With a sigh of relief, we can say Britain’s Official Opposition is back. After 5 years of Marxist mediocrity and chaos, the arrival of Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour Party is hugely welcome. A grown up with the appropriate intellect is in charge.

And my, is it needed. We are mid-pandemic so an in-depth assessment of the government’s performance and lessons to be learnt is not yet appropriate, but the indicators do not look good. And Keir Starmer, whilst scrupulously polite, is starting to apply the proverbial scalpel to Johnson’s bluster.

A chaotic announcement outlining the start of the end of the lockdown made by Johnson on Sunday (Why do this in advance of a detailed parliamentary statement?) quickly unravelled. Starmer had 6 minutes in the Commons to question the Prime Minister on Monday. He skewered him. A late start to managing the pandemic based on sympathy for the concept of herd immunity and an overall laissez faire philosophy, a general lack of preparedness which encompassed a failure of testing capacity and the initial abandonment of care homes is all forming part of what may be a merciless narrative. And that is before the break in communications with the devolved governments in coordinating the coming out of lockdown.

Having watched Prime Minister’s Question Time today, Starmer was point perfect in his analysis although both leaders to be fair struck the right tone. He took apart the government’s approach to statistics, both in terms of international comparisons and in particular, how they related to care homes. Johnson won’t be able to rabble rouse himself through PMQ’s when attendance is back to normal like he did with Corbyn.

A bright note for this Government is Rishi Sunak who is impressive as Chancellor and surely a potentially worthy successor to Johnson at some point. The rest of the Cabinet is somewhat patchy, but it is perhaps difficult to make any positive impact mid-crisis. What is noticeable, however, is Labour’s improving front bench with Anneliese Dodds as Shadow Chancellor and Lia Nandy as Shadow Foreign Secretary to name but a few stepping up. People with good intellect are appearing/returning and politics will become more competitive as a consequence.

At a leadership level, comparing Johnson to Starmer certainly feels like comparing equals on intellect but perhaps not charisma. Charisma, however, has a certain shelf life and this is shortened if plagued with incompetence. Voters may want a very different style in due course…In the meantime, a stronger Official Opposition creates better government all round. With this in mind, welcome back!

Zoom, BlueJeans, Houseparty…to name but a few…are all wonderful video conferencing facilities. They make lockdown work life just about practical. On average I have half a dozen meetings a week using such facilities including Friday drinks with my distanced team. Conference calls on top keep us all busy.

Such facilities connect friends and family across the globe whilst this terrible pandemic runs its course, bringing much needed relief from isolation. Individuals appear on your screen from just down the road to far flung places such as San Francisco and New York. It is a joy. And yet…and yet…

Last weekend five zoom calls appeared in my diary mostly arranged by my better half, speaking to over 20 people. That was on top of several other social ones during the week. I was told not to be late for any of them whether that was due to work commitments or coming back from my limited (but essential for my sanity) exercise regime. I sensed my narrow window of freedom narrowing further.

Contact lists are compiled and for fear of missing anybody out, video chats are arranged with all and sundry. I have ended up speaking regularly to people I usually do not see for several months on end. Obviously, I am fond of them all, but it always involves talking intently into the screen to those whose company is normally combined with the atmosphere and people watching of a bar, restaurant, or dinner party.

Two back-to-back video conferencing calls can last for well over an hour. It can be exhausting. Thank goodness Zoom limits free group video conferencing to 40 minutes. But for some contacts, we recently agreed to just dial out and dial back in again. And, recently, old school friends also decided a ‘pub quiz’ should form the basis of the next conversation. I hate pub quizzes but find I cannot escape…

Such a medium of communication is stressful. Even with friends and family, you are staring closely at the screen to check jokes and opinions make the desired impact. With work (actually, socially too) you are checking your dress sense looks fine on screen, that the bookshelves behind you are sufficiently stuffed with mind improving tomes and that your glasses are on straight. I realised I went through an entire consultant call last week with wonky specs, so fixed was I on the conversation and everybody talking over each other.

