As Trump rains down missiles on Iran, accompanied by bellicose rhetoric and aided by Netanyahu, the world seems an even more volatile and dangerous place than previously.
Despite the deeply problematic nature of the Iranian regime, it still seems terrible to me that the Americans and Israelis have taken it upon themselves to kill off the country’s leaders and of course there will be considerable collateral damage. Their ego-driven attempts to avoid criminal proceedings (and, in Trump’s case, Epstein Files investigations) could engulf the entire Middle East, triggering knock on effects all over the globe, not least on energy prices. Explosions have been heard in Bahrain, where the US Navy’s 5th fleet is based, as well as in the UAE, Jordan and Qatar. Total madness. The President’s schtick and false justification for this attack when nuclear talks were well underway seems designed to appeal to his dim MAGA base, cynically playing on their fears which he cultivated in the first place. ‘Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world’. An X user observed: ‘The killing of the Ayotolleh will not topple the Iranian Govt. It didn’t the last time. He’d have already been replaced. This isn’t taking sides it’s just a demonstrable fact that the President of Peace doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing’.
I suspect that the experienced and ‘wily’ Iranian negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, is more than a match for US ‘special envoy’ aka real estate billionaire but diplomatically inexperienced Steve Witkoff. As we’ve seen so many times, rather than invest the time and energy negotiating and coping with complexity, the lack of political intelligence and obsession with macho deal making result in impatience and short term non-solutions like this attack. Indeed, we had it from the horse’s mouth: ‘US President Donald Trump considered discussions with Khameini’s diplomats about the nuclear issue and missile production to be too slow. In announcing the new attack, he called on Iranians to do what they could to take over the government once it was over’.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/01/ayatollah-ali-khameini-obituary?CMP=share_btn_url
In contrast: ‘The Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, steeped in almost 15 years of Iranian nuclear talks, is a near lifelong diplomat who has written a book on the art of negotiations that reveals the secrets of the Iranian diplomatic trade – the feints, the patience, the poker faces…While Araghchi…will have gameplanned the parameters of what Iran can offer in endless consultations across the spectrum of government, including the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, Witkoff works to a shifting brief devised by one man. Trump sees diplomacy as a branch of pro-wrestling. The Iranian foreign ministry regards it as a branch of chess, almost an art form…The Iranian negotiation style is generally known in the world as the ‘market style’, which means continuous and tireless bargaining. It requires a lot of time and energy, and he who gets tired and bored quickly will lose’. Araghchi opines: ‘Diplomacy is not a game that you must necessarily win, but a process where you must necessarily understand the other side’: precisely the style Trump and his acolytes fail to understand, with disastrous outcomes. It will be interesting to see whether this man’s role changes following the killing of the Supreme Leader.
Back here there’s not surprisingly been a huge amount of interest and concern over the Denton and Gorton byelection, cynically billed by the right wing media as a referendum on Keir Starmer’s leadership. It was predicted to be a three way fight between the Greens, Labour and Reform and it was clear from the Reform campaign and their shameful bad loser response to Green victor Hannah Spencer that they expected to win. An electoral presiding officer is amongst those challenging the cynical suggestion of ‘family voting’ skewing the result. In my view the 34 year old plumber, already experienced in council politics, and local as opposed to being parachuted in, is exactly the kind of person we need more of in our politics – someone who’s had a proper job as opposed to the many public school, PPE followed by party politics types already dominating Parliament. Coming third was a poor result for Labour, prompting yet more calls for Starmer to resign, yet the Conservatives did so badly they lost their deposit and, astonishingly, there don’t seem to be demands for the hapless Badenoch to follow suit. The result confirms the irrelevance of the Conservatives and the death of two party politics.
