Westministenders. Boris worries about the land of his birth and simply wonders, what the hell next!?

[RedToothBrush]

Of all the Westministers intro I’ve done to date, I think this has been the hardest to write.

My first thought is where on earth to start, and then where to stop with how Trump’s victory affects us in the UK. It completely changes international relations. The political fall out is going to be considerable and potentially radioactive in its toxicity.

To hardened Brexiteers, America falling to Trump represents the domino effect in progress. It will embolden them. And the fear is that on 4th December both Italy and Austria could fall next as they respectively, face a referendum and a re-run of the presidential election.

And then there’s France…

All of this is a threat to the EU. It just leaves everyone, including the UK asking what next? And what of our relationship with the US? Who knows? It makes it look around and say, can we rely on the US, and without the US surely we have no choice but to grow closer to the EU. Perhaps there is a role for us in-between but there really are no guarantees and do we want to make that choice?

The suggestion is that May has no love for Trump. And whilst the hard right might harbour fantasies about becoming the 51st State, which seem to be led by Farage himself, this exposes the one red line that could bring the fury of the country down on the government to its extinction. The NHS. Its not for sale. Its not to be subject to a trade deal.

In a curious turn of events, rumours grow that the government will contend at the Supreme Court that a50 CAN be reversed afterall. Davis had personally been responsible for the original line that its not reversible. This was a political decision to tie us into leaving, and show intent and seriousness to Leavers. Yet it was always a crazy one that is not in the national interest.

Going back on this totally changes the game.

It would be a move that will go down well with Remainers and Liberal Leavers but will enrage the hardliners especially if the ECJ is part of this new tact.

It off loads a pile of risk and it is the prudent and sensible approach. It is much needed to protect the best interests of the country overall. Its also that magic ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ for that promised Nissan deal.

The change of tact would also help to appease MPs and much opposition to Brexit. And in doing so, also lessens the chances of a HoC rebellion against May and also reduces the chances of an early election, thus is perhaps a more stabilising way forward. It encourages negotiation of a good deal that other parties and rebels will also find agreeable rather than them feeling like they are being held to ransom on.

It would almost certainly delay things and might interfere with May’s precious timetable.

But there’s France… and the Presidential elections are in April/May

Do we really want to trigger article 50, if post Trump, the domino really is likely to fall there too and Le Pen wins the Presidency? There is suddenly a potential ally for major EU reform. Or even its collapse. Now is not the time to do something rash and drastic but to hold our nerve just a little longer.

It makes sense to everyone to hang fire and delay. If only briefly to see what now happens.

There are dangers in doing this though. The prospect of the ECJ being involved in a case which is in essence about our Constitution, is not only embarrassing but could be explosive. It will raise fears of leavers that Brexit will not happen. It will play to the extremes and the agenda of UKIP. It exposes judges to the press and criticism that they are activists and also trying to stop Brexit. Though Gove seems to have changed his tune and is defending them rather more than he was previously...

With tensions running high will Farage get his 100,000 march? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell on that one. He is trying to win through intimidation though, and that makes people fear him if we don’t do his bidding and what’s happening over in the States only emboldens him and makes others fear him more. He is divisive and never will be able to serve the national interest, because of it no matter how honest his delusions of being an ambassador to Trump are.

It just adds to the growing sense of helplessness and growing question of whether the proud tradition of British liberalism can even survive? It becomes appears to many this is ultimately the goal of Mr Farage – and not the EU. The EU is just a protector of it.

Well I don’t believe that Farage does have it all his way and has the monopoly on people power, nor a connection to the public that no one else has.

One of the themes developing on twitter, is one about passion, hope and a new sense of purpose. One to defend British values and not become like Trumpland. We have a warning and an example of how it really could be worse and it’s not a pretty sight.

I remember during the referendum one poster unsure of how to vote, asking simply:
“I don't want to spoil my vote. I want to vote, and vote with conviction”.

It was a question I found difficult to answer at the time. To me it highlighted how much people did want something to believe in and to not having that. We must start to build on that, and provide that alternative.

