There’s not a clear pattern yet of a consistent anti-Trump bounce for leaders in polls across the West. Yes, Mark Carney was a major recipient of such a boost in Canada but the Danish premier, who called an early election, whilst doing well didn’t get a great result, indeed she lost in poll share but (just) remained in poll position to lead the next Danish coalition government. Here in the UK the situation is summed up in this clickbait (below). Starmer is treading on thin ice, on the one foot toeing the ’special relationship’ line, whilst no doubt taking advice from whoever replaced Morgan McSweeny telling him that a little resolute British Bulldog Spirit will help Labour’s chances in May’s various election contests. One hopes Trump won’t pay too much attention to that. But the message is going to be: we don’t currently have anybody who could replace Starmer. Actually there’s 100% truth in that. Nobody in the Parliamentary Labour Party will want to be the first to plunge the knife. They are I imagine a skittish lot now, wondering how with their massive parliamentary majority they aren’t achieving anything that cuts through. Do any of them want to save their seats? I know what I’m about to say is not the correct received political wisdom, but I think a good ding-dong inside the party would refresh its appeal, rescuing it from it’s current semi-moribund state. What’s there to lose? But there’d have to be a really good ding-dong.

+In the UK septuagenarians like me have to renew our driving licenses every three years. This is a wise policy I think. The reaction times of oldies coupled with their innate belief in their expertise bestowed by the longevity of their driving experience is a recipe if not for disaster but at least a few scrapes, misjudgements and lucky misses. It’s a different kind of risk to that offered by predominantly young male drivers who have been brought up in a world of Grand Theft Auto (or some such). I used to moan about old blokes wearing flat caps driving along on a 60mph speed limit road at 32 miles an hour, but I suspect I am fated to join them. What’s different now about getting a license are the extra questions, particularly about one’s health that require a tick in a box (essentially allowing you to self-certify—or face a £1,000 fine for dishonesty) and then, after you’ve passed down that list of ailments you are asked to tick more boxes on a new list covering which organs you might donate should the worst happen. Set the algorithms to work on the second list and you may find who’s cheated on the first list. By then of course the threat of a £1,000 fine will have lost its grip. My advice: (if they still work) keep your eyes on the road! (And remember to change up a gear occasionally.)
 
+Visiting a Wetherspoons pub the other day I picked up a copy of Wetherspoon News, which extolls the virtues of the pub chain, from preserving old buildings, to sharing profits with employees, to serving craft beers, to being highly rated for hygiene, to being affordable - well, the list goes on. There's barely enough space in its 130 pages to do things justice. The business's chairman, Tim Martin is not shy having his say and obviously hopes that his customers will have the time to read the mag in between getting rat-arsed and chatting with their mates. This is all well and good. Why not have a good moan about the taxes levied on pubs (unfairly)? Or how is it that Ed Milband's Dept. Of Energy eschews renewables in its own estate because 'renewable tariffs offered poor value for money?' Most of Tim's articles, and I'm not sure he has time to write them all himself, cast a quizzical eye on what the State is up to with particular reference to pubs - although I notice that there is no mention of how Wetherspoons business model impacts on independent pubs which may not be able to compete with the low beer prices in 'Spoons— a bit like the Tesco effect, perhaps. However, I was pleased to see the Great Landlord questioning the value of nuclear power (yes, this in a pub magazine). I imagine this Spring/Summer his views will be debated up and down the land. I hope it doesn't lead to any fights. If it did I am sure the pro-nuclear lobby would be the instigators.

A lengthy report from the Daily Mail that appeared in clickbait has examined Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Israel. Various suspicions have appeared in the past that Epstein had some sort of relationship with Mossad. The stuff in the article ( Report: Epstein's links to Israel's political and security networks revealed) points in this direction but as the demure use of the phrase ‘security networks’ suggests is inconclusive. The evidence is tendentious, but I think it merits further investigation. There are too many links to be brushed aside—not least it seems by Epstein himself—nor by Netanyahu who has said that Epstein’s relationship with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak demonstrates that he, Bibi and his crowd could never have co-operated with Epstein. Netanyahu and Barak of course were political opponents. That the Daily Mail has run this story makes me wonder if there’s something more to hear about. A bit of kite-flying perhaps? Of course, it is quite possible that Epstein did have a relationship with Mossad but simply wasn’t aware of it. The difference between an agent and an asset.