I have become an ‘expert’ in interpreting body language from afar without any idea whether I am right or not. And what really grates is that any bad news is still never delivered face to face but via email.

Oh, the joy of all these multiple channels of video conferencing which allow you from home to visually and conversationally embrace colleagues, clients, family and friends at the click of a mouse. All undiluted. The end of lockdown cannot come soon enough!

Randomly, I have learnt two quite different things during the current lock down.

First, courtesy of the Netflix documentary ‘Tiger King’ featuring a character called Joe ‘Exotic’, there are apparently a greater number of Big Cats in captivity as pets, or held in private zoos in the US, than exist globally in the wild. More of that later.

Second, more relevantly, courtesy of Gillian Tett in the FT, Donald Trump tried to cut the budget of his own Centers for Disease Control (including the department that studies how infections jump from animals to humans) and disbanded the White House team that was created by President Obama to fight pandemics after the Ebola epidemic in 2014. Incredible.

It got me thinking, as Trump blusters and boasts his way through his daily coronavirus updates, surely things have got to change.

Let’s start with Trump. As he seeks to end the lock down, has he finally overstepped the mark with his aggressively, partisan daily coronavirus press briefings? Watching him boast about his brilliance whilst thousands of Americans die, and attacking the World Health Organisation mid-pandemic, is surely too much to stomach for all but the most die-hard Republicans. Biden’s re-emergence and subsequent clinching of the Democratic presidential nomination was certainly a surprise, but it is worth remembering that he unsettles Trump the most. Bland but empathetic with support across the South as well as the rust-belt states, Biden might just do it. Trump will not go into November with stock markets and employment on his side. And economic resources for a more centralised healthcare system will be a key issue, and not in a good way for Trump. A Trump defeat looks more likely than at any time since the start of his tenure.

Second, the EU has been overwhelmed by nationalism, as it has stood impotently on the sidelines watching the coronavirus rage. Each EU country has managed the pandemic in its own way and only national governments have had the legitimacy to marshal their health care systems through this crisis and lock down their own people. The EU has had to apologise to Italy for its slow initial response and cross border cooperation is only now starting to emerge. Individual aid packages have barely paid any lip service to EU economic strictures and dwarfed the reach of any EU initiatives. The EU may emerge as pointless and irrelevant, which is highly dangerous for its future. Macron highlighted this in an interview with the FT last week. Certainly, the threat to national sovereignty from its existence is now over. No more Brexit style debates anywhere for some time. Did I really write this?!

Third, economic efficiency based on global, ‘just in time’ supply chains will be distinctly out of favour. The inability to predict crises and how to manage them, so manifestly on show during this pandemic, will curtail globalisation in a way nationalist political leadership never could. There is some thoughtful commentary about how the nature of economic and business efficiency will change after this crisis is over and the responsible investment scrutiny companies will come under (reference Jericho Chambers’ excellent webinars: #jerichoconversations). Broader stakeholder-led capitalism and nationally resilient supply chains will come to the fore and traditional economic measures of efficiency will change. Preparedness for a future event, whether the stockpiling of supplies and/or in key sectors, maintaining excess capacity, will dominate economic planning.

Lastly, working practices from an employee perspective will change but not as much as forecast. Global travel will be viewed cautiously in the future and home working will become much more of the norm. The ease of electronic communication will transform business, healthcare delivery and also have a major impact on public transport infrastructure. But all this will be tempered by the desire to interact in person and the curiosity to explore cross-border cultures.

Lastly, back to Tiger King and Joe ‘Exotic’. If we all learn a little from a Netflix documentary and, indeed, from the dangers of ‘wet’ animal markets in China, that a laissez-faire approach to our relationship with wildlife and the threat it poses to the environment and our own survival is not a good thing, then it will be a highly welcome outcome. Several silver linings are appearing from this terrible crisis. We just need time and space to understand their longer-term consequences.

I run a modest sized, but successful marketing and media relations business employing c20 people working for demanding financial services clients.

