The UK Daily Mail got quite upset at the High Court's decision on the Brexit matter, leading to this Twitter comparison. UK PM Theresa May has, more or less, been forced to come to the defence of the High Court. I must say that I thought that the Daily Mail heading was quite gross.
I haven't commented on the US elections since my very brief post on 8 October, Mr Trump - you are fired. We are almost at the end of this race and the results are still uncertain. We complained about the length of the last Australian election campaign. The US campaign has been going for two years! In How far does Section 44 of the Australian constitution actually stretch? I commented on the apparent aging of Australian PM Turnbull. under the pressures of office. How on earth does one survive a two year campaign? Both US lead candidates have clearly aged during the campaign process. What might be done to shorten the process or, more broadly, to ease the load on political leaders? Or does it matter?
the Melbourne Cup, the race that stops a nation, well, more or less. People do let their hair done, providing lots of opportunities for photo journalists. For examples see here, here, here. This led Anna Usher in Sydney's Daily Telegraph to write a piece headed Ladies, you are an utter disgrace. It begins:
To the young women who mounted rubbish bins, vomited into paper bags, urinated in bushes and crash-tackled their friends at Flemington yesterday, I have just one thing to say: Ladies, you are an utter disgrace.
Yes, there was too much drinking by both sexes and I feel a bit sorry for those whose images have now been emblazoned across the web. But people were having fun. In the meantime, focus on the real problem. As illustrated by the photo I chose, there was just so much rubbish generated. Let's fix that. It's dangerous, apart from anything else.
Like many people, I have followed the US elections all day. Now before my perceptions become crowded by others' commentary, a few brief comments.
I have no idea what Mr Trump will be like as President or actually just what he will do. Like many, I did not want Mr Trump to win. It was very much like the Apprentice come to Washington, with Mr Trump and Ms Clinton in the role of candidates with the American people in the role of judge previously played by Mr Trump. Mr Trump has made big promises, including in his Victory speech; he has made many throw-away comments. Now he has taken on a role whose powers are constrained and work within a complex system. We will just have to wait and see what might happen. None of us know.
Today, I found myself trying to explain what had happened. I made two points.
The first was that Mr Trump reached out to many Americans who saw themselves as disadvantaged, facing decline, sometimes economic but also culturally and politically. These were many of the people in the UK who voted to leave the EU, now they gave Mr Trump his Brexit + 2 result.
My second point was that Ms Clinton had been a member of the established US power establishment for a very long time. She was tarnished. Because of the context of the discussion, I described it in this way. With Ms Clinton or those like her, whoever you voted for a Key Performance Indicator got in. I accept that's unfair, but I was trying to make a point.
Mr Trump appealed to those who felt disadvantaged, threatened. They covered a number of groups, including conservative evangelicals, but for most it was the loss of the American dream. The problem for this group is that when the establishment appears to offer nothing that might redress your decline, that might improve things, you will go with some one who at least appears to offer a choice. In many ways, it's the only sensible choice.