Visit Rwanda

Here's a quiz question.

Have you ever wondered whether organisations get value for money out of their advertising?

That wasn't the question.

On 16th April 2025, Arsenal played Real Madrid in the Estadio Santiago Bernabéu in Madrid, in front of 77,073 fanatical football fans. The Arsenal players were wearing shirts with "Visit Rwanda" on the sleeves.

Here's the question.

How many of the 77,073 ended up thinking "Wow, Rwanda. Sounds like a cool place. I wonder what its beaches are like. Can I get a cheap flight tomorrow?"

If you guessed more than 0, you're deluded.

Apparently the Rwandan Tourist Board pays Arsenal £10 million a year for the sponsorship deal. It has been rumoured that the football club is reconsidering whether to continue after the current deal ends this year, because of "reputational damage". I think they should carry on; it's money for old rope. And £10 million would get you a backup goalie.

******************

By The Way #1: Rwanda is a landlocked country, However, it (says ChatGPT) "boasts beautiful inland beaches along the shores of Lake Kivu, one of Africa's Great Lakes, situated on the western border with the Democratic Republic of Congo". That's the DRC they are at war with (it's not technically a war but they are fighting each other).

By The Way #2: Arsenal won the match 2-1, with a beautiful winning strike from Gabriel Martinelli. I knew you'd want to know. Here it is.

https://youtube.com/shorts/_W7XsyCa6iU?si=SD7BARL0WVJ40OVm

Keep a sense of proportion

The most recent prediction of the next UK General Election result by Electoral Calculus was updated on 26th April - i.e. before the May council elections - based on opinion polls from 11th to 25th April, sampling 11,432 people.

Of course the next General Election isn't due until 2029 (as late as 15th August), so we need to avoid reading too much into this. Nevertheless it inevitably leads to debates about hung parliaments, coalitions and proportional representation.

As my erudite readers know, there are 650 seats in the House of Commons. The Speaker occupies one and the 7 Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats, leaving 642 voting seats and requiring 322 to form a majority. If the above number of seats turned out to be correct, no party would reach that threshold. In order to pass any laws, some parties would have to work together. Indeed, vote together.

By convention (the UK doesn't have a written constitution) the largest party would initiate discussions with potential coalition partners. It's worth pointing out that, if the margins are small, a party might enter into a "confidence and supply" arrangement whereby the smaller party supports the larger in a confidence vote and in finance bills but makes up their minds on a case by case basis on other issues. Theresa May did this with the DUP after losing her majority in 2017 but that eventually collapsed when the DUP wouldn't support May's Brexit deal.

The first test of any coalition or arrangement is winning a majority on a vote on the King's Speech, the government's legislative programme. If a minority government couldn't achieve that, the Prime Minister would have to advise the King either to ask someone else to try to form a government or to call a new election.

So what possible coalitions or arrangements would be possible, or likely, on the above numbers?

The most obvious coalition partners would be Reform and Conservatives, giving them 339 seats. Given that Nigel Farage would reasonably expect to be Prime Minister, as the leader of the largest party, it's likely that a substantial number of the Conservatives couldn't stomach that, especially if Farage had spent an election campaign claiming that Reform were going to "destroy the Conservatives". That coalition would need at least 77 of the 94 Conservative MPs to be a minimal majority.

Which leaves .....what?

If half of the Conservatives went with Reform, could the remainder join with Labour, the LibDems and SNP in some form of centrist coalition? Add a few Greens, Plaid and independents that might just work. But there would be big questions: who would be Prime Minister? (Ed Davey, your time has come!) How could they agree on Scottish independence? The LibDems would demand a referendum on proportional representation, of course.

I think they could probably agree on referenda for those two issues and then maybe have a new election under PR. Let's see what difference that would make.

On the Electoral Calculus predicted vote share, straight PR would give:

Using the 2014 General Election result, PR would have given:

...resulting in a LAB/LIB/Green coalition?

I've excluded Northern Ireland from PR calculations. It's also worth pointing out that there are various forms of PR; I've chosen the simplest for my examples.

France and the UK are the only Western European countries that don't use a proportional system for their General Elections. So there are plenty who can teach us how to manage coalition government if we need to. Although the Belgians took 493 days from a general election in 2019 before a government was formed. Maybe don't ask them.