I like to think my employees are bright, motivated and team centric. I like to think they are committed to going the extra mile for clients and, in turn, committed to the success of the company they work for. The management team’s role is to ensure they benefit from this success.

We have formal and informal processes to ensure the quality of the work we deliver is as high as possible. We also have processes in place to ensure our employees develop through structured and on-the job training and that they are as positive as they can be about their working environment.

But how do we always know this is the case? For all the internal and external reporting, and feedback from clients, we are, like any other people-business, sometimes fallible.

And yet, in these grim coronavirus times, relying wholly on home working, there is constant evidence that we have mostly got it right.

Before the shut-down all employees worked hard to ensure that we and, where we could help, our clients would be as ready as we could be about what was to come. There was banter; but there was also immense caring about the pressures faced by individuals with vulnerable friends, relatives and partners based here or overseas at this time.

The remote working practices put in place are humming with activity and have ironically brought the team even closer together as they coordinate activities. And the work undertaken for clients, who rightly remain busy and demanding in these challenging times, is more visible as all sorts of remote working channels and, of course, emails, fill up with action points.

There are two slightly surprising, amusing sides to all this. Firstly, commentators say that when this is all over, working practices will never be the same again. I am not so sure. The stress of ensuring the backdrop to any video conferencing from home is sufficiently flattering is taking its toll… And secondly, as one colleagues opined; ‘what my partner says to me to make me laugh at 8pm at night is less funny at 11 in the morning’…Office working beckons and, on current evidence, will be embraced enthusiastically, when this period is over.

Like many other businesses, we have to, and are, working as a single team for each other and our clients. Humour still prevails and that keeps us sane. We are still having our end of month office drinks ‘virtually’ this afternoon…The work is going well and everybody visibly cares about getting our Company and our clients through these grim times.

So, whilst the news and our personal experiences will no doubt threaten our well-being, spare a thought for some positive consequences coming out of adversity; those silver linings. And keep as safe and well as you can be.

We live in strange and alarming times. The uncontrolled spread of a deadly virus has often been mooted but mostly via Hollywood. What feels like a terrible film script is now a reality.

We will, one hopes, overcome this virus; but not without distressing casualties. What strikes me, however, is the way governments have responded to contain it. Gone is a good deal of formal cross-border cooperation along with the authority of the UN and EU. In such an emergency, it is individual nation states who have acted first to protect their people.

The timing and severity of measures taken by countries to minimise the impact of the virus has differed widely at least until now. But what is striking, is that there has been no nod at cross-border political institutions, only the World Health Organisation. The EU, for example, has been powerless and almost silent on virus containment. It is individual governments that have led initiatives and are accountable for keeping their people safe. Whilst slow initially to react, Italy has now implemented extreme lock-down measures in the face of a surge of coronavirus casualties. France and Spain have now followed suit, with France even fining people if out on the streets. In the UK more widely, compulsory lock down has yet to come. People are only advised not to frequent bars, restaurants etc with schools and universities currently mostly open until Friday. Germany has largely closed its land borders. The EU has finally banned all non-essential travel in the Schengen free travel zone.

The list of individual actions goes on from Singapore to Canada. Trump has managed things in the US with his usual chaotic style. A virus, initially branded as a bit of fake news and recently ‘Chinese’, is now consuming US government actions. Only time will tell if this ends his presidency, assuming elections are held at all in November.

On the economy, there has been some coordinated central bank intervention to protect finances but, to be frank, when interest rates are already at rock bottom it won’t make much of a difference. Only now has the ECB responded after internal divisions. It is the scale of individual economic rescue packages introduced by individual governments which have led the way. They are truly breath-taking in their scale. Sadly, they will have to be.

All actions will look very similar in due course as the relentless spread of the virus takes hold; but the frailties of globalisation and supra-national institutions have been uncovered. It is national governments across all continents who have full control. Only they are able to garner the required consensus to move quickly and access extraordinary powers, unprecedented in peacetime.

