, there we have it.  BREXIT means BREXIT.  Well, that is not the words used today by the prime minister.  She said we are leaving the European Union.  And with that will be the opportunity to live in the bigger world. 

Nicola Sturgeon and Tim Farron summed up the Remain case today.  The Scottish FM was the usual SNP command stuff, “the people of Scotland didn’t vote for this”, despite the fact six of her SNP MSPs colleagues and 36% of SNP voters did just that and voted in favour of leaving the EU.  Which, when you think about it, is a phenomenally high number given the rhetoric the FM pumped out before the EU referendum.

But it was Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrats leader, who took the biscuit with his almost hysterical position.

He said the PM's speech was about an "extreme version of Brexit" and claimed it was the "Theft of democracy”.  Er, maybe I missed something but I think we had a democratic vote that asked one question.  Do you want to remain in the European Union, Yes or No.  That’s what democracy is.  And the fact that people listened to but rejected Tim Farrons views doesn’t mean it is any less democratic.  But sadly the Lib Dems are becoming a bit of a footnote.

Of course he argues, as does his predecessor, Nick Clegg, that people didn’t vote to leave the single market as if they didn’t know what they were voting for.  In other words, they think the UK electorate are not capable of thinking through issues and taking a decision.  Says a lot about what they think about the intellectual capacity of the people of these islands.  It also says much about what they consider to be democratic.

But both Sturgeon and Farron are sadly negative.  Inward looking.  Cornered in the box they have put themselves in of their own volition.  And frankly, any outsider would have looked and them today and said, “excuse me, don’t you realise the train has left the station?”