The Special Relationship

According to Henry Ford, the founder of Ford Motor Company, history is bunk. I do not believe this to be true but if you replace ‘history’ with ‘the special relationship’, he would have a point. The phrase is an unofficial term describing the supposed close political, diplomatic, cultural, economic, military and historical ties between the United Kingdom and the United States.

The relationship at the birth of America was anything but special. Indeed, it took until World War II for the relationship to become close. The phrase was not used until Winston Churchill spoke about it in 1946. Since those days, many a British Prime Minister has claimed that he or she was standing shoulder to shoulder with the US President of the time. If that was true, every PM would have needed a soap box to stand on.

The post-World War II history of relations between US and UK does not demonstrate a consistent, unbroken alliance. There have been times when it could be best described as frosty, difficult and embarrassing. For example, PM Harold Macmillan patronized JFK when stating that it was Britain’s historical duty to guide the power of the United States as the ancient Greeks had the Romans. Kennedy was not impressed. Macmillan wanted to broaden the special relationship beyond Churchill’s concept into a more inclusive "Atlantic Community". JFK wanted none of it.

The relationship was tested severely by the Skybolt missile crisis of 1962, when JFK unilaterally cancelled a joint US/UK project. He did not inform the British beforehand. Tensions were exacerbated when Dean Acheson, a former Secretary of State, challenged publicly the existence of the special relationship as he marginalized the British contribution to the Western Alliance.

British PM Harold Wilson recast the alliance as a 'close relationship' but Wilson's attempt to mediate in Vietnam was not welcomed by President Lyndon Johnson. “I won't tell you how to run Malaysia and you don’t tell us how to run Vietnam,” LBJ supposedly told Wilson in 1965. When US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara asked Britain to send troops to Vietnam as 'the unwritten terms of the Special Relationship', Wilson refused to commit regular forces. Thereafter, the relationship between LBJ and Wilson was soured, if not torn apart.

PM Ted Heath preferred a ‘natural relationship’ and stressed that the special relationship was not part of his vocabulary. The Heath-Nixon era was dominated by the United Kingdom's 1973 entry into the  EEC. Although the two leaders' 1971 Bermuda communiqué restated that Britain’s entry to the EEC served the interests of the Atlantic Alliance, American observers voiced concern that the British government's membership would impair its role as an honest broker.

Indeed, Nixon sought to impede the EEC's inclusion in the relationship through an economic policy which dismantled the post-war international monetary system and sought to force open European markets for US exports. The personal relationship at the top of government became less than special. Heath, it has been alleged, hardly dared make a phone call to Richard Nixon for fear of offending his new Common Market partners.

The personal friendship between President Reagan and PM Thatcher rekindled the relationship. Apart from liking each other, they shared a commitment to the philosophy of the free market, low taxes, limited government and a strong defence. They both rejected détente and were determined to win the Cold War. Thatcher summed up her understanding of the special relationship at her first meeting with Reagan in 1981: "Your problems will be our problems and when you look for friends we shall be there."

In 1982, Thatcher and Reagan reached an agreement to replace the British Polaris fleet with a force equipped with US-supplied Trident missiles. The warmth between the two principals was momentarily chilled by Reagan's initial failure to support UK in the Falklands War but this was countered by the anglophile US Defence Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, who provided strong support in terms of intelligence and munitions.

The election of PM Tony Blair in 1997 brought an opportunity to revive what President Clinton called the ‘unique partnership’. At his first meeting with his new partner, the President said: "Over the last fifty years our unbreakable alliance has helped to bring unparalleled peace and prosperity and security. It's an alliance based on shared values and common aspirations."

Co-operation with the US still had the potential to embarrass Blair, as he strove to balance it with his own leadership role in the EU. Enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones and US bombing raids on Iraq dismayed EU partners. However, as the leading international proponent of humanitarian intervention, the hawkish Blair bullied Clinton to back diplomacy with force in Kosovo in 1999, pushing for deployment of ground troops to persuade the president "to do whatever was necessary" to win.

The personal diplomacy by Blair and George W. Bush further served to highlight the special relationship. Despite their political differences on non-strategic matters, their shared beliefs and responses to international crises led to a common purpose, especially following the 9/11 attacks. Blair was convinced of the importance of moving against the perceived threat to world peace, pledging to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Bush.