+On a recent visit to Whitby's St Mary’s church atop the east cliff, a port of call before the famous abbey, the visitor is greeted by a sign which reads ‘Please don’t ask where Dracula’s grave is. He’s not buried here.’ I assume this is only half a joke. A great many visitors who have taken the reality of Dracula to heart will be disheartened to find their pilgrimage yielded so little. They’ll just have to put up with the abbey instead, where at least real history was made, namely a seventh century synod which determined on what dates Easter should fall. But I’m left wondering how many people really believe(d) in the corporeal existence of Count Dracula? Some will leave St Mary’s thinking if he’s not buried here, then where? Hopefully they’ll find the answer on the internet.
 
+A debate is brewing in Yorkshire about the revival of what was known as Doncaster/Sheffield Robin Hood Airport, a project which is slated to cost taxpayers £100s of millions in public subsidy. The airport only ever came into existence originally because it was an abandoned RAF nuclear V-bomber base with an exceptionally long runway. The airport closed after it signally failed to live up to its passenger numbers promise. The re-opening proposals provide a classic example of a local vanity project, as I moaned about in a letter published last week by the Yorkshire Post:
 
'That North Yorkshire Council is having to write off £7m plus in relation to the failed Alpamare Waterpark project in Scarborough might raise a few questions for the good citizens of South Yorkshire, who may soon bear a debt of hun­dreds of millions for the new vanity project formerly known as Robin Hood airport – otherwise Doncaster Sheffield Airport.
The alarming reports of The Yorkshire Post on that project has reminded me of our own Scarborian experience of dealing with officers who convince themselves, and then their elected members that despite risk reports, everything will go swimmingly and that the best case scenario will be magically exceeded beyond all expectations.

In Scarborough, the now defunct borough council held a special, unprecedented council meeting to hear directly from the developer how the waterpark would be a surefire bet. It became difficult to gainsay the pressure members faced not to deny the developer’s case.
It felt to do so would be like denying that Scarborough had any future as a tourist destination. At least the Labour group, of which I was a member at the time, rejected the plan. Some of those who supported it are now of course ensconced in North Yorkshire’s regime.

That leads me to another lesson with earlier precedents, warning how elected members could be sent barking up the wrong tree.

It is reported that Scarborough’s town hall, now half empty it seems, may be disposed of and remaining staff working for North Yorkshire relocated to an office block out of town, on the market for around £4.5m. This the council says contrasts with their estimate of renovating the town hall at a cost of £19m. I wonder who checks North Yorkshire Council’s cost estimates? The latter figure is clearly such an exaggeration it beggars belief that any officer could present it with a straight face.

Thankfully, (I hope) no North Yorkshire Council Tax (or income tax) payer will be asked to contribute a single penny to the vanity project which is the doomed Robin Hood airport relaunch.

But from my experience the term ’due diligence’ will be bandied about and elected members face being bamboozled into supporting a very high-risk venture. When it goes belly up those responsible will be nowhere to be seen.'

This may be a local story, but it has a universal application. Indeed, only today the BBC reported that Britain’s second ‘high speed’ railway may have to operate at reduced speeds to ‘save money.’ As they say you couldn’t make it up (HS2 as it’s called is already a much truncated version of original itself due to massive cost over-runs).

What is it with vanity projects (or vanity wars for that matter)?

I saw a question on the clickbait which wondered whether we should mourn the passing of the international order. This of course was an order that was defined by neo-liberalism and expressed in the one word ‘globalisation,’ something which Tony Blair said was no more possible to stop than Autumn following Summer (I may have the seasons misquoted here). Well, should the left welcome the much touted end of the so-called international order? Should it offer a backhanded compliment to Trump for achieving more in 12 months than Jeremy Corbyn did in a lifetime in politics (I’m using Corbyn’s name here more in a symbolic way, even though the two seem to have similar views on NATO)? What I wonder is the ‘left’ internationalism of today? No doubt the word solidarity will crop up, just as it did between those who saw a common enemy of the working class during the First World War. But even then such left luminaries as Victor Grayson became recruiting sergeants for the meat mangle. Now it seems that the war on Iran is solidifying Iranian patriotic fervour (as opposed to fervour for the regime) and as we know Trump hasn’t got the faintest idea about what to do next. In Iran, 90 million people will be left in limbo. So where does ‘left’ internationalism’ step in, aside from slogans? Answers on a postcard, please. Or maybe an indigestible tract.
 
