Political Spats
It is supposed to be the case that politics is boring. It always has been and always will be this is the case, perhaps apart from when we are in a state of war when obviously by definition life becomes that much more on edge. What is interesting at the moment is that on both sides of the Atlantic there seems to be a war in the populist camp, and between two of the main protagonists of the respective Republican and Reform Parties. This is somewhat ironic given that in the US it should be the case that having just begun his second term in office President Trump should be unassailable, something that is traditionally the case, especially in the first half of a presidency.
However, it seems to be true that one of the main ingredients for his victory has now turned into potentially a poison chalice, something coming in the form of the always volatile and controversial Elon Musk. The Tesla supremo has made his career and arguably his cash, out of being controversial, coming up with leftfield ideas and sailing close to the wind both financially and in personal matters.
Of course, it is difficult to be one of the world’s richest men by doing things by the book unless you are somebody who pretends to be as dull as Warren Buffett. If there is a crisis in and around the White House it is due to the problem of attempting to deliver something which is almost impossible to deliver and in a ultraquick time scale. There are plenty of observers from the UK who have already pointed out the analogies with the Liz Truss administration over here which only lasted a matter of week, after trying to deliver too much too soon, against the wishes of the Establishment, and the financial markets. The blistering pace of executive orders tariffs, and general anti-woke policies been blasted out of the White House over the last few months, are clearly taking their toll.
The too much too soon issue so much of a thing it has divided the buddy-buddy relationship that Trump and Musk appeared to have, and got very personal and painful in the meantime. Over here in the UK, we had the temporary shock departure of the Chairman of Reform, Zia Yousef, from a party which is ostensibly attempting to do a MAGA in the UK. The problem is that it would appear that Nigel Farage has difficulty working as a team player, or at least the people he chooses to work around him have difficulty lasting the course.
Political enemies of Reform, and there are many, will be hoping that in terms of the ride to the next election the party will fall off its particular horse in a painful way. It is perhaps also the case that the nearer the party gets to a potential electoral victory the more the personal divisions and arguments will kick in. It has been observed that in the UK’s first past the post system, it is around the 30% mark that means the difference between having a handful of seats and being in triple digits. While the most obvious scenario is that there will be a pact between the Conservatives and Reform by the next general election, if it could avoid the spats that we have seen it may be able to avoid having to do a deal at all. That said, given recent history it would appear to be the case that Reform risks burning up the nearer it gets to a potential victory. This is unless or until there can be a balance between Nigel Farage and the other key figures in his admittedly small party hierarchy.
Indeed, it may be the case that only when if the party can become a broad based church, rather than a one man band, can it leave the volatile nature of its progression and finally cool down. This seems unlikely though given the way that Reform’s new MP, Sarah Pochin, has been stoking the Islamophobia fire with a call for a ban on burqas., the erstwhile reason for Mr Yousuf’s temporary departure.
Whatever the pros and cons of such a move, the optics pandering to the anti-migration mob. There is the irony of libertarianism as being the reason for one to be allowed to wear something that most are forced to. From this comes the irony that many of the people who have come to the UK have ostensibly come here to have a freer way of life than in their native countries. Indeed, it is an issue which is almost impossible to resolve, and therefore all the more politically explosive. Perhaps the most explosive issue at the moment is that of a Koran burner being convicted of a public order offence, under the guise of free speech. The offender Hamit Coskun insisted that had be burned a bible nothing would have happened to him, and this is probably the case given that they would not have been any disruption to public order,.
But perhaps the big issue here is that in having been convicted the law may have delivered a justifiable death sentence to him or at least threat to his life in doing so there is certainly a moral hazard in terms of delivering an action which one knows could be a threat to someone’s life, especially if it comes from a criminal prosecution. It would appear that there is certainly a can of worms in terms of protecting the rights of minorities who clearly do not wish to defend the rights of the majority.
Israel-Gaza And Dawn French
Celebrities talking about issues in they know nothing about is obviously nothing new. Those of a certain age will remember Beatle John Lennon when he suggested the rock group was bigger than Jesus Christ there was a almighty uproar nearly 60 years ago. This was partly because of the fame of the band and partly because Mr Lennon was spot on in the UK. But he was not so spot on in Bible Belt USA where sales of Beatles records rocketed off the back of people wanting to burn them. Nevertheless, in terms of Israel-Gaza those commenting on this issue in public need to tread very carefully. Indeed, it seems to be turning into something of an elephants’ graveyard (Gary Lineker), even though on the face of it, the Leftie view on it is difficult to argue with.