Although PM Gordon Brown stated his support for the United States on assuming office in 2007, he appointed ministers to the Foreign Office who had been critical of both aspects of the relationship and recent US policy. On meeting with Brown in March 2009, President Obama reaffirmed that 'Great Britain is one of our closest and strongest allies and there is a link and bond there that will not break.’ However, commentators unfairly noted the recurring use of 'special partnership' by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs , supposedly signalling an effort to recast the relationship as less than close.

When David Cameron became PM, President Obama was the first foreign leader to offer his congratulations. Following the conversation, Obama said: 'As I told the prime minister, the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries.' How, therefore, does this square with the Obama threat that a Brexit vote would put UK at the back of the line for a trade deal?

And now, PM Teresa May is the first head of state to meet with President Trump. Our media has quoted incessantly Mrs. May’s comment of “opposites attract.” The British media has her US trip front and centre and seeks to convince readers and consumers of the importance of this meeting. In contrast, the American media seems far more taken by their President’s many executive orders, while often failing to comment on the likely reaction of Congress and the Supreme Court to them. Too much spin, not enough substance or proper analysis. Are comments on ‘body language’ helpful?

I read nothing in today’s Washington Post or Huffington Post about Mrs. May’s visit, although it has been covered in The New York Times. What special terms could Mrs May negotiate? At the habitual joint press conference, she announced Trump’s support of NATO, subject to her persuading her European partners to contribute their fair share. Interestingly, Trump remained silent on the point.

The Westminster spin doctors will be at their trade soon enough, persuading us Brits of the major inroads in negotiations and a warm personal relationship. However, history seems to show that the real outcomes of these meetings usually produces no lasting success. The rush to show the public that the leaders are active is the spin – the sacrifice is poor planning. Will Mrs May regret rushing to cross the Atlantic to endorse this volatile President?

In the case of Trump/May, there is not really a ‘shared interest’ on all policy aspects. The British are free traders and will not welcome American isolationism and tariff introduction. Further, should Mrs May condone the principle of torture in exchange for a trade deal, the British voters would probably disown her. There is no sign that she would condone such illegality.

I believe a strong special relationship exists between Brits and Americans, not at the top levels of government but at the grass roots of our societies. I am delighted to say I have a great many American relations through my wife’s family, as well as friends of many years’ standing. My experience has been a great liking of each other’s countries, cultures and ways of life, as well as a shared language, of sorts. (Don’t get me started on “lifts/elevators.”)  There is also a warmth of feeling, not usually associated with other nationalities. I’m not sure President Trump understands this or cares.

 

The Inauguration Address

I don’t like shooting from the hip. I like to think through my topic. However, quite a few readers have asked what I thought of the Inaugural ceremony. My immediate impression was that America demonstrated its ability to stage a large canvas political jamboree, although some might have preferred less time on religious incantations.

It is quite something watching how a democracy handles a peaceful transition of power. In the United Kingdom, it can be very rough. The newly elected Prime Minister enters from the front of 10 Downing Street while, quite often, the politically dead PM leaves from the back. In the States it’s very different. I marvel that the presidential election system devised by the Founding Fathers has stood the test of time. Despite Mrs Clinton winning the popular vote, I know of no groundswell of opinion that supports the elimination of the Electoral College.

As for yesterday’s occasion, it must be said that JFK pretty well spoiled the Inauguration Address for all his successors. How do you follow, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

President Trump's address was hardly eloquence personified. It was ‘country’ and ‘folksy’ but he was spot on the message of the past 18 months: “Stop the carnage, drain the swamp, put the people in charge, put America first and make America great again.”

There are so many contradictions in the new President’s message. Take, “stop the carnage.” Part of this relates to mass killings of innocent citizens in places like Orlando, not to mention the epidemic of murders by and of police. How do you stop the carnage with America's gun laws in their present state? I would have thought restricting gun ownership and outlawing places where guns can be brought might be a start. But President Trump is an enthusiastic supporter of the Second Amendment. So, no joy there.

Drain the swamp has been or will be the subject of an Executive Order. (It’s hard to keep up with D.C at the moment.) The Trump solution is to prevent an elected official from serving as a lobbyist for five years after leaving government. Does not Trump know this has been tried before by President Clinton? Mere prevention is insufficient. The law has to be written in such a way as to impose criminal sanctions. However, what are the prospects of Congress passing such a law? No joy there either.

What of America first? Ignoring the trade policies of the Founding Father presidents through to the 20^th century, and starting with Coolidge and Hoover, protectionism was a key element in incubating conditions for the Great Depression. The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was an outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Tariff increases of 50 per cent were common. FDR reinstated the tariff policy in his second term, bringing about another economic recession which ended only when USA became the arsenal of democracy.

