Trump wants to cut defence spending!! Surely some mistake.

With all the Trumpery goings-on one bizarre decision by the president has slipped through without major fanfare. He actually wants to CUT the Pentagon's future budget. Having blasted from his soap box that he planned to rebuild America's armed forces and make them better and bigger, he has told the Pentagon chief Jim Mattis that he wants a cut of $33 billion in his planned spending for fiscal year 2020 - the year of the presidential election!! He is suddenly worried about the steeply rising national deficit and wants all government departments, including the Pentagon, to cut expenditure by five per cent. For the Defence Department that means reducing planned expenditure in 2020 from $733 billion to $700 billion. That's a lot of jobs and equipment and training and maintenance and readiness that's going to be negatively affected. It's back to the bad old ways, salami-slicing cuts to the defence budget to meet deficit problems. Obama was a nightmare with his constant cutting, forcing the Pentagon to reduce the size of the individual forces by thousands of troops. When Trump became president he vowed to change all that and gave the Pentagon a big boost in spending last year, with substantial pay rises for service personnel. But reality has set in. I can see big battles ahead in Congress and trouble for Trump as he gets closer to 2020, as if he hasn't got enough problems on his plate over the next two years. Slashing defence spending in the very year he is trying to be reelected for a second term will be a gift for the Democrat rivals, even though they would probably approve cuts in the military. But the fact is in this dangerous world where technology is moving at such a fast speed, it is perilous to start cutting back on key programmes such as hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, and training, training, training. China will be very happy to see the Pentagon cutting back. So will Putin.

In this era of lying who ever knows who is telling the truth?

Michael Cohen, erstwhile personal lawyer for Trump, is the latest prominent figure in Washington to admit he had lied to Congress about Trump's business dealings but is now telling the truth to Robert Mueller, special counsel investigating allegations of collusion between the president's campaign team and Moscow. Reacting to the latest development, Trump says Cohen is lying about lying which presumably means that in Trump's view, Cohen was telling the truth when he appeared before Congress about his business dealings - notably the plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow when he dismissed any idea that Trump was still talking to the Russians about the monster tower block plan when he was campaigning to enter the White House. Which obviously he shouldn't have been doing. Now Cohen is saying that actually Trump WAS still cosying up to the Russian authorities to build a tower in between campaigning to become president. Cohen says he was lying then but telling the truth now. Trump says Cohen is lying now and telling the truth then!! This is true Alice in Wonderland fantasy stuff. It's impossible to know whether Cohen has ever told the truth about Trump but the fact is he is in trouble with the law and as a result is telling that nice Mr Mueller all kinds of things which I'm sure the former FBI director is lapping up and putting into his huge book of scandals which at some point between now and 2020 he will publish as a best seller and then we can all make up our minds whether it's full of lies or truths, fact or fiction. Trump has already written the speech he will make when the Mueller report is completed. Something on the lines of, "This is all made up, a conspiracy by the Democrat-loving special counsel and his Democrat-loving team of lawyers. The witch hunt is over and I was right all along. The truth is there was no collusion. " But when people say "the truth is" these days, we can't ever again be sure that there is a truth. Cohen said he was speaking the truth to Congress. Now he says he was lying. Why should we believe anything he says?

Crown Prince bin Salman better watch out in Argentina

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has arrived in Buenos Aires and so far hasn't been arrested. Buenos Aires is hosting the G20 summit and Saudi Arabia is represented. But is MBS taking a calculated risk that the Argentinians wouldn't dare to arrest the most senior Saudi delegate and hold him in detention on the grounds that he is suspected of having a journalist murdered? The Khashoggi case will be like a Damocles sword above his head when the G20 summit starts on Friday. But he's probably safe from being manacled by the Argentine police. By no coincidence whatsoever, Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, has declared today that there is no direct (intelligence) reporting that shows MBS ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. In other words, of all the intelligence that has landed on Pompeo's desk - and he sees everything - there is no transcript of a telephone conversation or an email or text which says: "Hello, this is MBS here, I order you to kill that ....Khashoggi." Well, of course, even if he did order it he wouldn't have been so careless as to put it in writing let alone in a telephone call. So I'm sure Pompeo is being truthful. But he also knows that his former colleagues in the CIA made the broad assessment that in Saudi Arabia, a decision to send a team of assassins to grab Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and strangle him and dispose of his body could not have been made without the say-so of MBS. Ergo, MBS must have authorised the killing. But that's not the same as having a piece of damning intelligence in your hand - or Pompeo's hand - that points the finger directly and unequivocally at the crown prince. So, he's probably safe in Buenos Aires. But that doesn't mean everyone is going to go rushing up to shake his hand. Those who do will be noted!

Trump pulls rug from under Theresa May, but is he right?

Every day gets worse and worse for Theresa May and her government. The latest blow comes from Washington where President Trump kindly informed the world that the great Brexit deal was good for the EU - ie bad for the UK - and that the US will not be able to forge new trade deals with Britain as a result. One of the principle reasons for leaving the EU was for Britain to be able to negotiate trade deals independently around the world, including and especially with the US, without being encumbered by EU trade regulations. Theresa May insists this is still the situation if Parliament votes in favour of her Brexit deal. But from my reading of the small print, it may be true EVENTUALLY but definitely not for about two years after we leave the EU on March 29 next year and probably for several more years after that. So I'm afraid to say that Trump is right, and however 10 Downing Street tries to explain it away, what he said ties in with this small print. The UK will NOT be able to forge a special UK/US trade agreement until AFTER the UK government agrees a trade relationship with the EU, and in the meantime - two years, three years, four years, five years, who knows - we Brits will be subject to EU regulations without having any say in how they might be improved, changed or strengthened. We in the UK will not have a voice in decision-making in Brussels and Strasbourg from May 29 2019. Downing Street says Trump is wrong and as proof has revealed that British and American trade negotiators have already met five times to begin putting an agreement together. But that's disingenuous. Whatever decisions they come to cannot be implemented until after the UK has finally extricated itself from the rules and regulations and restrictions of the EU. 2023-2025 maybe?! Obviously what Trump said doesn't help Theresa May in her almost impossible task of selling her Brexit deal. But it's better to be truthful than claim we're about to sign a wonderful lucrative trade deal with the US. Trump is also following a precedent set by his predecessor, Barack Obama who informed reporters at a press conference in London in April 2016 that the UK would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with the US if it left the EU. He probably thought he was being helpful to David Cameron, then prime minister. His remark was made two months before the UK referendum was held on whether to remain in or leave the EU. So, basically, Trump said the same thing: the UK will now be at the back of the queue for trade deals with the US. The answer? Stay in the EU and benefit from the US/EU trade agreement which will one day be signed. But that means throwing Brexit down the drain and pleading with the EU for the UK to come back into the fold. I fear that option is disappearing fast.