But I do believe those things to believe in were there all along. The NHS and our open democracy, whatever the flaws and imperfections of our institutions they have endured and survived for a reason – and not just for the benefit of the ‘elite’.

We just took them for granted, and now we are going to have to stand up and make sure people know that by speaking out, and know that while moderates might have it in their nature to compromise there are also some things we just can not loose in the process. We must not be drawn into a battle along violent lines as it will be used against those who do. We can’t loose our soul in trying to defend what is precious, nor should we try and reassure ourselves by finding justification for things that can not and should not be justified.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in notes to himself;

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

I think that message rings true now both for Leave and Remain supporters alike. You might have made a decision on 23rd June but you still have other choices to make now.

Choose to stay sane.

He was also humourless, whatever you might say about Lord Sugar he doesn't take the show seriously

Mahir Zeynalov ‏@MahirZeynalov
Wow. EU says considering economic sanctions on Turkey over growing crackdown

Will the UK break with this post Brexit or follow suit.

This is quite interesting - 'What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class'. It's not really news but still interesting.

hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class

but
3 million to be deported now.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-deport-immigrants-immediately-when-mexico-wall-a7415116.html

I do wonder if DT didn't mean to win the election, a bit like the Brexit trio? He did seem shocked to have won. Some of his utterings during the campaign were so out there that they should have put most sensible, law abiding people off. I think he possibly miscalculated just how many bigots there are in the US, with a awful lot of quite grotesque values, which I would say is strongly linked to the extremist (by European standards) Christianity in the backwaters. Not to mention the Republican rejects he picked up along the way, the ones that were too crazy even for the tea party. Hell, the Tea Party lot have now gone mainstream!

That photo earlier of the team of 6, with gurneying Nige in the middle and the tacksville background is a rather worrying gallery of goons. Worrying because some of them might actually be put in charge of something!

Whilst DT might be softening his approach to some things, I'm concerned by the wing nuts he's surrounding himself with pushing him towards more extreme actions. Does DT have enough spine to stand up to them? He used to be a Democratic previously, so surely the loony elements must turn his stomach a little bit at least?

www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/11/20161114t830vWT.aspx

Perhaps of interest: Public Law lecture tomorrow night at LSE, discussing EU.

www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/11/20161116t1830vOT.aspx

And this one on Wednesday 'The American Election and the left. Good speakers.

.

I thought that article was really interesting Swedish Edith.

However, the nature of educated politicians is that they are going to be educated and the nature of female politicians is that they are going to be female. If understanding white working class men means understanding that they don't like being told what to do by educated women, where does that leave educated women?

The article says that democrats concentrate on culture at the expense of economy, but, as far as I can see, cultural problems in America are real and important to many Americans. More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump, despite her flaws.

At the moment, compared to Americans, Europeans almost seem like a homogenous group!

Also tomorrow night the international implications of the Trump win www.soas.ac.uk/politics/events/14nov2016-what-does-the-us-election-result-mean-for-the-world.html

But bored aren't these a tad "elite"

Only if a quest for knowledge and a willingness to listen to both sides = elitism Ron. I like to think I am even handed.

But thanks Ron for the info, can't make it but hopefully they'll publish transcripts.

This doesn't look as glamorous as the great speaker lists at the LSE, bored , but it's a way to talk to each other, and that might just be what's needed.
A series of meetings to which both remainers and brexiteers are invited to discuss.

www.commongrounduk.com/ten-towns/

Ama. I admire the initiative but I couldn't partake, due to their entrenched founding principles-I don't think you will get open and even discussion between both sides if you announce from the outset that you are for free movement of people - that surely should be something you come to agree on in due course?

Fair enough bored I accept that people won't agree on everything, but it's good, if difficult, to talk.

It is. And talking even if you find no middle ground, that's ok. But it's finding a starting point is the hardest, don't you think?

Interesting article SwedishEdith, but also one that makes me very angry as a professional woman.

If this is truly what we are facing, particularly in terms of views on women, I think we need to understand a little less and condemn a little more. I'd be interested to know whether those who are pro-Trump/UKIP agree with it.