Since World War II, American has been committed to a free-trade policy. It is a guiding principle of U.S. international economic policy that tariffs and other trade barriers should be reduced, that trade wars must be avoided at all costs and that the best way to achieve those goals is through multilateral negotiations. But the free-trade consensus has weakened. Trump’s protectionist rhetoric is a throw-back to the 1930s and we all know what followed. House Speaker Ryan is opposed to this kind of trade politics. Congress and the White House may soon be at battle stations.

As for “Make America Great Again,” a massive investment of billions of dollars is evidently on its way, providing jobs for Americans in rebuilding and repairing the infrastructure and building the wall. This is another 1930s policy. The underlying theme of Roosevelt’s New Deal was to put the head of the family back to work. However, will President Trump be able to fund the programme, faced with America’s massive debt? Will Congress fund the policy?

The Address had less to do with uniting the people than an appeal to Trump voters to keep the faith. What President Trump does in the next two weeks, leading to the State of the Union address, will be absorbing, fascinating and, I suspect, pretty scary.

Trump and Politics, D.C. Style

One of the tourist attractions in San Francisco is ‘The Crookedest Street in the World.’ The street goes downhill in a series of switchbacks. I can think of roads in the French Alps which are far more crooked but that’s by and by. The San Francisco Street is a good metaphor for how I think politics works. When you get away from ideology and into pragmatic deal making, politics does not have straight lines. It twists and turns and rushing too quickly can send a politician off the road. In other words, he or she ceases to have allies.

Tomorrow, President Trump will work his first full day in office. By the end of the weekend, we may have a better understanding of his real agenda and what is to come but I am certain that it will not be plain sailing for the new President. Here is a man who has portrayed himself as a saviour, the only man who can do this or that. He demonstrates a vision of the political process which owes more to wishful thinking than to the Oracle at Delphi. For those of you old enough to remember, Walter Mitty may have returned to the capitol.

In my blog, I have often posed the question: does Donald Trump fully understand the Constitution and the reality of its checks and balances? He is about to encounter the 115^th Congress. Despite Trump press releases that the new President will enjoy a “beautiful relationship” with the legislative branch and its Republican majorities, I doubt it. My rationale is simple. It’s payback time.

The Republican majority in the Senate is a mere four seats. I can think of four Senators who, in the past twelve months, have received the sharp end of Trump’s tongue. He insulted John McCain (AZ) with, “Last in his class at Annapolis…I like people who weren’t captured.” Of Lindsey Graham (SC) he rudely said, “What a stiff…in the private sector he couldn’t get a job.” He spoke shockingly of Marco Rubio (FLA) as, “Little Marco…I’ve never seen a young guy sweat that much.” He was highly critical of Rand Paul (KY.) “The people of Kentucky should not allow him the privilege of remaining their senator.” I suspect Trump has gratuitously insulted other Senate Republicans. It is only human nature, not to say politics, for them to exact retribution.

As for the House, Mr Trump refused to support the re-election of Paul Ryan (WI) but Ryan remains Speaker of the House. This office is vested with immense power. For example, the Speaker is the individual who decides which of the President’s legislative proposals he will allow to come to the floor of the House for a vote. Speaker Ryan is a ‘free-trader’ who advocates tax reform to address trade imbalances, not raising tariffs, which is an oft-used Trump threat. Ryan will be antagonistic if Trump follows up on his predicted protectionist policies.

It is customary for the legislature and the media to give an incoming President a honeymoon period, generally 100 days, before twisting the knife. I wonder whether Trump will get even 50 days. He has upset so many influential people of his own Party and in the media that there will be an almost irresistible urge to hurt the new President and his policies, simply because that is the way politics plays Washington style.

Trump has promised that on his first day in office he will give orders to repeal NAFTA and start on the plan to Build the Wall. He has shown no desire to reach out to majority and minority leaders in Congress. Perhaps he has no desire to get the branches of the American government moving in the same direction. In a country that is so divided not just politically but in economics, race and religion, this is hardly a surprise. However, this would be a good time for President Trump to show the voters how he implements ‘the art of the deal.’ Using Trump’s own words, “it’s not what you undertake, it’s what you accomplish.”

What of Trump’s much vaunted immediate repeal of Obamacare? Trump recently said he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody.” There are no specifics yet. Likewise, Congressional Republicans want to constrain costs by reducing government requirements. Speaker Ryan and other Republicans have talked about providing “universal access” to health insurance, instead of universal insurance coverage. I notice the word “affordable” is not used. Once again, no specifics.