What are the odds of Theresa May's Brexit deal being passed by Parliament?

Every newspaper every day tells us that Theresa May's Brexit deal, now approved by the rest of the EU governments, is never going to get through Parliament next month. Based on the available figures - which MP is going to vote which way - these articles seem to be right. If the whole of the Labour contingent in the Commons votes No, 20-30 Conservatives vote No, the Democratic Unionist Party votes No, and the Scottish Nationalists vote No, the Brexit deal will fall onto the scrapheap. But with two weeks to go before the vote,that gives a lot of time for genuinely worried MPs of whatever persuasion, to listen to their constituencies and perhaps come to a different decision than the one they hold right now. But will it be enough to change the voting numbers? Realists will say the answer to that is, surely not. Theresa May and 10 Downing Street will have come to the same conclusion. So does that mean we are doomed to a no-deal scenario? Not necessarily. The British are brilliant at fudges. Some people call it compromise. But actually we could end up with a fudge which means an under-the-counter deal with her opponents. Perhaps Theresa May could say to her critics, "Look, let's sign this deal to get the EU off our backs and cheer up the voters before Christmas, but I promise, when we get down to the nitty-gritty negotiations about trading with the EU - (the really hard part of exiting the EU) - and discuss timetables for transition and scrapping the customs union, if I haven't got a deal within, say, nine months, which everyone is happy about, then I will resign and call a general election, but let's first at least have a withdrawal arrangement, so we have a foundation upon which to build the future relationship with the EU." Now I have no idea whether Mrs May is considering such a fudge or whether, even if she is, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, and Nicola Sturgeon, Scots Nats, and Arlene Foster, DUP, would go along with it. They probably wouldn't. But if an election is promised in nine months to a year, perhaps Corbyn might be tempted? In any event, Mrs May is about to embark on a nationwide tour to win support for her Brexit deal from the voters, presumably in the hope that they will persuade their MPs to back it. I think there is no question that most voters are by now so tired of the Brexit debate that they will do anything to get the politicians to shut up and get it done. This is what the prime minister is hoping anyway. It's a gamble but she might as well go for it, because it could work.

Trump doesn't want to go to see American troops in war zones

In a startling break with tradition, Donald Trump is showing no interest or enthusiasm about going to visit American troops in war zones, specifically Iraq and Afghanistan. Round about this time of year previous US presidents have started to feel they should go and speak to the troops before Christmas to tell them how wonderful they are and how everyone back home is thinking of them and praying for them. Now obviously for security reasons there is not going to be any announcement about a future visit. But Trump has been in office for nearly two years and he hasn't once flown into a war zone. Such trips are a nightmare for the military and for the Secret Service. But Trump's predecessors have all done it, and the troops have always appreciated such visits because it makes them feel they are not alone and forgotten. If the commander-in-chief bothers to take the time to visit, whoever it is, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump, the troops appreciate it. However, it's possible that being such a controversial outspoken president his Secret Service detail just won't recommend it. After all, they apparently prevented Trump from visiting an American war cemetery in France at the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War because the weather was too awful for his helicopter and they didn't want him going by limousine. That was weather, not terrorism. Now there is talk of Mike Pence, the vice president going to Iraq and/or Afghanistan in his place. But I'm sorry, that is not the same as the commander-in-chief getting his hands dirty. Whatever the security concerns, Trump should go. I suspect he will, although word will get about in Washington that he is not going. Probably the Mike Pence rumour is just a cover.

Who is leading the glamour stakes to take on Trump in 2020?

Predicting who might be chosen to be the Democratic candidate to challenge Trump for the presidency in 2020 is a mug's game, with two years to go. However, with a whole bunch of potential names now moving into the speculation phase of the presidential race, I think it's time to look at who are on the short list in the glamour stakes. Who has the Hollywood potential for throwing Trump out of office. A few months ago I would have said that Trump was almost a dead cert for winning a second term of office. But his popularity ratings are very poor, he has angered a lot of people by refusing to accept the CIA's belief that the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was authorised by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (who has denied all prior knowledge of the assassination plot), he is threatening to shut down the government if he doesn't get money from Congress to build his border wall and he is having a very public spat with the chief justice of the US Supreme Court over lower courts' judgments against the president's asylum policies. All in all, the Trump brand is beginning to look like his famous golf courses, full of holes, bunkers and heavy rough. So it's timely I think to peek at the Democrats who might have gold dust on their shoulders. This is not an intellectual exercise, it's based on good looks, nice hair, shiney teeth and that indefinable star quality. Here are my choices: Kamala Harris, 54, California senator, lawyer, Julia Roberts-like smile, big teeth; Tulsi Gabbard, 37, Hawaii Representative, gorgeous looks, a major in the army national guard and a fantastic name; Beto O'Rourke, 46, Texas Representative, celebrities love him, and with a name like Beto he has to be given a chance; Steve Bullock, 52, governor of Montana, very nice hairdresser's hair; Andrew Cuomo, 60, Big Cheese governor of New York with Mafioso looks; Jay Inslee, 67, governor of Washington state who has that hard slightly scary stare which could be seen as tough-cool; Martin O'Malley, 55, governor of Maryland, who looks healthy and fit, obviously eats his five fruit and veg pieces every day; and Julian Castro, former secretary of housing and urban development under Obama, super cool and articulate dude and an American President Castro would be to die for. All the rest have marks against them. For example: Hillary Clinton, oh please not again, Joe Biden, nice guy but Trump would eat him for breakfast, Bernie Sanders, looks too old and tired and dishevelled, John Kerry, great height and hair but, like Biden, would be eaten alive by the Trump machine, Elizabeth Warren, too worthy and too boring, and Michael Bloomberg, far too rich. So after that comprehensive study of the most likely candidates from the Democratic Party to challenge Trump, my choice on glamour stakes alone would be Julian Castro. You read it here first!

