UP early this morning and composing a thought or two before walking with friends. The conversation often wanders along a political path, so it is likely that Donald Trump will join us. Hope it isn’t windy or the president elect’s strange hair will fly all over the place.

Now that we have had a few days to absorb the news, it doesn’t seem any more absorbable. But there it is: the world is stuck with the Donald.

There are signs that the Conservatives see Trump as an opportunity, with reports this morning that Theresa May’s government is trying out its chat-up lines – “Britain’s plan to tame Trump” is the Sunday Times’ take on this.

I suspect we will now see plenty of people saying that they don’t see what all the fuss was about, and that Trump isn’t all that bad.

The truth is we just don’t know. We have no idea what sort of a president he will be. We do know that he said many hateful things during his campaign. So, the campaigning Donald is still much the fore of our minds, and if the shit-stirring, shin-kicking, insult-spouting Donald emerges in the White House, then we will know we are in trouble.

Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary – and there’s a notion that is still a foreign country to me – says Europe’s leaders must end the ‘whinge-o-rama’ over Trump’s victory. Stop the “doom and gloom” he says, because Trump is a “deal-maker”. Yes, Boris – but what does that mean? And do we want to be on the wrong end of a dodgy Donald deal?

Yesterday in my part-time job, I was editing comment pieces and other stories for the Irish Independent newspaper – Ireland’s Sunday Times, if you like. Smaller in scope, but still big in Ireland

Most of the commentators, and that newspaper has many, take the line today that the mainstream media and the social media hordes misread Trump completely, and that he won’t be that bad anyway.

Part of the explanation for this surprising tolerance, at a guess, is that the Irish government has been strongly anti-Trump, and the commentators don’t much like their government.

Protesters have taken to the streets in US cities to proclaim against their new president, in displays that are angry but futile. One poster caught my eye: something along the lines of “Make America Hate Again”, and that does sum up all the newly dug divisions in America.

I went on an anti-Brexit march through York after the referendum result. It was a civilised and uplifting congregation of the like-minded. Someone followed us shouting: “You lost, you lost…” A knucklehead for sure, but the knucklehead was right. Those of us who wanted to remain did lose. Being on the ‘wrong side’ seems to be the way if you are any sort of a liberal nowadays. The Hillary-supporting Democrats are discovering this in the States – and maybe what they are feeling now is what the racists felt when Barack Obama was elected.

The world just seems to be swinging the wrong way. Perhaps it will swing back one day. But it may need a big push.

Nigel Farage has been seen entering Trump Towers, apparently aiming to be the first British politician to meet Trump. What a disturbing thought, but at least those two deserve each other.

Farage is a sort of mobile irritant, who only comes to life when he has someone to annoy. His self-appointed role at present is to go around annoying our government by buddying up to Trump before Theresa May has even had a look-in.

I have other thoughts skull lurking. But it is time to find my walking boots. Perhaps the Wolds winds will blow away the darkness.

YESTERDAY the shock, today the waves.

My last blog was written as the news broke on the television and I tried to make sense of Donald Trump winning the US election. Is today the time to be calmer? Well, serenity is going to be in short supply for a while yet.

Why did Trump win? Because more people voted for him. End of story (although the US electoral system does seem complicated to Brits). He won, it is being said by many, because disaffected white voters turned out in their masses. And other races, too. But his support was solidly white.

Yet not only those who were poor, angry and white voted for Trump. White college graduates went Trump too, as did 48 per cent of those who earn more than $250,000 –according to a New York Times exit poll.

As with Brexit, this is a divisive victory. At the time of writing, people are protesting across the US. Having their own “not in my name” moment. Taking their anger and incredulity out on to the streets. Hardly surprising when the rallying Trump insulted women, Hispanics, Muslims and more in speeches which had racism and misogyny as their pulse. Speeches which viewed all forms of otherness with intense hostility.

A piece by the editor of the New Yorker dropped into my in-box yesterday. In this, David Remnick argued: “The election of Donald Trump to the presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the constitution, and a … sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy … It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.”

Yesterday the morning, today the mourning.