House Republicans have already taken first steps to repeal Obamacare through budget reconciliation, enabling aspects of the federal spending laws on health to be dismantled. Quite how this squares with Trump’s recent assertion that “we’re going to have insurance for everybody” is anybody’s guess. There is a gulf between what is said and what is done. Will it mean the end of medical coverage for almost 20 million Americans? It is worrying that the Affordable Care Act could be kicked into the long grass by both the executive and legislature without a viable alternative. This is no way to lead.

Trump knows that President Obama, faced with a hostile and ideological legislature, achieved much less than desired, for example on gun laws. But the politics of Washington have defeated many a post-WW2 President. Jimmy Carter is arguably the best example of how not to run an administration. LBJ knew how to wrangle Congress. It would not hurt for Trump to look how these two Presidents presided and what happened as a result?

The trouble is that Trump does not appear to welcome objective advice and his reading and writing abilities these days seem to be limited to Twitter. 140 word sound bites infuriate some readers, often make the writer an object of ridicule and yet are universally published. I hope it’s not too late for President Trump to change his ways but old dog, new tricks?

 

P.S. I will be blogging about the Obama legacy, once Trump-mania settles down.

 

On Your Marks, Get Set, Trump.

Last week, one of my readers sent me an analysis of the incoming American cabinet. He told me that among them there was a collective 55 years of government experience, mostly military. By contrast, the first cabinets of P-E Trump’s predecessors, Presidents Obama, Bush (43), Clinton and Bush (41), had 117, 80, 101 and 79 respectively. He also pointed out that Obama’s administration had only 5 years of business experience, whereas Trump’s will be 83.

I’m not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers. However, whatever the previous experience of cabinet members, no matter how bright they are, if they have not already been in charge of a government department, they will be on a steep learning curve. If running a big business is 10, running a government department is 100 and running a country must be 10,000.

My reader also looked at the particular ideologies of future cabinet members. Tillerson and Perry, the putative Secretaries of State and Energy, are both climate change refusniks. The Head of Defense, Mattis, is a red baiter and an attacker. Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General is a dyed-in-the-wool Alabaman, allegedly with connections to the Ku Klux Klan. And there are many more similar contradictions in Trump’s choices. However, I content myself that, as P-E Trump will soon learn, if he doesn’t know it already, you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose. And before you reach for your computer keyboards, yes, Trump campaigned in blank verse!

Another more interesting suggestion was put to me. The onset of the Trump administration has similarities to the Roosevelt government of 1933. Both were and are headed by pragmatists, not ideologues who will attack a problem from the standpoint of what works. At first, I dismissed the notion but I have reconsidered. FDR was happy to engage government in all kinds of experiments and was not frightened of taking drastic action. P-E Trump has voiced a similar approach. However, unlike P-E Trump, FDR had the chance to experiment with policy when he was elected Governor of New York State in 1928.

An example of FDR’s experimentation is the Bank Holiday declared by him on Inauguration Day, 1933. American bank failures had reached record levels. Immediately after the Inauguration Speech when FDR famously declared, “the only thing we need to fear is fear itself,” he despatched accountants, lawyers and bagmen to the four corners of the country in cars, trains and aeroplanes. During the ensuing five days, every American bank was inspected. Those that were solvent were given bundles of cash – hence the need for bagmen – so depositors would be confident their money was safe and not stage a run on the bank when it reopened. Those banks which were insolvent were closed and depositors lost their savings. It was a savage policy but America’s banking system was saved.

P-E Trump seems to welcome disruption and chaos. Quite how he will deal with conflict of interest and nepotism issues remains to be seen. Chaos was meat and drink to FDR. Until 1933, the powerhouse in America government was Congress. The White House operated with fewer than 60 people. In his first 100 days, FDR created numerous government agencies, increasing the administration to more than 1,000 people, all reporting to him and by-passing Congress. The huge Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress ensured the passing of a whole collection of bills known as the First New Deal but nicknamed alphabet soup for their initials. Some of the legislation was contradictory. However, the thrust of the administration’s policies were to stabilise prices and put the head of the house to work and to the extent of ending a crisis, they worked.

Today, unlike FDR and his immediate predecessor, P-E Trump does not have a Great Depression nor an economic recession to combat. But he has many issues which divide America. Low pay for the middle and working classes, the uncontrolled use of guns, the fear or terrorism and a foreign policy in the Middle East which seems to have failed.