Why Saudi Arabia is so important apart from oil and arms

Congress is getting all upset about Trump's decision to carry on working with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman whether he authorised the killing of Jamal Khashoggi or not. But Jim Mattis, US Defence Secretary, ever a realist, has astutely given his own view of the reason for sticking with the Saudi royal family, despite the brutal and gruesome murder - all on tape - of the Saudi dissident journalist. Chatting to my old friends and colleagues in the Pentagon press corps, Mattis said it was a fact of life that US presidents don't have the freedom to work with "unblemished partners". Wonderful word to select from the lexicon of available adjectives to describe someone suspected of ordering the death of a nuisance journalist. But he is right of course. The Saudi regime is not the only one to have allegedly ordered murders of opponents and yet still shake hands with the president of the United States. The leaders of Russia, China, North Korea and The Philippines just to mention a few. If there were absolute proof that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) authorised the killing, that might make it trickier for Trump to shake his hand the next time they meet. But the way things have worked out so far, I doubt this will ever happen even if one of the team of assassins claims in his trial that he was only carrying out orders from above - and names MBS. That in itself will still not be proof because MBS, and no doubt the Saudi prosecutor involved, will dismiss it as hearsay. Lawyers love to say that. The CIA clearly doesn't have absolute proof because their leaked assessment following an investigation of all the intelligence tidbits referred to their analysis of all the available material, not prima facie evidence. And even if they find the "silver bullet" that points to MBS's guilt, Trump will put it into some sort of context that makes it sound more like fantasy than fact. After Mattis referred to America's blemished partners, he spoke at length about the role the Saudis are playing in attempting to bring the war in Yemen to an end, in which of course they are a major bombing protagonist, and also in facilitating negotiations between the US and the Taliban to bring the war in Afghanistan to a close. If Trump had pulled the plug on US/Saudi relations over the murder of Khashoggi, at stake would not only be all those fat defence contracts and oil deals but also the vital strategic partnership for meeting all the challenges in the Middle East and Iran and in countering international terrorism. I don't think either Barack Obama or George W Bush or Bill Clinton would have come to a different conclusion than the one Trump made. It's not moral or honourable or in line with western values - something the US usually underlines in terms of its foreign policy - but if Mattis says the US has no choice but to continue dealing with unsavoury characters (my words, not his), then that's the way it is!

Will Brussels give Theresa May an extra cherry to pick?

It's now in the interests of the whole European Union to hang on to Theresa May and her Brexit "deal" and give her one or may be two little extra concessions to take home to London to appease the rebelling Brexiteers. If she can return from her trip to Brussels today with something else to sweeten the draft deal she might just make it through Parliament and get the vote she and the country need. The EU negotiators would be crazy not to offer another concession because it's not in the interests of the EU or the UK if it all breaks down and we leave the EU with a no-deal. That would spell disaster for everyone. So, basically, she has to persuade the EU bosses to give up all thought of any kind of border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and to state categorically that Northern Ireland is a member of the United Kingdom full stop. If there is no acceptable language for the Ireland issue, then the Democratic Unionist Party will not vote for May and the government could fall. Surely, with all the brainpower around on either side of the Channel, it must be possible to put the right words together and in the right order to appease/please the DUP and the Brexiteer nutters. I doubt anything will appease Jacob Rees-Mogg (Squeezy-Mop) who seems determined to oust Theresa May one way or the other. I'm not sure whether the EU has sufficient imagination or magnanimity to give Theresa May a break, but if they don't, the whole house of cards could collapse. So come on, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, get out your magic wand and send our prime minister home with a real proper everyone-will-like agreement.

Does anyone like or trust anyone in Washington?

The political atmosphere in Washington is so febrile, with investigations into this and that going on every day as the two parties line up for battles ahead, one can only say, thank God for Thanksgiving Day. At least there will be one day without abuse and insults and egomaniacs strutting their stuff. The Democrats want Ivanka Trump to be investigated for using her private emails for government business, they also want Matthew Whitaker, the new acting attorney general, to be investigated over his contacts with the White House, Trump wants everyone investigated, especially Hillary Clinton, Melania Trump insisted on the deputy national security adviser getting the sack for being rude to her officials, Trump denounces the military's tardiness in getting to Osama bin Laden - although actually it was the CIA, not the military, looking for the al-Qaeda leader, taking ten years to locate him - and so on and so on. It's almost as bad as being in London right now with Theresa May trying to face down all her enemies in the Great Brexit Drama. The only good bit of news is that under new White House media rules, Jim Acosta, now reinstalled as CNN's chief White House correspondent, won't be allowed to ask endless questions at press briefings, so as to allow other journalists to get a word in edgeways. The fact is that Washington - the political Washington - has probably not been so divided and divisive since the worst days of Richard Nixon. There is the feeling that no one likes or trusts each other. Trump claims to like Kirstjen Nielsen, the embattled Homeland Security Secretary, but wants her to be tougher on immigration, whatever that means. She now knows she probably has a matter of weeks to look very very tough or she will be fired. Meanwhile, bizarrely, the 5,800 troops sent to guard the US/Mexico border have been told they can all go home for Christmas. But I thought they were sent there for the arrival of the thousands of migrants approaching the border by foot. The troops will be home eating their Christmas dinners by the time the migrant pedestrians actually turn up. It's another example of topsy-turvy thinking but of course if the troops have all gone and the migrants start climbing fences and walls in huge numbers, there is only one person who is going to be blamed. Kirstjen Nielsen. So watch out, KN, your days are numbered. I wouldn't be surprised if she greets her sacking with huge relief. Trump claims there are queues of people wanting to work in the White House and that those who have left have done very well because they worked in the Trump White House. Well good luck to those in the queue, you'll need it.

Are the Taliban really up for a peace settlement?

Although I retain a healthy degree of scepticism, I am beginning to think that the Taliban actually believe they will not win a military victory in Afghanistan and the time has now come to negotiate a political settlement. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for reconciliation in Afghanistan, has just held three days of talks with a Taliban delegation in Doha, capital of Qatar, and no one stormed out. This is an achievement in itself. Of course both sides are setting conditions, none of which will survive the day, but at least they are talking. The US wants the negotiations to be wrapped up within six months but the Taliban have resisted such a short timetable. They have also refused to consider a ceasefire while the negotiations go on. Unfortunately, like extremist insurgents/rebels/terrorists over history, the Taliban believe that maximum pressure needs to be applied right up until the moment when signatures are put on the agreement. And that means as much killing and mayhem as possible to force their opponents to make concessions. So it will be imperative for Khalilzad, an impeccably credentialled diplomat of Afghan birth, to accelerate the talks as much as he can so as to end the carnage in Afghanistan. The US has already made one major concession, by agreeing to hold direct talks with the Taliban rather than deal through intermediaries and leave the direct negotiations for the Afghan government. The talks between the Taliban and Kabul will happen in due course but the main foundations for a peace settlement will be sorted out by Khalilzad and his team. One of the reasons for the cautious optimism expressed by Khalilzad is that during the three days of talks, two of the Taliban negotiators were Khairullah Khairkhwah, former Taliban governor of Herat in western Afghanistan, and Mohammed Fazl, ex-Taliban military chief. Both were among five Taliban leaders released from Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba in 2014, in a swap deal for US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after deserting from his base in Afghanistan. At some point all five former Gitmo detainees will no doubt play a part in forging a possible peace settlement. But these two are the heavyweight ex-Taliban chiefs and the fact that they were sitting in the same room as the American negotiating team is a stunning development. One big obstacle to a settlement is that the Taliban want next year's presidential elections to be postponed and for an interim administration to be installed headed by a "neutral" leader. By neutral they mean Abdul Sattar Sirat, an Islamic scholar who has a masters degree in Islamic Sharia law and is a former Afghan justice minister. The Americans can never agree to that because they support the current leader, President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. Khalilzad will have spelt that out in Qatar. But if the US wants a deal in six months, even that "redline" could turn a different colour. Soft pink or even white, who knows.