What sort of a president will Donald Trump be? No idea, not a clue. And you suspect he doesn’t have a clue either. His victory is personal, a massive point scored for the can-do, butt-kicking, insult-spraying candidate. People went for him, or enough people went for him, because he is Donald Trump. Not because he is a Republican. Hell, even many Republicans didn’t warm to Trump. And now they’ve got him as their president. Don’t expect a smooth ride once the initial shock dies down.

Trump pledged much in those speeches. Sprayed out promises with incontinent fury. Did he mean what he said and will he deliver? Nobody knows, not even the Donald. But if he doesn’t make America great again; if he doesn’t overturn what he sees as hostile trade arrangements; if he doesn’t build that stupid wall on the Mexican border – well, if he doesn’t do those things, his supporters may feel let down.

They are headed for disappointment station eventually. Or they are if they believed all those Trump testaments. Did even Trump believe all those things he said? Again, who knows?

America has always gone big on personality politics. You could say that we are less keen over here. Or you could if we hadn’t voted in Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron. But at least they rose through the political ranks, they belonged to parties. Unlike Trump who is wholly of himself. Madly and deeply of himself.

Trump supporters interviewed on the television often said they believed in him because he was a businessman. He knew how to strike a good deal. He would get things done. Well, next year we will begin to find out. And if stuff doesn’t get done, his supporters will feel disappointed in the man their anointed with such enthusiasm.

I suspect that one person who is shocked over this result is Donald J Trump himself. He wanted to win because he doesn’t do losing. He wanted to win because that was striking the biggest business deal on Earth. And then he did win. Now he will govern as a Republican president, even though he doesn’t much love them. And they don’t much love him. Or they didn’t until he went and won.

One problem with personality politics is that the job is too big for a personality, even one as ego-pumped as Trump’s. His successes will have Trump written all over them but so, too, will his failures. They will be just as emblazoned with his name as that ridiculous tower of his or his private jet. A billionaire man of the people comes with a lot of expensive baggage (all with his name on it).

A divisive victory, as I said, with protesters taking to the streets. A victory built on an unstable stitching together of hope and hate.

The times seem to be moving against liberals and those who prefer the left side of the street. Well, liberals need to find their voice again. And soon.

BLOODY hell, the world has gone mad. I am typing, or trying to type, as the headlines swing at my head like beams. The television news is on and my brain is telling my fingers to type. Donald J Trump, that egomaniac, truth-shredding, snake-oil salesman looks on course to be the next President of the US.

A billionaire businessmen with no political experience and a head full of crazy, intemperate notions about building walls and banning Muslims is about to be given the steering wheel of the careening United States mega-bus.

A BBC reporter with a voice strained by talking all night, strained by incredulity too perhaps, is saying that people are waiting for the Democrats to concede. Everyone is waiting for Fox News to declare the result, she says, waiting for Trump to arrive to speak to his supporters.

And yet Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are heading home for the night, saying that the result cannot be called.

Only yesterday – or was it half a turbulent century ago? – Trump was telling supporters at his last rally that this was “Brexit plus Brexit plus Brexit” and it sounded like the usual self-basting hyperbole of a maniac. And now it turns out he was right.

This will be the biggest upset to the political establishment the US has ever seen. And scary news for the rest of the world.

“Hillary Clinton has now conceded on the phone to Donald Trump”

“If that’s true that Hillary Clinton has called to concede, Donald Trump will now be making a victory speech.”

The news is coming in snatches and snippets. And still my fingers stumble to type

“It looks as if Mr Trump is your new President…”

Perhaps the election of Donald Trump is the inevitable outcome of years of bitter anti-politics feelings. On both sides of the Atlantic we have spent years disparaging politicians. And that created a poisonous vacuum in which the likes of Nigel Farage and now Donald Trump have thrived. This is where being against politics gets you.

“Fox New has declared the Presidential election of 2016 for Donald J Trump…”

And now Donald Trump is coming on to the stage with his family. And yes, it’s true. A reality TV host is now going to be the next President of the US. My fingers are still struggling with this. And my brain is fried.

Last night it had seemed that Hillary Clinton was going to be the first female President, and yet the polls were wrong, as they were over Brexit.