How would FDR have dealt with these issues? He would have experimented with policies and chopped and changed his staff to get things done. If an idea failed, he’d scrap it and try something else. FDR was not afraid of failure. I’d like to say the same of P-E Trump but he is so thin-skinned. I fear he will not handle failed policy criticism well. Twitter claims and denials will abound from the P-E. Another difference: FDR had a superb relationship with the media. Trump will have to work very hard to build that kind of connection.

According to The Washington Post, P-E Trump made 282 promises during the campaign. Blocking Muslim entry, Building That Wall and reducing income tax rates are all declared “first day in office” issues. Where will he find time that day to repeal Obamacare? In a week’s time, we will find out the new administration priorities and there will be more information provided when P-E Trump delivers his first State of the Union message. Talk about living in interesting times.

I have one other thought. For the past eight years, there has not been so much as a whiff of Presidential scandal. If nothing else, President Obama showed himself to be an honest, principled and decent man. Sadly, the reverse seems to be the case for the new incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

 

The Frenzy That Is Washington

 

I like my politics on the serious side. Policy works for me, not knee-jerk reactions. To achieve this lofty ideal needs two principal things, serious politicians and serious media. Sadly, both seem to be lacking. On the one hand, there is a President-elect who still thinks he is campaigning, via Twitter. Do we need to know in a tweet that the new host of The Apprentice is less popular? On the other hand, these days the American media seems to prefer sensationalism, rather than old-fashioned fair and balanced reporting; if the facts don’t exist, never mind. Just invent them.

 

Let me start with the American press and its handling of the American Embassy to Jerusalem story, the proposed move of the Embassy from Tel-Aviv. If you read the wealth of press stories on this topic, it would appear that the soon-to-be President has had “an idea” and is doing something novel. He wants to shake up Middle East prejudices, as well as change American foreign policy without so much as a ‘by your leave’ to the present administration, the State department, Congress and the incoming Secretary of State.

 

Here are the facts. This week, three Republican senators, Rubio (R-FLA), Heller (R-NEV) and Cruz (R-TEXAS), introduced a bill to halve funds for embassy security, construction and maintenance until the new President moves the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The proposed measure ends a waiver enjoyed by the last three Presidents, Clinton, Bush and Obama, getting round a 1995 law requiring the embassy move to Jerusalem by 1999, failing which there would be funding cuts? It didn’t take much research to establish the truth that this Trump proposal is old news.

President-elect Trump’s proposal will not be easy to put into practice. He will find that campaigning in poetry will soon morph into governing in prose, just like other Presidential candidates who made the same promise before reneging once in office to avoid a predetermination of peace negotiations. To state the obvious, both Israelis and Palestinians lay claim to Jerusalem and its status is one of the most challenging issues in reaching a peaceful two-state solution. A move like this by the American administration will put the peace talks back for years.

As for funding cuts, diplomatic security funding for Israel increased more than 1000% between 1998 and 2012, according to the Center for American Progress. But I guess a radical-sounding new Commander-in-Chief-in-waiting, who is announcing approval to a radical change in policy, supported by Senate heavyweights, is good copy for America’s press.

Next, what of the volte-face on gutting the House Ethics Committee? Ethics can be defined as a system of accepted beliefs that control moral behavior. Sadly, over time, I have reached the view that such a definition cannot possibly apply to politicians. Plato knew it thousands of years ago. If you don’t believe me, read “The Republic.” If you think ethics in US government is a lost cause but that we Brits hold the high moral ground, please recall the MPs expenses scandal, revealed by The Daily Telegraph in 2009. So many MPs hands were caught in the cookie jar or the expensive duck house. Corruption in politics everywhere may be the default position. All the more reason, therefore, to have an independent House Ethics Committee.

 

Last week, the House of Representatives determined to wreck the Office of Congressional Ethics. After a torrent of critical headlines, countless phone calls to Congress and tweets from the President-elect, the House Republicans reversed their plans. It was the legislative version of the Hokey Cokey. What was all the fuss about? The new provisions would have placed the Independent Congressional Ethics Office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee and barred the ICEO from releasing reports to the public. Congress’ most aggressive watchdog would have lost its independence and been effectively neutered. Common Cause, a nonpartisan group, pointed out that exactly eleven years ago lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose crimes lead to the creation of the IOCE, pleaded guilty to charges which involved his corrupting D.C. legislators.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he will now work to completely abolish the IOCE, citing concerns over anonymous whistleblowers making accusations against members and the IOCE leaking information to the press. Asked to provide an example of the IOCE leaking, King failed to come up with anything and got testy. “Just Google it,” he said.