Donald Trump is never knocked off course!

Judging by his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News today, Donald Trump is a man who believes in his personal powers to such an extent that somehow political defeats are always seen in terms of victory and success. It's an extraordinary characteristic of his personality. When he was asked to comment about losing the House of Representatives to the Democrats and losing in areas that were always staunch Republican territory, Trump just focused on only one thing: "I won the Senate". Never mind the House, he won the Senate and that was something historic in his view. The fact is that Trump now has the prospect of facing numerous investigations by the House Judiciary Committee, looking into his business empire, his taxes, his alleged obstruction of justice in the Russia collusion affair, his sacking of James Comey as FBI director and probably a host of other topics. He must know that, but all he told Chris Wallace was that he had won the Senate, as if losing the House was of no concern. Whoever interviews Trump basically gets the same answers. His two favourite sayings or phrases are: "It's fake news, just fake news" or "Let's see what happens". So when he was asked whether Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, had lied to him about knowing nothing of the plot to murder Jamal Khashoggi, he basically said he didn't know but he would see what happens. I cannot believe that the US administration does not actually know whether there is a direct link between the team of assassins and the crown prince. Trump said he hadn't listened to the tape of Khashoggi being murdered, which was handed to him by the Turkish president. But the CIA which very unhelpfully leaked their assessment to the Washington Post and New York Times, have clearly told the president that in their view there was no way the crown prince did not know everything about the planned killing of the Saudi dissident journalist and must have ordered it. But Trump is going to stick to the line that everyone except bin Salman knew about it. His "let's see what happens" just means he is not going to stand up the CIA account. In fact I'm quite surprised he hasn't already fired Gina Haspel, the CIA director, for allowing her minions to leak that stuff to the newspapers. As he made clear in the interview with Chris Wallace, everything to do with his administration is going smoothly. The White House, he said, is a well-oiled machine. It's amazing to watch him and hear him speak. It's all about success success success.

Which of the hardline Brexiteers are really thinking of the good of this country?

When politicians are asked why they decided to be politicians, many of them, if not all at some point, reply rather grandly that they wanted to serve. I assume they mean serve their country, or perhaps serve their constituencies and, as a consequence, serve their country. But how many of the hard ball, hardline, big-time Leavers (from the EU) are putting country first before political ambition? How many of these MPs wake up each morning and ask themselves, "Am I doing what I'm doing because it's in the best interests of the future of this country I love?" Or how many wake up thinking,"Oh my God this is a unique opportunity to get rid of Theresa May whom I have never liked and put in place a real leader like Boris Johnson or Jacob Squeezy-Mop (Rees-Mogg) or (someone no one has ever heard of before called) Penny Mordaunt?" The Brexit disaster has opened a Pandora Box of opportunities for plotting and planning politicians to do their worst and, well, plot and plan to undermine the current government instead of doing everything in their power to safeguard and protect the lives and livelihoods of the men and women who voted for them. The Conservative Party has always been like this. There is more treachery in Britain's Conservative party than in Shakespeare's Macbeth! Don't these disloyal members of the governing party want to continue having a Conservative government? The likes of Jacob Squeezy-Mop have mounted a coup against their own leader although they deny it. Etonian Jacob claims he is acting in accordance with parliamentary procedures. Yes, but it's still an attempted coup. If his coup succeeds and Theresa May is toppled, he will go down in history as the politician who let Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister. That should wipe the smile off his face but I bet if that were to happen, he would come up with some tortuous explanation about the power of democracy or some such rubbish. Right now Theresa May needs her party to gather tightly around her, just like they used to when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister - until they knifed her in the back of course. But there are so many factions in the Conservative party, all twisting in different directions, that Theresa May knows that at any moment, a grey van could pull up outside 10 Downing Street and take her away. What is so outrageous is that none of these anti-Theresa lot have come up with any alternative plan to save this nation. There IS no other way round the conundrum of Northern Ireland. There has to be a customs union arrangement to start with and then we'll see how it goes. That was always going to be the answer unless the UK goes the hard Brexit route which now means only one thing: the no-deal route. Jacob Squeezy-Mop has as much of an idea what that will do to this country as the rest of us. There used to be something called Realpolitik. In other words, you can have your dreams but in the real world, there have to be compromises. You have to face reality. Theresa May's opponents are not facing reality. They are still dreaming. And dreaming of power for themselves.

Michael Gove now the key player

Amidst all the political chaos in the last 24 hours over the Theresa May Brexit deal, two politicians have said sensible things which might just turn the course of events in her favour. First of all, Michael Gove, Environment Secretary and a firm supporter of the UK leaving the EU, decided against resigning, and made it clear he felt his duty was to stay in government in order to help win the right deal for Britain's future. Second, Liam Fox, International Trade Secretary and a fellow determined Brexiteer, made the point during an event that MPs were not elected to do what they wanted but to act in the national interest. Well, that's a breath of fresh air. Those who have already resigned - two cabinet ministers and four junior ministers - did so without laying out what the alternative was to May's deal. So their selfish actions were not in the national interest. Michael Gove who has played a similarly disloyal part in the past for his own self interest has clearly learned a good political lesson. Staying in government to help fight for our country's future is infinitely more acceptable and worthy than slamming the door and flouncing off in the hope that your party will turn to you as the new leader. He discovered that to his cost in 2016 when he tried to be prime minister in the Conservative leadership election, in the process betraying Boris Johnson by dropping his support for him and telling the world he didn't think the former Mayor of London was the right man to move into 10 Downing Street. His disloyalty to Boris and his failed attempt to beat Theresa May did huge damage to his political and personal reputation. But he eventually bounced back and now he has made the right decision: stick with Theresa and play a role in forging a better way forward for Britain. Definitely the correct decision!! Liam Fox's comment is also a good message for all Conservative MPs considering trying to topple Theresa May. Is it about her leadership or more about their own self-interest? Gove's decision to stay may well make a big difference both for Theresa May's survival and the eventual vote in parliament on her Brexit deal. Yesterday most politicians were saying the Brexit deal was dead in the water. But the Gove intervention and the Fox comment might change that. Nobody, except for a few wild newspaper columnists, can possibly think that this deal is worse than having no deal at all.

Theresa May gets stabbed in the back!