“Sorry to keep you waiting, complicated business, complicated business,” says Trump as he comes on to the stage. He is being calm and conciliatory about Hillary Clinton.

“Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division…it is time for us to come together as one united people. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be President of all America.

“As I’ve said from the beginning ours was not a campaign but an incredible movement…”

Well, it was a campaign, a vicious, shin-kicking, shit-stirring campaign, the lowest such contest the US has ever seen, but never mind.

“It’s going to be a beautiful thing… the forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer… we are going to fix our inner cities…

“We are going to dream of things for our country, beautiful things and successful things again…”

And now another voice breaks in. “I might turn this off now…” My wife has switched off the television and who can blame her. It’s good to see history being made, but not that history.

This election was Hillary Clinton’s to lose, and that’s what she has gone and done. Although she shone at times towards the end of the contest, she has been an unappealing candidate, smeared by her own bad judgement over email servers and speaking to Wall Street bankers for a pile of cash. And the name didn’t help: perhaps America just didn’t fancy taking a punt on another Clinton. Too much heavy baggage. Would a different Democrat have fared better? Would the left-wing (for the US) Bernie Sanders have fared better? Well, he couldn’t have fared any worse.

Now we must get used to this strange new world. Barack Obama is still President in name for the curious, and quite long interregnum, and then early next year Donald J Trump will be President. I hope the world is feeling lucky.

FACEBOOK can be a congregation of the like-minded when it comes to passing on political stories. Friendship clusters make it likely that the people you know approach the world from a similar angle.

Recently, Facebook friends have been sharing something that appeared in the now online-only Independent. This is a pie-chart showing how people voted in the EU referendum, and breaking the vote down into numbers – information I sought and couldn’t find the last time this troublesome topic arose.

The headline was: “Show this chart to anyone who says Brexit is the ‘will of the British people’.” The slice of the pie voting Leave is shown as 17,410, 472, while the Remain vote is put at 16,141,241 – a figure which captures the closeness of the vote. The other quarters of this pie are “did not vote” at 12,948,018 and “not registered to vote” at 18,099,999.

There is a caution to this chart in that the “not registered” figure is a calculation reached by subtracting the size of the electorate as of June 22 from the OS records of total UK population published in February this year. “A person may not be on the register by their own choice, or due to ineligibility such as not yet being old enough, being in prison, or not possessing UK citizenship,” the Independent points out.

The report notes that the electoral commission reported that the electorate on referendum day was put at 46,500,001 – 72.1 per cent of whom turned out to vote.

None of this changes anything, but in the wake of the intense rancour and generally nastiness in certain newspapers following the High Court decision last week, it does offer a useful corrective.

Describing the vote as the “will of the people” always was a stretch – and one that snaps when you see those figures. The effort now should be to get everybody on board; whether they wanted to leave the EU or not. Instead what we are seeing is a government of the right, noisily supported by newspapers of the right, decrying anyone who dares to express doubts about this huge step we are about to take.

Last week three High Court judges decreed that Parliament should have a vote on whether we leave Europe, rather than letting the prime minister decide for herself. You may recall that the Daily Mail called the judges “Enemies of the people”, while the Daily Express hit the mad-old-aunt button and decreed this to be a more calamitous turn of events than the Second World War. (“Where’s my hard hat, Ethel?”)

Today’s front page sees the Express in less barmy mood, although the topic remains the same: “100,000 to march for EU exit.” This refers to acting UKIP leader Nigel Farage – perhaps that should be ‘acting-up leader’ – saying that he plans to lead a 100,000-strong march to the Supreme Court on the day the government appeals the ruling on MPs’ involvement in Brexit negotiations.

Farage warned at the weekend that there would be “disturbances on the streets” if Britain did not leave the EU – and now he is stirring up just such a disturbance. But if 100,000 people join Farage, I’ll be amazed, as well as profoundly depressed.

I’d love to know what the placards will say. How about: “How dare British MPs have a say on Britain’s future”? This Brexit business becomes more bonkers by the minute.

TWO stories in York have extended beyond the bar walls recently and both are peculiar to this city.