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader issued a statement after the proposal was dropped: “Once again, the American people have seen the toxic dysfunction of a Republican House that will do anything to further their special interest agenda, thwart transparency and undermine the public trust.”

So should we anticipate a spirit of friendship and non-partisanship across the House aisle in the new Congress? I jest. Looks like partisanship and hatred-filled business as usual. According to former Obama adviser David Axelrod: “This House ethics drama was an absolute gift to Donald Trump: a big, fat zeppelin for him to shoot down.” Trump was able to tell his Republican colleagues they got it wrong. Pity nobody seems to be able to tell him the very same thing.

What a fiasco! The broadsheet press went to town on the conduct of the Republican legislators in the House. Do these legislators really fear the IOCE? One has to wonder why. This conduct may be completely irrational on the part of Republican congressmen who should know better. But are they looking for a freer hand in conducting their business? Either way, they need to be reminded yet again why they are in D.C. It is for the benefit of the voters, not the other way round.

If this is a taste of things to come in Congress, the new President may not keep that full head of hair for long. He’ll be tearing it out. Mind you, if it’s a wig, will it matter? Just more smoke and mirrors in Washington.

•  
•  
•  
•  

 

 

 

Happy New Year, 2017.

 

It is a marvellous sentiment, wishing others a Happy New Year and having it reciprocated. At family and friendship levels, I expect the offering is sincere, promising new and better beginnings but in politics, that is likely to be as far from the truth as one can get.

Despite the assurances and wishes of politicians for a Peaceful New Year, I see no joy for the occupants of Aleppo, nor for Syria as a whole. I hear criticisms of western governments for the "failure" to get involved but history teaches us not to get involved in other people's civil wars. So, plaudits for Russia and Turkey? Doubtful.

In UK, the burning issue for 2017 is bound to be Brexit. I anticipate a dog's brexit. Leavers, Remainers and Remoaners will not alter their views to make the New Year a happy one. Come the summer, when British holidaymakers will feel the cost of the Euro or US Dollar in their wallets, there will be more Remoaners. A price hike in gasoline is on the cards, too, as oil is priced in Eurodollars.

What of America? Since early November, real politics has been cocooned by speculation. The bar on a Trump presidency has been lowered so much, it’s hardly visible. During the campaign, Trump made almost 300 promises, several about what he would do on his first day in office, such as repeal Obamacare. Quite what will happen on 20 January is anyone's guess. I am not a fortune teller. However, it is relevant to remember that an American President cannot make new laws. Under the Constitution, this role is for Congress.

What of Trump's cabinet? I admit I know almost none of those named and nothing of their qualifications nor history, save what has been written in the press. However, Trump seems to be appointing mostly men in his own image, people who are uber wealthy with business backgrounds and no political experience.

It might sound positive to ask big business to move its skills into government. However, I have no evidence that it works. John Kennedy appointed the CEO of Ford Motors, Robert McNamara, to lead the US Defence Department. Under his leadership, in conjunction with President Johnson, McNamara escalated the Vietnam War, leading to a disastrous recession for the American economy, ignominious defeat and serious social unrest within the States.

In UK, Prime Minister Gordon Brown elevated Alan Sugar to the House of Lords to assist and oversee small and medium businesses. Sugar was a brilliant marketer and salesman of Amstrad computers. Then he made a fortune in commercial property. He starred¸ equivalent to Trump, in Britain's version of The Apprentice. How did he fare in government? He resigned before Brown could tell him, "You're fired."

Another Gordon Brown appointment from outside politics was Sir Ara Darzi, later Lord Darzi, who took a major role in reorganising the NHS. He lasted longer than Sugar but his reforms have had minimal effect. Some would argue they have been damaging in the long term.

Before any of you point the finger at me and ask what I would have done better, it is my firm belief that politics and policy should be left to experienced politicians and public servants who actually know what they are doing far better than me. Certainly bring in expertise from other sectors but put them in charge? Where is the evidence that this works.

I hope I am wrong about Trump's cabinet but what political experience has a head of big oil when dealing with Heads of State around the world? Political life is not an oil deal, nor does the oil business necessarily equip someone to be effective when plunged in the murky side of foreign policy and the deals that are needed to make the world go round. Mind you, it could be argued that the real fear is the vested interests of business, shaping foreign policy decisions to the advantage of big oil and the detriment of American citizens. But I’m delving into speculation.

I wish you all a very Happy and Peaceful New Year. For those of you who, like me, love watching the machinations of D.C., it is going to be interesting, fascinating and probably quite scary.