I have absolutely no doubt that Theresa May's Brexit deal was delivered in good faith and with this country's national interest at heart. But now all is chaos. Two Cabinet ministers have resigned, several junior ministers have resigned, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the tall, all-knowing Eton-educated intellectual smarty pants who believes he is leading the charge for any deal that isn't one produced by Theresa May - and for those who don't know, this politician is in the same party as Theresa's government, so how about that for loyalty? - has called for a vote of no confidence in the prime minister.If he gets sufficient votes to back him from within the Conservative Party which I suspect he will, there will have to be a debate in the House of Commons on Theresa May's future leadership. If she loses, she is finished. Then there will be an awful leadership challenge, a new prime minister will emerge, probably followed by a general election and probably Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who wore an anorak at the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War commemoration in Whitehall on Sunday, will become prime minister. Remember the name Jacob Rees-Mogg, the man who does not believe in loyalty to his leader and imagines that he could get a better deal out of the EU than the one fought for over 19 months by May and her officials. Incidentally the first resignation today was the Brexit Secretary himself, Dominic Raab, who was party to the deal. Again, so much for loyalty. Good riddance I say. Let May have people around her she can trust to be loyal. But maybe it is all too late. The Brexit deal will probably not pass through parliament especially if more ministers resign. But then what? Does Jacob Rees-Mogg or a future Conservative leader or the Labour Party really think there's a better deal out there somewhere? Do they really think the EU will put up with starting the negotiations all over again? We're supposed to be leaving the EU in just over four months. This great country is now facing a perilous future. At this point no one is in charge. Theresa May will battle on and if, miraculously, she survives, she is likely to be forced into an election anyway. Jeremy Corbyn is waiting in his anorak.

Trump is in a grumpy mood

Donald Trump has been in a really bad and grumpy mood. I don't think he has smiled once in the last few days. I know he was attending a solemn ceremony in France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the ending of the First World War, but he spent a lot of time whingeing about the poor weather, snapping at Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and then giving Theresa May a hard time over the phone for failing to support his bash-Iran policy and negotiating a dodgy Brexit deal. I don't think he had any friends sitting with him during the service of remembrance. Putin might have been chummy but he looked disinterested, and their once-proposed meeting in Paris never happened. His comment to Macron in a tweet about how all French people would be speaking German had it not been for the Americans coming to their rescue in World War Two may technically be true but at this particular point in time, making such a remark is about as diplomatic as throwing a custard pie in Macron's face. Quite difficult to row back from that sort of callous statement, and it certainly won't discourage Macron and Merkel from pushing ahead with their plan for a European Army. Even as he pouted with irritation at everyone, Trump appears to have been planning some sackings for when he returned to Washington. So he's going to make a lot of people in DC unhappy as well. I have dared to suggest in the past that Trump needs friends both at home and overseas but he really doesn't seem to care. Macron and Merkel will have returned to their respective capitals with very negative thoughts about the US president, Theresa May now probably regrets ringing up Trump to "congratulate" him over the midterm results (now that's a strange one, didn't someone tell the UK prime minister what actually happened in the midterms?), Putin must have had his doubts about Trump set in concrete, and Europe as a whole is thinking, "we don't need or want the Americans anymore". So, Mr Grumpy President, for God's sake cheer up and spread some bonhomie around for a change. Yes that's French for cheerful friendliness and geniality.

Fingers crossed for the 500-page Brexit deal

How many people in the UK are going to find the time or interest to read all 500 pages of the Brexit deal which Theresa May has now agreed with the EU? Probably very few but since this is the most important life-changing, country-changing, future-changing agreement for this kingdom since the event in 1066, it is imperative that as many voters as possible read the lot and try and understand it. Every MP certainly has an obligation to put aside a whole day to read it and comprehend its complexities. It is actually an amazing achievement that we have a deal at all, especially after the brinkmanship played by both the UK government and the EU. But will it be a deal that can pass through the House of Commons? And is it a deal that is fair and balanced and guaranteed not to destroy our economy and our way of life and our trade hopes? The first thing to say is that this agreement has to be better than a no-deal rupture which would undermine this country's economic future. Those who still advocate that a no-deal is better than a bad deal have a strong argument but I cannot believe that Theresa May will put her signature to an agreement that will be bad for the UK. I have a faith in her. Yes, I have faith in her. So I believe after this titanic negotiating, Theresa May will survive as prime minister. Nobody wants a general election which will only add more uncertainty to a post-Brexit UK. Most Conservatives don't want it and if the deal is passed in parliament, none of the high-flying Leavers like Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, will stand a chance of uprooting May and going for the leadership of the Conservative Party. And Labour don't want an election, whatever Jeremy Corbyn, their leader, says, because many Labour MPs will probably lose their seats. So, if the deal is seen to be the best that can be negotiated under the circumstances, Theresa May will be bathed in glory and will carry on as leader. The MPs who will devote most time to reading the 500 pages will be the members of the Democratic Unionist Party. If the wording is ambivalent about the border between the north and south they will be the first to denounce it. But I'm sure the language will be sufficiently reassuring to keep the DUP on side. Otherwise, what's the point of the whole exercise? So it's fingers crossed time for Theresa May and her negotiating team. If parliament throws the deal out, then what?! Then we will all be in serious trouble and the Theresa May government will fall.

The slaughter of Afghan troops is an indictment of the West's policy

Of all the terrible stories around at the moment - the wildfires in California, the killing by police of yet another innocent black man, in Chicago, the continuing death of civilians in Yemen, the refusal of the Saudi government to accept responsibility for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, to name just a few - the slaughter by the Taliban of Afghan troops, trained by the US and Nato coalition partners, is among the most upsetting for me personally. The West's whole strategy has been to train and arm the Afghan national security forces to fight the Taliban on their own. Although it sounds a reasonable concept, it has never truly worked because in order to stand up for themselves the Afghans needed the full panoply of intelligence-gathering and logistical back-up which the Americans and others had always supplied in the past. Then Obama stopped all that, thinking it was time the Afghans defended their own country. But the Afghans couldn't cope. Then Trump arrived and agreed to reinstate some of the "enabling" stuff - intelligence, logistics, transport, medical evacuation - but basically the Afghans are still fighting on their own. They have mostly American advisers sitting back at local HQ but for every-day patrols they are on their own, and the Taliban have helped themselves. They have engaged in the wholesale slaughter of young Afghan soldiers and police. Even the Afghan special forces commandos who have proved to be doughty fighters, have been killed on a significant scale. It is incredible that Afghan men are still prepared to join the security forces. Ok they get a regular wage and food. But their chances of survival must be stupendously low. The attrition rate now, after more than 17 years, is appalling. And yet the Taliban hierarchy claims it is interested in a political "peace" settlement. The reason for the slaughter is obvious and it's gruesomely cynical. Kill as many of the US-trained Afghan soldiers as possible until Washington is forced to give major concessions for a settlement. And if the US agrees to concessions, the Afghan government will have to agree as well, and then the Taliban will grab most of the powerful appointments in a future government. The Taliban will be back in political control. So, 2,400 American service personnel and 454 British servicemen and women were sacrificed for this? The Afghanistan story is a terrible example of everything that has gone wrong in this world in the last 40 years.