Ms Spencer made a crucial observation in her victory speech, which should be obvious but doesn’t seem to have been grasped by the main parties in their Westminster bubble – that working hard used to lead somewhere but now we’ve been gaslit into low expectations. ‘But now – working hard? What does that get you? Because talk to anyone here and they’ll tell you. The people who work hard but can’t put food on the table. Can’t get their kids school uniforms. Can’t put their heating on. Can’t live off the pension they worked hard to save for. Can’t even begin to dream about ever having a holiday. Ever. Because life has changed. Instead of working for a nice life, we’re working to line the pockets of billionaires. We are being bled dry. I don’t think it’s extreme or radical to think working hard should get you a nice life. And if you’re not able to work, that you should still have a nice life’. The Independent’s Quote of the Day was hers: ‘We have shown that we don’t have to accept being turned against each other. We can demand better without hating each other’. Other parties, take note. She also cited what a good number (except the disbelieving media) have been so unhappy with Labour about: ‘And yes, many voters I spoke with from lots of backgrounds were also deeply troubled by this Labour government’s complicity in genocide. I’m proud that the Green Party stands firmly against genocide and war crimes, and defends human rights in Gaza and around the world. And I’m proud to represent a constituency filled with people who care about the suffering of those thousands of miles away, just as we care for our friends and neighbours here at home’.
This point was well made as some (like Tory peer Rachel MacLean on Radio 4’s Any Questions) suggested that people don’t care about ‘foreign issues’. Appalling. Does she want voters to only focus on their own back yard when situations in the wider world are bound to impact us? And not to care about such terrible suffering? I agree, also, with the Any Answers caller who said the problem with Labour was making policy at the top whereas the Greens make policy from the bottom up. Allied to this is Labour’s longstanding strategy of using opaque Svengali-like figures (eg Morgan McSweeney) to determine the party’s direction, so anyone except a small coterie at the very top is effectively excluded. And in another blow for the government, minister Josh Simons resigned ‘to avoid becoming a distraction’(don’t you just love this mantra when usually that individual is already a distraction?), being implicated in what the Independent called ‘an ethics probe into claims that a Labour think tank he previously ran paid for an investigation into journalists’. No doubt the media will be all over this very soon.
Although Reform UK chair David Bull said on the Today programme on Friday that there was no question of voter fraud, it seems Farage has taken a leaf from Trump’s playbook by implying that the byelection was stolen from them. He has unveiled proposals for electoral reform, including a significant restriction on postal voting and the removal of voting rights for Commonwealth citizens. Audacious and unworkable (designed to appeal to disappointed supporters), especially as the postal vote measure would still disenfranchise thousands of people unreasonably deemed ineligible, those with family responsibilities involving travel and those working shifts.
Trump’s warmongering and the byelection have only temporarily bumped off the front pages the biggest constitutional crisis in decades, if not centuries: the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, captured by an amazing shot of him slumping shell shocked in the back of the car, a photo which went viral and which can never be forgotten. The aftermath has seen the increasingly tone deaf royals (what on earth are the PR people and the crisis manager doing?) attending completely unnecessary events at home and abroad (and expensive,
witness the frequent use of helicopters), all billed as ‘duty’, in a desperate attempt to distance themselves from the continuing revelations and implications for the arcane institution of monarchy. There’s a substantial attempt to portray the others as innocent when it’s clear they all knew what was going on and have been instrumental in covering for the wrongdoer. Queen Elizabeth has also been knocked off her saintly pedestal for massively over-indulging her favourite son and largely paying for what they imagined would be his get-out.
Another glaringly obvious campaign, primarily led by all the parasitical royal ‘correspondents’ and other hangers on, is the one to position the Prince and Princess of Wales as squeaky clean and fresh blood appealing ‘to a new generation’ when interviews on Radio 1 showed that, on the contrary, Gen Z thinks very little of them. Today, St David’s Day, we have the painful spectacle of them reading out a short message in Welsh and yet again we have to wonder why the Princes and Princesses of Wales have mostly never troubled to learn Welsh properly. We know that as PoW Charles learned some but it’s unclear whether or not he kept that up. Yes, it’s a difficult language but it surely behoves those with those titles to make the effort.