Incredibly, from only a few months ago in the UK, those all-consuming Brexit versus Remain arguments have been swept aside. You now wonder what all the fuss was about. Sovereign countries rule the roost with ease, and it will be them, not the EU or any other international body, who will face the consequences of their actions when this crisis is all over.

Political debate has changed in a wholly unexpected way. After this crisis, nobody will analyse or worry about the balance of power between cross-border institutions and nation states in quite the same way again.

But that is for the future. In the meantime, please keep safe.

Back from a trip to Botswana and South Africa, with a quick step into Zimbabwe (clearly struggling…) and Zambia to see the Victoria Falls. Lucky to be able to do this.

But with an eye to local politics, it was the opposing trajectories of two very different countries, Botswana and South Africa, which caught my attention, second (obviously!) to the amazing scenery and wildlife.

Starting from almost opposite ends of the spectrum economically, Botswana has, and is, going places with key benefits for southern Africa’s wildlife. More of which below. South Africa, from a hugely higher economic base, is not.

Botswana has developed some of the most innovative policies for conservation and tourism anywhere in the world, with huge benefits for its future success.

In broad terms, learning from the mistakes of other southern African countries, it has introduced ‘medium density, high value’ tourism policies that recognise the value and quality of its wilderness. Therefore, large areas of Botswana’s land is under some form of conservation. 40% of its land is conserved in its natural state whilst 17% of its land is officially under National Park, game reserve or other forms of conservation management.

The private sector plays a major role in helping the country, albeit under the strict eye of the government. Under detailed regulations, vast 15-year land concessions are sold to responsible businesses running safaris. The density and quality of lodges is ruthlessly monitored. Poaching is obviously illegal but hunting of an extended list of protected wild animals by locals is now prohibited and the practices of villages and their relationship with the land is being dramatically changed.

But there is a quid pro quo. The game reserves provide untold local employment opportunities. Schools and clinics are being built in even the remotest villages and land is given by the government for new incomers to build houses. From being one of the poorest African countries on the granting of independence in 1966, it is now becoming one of the most prosperous (also helped by diamond mining, again strictly regulated). It has its problems and no doubt corruption, but Botswana is largely one of Africa’s success stories.

The winner, besides people, is the wildlife. Threatened species from elephants, giraffes, lions, hippos, leopards and cheetahs, to name but a few, can find a relatively safe haven in Botswana and are growing in numbers. Protecting rhinos is still a problem (when will China get its relationship with animals right…). I was particularly struck by the concept of animals such as elephants coming over the border from the chaos of places like Zimbabwe, because they have remembered and learnt to find where the safe havens are. Amazing.

Now to South Africa. A very special country but in danger of giving up much of its economic and geographical advantages in the face of relentless corruption. Speaking to several local workers from a variety of backgrounds, few are optimistic about the future, feeling government incompetence and the growing gap between rich and poor is not sustainable. Most damningly, on the Robben Island tour one of the guides, a former inmate, was asked could he forgive. His reply was yes to his captors but no to what is happening to his country today.

The ANC is riddled with corrupt practices yet entirely dominant as the opposition implodes in infighting. The common refrain is that Zuma has set the country back nine years with his policies of state capture. Claiming ill health, he is currently holed up in Cuba and may not return to face justice. There is a State Capture enquiry going on and the detailed allegations are too lengthy and gruesome to cover here.

Cyril Ramaphosa, the current president, is struggling to exert control. There are rolling power cuts, train services are deteriorating (last Thursday the national power company, Eskom, cut the power to Cape Town’s entire Metrorail system for non payment of bills…!), the national airline is in receivership, water resources are poorly managed and the townships continue to grow as people from the East head for the Western Cape in search of work. Yet unemployment is c30% with youth unemployment over 50%. Crime is rife; one of my taxi drivers carried a knife on him…naturally…

There is a window of opportunity to put things right but it is narrowing rapidly. It should not be like this.