The 100th anniversary of the end of World War 1 should be a warning for all leaders

Extraordinarily moving ceremonies being held today to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War should and must remind all leaders of the great military powers that wars like this, on this horrendous scale, cannot ever happen again. I mean world wars, although it would be truly amazing if the ceremonies helped to prevent all wars. But of course that is an impossible dream. The terrible war in Yemen continues, so too in Somalia and elsewhere in Africa. And Russia under Vladimir Putin continues to look as if it is interested in more aggression in countries on its borders, notably the Baltics. Among the interviews of people who have lost sons in the modern-day wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, many gave poignant accounts of the way their lives have changed and the personal agonies they have suffered. One British father of Indian origin, interviewed on BBC, lost a son in Afghanistan, blown up by an improvised explosive device. It was almost too much to watch. He lost the son who had been his most treasured companion. In the First World War millions died. It was a war of indefinable horror. Yet 21 years later, the second world war broke out. So lessons then were not learned. Since then there have been nearly 40 wars around the world. It's a grim reminder that the human race is by its very nature belligerent. But surely the 100th anniversary of the end of what historians like to call the Great War should have some lasting impact on every world leader?

Macron's comment about the US is outrageous nonsense

What on earth is wrong with Emmnanuel Macron? He actually said it was necessary to have a European Army in order to face future threats from Russia, China.....AND the United States. What did he mean by this? Did he really mean that the US might threaten Europe with military action? Has he gone off his head? Just to remind him, the US leads an alliance called Nato which has a certain treaty article which states that an attack on one nation member is an attack on all and therefore all have to go to the rescue of the member under attack. But of course there is no article which says that any member of the alliance which attacks another member of the alliance needs to be taught a lesson because an alliance is an alliance of friends who share common values and common security interests. It's madness to suggest that the US would ever pose a military threat to Europe. Macron can't have really meant that. Perhaps his meaning got lost in translation. But certainly what he said angered Donald Trump who was due to be all matey with Macron to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the 1st World War. I'm with Trump here. Linking Russia and China and the US as potential enemies of the future is crazy talk. And embarrassing. Also any talk of a European Army is nonsense. It has come up so many times over the years, especially by France but it has never made sense. The European members of Nato just don't have the wherewithal to forge a permanent Euro army and it would never work properly. If Russia attacked Europe with conventional forces, the European members of Nato would collapse without the backing of the US. So, Macron, forget the European Army idea and show a bit more respect to the country which helped save YOUR country from Nazi oblivion.

What does the US want out of a deal with the Taliban?

A 67-year-old veteran US diplomat fluent in Pashto and Dari is heading one of the most challenging foreign policy missions of President Trump’s administration – attempting to bring to an end the 17-year war with the Taliban and constructing a lasting peace settlement in Afghanistan. Zalmay Khalilzad, Afghan-born and former ambassador in Kabul, Baghdad and the United Nations, is perhaps uniquely placed to achieve what no other envoy, foreign occupying army or international peacekeeping force have ever achieved. However, as Ambassador Khalilzad prepares for his next visit to Doha, capital of Qatar, to meet with Taliban delegates – now boosted by the presence of five former Guantanamo detainees – how confident can the US be that it will get what it wants out of a peace deal when the insurgents are still controlling many key areas and killing Afghan troops at a record level? They hold potentially trump cards. Mr Khalilzad, appointed special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation in September, has already met with the Taliban at their political office in Qatar as well as leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, urging them to form “inclusive and authoritative” negotiating teams. However, he has a mandate which includes language that the Taliban has scoffed at for nearly two decades which is why Mr Trump’s special envoy has a seemingly impossible task ahead of him, were it not for the fact that the insurgent leaders themselves have given an indication that they are now in the mood for talking about a political settlement. There appears to be little on offer from Washington. US administration objectives have remained almost unchanged since reconciliation was first raised as a way forward for Afghanistan many years ago. “The Taliban must realise there is not a military solution to the conflict and that they cannot gain legitimacy through violence,” a US state department spokesman said. “They have to recognise the need to make the decisions that get them closer to a negotiated settlement which means they will have to sit with the Afghan government and other interested Afghans to develop a political roadmap for the future of their country,” the official said. “It also means they have to deal with the legitimate US and international concerns that Afghanistan does not become a base for terrorists again that would threaten the United States. This remains our primary condition,” the official said. Without a pledge that the Taliban will never again give sanctuary to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations, the US administration would for ever face the anguish and anger of the thousands of families who lost loved ones fighting in the 17-year war and the tens of thousands of combat veterans who returned home with life-changing injuries or turned to suicide to end their mental suffering. Lieutenant-General David Barno, US commander of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 who was in charge of the military when Mr Khalilzad was ambassador in Kabul, said his greatest fear, shared he believed by those who had served in Afghanistan, was that the bar for a deal with the Taliban might be lowered too far under the current administration. “Veterans would support the Taliban playing a role in government but what they could never support is a situation in which the Taliban is allowed eventually to take over the government and take control of the country once again,” he said. Underlining the obstacles to peace, a former senior US diplomat said: “The US needs the Taliban to recognise the government in Kabul as legitimate and agree to pursue its interest in political power through the electoral process while agreeing some kind of disarmament, demobilisation and reconciliation process to integrate Taliban fighters into Afghan society.” The Taliban price for cooperation will be high. With their gains on the battlefield, they would be in a position to demand senior posts in the Kabul government, perhaps defence, interior, justice and other ministries. “The trick I suppose is what kind of power-sharing arrangements get negotiated in the interim. It is a pretty tall order and I have my doubts as to whether a negotiated outcome is possible,” the former diplomat said. “However, I do agree that Zal Khalilzad is as good a person to negotiate on this as anyone.” There are currently around 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan, down from the peak of 100,000 in 2010 and 2011. Will the US insist on having a permanent military force in Afghanistan, even after a negotiated peace settlement? The Taliban has always stated its priority aim is to rid Afghanistan of all foreign troops and will not negotiate while a US force remains. A former senior Pentagon official said “a small residual US presence” would be necessary for three reasons. “First, to ensure there is no return to the situation as it existed on 9/11, second, to enhance prospects for closer cooperation with India which is emerging as a major player in the competition for security in the Indo-Pacific, and, third, to maintain positional advantage relative to China and Russia,” he said. The US state department spokesman was less proscriptive. “The US military presence in Afghanistan remains entirely conditions-based which is the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy,” he said. “Our military presence is not an end in itself. It is the responsibility of the Taliban and other Afghans to bring about conditions that would make the level of US military presence negotiable,” he said.