The first is the still unexplained ejection from the bell tower of the Minister’s bell ringers; unexplained to me at least. Has anyone yet heard a convincing version of what exactly happened and why?

The silenced bells seem to have been accompanied by a muffled story as York Minster sits out the row, presumably hoping it will go away. As examples of how to manage public relations go, this one has been a disaster, or so it seems – not that I know much about the art of polishing reputations.

More recently the rumblings in York have concerned the plans by English Heritage for a new visitor centre at Clifford’s Tower. Although the plans have been in the public arena for a long time, the protests didn’t stir fully into life until the proposals were passed by the council.

As a leader article in my old newspaper pointed out, only 13 people formally objected to the plan. Since them some 3,000 people have signed a petition objecting to the proposals. This morning the protesters are due to rally around the mound of Clifford’s Tower. As I write the rain is falling so that may dampen their protests, but probably not their ardour on this matter.

The protests have been led by the independent councillor Johnny Hayes, who tells the YorkMix website: “There are strong indications that the turnout will be high at the protest.”

Johnny is forceful in his genial manner and he may well stir a decent crowd, even in the rain.

At this point I have a shameful confession to make: although I have lived in York for nearly 28 years, I have never been inside Clifford’s Tower. I have run up and down the steps occasionally, although not for a while. Last week I parked in the shadow of the tower, an impressive sight at night, oddly let down by being left in the middle of a car park.

York never has got to grips with what to do with that space. The beautiful old tower – from the outside, at least – is tucked away behind a shopping centre. Years ago, two proposals to expand the centre were defeated. That saved Clifford’s Tower from one ignominious fate, but still left it stranded in a car park.

Perhaps proper solutions are too costly. The car park should go – or it should go underground and be hidden away, leaving the Tower in more fitting surroundings. That won’t happen so instead we are left with the English Heritage proposals.

From what I have seen, the plans to add a timber decking roof inside the Tower are good, while the visitors’ centre at the foot of the mound doesn’t look right. Some have complained that it resembles a branch of McDonald’s.

I think the York Central MP Rachel Maskell is right when she says: “There is no reason why the bodies involved, together with City of York Council, cannot sit down together and find the right solution for the city.”

But will that happen? One danger is that the row will rumble on and nothing will happen. Of course, the protesters might see that as a victory of sorts.

Two lessons apply here at a guess. One: something should be done but what? And two: perhaps people should learn to pay attention more and I happily include myself in that, as I hadn’t taken much notice until recently.

I think this shows the difference between old and new school ways of doing things. The proposals went through all the proper old-school channels and nobody much noticed and hardly anyone complained.

When it was almost too late, a new-school social media campaign whipped up a storm. A good storm, a decent-minded storm, but a storm that blew in late.

If more of the complainers had noticed what was going on earlier, perhaps a better scheme might have evolved.

WELL, at least the newspapers haven’t gone into hyperbolic pants-on-fire meltdown this morning over yesterday’s High Court ruling that MPs must have a say on triggering Article 50.

The case was brought by Gina Miller, an investment manager who partly used her own money to argue in court that the Commons should vote to trigger Article 50, the mechanism that allows Britain to leave the EU.

The government said it would appeal – as allowing MPs to vote on something so important clearly cannot be allowed.

For those of you who keep away from the front pages, here are a few examples (warning: you may need to wear gloves while handling this lot).

The Daily Mail goes for ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE below pictures of the three ‘out of touch’ judges who made the ruling. One of them, and please prepare to be shocked, is “an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer”. That is quite an elaborate insult, so let’s deconstruct it. “Openly gay”: better and more honest than “secretly gay” surely. “Ex-Olympic fencer”: normally we value Olympians in this country, but perhaps I missed the memo about fencing being a disreputable sport.

The Daily Express, which never knowingly says anything even remotely sane about Europe, goes for WE MUST GET OUT OF THE EU, a headline laid over the Union Jack. This subtle approach continues in the intro: “Today this country faces a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches.”

