Striking, how many familiar events are not running to the old rules these days. Just read another newspaper article on Brexit, on the theme "Then you'll be sorry!" - and listened to a brief interview on the radio about Trump's likely appointment of a non-diplomat to be Secretary of State. When we realise that we're all poorer, we may indeed be sorry, but will we realise that we brought it on ourselves by collectively voting to Leave the European Union? Will we think of a European road not travelled, on which we'd all be (ha ha) prosperous? Or find some other cause for our poverty in all the events, et cetera, that have happened since June 2016?
And did we expect the businessman President-Elect to find his Secretary of State among the long-term diplomats that he doesn't know, or among the business people that he does?
The common thread in the commentary is that established practice is not being followed; that this failure to follow the old rules is of itself worthy of comment. The implicit assumption seems to be that the old rules are still there. But I wonder. Have we just stepped out of established practice for a brief season, in which it makes sense to continue nudging the UK back towards Remain and The Donald towards diplomats skilled in the old ways - or has the train left the tracks completely?
Which is an embarrassingly clumsy seque into today's rail strike south of London. If this follows the old rules, there'll be management on one side and union(s) on the other, and the politicians and the papers, et al, will split by left/right political allegiance. Unless the world has changed completely, in which case the sheer inconvenience of the strike - not the politics, nor the industrial relations; just the lack of trains - will be the decisive factor.
And the coming postal strike. Once upon a time, there would have been almost a sense of inevitability about postal staff walking out just ahead of the last posting days before Christmas, and we would all have taken sides according to the politics, et cetera, or at least accepted what was happening. But I wonder.
And did we expect the businessman President-Elect to find his Secretary of State among the long-term diplomats that he doesn't know, or among the business people that he does?
The common thread in the commentary is that established practice is not being followed; that this failure to follow the old rules is of itself worthy of comment. The implicit assumption seems to be that the old rules are still there. But I wonder. Have we just stepped out of established practice for a brief season, in which it makes sense to continue nudging the UK back towards Remain and The Donald towards diplomats skilled in the old ways - or has the train left the tracks completely?
Which is an embarrassingly clumsy seque into today's rail strike south of London. If this follows the old rules, there'll be management on one side and union(s) on the other, and the politicians and the papers, et al, will split by left/right political allegiance. Unless the world has changed completely, in which case the sheer inconvenience of the strike - not the politics, nor the industrial relations; just the lack of trains - will be the decisive factor.
And the coming postal strike. Once upon a time, there would have been almost a sense of inevitability about postal staff walking out just ahead of the last posting days before Christmas, and we would all have taken sides according to the politics, et cetera, or at least accepted what was happening. But I wonder.