I would like to offer my own solution, but I can’t. I am fatalistic. Perhaps I’ve been too closely involved in politics and dwell on the failures of our ‘democratic’ system too much. Those failures are manifest, and are rooted in the inescapable systemic dishonesty which underpins our fantasy world (motto: growth will save us). I do not look back with nostalgia to an innocent pre-imperial or industrial age, in that regard the ‘Enlightenment’ was something of chimera. The killing went on uninterrupted and there has never not been an excuse for humans to behave abominably towards each other, inspired by jealousy, greed, faith—whatever comes to mind. As has been said, the Devil has all the best tunes.
 
We are perhaps in a League of Nations moment. Despite U.S. involvement in the drafting of the League’s founding, the country did not ratify its membership. Nazi Germany withdrew. The contours of what is happening to international bodies today have been delineated in the past. In commercial terms what has been described as a country’s competitive advantage is being translated into a wider context which is to say you take advantage wherever and whenever you can, with military support where necessary.

On my regular morning walk I pass a church with a noticeboard that declares ‘Jesus is the Face of The Father.’ The Good Book tells us that we are all made in the image of God, so I suppose Jesus must share this likeness. But that’s as clear as it gets—any further thought on the matter inevitably leads into a quagmire of contradiction, impossibility and frankly, insanity. But on this kind of basis, which is their personal faith, we are yet again facing untold death and devastation at the hands of lunatics. Some of the zealots in the Middle East now have the backing of a man who really does believe he has the face and possibly mind of God. In any way you look at Trump you might reasonably conclude that he is clinically insane and should be suspended from office on the grounds of incapacity. Why this hasn’t happened is anybody’s guess, but I suspect this ‘faith’ business has a lot to do with it. It provides succour to irrationality. The rationale, perhaps of a Father who would kill his Son just to prove he has faith. Everything* in other words can be sacrificed to prove a point.
 
*Except perhaps the $markets

Let’s face it: one of the biggest political challenges today is the infantalisation of information (formerly known as ‘news’) which flows like an unrestrained geyser from the internet. AI is already accelerating the pace. I saw reference (with faux outrage) on clickbait about an AI generated video which purported to show a fight taking place between Keir Starmer and Jeremy Clarkson. This I imagine was created ’for a laugh’ and indeed it maybe a laugh but if it was well done some credulous idiots will take it at face value. In the world today don’t say it didn’t happen. Prove a negative. It’s not enough to say ’Look, this is really ridiculous, I don’t need to prove it didn’t happen.’ But now, having said that I can see no reason why Starmer and Clarkson shouldn’t have a fight, I dunno, over some farming issue, yes, inheritance tax on farmers! The brave rural lad standing up to the lilywhite urbanite who couldn’t tell which end of a hen an egg comes out of. So the faux AI video becomes a metaphor for a battle which is real, and therefore it might as well be real itself. Jean Baudrillard looks less and less outwith actualité as each day passes.

What is it about hair and politicians? I am tasked to ask the question by a sight of two pictured together on clickbait: Keir Starmer and Pete Hegseth (US ‘War’ secretary). I think both wear the same brand of hair gel. They want to emphasise their luxuriant hair. Trump of course has a big thing about hair, but with it thinning so much he has to be careful, hence the prevalence of his baseball hat, which he wears sometimes when it seems totally inappropriate (does he wear it in bed when he’s having sex? (once thought of, the image stays). Perhaps a politician’s hair has to be accomplished for the television age. Neil Kinnock clearly struggled with his comb-over and eventually had to give in, funnily enough when his proto-New Labour seed was beginning to take root. Some, like John Smith just knew it was a lost cause and seemed much more comfortable with that. Silvio Berlesconi had difficulties, and in a rather embarrassing photo-op with T. Blair Silvio appeared wearing a bandana whilst undergoing hair surgery. There was no need for surgery for Thatcher of course, just lots of lacquer. Her chum Reagan was rumoured to use a gallon or two of Grecian 2000 to keep the look of vitality.
 
It’s not just what’s on top of course. It was regarded as a bit of a no-no having a beard (or even in Mandelson’s case a tache) if you wanted to be taken seriously. Poor old Robin Cook. Poor old Jeremy Corbyn. But even the late Derek Fatchett, a well respected Leeds MP and eventually Foreign Office minister under Blair got rid of his chin rug. I was disappointed. A five minute research project would give me the opportunity to see how many of our current crop of male MPs dare to wear a beard—excluding Moslems, Hindi or Sikh MPs. Is there one?
 