For sure, but it's been done before, in even worse situations. Look at the way Martin MacGuiness and Ian Paisley became known as 'the Chuckle brothers' after the peace process in Ireland and the most terrible war.
I watched with horror as the Scottish referendum gathered pace and the full fat nationalism that had simmered nicely for centuries, reaching boiling point last year. I often think that that let the nationalist cat out of the bag in England, the US and some of Europe. The Spanish have been keeping a lid on theirs, to survive. Tito kept it together in Yugoslavia.

But we are where we is. Peace, bread, roses, football, a few libraries and awful weather is what I want my kids to experience in the entitled boredom, we have been lucky enough to have so far.
And if to do that I need to talk,listen and compromise with people who I disagree with, so be it, that's OK.

Amen, amaravatti. Tomorrow is another day.

So Steve Bannon. Has been named chief strategist.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/steve-bannon-and-the-alt-right-a-primer/?client=safari

merrymouse, I know you were asking about voting in the US and how hard it was. Well I have been chasing up on a few bits and pieces on this.

1. In some states, they don't tell you were the polling station is. Image trying to vote when you don't know where to vote. Our polling cards have that information on, so we take that for granted. I was reading about how some people were driving around to find where to vote.
2. So you don't know which polling station is yours. At our last GE there were three stations locally, and its geographically a very small area. But of course I knew which one is mine. Imagine queuing up only to find your name isn't registered at that one, so you have to try the next one...
3. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act previously protected voters in certain areas which had histories of discriminatory voting practices:

A report by the leadership conference found that voting locations were reduced in about 43 percent – or 165 – of 381 counties that were previously covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The result: There were 868 fewer sites in which to cast a ballot in those jurisdictions with histories of discriminatory voting practices.

4. I've read about how one country, which was had one of the highest black populations in NC had in 2012 16 polling stations. In 2016 it had just one. Imagine the queues. Indeed, the reports on the night about extending voting hours did come from NC.
5. There are reports of poll workers requiring ID in states where it was not required. So if you had ID (which poorer people don't tend to have anyway) you might have to go home and come back and queue again. Some states changed the law to require ID when it was not previously needed too.
6. So people could have been queuing multiple times to find where to go, find out they had gone to the wrong place, not got ID...
7. Then there was the attempt to prevent you getting a vote in the first place. There was even a programme called Crosscheck to find 'duplicate' voters who were registered states, except these targeted minorities more and did things like match John Jack Smith with John Michael Smith. See various articles below particularly the Rolling Stone one:

www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article113977353.html
Voter suppression laws likely tipped the scales for Trump, civil rights groups say

www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/
The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016
This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890
The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters

www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
The Election was Stolen – Here’s How…

Exit polls are the standard by which the US State Department measures the honesty of foreign elections. Exit polling is, historically, deadly accurate. The bane of pre-election polling is that pollsters must adjust for the likelihood of a person voting. Exit polls solve the problem.

But three times in US history, pollsters have had to publicly flagellate themselves for their “errors.” In 2000, exit polls gave Al Gore the win in Florida; in 2004, exit polls gave Kerry the win in Ohio, and now, in swing states, exit polls gave the presidency to Hillary Clinton.

So how could these multi-million-dollar Ph.d-directed statisticians with decades of experience get exit polls so wrong?

Answer: they didn’t. The polls in Florida in 2000 were accurate. That’s because exit pollsters can only ask, “How did you vote?” What they don’t ask, and can’t, is, “Was your vote counted.”

It goes on to explain why. Noting here that it later points out that:
Notably, two weeks after the 2004 US election, the US State Department refused the recognize the Ukraine election results because the official polls contradicted the exit polls.

It also points out that unlike the UK, spoiled ballots are not examined at all and are simply cast aside.

www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-results-exit-poll-discrepancies-and-voter-suppression-are
Can we count of the election result? Exit poll discrepancies and voter suppression are serious issues.
"This is familiar pattern, indicative of electronic rigging".

www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/jared-trump-trump-campaign
This Vanity Fair article about Trump's son in law includes this quote.