Was Jim Acosta's accosting of Trump respectful reporting?

There is always a danger when television reporters get too aggressive that the subject matter in hand gets lost in the torrent of repeated and increasingly heated questioning, and the reporter himself or herself becomes the story. Jim Acosta, chief White House correspondent for CNN, fell into this trap at the infamous post-midterms Trump press conference. He stood up and stayed standing up demanding answers to his questions about the caravan of migrants approaching the US border, his voice getting louder and louder as he insisted on the President of the United States giving him a nice juicy quote he could then blast about on his programme. Now I'm all in favour of asking hard questions of anyone in authority but I can tell you from years, no, decades, of experience of being a reporter and attending press conferences around the world, there are two sorts of journalists who generally drive the rest of us mad when we're trying to do our job and get some answers to OUR questions: first are the interlopers who somehow have managed to get a press card to attend the press conference, representing some organisation no one has heard of, and then ask some fatuous, long-winded, highly political or personal question which isn't really a question but is more of a statement; second are the pompous, self-important television reporters who know that their cameraman is lapping up every moment he or she is on his or her feet and sounds off with a belligerent, finger-pointing question and won't sit down until either the president/prime minister/etc is driven potty or the rest of us tell him/her to shut the f...up and let us get a word in edgeways. Jim Acosta is a veteran and pretty good at his job but yesterday he became boorish and, yes, over-aggressive, and yes, somewhat rude, and as a result he is all over the papers, his name in lights and roars of support from the media citing freedom of the press, freedom of expression etc. Acosta has been suspended from entering the White House and it is as if the world has come to an end. I think the US is full of brilliant reporters, print and radio and television. But personally I squirm when a reporter gets too full of himself, as in this case. It doesn't help the cause of journalism for a reporter to bully the President of the United States or anyone else. Far better to ask your question with respect, and if the president refuses to answer, that I guess is his right even if it doesn't suit CNN's purposes. The person I know well on CNN is Barbara Starr, the veteran Pentagon Correspondent. She will not hesitate to ask tough, well-thought-out questions and she is excellent at trying to put whatever Pentagon official/secretary of defence/general/admiral or whoever is before her on the spot. But she is always respectful, never heckles or shouts, just firm. That's my sort of reporter.

Trump very successfully lost!

So my prediction was wrong. Trump and the Republicans lost the House of Representatives to the Democrats. For once the polls were right. But Trump still believes he had a great victory because the Republicans improved their majority in the Senate and Republican governors did well too. But now Trump will have to learn how to be concessionary unless he is determined to go to war with the Democrats in the House. Nancy Pelosi who is expected to be Speaker of the House for the second time in her political career, is no friend of Trump's and he has been positively dismissive of her in the past. But they will have to work together. She will have to play a careful game because if she tries to block everything Trump wants to do, the Democrats will not necessarily help their cause in the country. But one thing is probably for sure and that is the president won't get any money from Congress to build his wall, and if he tries to take money out of the Pentagon budget to start building the border wall on the grounds that frontier fortifications are needed for national security, the Democrats I'm sure will stop that from happening. Incidentally, the US Army Corps of Engineers is already carrying out border construction work, but that's on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and is paid for out of the DHS budget. No funds have yet been spent on the construction of a new wall, but because planning for such a development has such a long lead time, the Pentagon has told me that advance planning efforts, including contracts for environmental planning and site surveys, are being paid for right now - $7.45 million for financial year 2018 out of the US Navy's operations and maintenance funds. Be that as it may, a Pelosi-run House is not going to let Trump get away with building a wall when there are other more pressing matters such as social welfare and education programmes which need more money. So Trump's declaration of success in the midterms has to be taken with a dose of salt, although it is certainly true that with an even stronger Republican Senate, Trump will be able to railroad through any of his future appointments to the Supreme Court and to his Cabinet. Of course he doesn't need House approval for such appointments. Having a strong Senate on his side will also dampen any thoughts the Democrats in the House might have on the question of trying to impeach Trump for any Russian-type misdemeanours or tax dodging. The Republican-controlled Senate won't buy it, especially with the 2020 presidential election in everyone's minds.

Migrants to face troops with guns and razor wire. A vote-winner or vote-loser?

If the thousands of Central American migrants heading for the US border through Mexico have been reading or listening to the news out of America they will know by now that there's quite a welcome party awaiting them. So far there are around 8,000 regular and National Guard troops manning the border crossing points, many of them with guns, and at least 22 miles of razor wire going up. By the time they reach the border which is weeks away because they have 800 miles to walk still, many of them might have the impression that Donald Trump and his administration do not want them to enter the United States, probably even those with a valid asylum-seeking status. Even Trump is now worried that his migrant-bashing may not have gone down so well with the voters who are going to the polls in their multi-millions in unexpectedly high-turnout midterm elections. If the Democrats win where Trump thinks the Republican candidates should walk away with it, it's going to be a helluva shock for him. For some reason a high turn-out generally means good news for Democrats, because people who wouldn't normally bother voting now feel there is a real purpose to leave the house to cast a vote as a protest against the president. Everyone from pollsters to politicians to Trump himself are putting it about that the Republicans are going to be supplanted by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. But to do that the Democrats have to win quite a few extra seats to become the majority part. It is always wise to be wholly sceptical of polls especially ones that predict with such assurance that x or y are going to win. No one - except me and a few others - predicted that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton. Every pollster in UK said there was no way the British people would vote to leave the European Union! Right up until the moment when they did exactly that. So, despite all the predictions that the Democrats will win the House I am still sticking to my gut instinct that Trump's party will wriggle through with an even smaller majority, but a majority nevertheless.

Iran goes to economic war!