As we are aware, thus far those on the Left of of the political spectrum tend to be pro Palestinian and those on the right pro Israeli. This is even though a decent chunks of Hamas, would probably not be great friends with those on the Left if they met them, especially if they were women, not heterosexual or of course, not Muslim.
We see now that the matter of Israel-Gaza has morphed into one of proportionality in terms of the response to the October 7 attacks, with the latest front being Dawn French, actress and after the latest video, former comedian. However, she has found that her video on the matter was not regarded as being as funny as she might have expected. A rather painful looking apology has been the result. It is a shame that celebrities are unable to stick to the day jobs whereas there are some matters in terms of general wrongs such as child suffering, disease, or the results of war / conflict generally which can be non-controversial. The secret to controversial issues for famous people has always been to really focus on helping those affected rather than criticising the perpetrators, however while their wrongdoing. Or choosing a general (boring) issue, such as saving the planet, oceans, climate, that are not only impossible to fix, but no one would really get cancelled on.
A Permanently Two Tier Legal System
It’s become something of a cliché already that we live in a two tier legal system, with the accusation being that those on the right politically, and those who are native to the UK are currently more likely to receive a negative reception in court, than perhaps the newer arrivals, or those with more centralist or left-wing views. Indeed it can be the case, that someone from the left or who has recently migrated to this country is perceived as getting much more lenient treatment of the hands of the law or even not be tapped on the shoulder in the first place, than one of their indigenous neighbours. The reason for this that the Establishment wants to make it look as though mass immigration has been a success, even though no one has ever directly voted for its.
Stepping back though from 2025, something that most discussing the subject do not do always recognise is that it has always been the case that the legal system and its treatment of the individual has been of a two tier nature. It is just that the people who are on the wrong tier change periodically. In the 20th century and before the law was famously against working class people or people of colour, or whatever grouping that was unpopular or had a stereotype negative image.
For instance in the 1970s we’ve had the treatment of the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six, cases that were outrageously imperfect from the start. Soon after this relations between the police and the black community meant that in the 80s in many inner cities things were out of control. In contrast, if you were white and middle class and had a decent lawyer the perception was that you could get away with almost anything.
Wind forward 50 years and it would appear that the latter grouping is now in the sites of the legal system and those formerly victimised can get away with almost anything. But it is the case that the law has always been very selective on who it picks on, perhaps due to neither where the money is or where the career ladder will take those involved.
The law also does this on the big issues. For instance if if VAT on school fees had been a Conservative policy it would almost certainly have been knocked down in the High Court/Supreme Court. But as it is a left-wing policy it has been allowed to run riot through the education system. Brexit / Gina Miller was treated differently. It is also the case in terms of asylum seekers where clearly HM government wants as many people here to come to the UK as possible (for the NHS et al) even the flimsiest excuse in terms of why a person should be here or why they should not be deported (chicken nuggets) is a winning one.
The pity is that even though it is not supposed to be the case at any one time the law is biased in one direction or the other and what is fashionable or not and perhaps also what makes as much money as possible for those practising the law. For instance, criminalising social media posts is an easy win in that the defendant is literally caught red-handed with whatever alleged infraction has been made. This is even if there is no evidence that what has been posted has led to real world action or crime. This is far easier a prosecution then trying to work out whether somebody was involved in a burglary or an assault in the middle of the night.
But it is the politicisation of the law which is the most painful part of what we have in the UK at the moment, something which is obviously not supposed to happen with the separation of powers that we allegedly have. The Blob has been made famous and outed in terms of what it does, but no one is currently able to resist the merging of the executive the legislature and the judiciary, indeed it is a three in one combination, which is almost impossible to resist. Rule of law risks becoming tyranny of law.
A Comfortable £800K Retirement Plan
While one receives conflicting advice on retirement and pensions, from it being best to build up a next egg, to The Who’s “hope I die before I get old”, most people do make provision for their old age. This is after being taxed to death either via income tax, capital gains tax, vehicle tax, council tax and stamp duty, to name a few. Apparently, it costs £800,000 (according to Saga) to have a comfortable retirement. This for most people is a lottery win, and almost impossible to build up after all the bills and costs one has to pay. The reality is that most people retire on no more than £100,000 and live like paupers, not because they did not work hard, but because they were taxed to death. This is of course all fine and dandy, why should we not be taxed. However, the current system ensures that people who have never worked or have little wealth are being subsidised by those who did, who then in turn also have a poor end to their lives. Everyone is levelled down. The answer would and good be not wasting welfare or the NHS on those who can already afford it, but that is of course rather at odds with the idea of benefits for everyone.