Nearly a year ago, according to Businessweek, Kushner laid the groundwork for a social-media juggernaut and fundraising operation that could later be mined for all sorts of useful, profitable personal information. Tapping a network of Trump-friendly technologists in Silicon Valley, Kushner enlisted Brad Parscale, a San Antonio marketing strategist who sports Trump ties and Zegna suits, to run the campaign’s digital task force, dubbed “Project Alamo.” Parscale’s 100-person crack team reportedly spends $70 million a month to take people who are leaning toward Trump and turn them into the candidate’s most ardent fans. At the same time, Parscale’s San Antonio-based team is engaged in a wide-ranging effort to discourage Democrats from supporting Hillary Clinton. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” a senior official told Businessweek. Specifically, the campaign is aiming to turn off young women, African Americans, and millennials, using targeted campaigns designed to make them too disillusioned to vote.

Its worth pointing this out with the idea of voter suppression and disillusionment and digital technology.
David Greenwald ‏@davidegreenwald
In 2014, Facebook did a study without permission on affecting its users' emotions
www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html
Facebook Tinkers With Users’ Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry

To pull a quote out here:
The researchers found that moods were contagious. The people who saw more positive posts responded by writing more positive posts. Similarly, seeing more negative content prompted the viewers to be more negative in their own posts.

David Greenwald ‏@davidegreenwald
Which makes these comments really something
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/technology/facebook-is-said-to-question-its-influence-in-election.html?mtrref=t.co&mtrref=www.facebook.com&_r=0
Facebook, in Cross Hairs After Election, Is Said to Question Its Influence

It does suggest that Trump's team well knew that how they promoted on Facebook could disillusion voters. Why did Trump say the election was rigged when there were lots of attempts to suppress voting and members of his team were openly saying it.

There are some questions being asked. This one is quite a good thread again from David Greenwald:

David Greenwald ‏@davidegreenwald
More about Wisconsin. Still looking at this. If you look at Washington state, a similar population #, there is a drop in turnout... /1
But it hits both candidates equally, as does the big shift to 3rd parties. Washington is a mail ballot state, if that ends up mattering /2
WI numbers imply that every 2012 voter who didn't show up in 2016 or went to 3rd parties came from Obama voters. /3
Up until judge threw it out this year, WI had voter ID law. The dramatic one-sidedness of the numbers looks a whole lot like suppression /4
There's talk that some O voters went the other way in 2016. And yet Trump's totals essentially match Romney's numbers. So that scenario /5
Would mean some GOP stayed home while 2012 Obama voters jumped parties by 10s of 1000s. Don't know what to make of that one /6

Now that could be sour grapes, from someone who doesn't really know much about elections but even the UK's Election-Data is making some comments about this today:
election-data.co.uk/rough-thoughts-on-election-2016
In it, it points out that
Finally, the overall margin of victory for Trump over Clinton in the Rustbelt states was roughly the size of an American football stadium (100,000). But we should also remember that it looks like Clinton lost over one million Obama voters in the Rustbelt.

If you go back to some of the earlier links one - the Greg Palast one in particular - states some of the figures of how many voters were involved in the Crosscheck purge. His Rolling Stone article which was written in AUGUST stated a lot of these figures too, so there was real concern prior to the election and doesn't sound like sour grapes.

As some people have pointed out on twitter, Hillary Clinton could never have got a similar number of votes as Obama even if people had been just as enthusiastic about her as Obama, if this is indeed true.

If I'm honest, I'm not sure what to make of this all. It might all be grossly over stated, but many of these issues were pointed out well ahead of the election and the Trump Campaign actively admitted they “have three major voter suppression operations under way”.

Conspiracy Theory? Was there Russian involvement and hacking, was there gerrymandering, was there psychological attempt to discourage voting using things like FB or through Trump's comment on rigging?

Or Sour grapes? Was it really purely about Clinton being a bad candidate, a 'white lash' and economic problems.

Or a miserable combination of both.

I have no idea, but I do think there are unanswered questions here, and it does seem the American voting system is highly vulnerable to fraud and manipulation and there is a considerable lack of confidence in the system being robust enough to stop that. It certainly doesn't fill me with much.

Make up your own minds and decide how much bias (if any) there is here.