So, two countries heading in opposite directions. Africa is a dynamic and vibrant continent clearly on the rise. It would progress so much faster without the shackles of corruption. Leaders and governments who manifestly put the advancement of their country at the forefront of their actions, rather than gain for themselves and their allies, deserve to be recognised and applauded both at home and internationally. That legacy is worth a fortune and they need to know the effort is worth it.

A right-wing populist Government led by a tub thumper with a racy past who, in office, undermines democratic institutions and the media. He reaches out to those left behind by globalisation, often in crude terms, and wins a fabulous election victory. Why? Because his Opposition is led by an extreme left-winger, who tears up economic norms and scares moderates into voting for anybody but him. Sounds familiar? Johnson v Corbyn and the same act seems likely to be played out in the United States.

What a sorry mess the Democrats are in. They have learnt nothing from Trump’s victory and seem destined to hand him a second term.

Trump is tearing up any consensus in the US as he pursues economic policies which often benefit the rich, fuelling growth at the expense of an expanding deficit and, relatively, those on lower incomes. He has just proposed a budget that removes more safety nets for the poor whilst increasing defence expenditure. He implements an isolationist foreign policy which rewards dictators, trashes democratic allies and shrinks his country’s global influence. He denies global warming and undermines democratic institutions at home. His lawyers’ defence in the recent impeachment trial was that the President is justified in doing anything that enables his re-election, if he believes that his re-election is in the national interest. Scary. But Trump’s Republican senators complied and he got off untouched, with an approval rating heading to a record (for him) of 50%. Only Mitt Romney stood his ground and is now facing physical threats and expulsion from the Republican Party. At least Johnson had 21 turncoats opposing him!

Trump’s approval ratings until very recently have permanently been in the low 40s and he received three million less votes than Clinton in 2016. With a strong candidate, the Democrats should walk into the White House in November. This is where the problem starts.

First, the Democrats pursue causes, sometimes hypocritically, which continue to push the fly-over states into the arms of Trump, driven in particular by left-wing members of the House of Representatives. Then we turn to their candidates for President… Of the nine still left, four are over 70 and the three ‘leading’ contenders, Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg, are 78, 77 and 77 respectively. What is it about aging politicians in the US?

Sanders, fresh from his New Hampshire primary win, is the lead contender and is the Corbyn equivalent. Oh dear. All the mistaken Corbyn errors being repeated on the other side of the pond. He is supported by effusive young voters in his support for free college tuition, a $15 minimum hourly wage and universal healthcare. These are admirable aims but the cost and required tax increases would be huge. You can just imagine the Trump narrative driving moderates into voting for anybody but ‘the socialist’ Sanders.

Pete Buttigeig is really impressive but being gay will probably hold him back in the South. Biden and Warren are dead in the water. The dark horses are Amy Klobuchar and Mike Bloomberg; but the former is still unknown and the latter is surely going to be brought down by his unconventional approach to gaining the nomination. Whilst the same age as Biden he looks healthier and his billions may count, but it is a long shot.

Sadly, the betting in Europe is on a Trump victory with all the consequences which come from an eight-year term. Trump would be so much easier to beat if the Democrats learnt from the Johnson v Corbyn tussle in December. There is no evidence of this to date and they don’t seem to have a viable candidate, even if they did.

And now the end is near; And so I face the final curtain; My friend, I’ll say it clear; I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain…As we leave the EU, nobody can put it better than Frank Sinatra! It is madness.

So, in what may be the last Brexit blog of 2020…umm…what is the state of play as Britain departs the EU on Friday. Well, it all seems a little grim.

Let’s start with our overall relationship with the US. Our special relationship status generally, and Johnson’s unique bond with Trump in particular, was going to ensure the UK blossoms into a global trading power-house with a rapid UK/US trade deal. But, over Huawei, there are already severe disagreements as we plan to take, at least in part, their 5G technology. Both Republicans and Democrats are threatening to retaliate by stalling on any trading agreement. Then we have a row over the UK taxing US tech giants, with the US in return threatening tariffs on UK cars. And that is before we face pressure to accept US chlorinated chicken (banning it in Europe has led to vastly improved farming practices to reduce infection). An imminent trade deal, particularly one that has to be approved by Congress, is highly unlikely. Not a great start.