Wow. Three judges decree that Parliament should have a vote on whether we leave Europe, rather than letting the prime minister to decide for herself. And that’s worse that the Second World War. And there is more: “Truly, November 3 2016 “was the day democracy died”. Or the day the Daily Express finally lost its marbles.

So the people who want our country back suffer a bad attack of apoplexy when three British judges decide something for Britain. While you puzzle over that one, let’s move to the Sun. The paper goes for: “WHO DO EU THINK YOU ARE?” above a picture of a smiling Gina Miller.

A feeble effort really, although a smaller headline puts the boot in: “Loaded foreign elite defy will of Brit voters.” This is a less than coded reference to Miller being from Guyana – even though she has lived in Britain since she was ten and is now 51. That is nasty stuff and surely close to racism.

Incidentally, Miller says she is often referred to on social media as a “foreign-born” “rich bitch”, while some charmers in the City call her the “black widow spider”.

The Daily Telegraph leads off with: “The judges versus the people”, and the Guardian opts for: “Turmoil for May as judges rule that Parliament must decide on Brexit.” Hardly snappy, but factual rather than rampantly emotive.

The Times prefers: “May is urged to call snap election over Brexit ruling”, and the i-newspaper puts is straight: “Brexit plan in tatters.”

It is easy when reading some of those headlines to wonder what sort of a country we will be when Brexit happens. Yesterday’s ruling won’t change the Leave vote. We are still on the way out, one way or other. But the job of extricating ourselves from Europe just got much more difficult. And that’s a good thing. For a narrow vote in favour of leaving has somehow been turned into the “voice of the people” – a dubious phrase if ever there was.

David Davis, the Minister For Whatever Brexit Means This Week, appeared on the TV news last night wearing that shrug he usually wears. He said the government had “the biggest mandate in history” with 17 million votes.

Pardon me, but isn’t the mandate in fact 17 million minus all those who voted to remain? A much narrower mandate, and a closer reflection on a country that remains divided.

Those of us in the Remain lobby lost by a ratio of 52 to 48 – a margin which Nigel Farage once said wouldn’t be enough of a victory to count (but only if the vote had gone the other way, naturally).

We now need a sensible way forward, not the hate-filled hyperbole on show in many of today’s front pages.

OH, look –  a poppy row. We haven’t had one of those since the last one. Every year the indignation is cranked up over something or other; and every year the noise drowns out the respect.

It’s the paradox of the poppies: those demanding that we pay respect shout so loudly that all respect is forgotten. It’s the same every November, so much so that the poppy row has become a traditional as durable as Remembrance Day itself.

The newspapers, or some of them, scavenge for evidence that someone or other isn’t being sufficiently respectful. Last year it was the actor Sienna Miller who caused so-called offence by sitting on Graham Norton’s sofa while not wearing a poppy. Appearing on TV poppy-less has become a favourite offence.

All BBC presenters seem to wear a poppy by edict. This sort of enforced respect caused Channel 4’s Jon Snow to coin the phrase “poppy fascism”. And that was fully ten years ago in a blog for Channel 4 in which Snow responded to a viewer who had complained about his lack of a poppy.

Snow wrote: “There is a rather unpleasant breed of poppy fascism out there – ‘he damned well must wear a poppy!’. Well I do, in my private life, but I am not going to wear it or any other symbol on air.

“I respect our armed forces, the sacrifice and the loss, and like others I remember them on Remembrance Sunday. That’s the way it is. I won’t be wearing a black tie for anyone’s death – I don’t for my own relatives, so why on earth would I for anyone else’s?”

Quite right. Although another sort of tradition now sees Snow’s sensible thoughts dragged out annually by people like me. I have just checked and a year ago I mentioned Snow in a blog headlined: “When did we get so silly about poppies?”

This year’s silliness is of a different order in a sense, as the ‘villain’ is not someone who has been poppy forgetful, but an entire organisation. Fifa has decreed that English and Scottish players cannot wear poppies when the teams meet on Armistice Day. This is because world football’s governing body bans political, religious or commercial messages on shirts.

The Football Associations of England and Scotland say they intend to defy this ban by allowing players to wear poppies on black armbands. And they will accept whatever punishment Fifa dishes out.