Support for the monarchy has markedly declined in recent years, especially as more has been learned about their opaque and exploitative finances, and has plummeted further following the scandals involving both AMW’s ‘alleged’ sexual impropriety and misconduct while a trade envoy. The media, especially the BBC, continue to trot out the mantra that ‘Mr Mountbatten Windsor has consistently denied any wrongdoing’, sounding increasinglysilly and patronizing. Themedia’s monarchist agenda really needs challenging because it’s constantly shaping the narrative via choice of language that not everyone will see through. For example, we’re constantly hearing about ‘the threat to the monarchy’, as if this is a bad thing when a referendum on our head of state would be the healthiest option for a modern democracy.
At least last week the BBC platformed the Dimbleby brothers: the cringe worthy sycophancy of Jonathan, ‘friend of Charles’ was painful to behold, whereas David, the presenter of three recent documentaries about the monarchy, was far more challenging about the institution he covered extensively when a BBC employee. Part of the media agenda is to whip up fear about alternatives to the institution, some callers to phone-ins suggesting that there would be no UK without it, ‘the monarchy is the threat that binds society together’ and other such nonsense. There’s also an issue of cost: the royal family costs £137.9 million via the Sovereign Grant but there are also the huge profits totaling around £45 million via the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall which go directly to Charles and William, mostly with no tax paid. Many seem unaware of the opaque finances of these ‘private estates’, which should at least be brought within the overarching Crown Estate, leading to a bit more accountability. Thanks to media investigation, we do know more about the shameful charges these estates levy on public sector organizations such as the NHS besides the exploitative rents these landlords charge their tenants for poorly maintained properties. Although more are seeing the light about the monarchy, this country still suffers quite badly from deference, almost as if serfdom was in the British DNA. One of the most sickening examples must be Reform member and former Tory Tim Montgomerie on Sky News saying ‘we all love Princess Anne and Charles has been a good King’.
In contrast, research shows that the average cost of a republic is around £24 million annually and surely it could cost much less without umpteen hangers on and luxurious trappings. The debate raises the key issue of what royal industry employees, the armies of royal correspondents, photographers, biographers and others would do without this parasitic source of income, so there’s a huge vested interest in keeping it all going. Meanwhile, we hear that the disgraced royal, who had clung like a limpet to his former home Royal Lodge, had shouted when finally ejected ‘I’m the Queen’s second son, you can’t do this to me’. Moreover, he’s apparently been banned from horse riding on the Sandringham Estate, a significant blow for him, allegedly because that wouldn’t be a good look for the monarchy. Surely that ‘ship’ sailed long ago.
Following the arrest and police questioning of Peter Mandelson for misconduct in public office, it was interesting to learn (apparently he was furious with the police at being outed as the source) that it was none other than House of Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle who suggested (based on something he heard during his trip to the British Virgin Islands) that Mandelson had intended going there. We have to wonder when, if ever, he would have been arrested if he hadn’t been considered a flight risk. And why should he have been allowed to attend a police station for an interview sometime ‘next month’, as if he was doing the police some kind of favour rather than being treated as the culprit he most likely is and as the rest of us would have been? Yet again we see the rich and powerful getting different treatment. Another striking aspect of this is the other oft quoted statement that neither Andrew nor Mandelson were ‘motivated by financial gain’ – as if this is the only kind of gain. It would be surprising if there was no financial gain but the most obvious one was clearly power and influence. Neither motivation excuses misconduct.
As we know (another example of some being above the law and of absurd deference?) it took the police a long time to start any investigation of either Andrew or Mandelson and now both have been interviewed will it go quiet? Do the police imagine they’ve done enough to satisfy the public’s demands for answers and accountability? Business as usual? And why did it take former PM Gordon Brown to instigate these interventions? It seems it was only his 5 page memorandum about the Epstein flight logs to the Metropolitan, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and other relevant UK police constabularies which pushed them into action. Commentator Simon Jenkins puts the constitutional crisis in a nutshell: ‘What happens next hardly matters: the mystique and awe surrounding the royals had been shattered. The former prince’s arrest must change everything. Whatever happens now, a line has been crossed in the life of the nation (my italics). A once exalted royal, facing serious judicial investigation by authorities acting on behalf of the citizenry’.