Elsewhere Australia has stated there will be no rapid trading agreement. Japan says it is happy to move fast but the deal will be worse than that negotiated with the EU because Japan feels it gave too much away!

On foreign policy, our reliance on Europe is evident. We were not informed in advance by the US of the assassination of the Iranian general, Soleimani, and sided with France and Germany in fearing its impact of creating further Middle East mayhem. On the Iranian nuclear deal, when Trump pulled out because it was negotiated by Obama (!), we again sided with Europe in keeping it alive. Only now are we weakly siding with Trump on a new deal he can support because ‘one won’t work without him’. We are nowhere on Syria, Libya and couldn’t even send ministerial representation to the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. A small player on the world stage getting smaller partly as a result of leaving the EU.

Then I read that in the North of England, even Sunderland’s car workers are now getting nervous about the implications of leaving the EU from a car manufacturing perspective. Tough. They were told. With harsh negotiations to start and end with the EU within 11 months there will be brutal clashes on fish and financial services as the FT outlined this week. But with the government not seeking alignment with Brussels in reaching trade agreements, manufacturing looks particularly vulnerable and it could all get very messy indeed. The EU are experts at running things to the wire and last-minute concessions on both sides may well lead to at least a phased UK/EU trade deal but it will be tight and a further drag on growth.

I get the source of populism; the overlooking of the North; the required investment there; frustration at the somewhat patronising metropolitan elites; the sense of being left behind by both globalisation and immigration, but populist solutions are no answer. Overseas, do Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Salvini, to name but a few, really care about the ordinary working person? No. Do their solutions spread wealth? No. Time will tell whether the anti-elitist Eton, Oxford educated Johnson, architect, or at least the face of Brexit, fits a different bracket. But leaving the EU means solutions to equality are harder to achieve, the UK becomes a less influential presence in the global community and true control over our own destiny is weakened. Like a boiling frog, by the time we realise its disastrous long-term consequences it will be too late.

The media is struggling against a largely disinterested public partly due to the pressures of the modern age. With a 24-hour news cycle and social media breathing down the necks of thoughtful journalism, political coverage has become increasingly short-term and, in some cases, hysterical, in a drive to attract attention.

You look at the political news output of organisations like the BBC and Sky News and the headlines are almost identical, fed by the formal output of political parties, government announcements and placed gossip. News gets posted for speed purposes and then the interpretation follows, with a desperate attempt at differentiation.

Differentiation comes in several forms. In General Elections, initiating coverage through televised debates, one on one interviews and regional roadshows; on an ongoing basis, more generally, it is through outlets such as Question Time, the Today programme and Sky News’ All Out Politics.

This is where the mistakes get made. First, the media assumes the public are interested in, and can be attracted by, political minutiae in much the same way journalists are. The public are not remotely as engaged. It does not imply ignorance but a focus on what ultimately matters as generalists. The media doesn’t often get this. It is the epitome of the ‘Westminster bubble’ and most minor politicians (and some senior ones), desperate for attention, are happy to play ball. In combination, when the public, on air, are door-stepped, particularly in the drive for ‘balance’, it is understandably not insightful viewing.

To create attention, set piece interviews with leading politicians are harsh and audience participation in live events, comprising members of the public often from a small minority of activists, are hostile. Some of the televised General Election debates were shockingly managed, for example, and changed nothing. The 2019 election was hardly a vintage year from a media perspective. Then we have celebrity panellists dragooned in to make on-going events more entertaining. It doesn’t work. Their contributions are often tedious and light weight.

This drive for differentiation goes on at the ultimate cost of tearing down the institutions of governance and the often well-meaning people who inhabit them. Only the really sophisticated, manipulative (or manipulated) politicians can successfully navigate this dubious approach to political coverage, breeding cynicism. Then we head full circle again. Media reporting of politics often feels like Ground Hog Day.