Iran has announced it is at war with the US. Economic war. Actually it's the US which is imposing an economic war on Iran. There's not much the ayatollahs can do about it except suffer the consequences of riling Donald Trump. Tehran's great plan was to evade the full impact of new American sanctions by doing underhand deals with European governments, relying on them to continue to do trade and oil deals with them to save their economy from going under. But although Europe decided to stay loyal to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and lift sanctions, European governments' rebellion against Washington will amount to little, because individual businesses have learned that screwing up relations with the US is definitely not a good idea. So, as Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, rather smugly pointed out, European businessmen are already withdrawing from contracts signed with Iran and Europe's governments can go hang. Well, he didn't say the last bit because Pompeo is America's top diplomat. But that's what he implied. It's a tough one for Iran. They cannot be seen to back down from their nefarious meddling in the Middle East without losing face and they certainly don't want to buckle under Washington's orders. But if they don't turn 180 degrees, as Pompeo put it, and start behaving like good international citizens, the hefty sanctions will remain for as long as Trump is in charge. How long will the Iranian economy survive under such pressure? Pompeo, Trump and co will be hoping that there will be another revolution, a massed protest by families and the younger generation across the nation. Of course Tehran could turn to the one option that will exercise Washington the most, start accelerating their nuclear weapons programme and threaten the US with Armageddon. But that would be a catastrophic mistake. There's no way Trump would hesitate to act if they did that. Obama might have dithered but not Trump, and if Jim Mattis doesn't like the prospect of going to war with Iran, Trump will find someone else to be his defence secretary who does. So Iran has months and months ahead of a spiralling economy and unless they can find other countries to do business with them there will come a breaking point. The UK government has said it will increase trade with Iran but I doubt that somewhat pointless foot-stamping will last for long. In the meantime there is a huge risk of miscalculation by Tehran, or particularly by the Iranian Republican Guard, hitting out at Washington in the only way they know, by some violent act in the Gulf or in Syria or Lebanon or somewhere unexpected. Any confrontation in the Gulf waterway involving US warships could lead to shots being fired and no one dares predict what that might lead to.

Trump and women and victory

It remains one of those bizarre mysteries, why so many American women love Donald Trump. The answer seems to be, despite all the things Trump has said about women in the past, that they believe he and only he will preserve the way of life which they treasure. You would have thought that Barack Obama would have been their man. Articulate, good-looking, super-cool and embracing all. Well I'm sure many women did vote for him, partly because they didn't like Hillary Clinton. But Obama was liberal-minded and in the United States that's not necessarily a good thing, in fact definitely not a good thing in more than half the states of America. Republican women want a president who will always stand up for them, not just as women but as Americans who can make up their own minds about their lives, without a nanny state ordering them around. They believe that Trump is that sort of president, never mind his atrocious comments about what he fancies doing to women. So the midterm elections next Tuesday are all about this, a nanny state under the Democrats - I'm short-handing their views - or a stand-up-for-yourself nation. Trump has very successfully rallied people to this particular cause. If it were as simple as that, the Republicans will do well in the midterms and give Trump what he needs, a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. But at the same time Trump has caused such divisions in the country that some people, not necessarily with strong political views, might just vote against him to ensure the Democrats can hold him in check in the House of Representatives. I have no idea how many such people there are like this in the US, but if there is a particularly volatile Trump-like candidate in their constituency, opposed by a frightfully nice and charming Democrat rival, possibly it could make a difference. Trump himself certainly thinks so because he has hinted the Republicans might lose to the Democrats in the House of Representatives. I'm going to make a prediction which of course is foolish and could be proved wrong on Tuesday. But I have a feeling in my gut that the Trump momentum will succeed yet again and the Republicans will retain their majority in both house of Congress. Why? Because most voters will remember the political gridlock faced by Obama. In his first two years he enjoyed Democratic majorities in both houses but then he lost the House of Representatives to the Republicans and from then on it was political chaos. Budgets not passed, government shutdowns, anarchy. Nobody wants those days to return. So I believe the Trump Party - for that is what the Republican party is these days - will win on Tuesday.

Bombs and synagogue slaughter ruined Republican momentum, says Trump

Donald Trump never knows when to keep away from his now-familiar political jabs. After the killing of 11 Jewish worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh and the 13 or so explosive pipe bombs sent in the mail to Democratic VIPs, Trump just couldn't resist pointing out that these incidents had taken the momentum away from the Republican party's surge for votes in the midterm election campaign. On the face of it that's a pretty cynical remark. He did go on to say that the protection of the American people had to come first but he sounded like he resented it. But this is Trump. He says what he says because that is how he is. There is no question that the terrible events took all the main headlines and so the focus was swept away from the midterm elections. So Trump was right but he was wrong to mention it. Not that he would care about that. The remark and the bombs and shootings will probably have little effect on the midterm results. I think most people who plan to vote next Tuesday will have already decided who they wish to put their mark against in the ballot box. As a well-to-do American woman on BBC said the other evening, she intended to vote the way she had always voted which was Republican, but she was careful to avoid saying she was a supporter of Trump. But she and her husband beside her made it clear they were Republicans and obviously nothing Trump has said or done since he came to power in January 2017 is going to change that tradition. This couple I am sure represent pretty well every Republican, if not every Republican in the US. None of them are going to switch to the Democrats just because Trump is an outspoken, highly controversial sort of guy. In fact that's why most of them will be more than happy to vote the way they have voted since they reached voting age.

Will the Khashoggi murder bring the Yemen war to an end?

If only one appalling criminal act could cancel out another appalling criminal act. There is much speculation that the Saudi regime murder of Jamal Khashoggi will somehow shame Saudi Arabia into ending the bombing of Houthi rebels - and civilians - in Yemen and agree to a ceasefire and an eventual peace settlement for this devastated country. I fear the Saudi government's refusal to take the blame for the strangling, dismemberment and disposal of Khashoggi, the Saudi dissident journalist, makes it less likely that Riyadh will suddenly agree to a ceasefire in Yemen. Or to put it another way, Riyadh will not want to link one with the other because it would mean losing face. Humiliation is not something the Saudi regime would wish to countenance. The Saudi chief prosecutor was in Turkey the other day to see his Turkish counterpart but spent the whole time apparently trying to find out what the Turks knew about the Khashoggi case rather than offering any assistance or insight into Riyadh's assessment of the killing. So there is no sign that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, has any intention of acknowledging partial or direct or any responsibility for the premeditated assassination. As a consequence he is hardly going to say: "OK, if you let us off for the Khashoggi murder, we'll call a halt to the bombing of innocent civilians in Yemen." That's just not going to happen. However, there could still be a link. MBS, as everyone seems to like calling the Crown Prince, may, MAY be upset at the international outcry over Khashoggi's brutal murder and may have been told by his ailing father King Salman, that the reputation of the kingdom is at stake. Therefore, a bit of magnanimity over Yemen might take some of the boiling anger against Saudi Arabia away from the royal family. I doubt that has happened. It's far more likely that Saudi Arabia will agree to a temporary ceasefire - a temporary halt in bomb-dropping - because of huge pressure from the United States and the UK, their main arms suppliers. Jim Mattis, US Defence Secretary, gave Riyadh and its coalition partners 30 days to forge a ceasefire and start talks. The pressure from Washington and London increased suddenly because Yemen is literally being starved to annihilation by the bombing and sea/air/land blockade by the Saudi coalition. But both Washington and London also realised that the murder of Khashoggi provided a unique moment for trying to bring the Yemen bombing to an end. MBS knows that too although he will never admit it. And western diplomats who have been talking to the Saudis about stopping the bombing of Yemen will no doubt have had one piece of advice from their respective governments: "Don't mention Khashoggi."