Anyway, my theory is you—male leaders—have to disport yourselves with a rich bed of dark hair which stands erect under the heat of television lights. It’s a lesson that Rudi Giuliani didn’t quite learn, the cheapskate. How else can you see off these foreigners who seem more replete than you (let’s not even go into styling, a la Kim Jong-un)? I think there could be a metaphor buried here somewhere for penis envy. Given his language, that almost certainly applies to Trump.

With the exception—perhaps of Afghanistan, whose fate was determined to some degree by the UN—nobody these days needs an excuse or a real reason to start a war. Nowadays the UN looks as impotent as it ever really was in averting conflict. Once some self-deluded autocrat decides war is a good thing, nothing gets in the way, least of all logic. Back in 2003 we ended up in a war because it was said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. This year war on Iran is happening to stop their nuclear programme, which Trump claimed had been ‘obliterated.’ If you ‘ave ‘em or you ‘aven’t it makes no difference. This war of course is what Israel’s government has been itching for since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The likes of Netanyahu will point to long standing statements from Iranian leaders that they wanted to eradicate the state of Israel, and the clearly aggressive behaviours of Iran’s proxies was seen as evidence of that. But then Israel has not done anything to address its own addiction to warfare, always aided and abetted and funded by the US, albeit with a brief respite after Israel shot up the USS Liberty and killed dozens of US service personnel back in 1967. The US ship was in international waters at the time. All par for the course.
 
At least it looks like Starmer has grown a wee bit of spine in this latest bout of blood letting, so much so Trump has basically called him a useless idiot, and now with Sir Tony ‘WMD’ Blair chiming in. So SAD. AREN’T THEY CHUMS ANYMORE? Tony at least now has the excuse as a member of Trump’s Board of Peace (as they say, you couldn’t make it up) of becoming one of Trump’s useful idiots. Watch out Melania, Tony’s coming!*
 
*Nothing untoward is suggested here, but Melania should consider fixing an Oddjob rim to one of her wide-brimmed hats just to be on the safe side. 

Belgium as such rarely makes the news, so I thought it might be a nice short break destination, especially since this last week it has not experienced any rail—or general—strikes. A warning from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advised that disruption could happen almost any time. What Belgians are striking for I don’t know. In Brussels and Antwerp one gets a slight impression of orderly chaos, where things work but could go off the rails (forgive the pun) at any time. My Englishperson’s impressions are partly formed by not having a clear idea of what language is being spoken. These are truly cosmopolitan features of a society which superficially at least has accepted ‘integration.’ Having said which I am sure that historical enmities lurk beneath the surface which some politicians will inflame. Such people could do no worse than visit a current exhibition in Antwerp’s MAS museum which looks at the treatment of Jews during WWII. The exhibition looks at the domestic life of individual Jewish residents, and its descent from ordinariness to horror. For much of the non-Jewish population life went on as best it could, and this for some meant accommodations being made with the occupiers. A German propaganda newsreel showed German troops marching down a street being given Nazi salutes by civilian onlookers. Cinemas could still offer some hope of escape, even if films had to be approved. Such approval might be easier to obtain if the proposed film didn’t touch on the war at all, or at least presented the situation as normal, with healthy fraternisation between occupiers and occupied.
 
At least Belgium hasn’t started any wars recently or invaded anywhere, at least not by force. Near the MAS museum is the Red Star Line museum, which tells the story of the eponymous shipping line which ferried hundreds of thousands of emigrants to the US and Canada. Not just Belgians, but people from as far away as Eastern Europe. In this sense Belgium has been at the crossroads of modern European history. ‘Free movement’ was a reality long before the EU came along. In the case of the US their open door policy was closed in 1954. I believe Canada still welcomes migrants. But the borders are closing up. No more ‘world citizenship’ nonsense!
 
The Magritte Museum in Brussels is worth visiting in this general political context. René Magritte (1898-1967) maybe best known for his surrealistic paintings but he was also anti-Fascist (one reason amongst many why I prefer him to Dali). In one of his short films he presents himself in the style of a lunatic giving an impassioned speech, funny and sinister at the same time, given its basis in the real life nut job who sought world domination. In this regard, with the help of Co-pilot I have recreated one of Magritte’s posters for the contemporary era, below. Enjoy!

​