As ever with the news agenda there are ripple effects, often quite significant, and the royal scandals have finally caused the ridiculous Erskine May rule that the Royal Family can’t be discussed in Parliament to be revoked, or at least partly. The Commons Speaker seems to have decided that because Andrew is no longer a ‘working royal’ (no such thing, of course) MPs are now free to criticize him and trade minister Sir Chris Bryant didn’t hold back, citing the disgraced one’s rudeness, sense of entitlement and arrogance. But it shouldn’t stop there – this rule has contributed substantially to the lack of transparency and excessive deference around the royals, both of which are inappropriate in the 21st century.
All these major events shine further light on the media (largely right wing) covering them and the BBC, as public service broadcaster has again shown shown itself to be highly arrogant in dealing with complaints. Numerous complainants about bias and the Kuennsberg Reform PR piece during the lead up to the Denton and Gorton byelection have been fobbed off with feeble and specious arguments. And you can only complain to Ofcom if you’ve gone through the BBC’s process first, thus creating another barrier to resolution. The root of this problem is the appointment by Boris Johnson to key positions four individuals with links to the Conservative Party and many of us think it’s astonishing that since July 2024 they’ve been allowed to remain in post while dragging the elected government down. It was disappointing this last week to find Channel 4 News no different – two presenters effectively interviewing each other in the Westminster lobby and, like the BBC, obviously trying to shape the narrative which undermines the government. They’re clearly disappointed that the government has drawn back from a precipice following the staff changes at no 10. Media folk only conceded that Keir Starmer is ‘safe for now’, implying not for long and after the Denton and Gorton result they won’t let up. It’s strange that the BBC is taking even less trouble to disguise its bias considering that their charter renewal process is less than 18 months away. Quite a few have cancelled their licences – it would be interesting to know how many. (It’s at least 2.4 million since 2020 and that wouldn’t include recent cancellations). With these consumer concerns and the relentless march of streaming giants it does beg the question how would the BBC fare if the funding model changed, licensing was removed and it had to operate within an open market?
Just as we learn that Boots (the first amongst High Street stores) has launched a pilot scheme making the weight loss drugs Wegovy and Mounjaro available in 17 branches, it seems the horribly named ‘fat jab’ has qualities akin to an economic Trojan Horse. Besides the fact that many are only just discovering that they may have to stay on these drugs (with what kind of long term side effects?) for a lifetime because the weight generally piles back on when they stop, the impact of over 2 million patients taking them is having knock-on effects on the wider economy and undermining capitalism, it’s suggested. The Financial Times says that besides the effects on food sales the drugs work on the brain’s reward system, reducing the desire for alcohol, drugs and perhaps even consumer goods, undermining the business model underpinning capitalism. The implication is this is a bad thing, but maybe not, when you think of the problems caused by this model. Whoever might have thought that losing weight the long term traditional way by re-educating eating habits and exercising rather than an expensive quick fix would be a better approach? Meanwhile Big Pharma will be making massive profits but at what cost to patients’ health and the economy?
Finally, on a positive note, we hear an elderly farmer in Hertfordshire was at his wits’ end because flytippers had dumped 200 tonnes of rubbish on his land, which would cost £40k to clear up, but the Environment Agency apparently doesn’t take responsibility for such events and his insurers refused to pay up. This illegal dumping of waste is an increasing problem and we’ve heard nothing further about the huge dump on land partly owned by the Duchy of Lancaster. (Yes, they could well afford the clearance but wouldn’t you just know there’s some loophole which allows the Duchy to wriggle out of any responsibility). Fortunately for the farmer, people affected by his plight ran a fundraising campaign for him and others similarly affected. Let’s hope he and his land can recover quickly from this very stressful event and that action will be taken to apprehend the culprits!
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 