The end result is that political coverage is losing respect and senior politicians play on this to avoid scrutiny. And scrutiny has never been more important, with an unscrupulous Prime Minister sat on an enormous overall majority, facing no effective Opposition. The Government needs to be held to account on crucial issues such as how we leave the EU and constitutional reform in the coming year. But the Today programme is avoided, Question Time mostly ignored by senior politicians, the BBC intimidated and set piece interviews across channels reserved for soft touch moments. Eat your heart out Andrew Neil!

What can be done? There should be a better balance between short term coverage and that which is more thoughtful and analytical, free from the pressures of immediate, often pointless online content. Interviews should focus more on longer term issues rather than a gut reaction to the latest rumour or the need for a vacuous response to an unfolding incident, however much social media airwaves are buzzing. Politicians should be treated with more respect, and lured, rather than berated, into a studio. And journalists need to remember they are not the news themselves and be held to greater account. When newspapers are reviewed on 24-hour news channels, try analysing media coverage using non-journalists for example!

A fresh approach would gain traction over time and, in an age of populism, nothing can be more important. The media has a responsibility to question the impact of its political coverage, how it does it and what it says. Perhaps a good guide to improvement would be a growing measure of trust in the profession of journalism. Otherwise the media will be increasingly ignored by both politicians and the public, as is currently happening, and democracy will be much the poorer.

For those unsympathetic to the Alt. Right and supporting centre ground politics it won’t be a vintage year, but it will be a calmer one, at least from a UK perspective…

But first, how did this blog’s predictions for 2019 pan out. Well, not brilliant but not too bad either with more predictions right than wrong.

On British politics, the prediction was that Theresa May would just squeak her Withdrawal Agreement through parliament (not first-time round) but, as Leader, she would go earlier than expected as the Tories ran out of patience with her inability to communicate. There would be no GE until 2020. Oops. Mostly wrong by a few months but in a way her Withdrawal Agreement did pass but under Johnson.

Looking at the British Opposition, the next prediction was that Corbyn’s Labour Party would go nowhere, the LibDems would not succeed and, in an environment of such polarised politics, any new centre ground party would also fail. Correct.

Overseas, Trump probably wouldn’t get impeached, but even if he did, the process would make him stronger. A score draw.

In Europe, Merkel’s influence will wane, and Macron would regain his poise. Correct.

On economics, a steady year for global growth regardless of trade wars as China stabilises without any recessionary crisis. Correct.

So, six predictions right, three wrong and one score draw. To be honest, I would have taken those odds at the start of such a chaotic year!

So, to 2020. Here we go…

The Tories have no Opposition and will dominate British politics all year. Johnson is there for 10 years unless scandal or boredom get the better of him. The Tories will pursue a Northern, English nationalist agenda, moving to the Right. Labour’s best bet is Keir Starmer but that will not be enough, even if they are sensible enough to elect him. The LibDems will not recover and are politically dead. They had their chance and blew it. A new centrist Party will be planned but won’t be launched this year. It needs detailed planning and mass defections from Labour. There will be no second Scottish referendum. The SNP have peaked.

On Brexit, it will of course happen, but Johnson will partly sell out the Right of his Party to get a final trade deal. The only time he will appear to moderate his somewhat gung-ho political stance.

Overseas, Trump will survive the Senate, keep his job and win a second term. If the Democrats can’t find a credible enough candidate by now…they probably never will. I really, really hope I am wrong.

Elsewhere, the Cities across the Western world will continue to diverge politically, pursuing liberal policies versus conservative rural areas, who will still manage to pick their national leaders in most countries. A major crisis of democracy rooted in culture wars awaits us but not in 2020.

Economically, Europe will struggle but generally economic growth will tick along globally with no crises, even with more mayhem in the Middle East than usual. Certainly not from destabilising trade wars in a US election year. A bit dull really.

2020 will be unsurprising but generally bad for political moderates. Their fightback, postponed in 2019 through, at best, ineffectual strategy and tactics, better start this year.