Prime Minister Theresa May joined in the let’s-shout-about-this chorus by declaring the rule to be “utterly outrageous”. Well, it probably is. But this is a tedious row, and as unnecessary as all those other silly rows about poppies.

I don’t care whether footballers wear poppies or not. I don’t care if TV presenters forget to buy a poppy or decide that wearing a poppy isn’t for them. I don’t always remember to buy a poppy myself. But I do shed a quiet tear sometimes on Remembrance Day over my grandfather who carried stretchers through the mud of the Somme.

We all have family links to those who died and those who survived, but are now dead. And these rows disrespect the dead.

Fifa appears to consider poppies to be a political symbol. This will outrage many people – and utterly outrage a few more. I suppose it depends on your definition of political. Those who feel that red poppies excuse wars rather than honour the dead may well feel that the poppy is a political symbol.

I don’t feel that, by the way, although I do think that the simplicity of the poppy appeal has somehow become politicised. And that’s why we have these ridiculous rows every year.

Harry Leslie Smith, a 94-year-old veteran, went to his first Remembrance Sunday in 1928. Two years ago, he declared that he would never again wear a red poppy in public thanks to the sight of red poppies ‘festooning’ politicians’ lapels. Of that first Sunday, he has said: “I don’t remember whether people wore poppies but they wore their grief like jagged glass.”

Do wear a poppy with pride if you want to; or don’t wear a poppy if that is your preference. Or wear a white poppy if you wish (and can find one). And next year let’s remember the fallen without another stupid row.

You don’t have to be watching the US version of House of Cards for long to wonder at the parallels with the actual election in all its vileness.

We have just finished series three and stepped into four. By coincidence, this means we have been seeing the fictional contest for the White House run in parallel with the actual one. As the presidential race for November 2016 hots up on the screen, the real election enters its last scrappy, hate-filled phase. Of the two contests, one contains more murder and Machiavellian plotting. We can only hope that it is the fictional version.

Sometimes the classy TV drama seems almost tame when compared with the reality. It is certainly hard to recall a less edifying example of democracy at work. Neither candidate seems deserving of the role. Hillary Clinton should win of course. But this is just because she isn’t Donald Trump – a man whose myriad faults and failings mark him as appallingly unsuitable for the role. Yet millions of Americans lap up his hateful fantasies, malignant blame culture and random crazed enthusiasms.

Clinton looked to have the election in the bag. Then the FBI tripped her up by announcing further investigations into her email problem. This long-running affair goes back seven years. It concerns a private server Clinton had set up at her home when she was secretary of state. While she was doing the job, she says she received more than 62,000 emails. Half of these she says were official, and the rest were personal, concerning her daughter’s wedding, her mother’s funeral and her “yoga routines”.

Her difficulty lies in having set up a private rather than a state server. This means that the state couldn’t keep a record of her emails; and the public must trust Clinton when she says that she wasn’t trying to hide anything.

The affair was investigated by the FBI and while there is a moral muddiness to Clinton’s behaviour, it is not thought she did anything illegal (unless you are Donald Trump, but we shall come to his self-serving ravings in a moment)

The matter appeared to have been settled, or at least shoved under the carpet. Then the FBI announced it was looking again at the email affair. This was thanks to the FBI director James Comey saying that new emails might be relevant. These are said to have come from the disgraced politician Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest political aides.

Weiner was caught in a sexting scandal. He is said to have sent pictures of his genitals to several women; or his “bulging underwear” as US newspapers prefer to put it. This detail comes from a helpful Newsbeat explainer on the BBC website.

The Democrats believe that the FBI may have acted illegally in releasing this news of this fresh investigation just one week before the election (when people in many states are already voting).

Donald Trump is naturally delighted, as it tips him an electoral advantage. This latest fuss about nothing much deflects attention from that long line of women claiming to have been groped by him, and from his rampant misogyny and general toxicity.

Instead he can now rant about Clinton being a criminal and how she should be in prison – even though want she did wasn’t at all illegal (probably).

At least nobody got pushed under subway train, gassed in their car or buried in the desert after being run over by an old van driven by a bald maniac. At least not so far as we know.