So, make a note of 2029 in your diary. There have only been two years - 1910 and 1974 - in which there have been two UK General Elections. So far.

They've given up!

A weird thing is happening in football. The teams currently in 16th and 17th in the Premier League, with two matches to go until the end of the season, have given up. The bottom three teams (of 20) in the table are so far behind these two that they are in no danger of relegation, so they have not played their strongest sides in their recent matches. Technically, they have to play their remaining games but they don't want to.

Why? Because of this:

It's the Europa League trophy. Although it's only made of silver, for these two teams it is gold dust. Winning the Europa League doesn't just win you a trophy, it guarantees entry into next season's Champions League, worth upwards of £100 million in prize money. You could probably get a half decent goalkeeper for that - these two certainly need one.

A week tomorrow these two will battle it out in Bilbao in the Europa League final. One of them will win the lottery, the other - languishing in 16th or 17th place in the Premier League table - will suffer shame and humiliation. The winning manager will be able to splash out on a new goalie, the loser will probably lose his job.

The team finishing second in the Premier League, with probably upwards of 70 points, will win nothing. These two have only about that between them. In any normal season this would have been relegation form; only the abysmal performances from Southampton, Leicester City and (sadly) Ipswich Town, all of them promoted to the Premier League just a year ago, saved them from even greater ignominy.

Something's wrong here.

The Football Governance Bill is currently going through its Committee stage in the House of Commons, having already passed the House of Lords. It has 136 pages but we need concern ourselves with just one. 

Yep, it's the Football Regulator.

It's probably a bit late but I'm sending these proposals for amendments:

1. No newly promoted teams are allowed to be relegated; that honour would go to the next in line (Hello, 17th!)
2. (according to 2(e) above) No team which makes no effort to win their remaining matches (that's you, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur!) should receive any prize money for that season [prize money, dependent on final league position, in the Premier League is upwards of £100 million]

And to UEFA, governing body of the Europa League:

1. Should a participating team in the Europa League finish lower than halfway in their current domestic league they shall not be rewarded with a trophy or entry to the following season's Champions League, even if they win the Final

That way, these two teams wouldn't bother with the Final, like they (shamefully) haven't bothered with Premier League all season. Karma.

Geography Quiz Answers

 I was given Prisoners of Geography: the Quiz Book. Subtitled "How much do you really know about the world?". That's your challenge for today. All questions are multiple choice. Results in a week. I'll trust you to not use an atlas, Google or ChatGPT.

1. Which country in Europe has the longest coastline?

a) Norway 

b) Russia 

c) Greece 

d) UK

Answer: a

2. Which of these sequences correctly describes how the Rhine River flows from its source?

a) Slovenia, Austria, Czechia, Germany, Belgium, France

b) Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands

c) Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany, Denmark

Answer: b

3. The size of the continent of Africa is roughly equivalent to which of these?

a) Greenland

b) The USA, Canada and Europe

c) India and China

d) Russia

Answer: b

4. Can you name the US President who first declared a "War on Drugs", targeting the movement of narcotics from Central and South America?

a) Woodrow Wilson

b) John F. Kennedy

c) Richard Nixon

d) Bill Clinton

Answer: c

5. When did humans last set foot on the Moon?

a) 1969

b) 1972

c) 1975

d) 1979

Answer: b

6. Approximately how many languages are said to be a spoken across the whole of the continent of Africa?

a) Between two and three hundred

b) Around five hundred

c) Just under a thousand

d) As many as two thousand

Answer: d

7. What notable event occurred in New Zealand in 2022 for the first time since records began in the 1850s?

a) The sheep-to-human ratio dropped to lower than five to one

b) Fossil fuels generated 0% of New Zealand's energy

c) Military spending was less than 5% of GDP

d) A species of indigenous land snake was discovered

Answer: a

8. Which resource makes Tibet so important to China?

a) Coal

b) Gold

c) Water

d) Lithium

Answer: c

9. Which US state is the largest by population?

a) California

b) New York

c) Texas

d) Florida

Answer: a

10. Can you name the Indo-European language that is the official language of Iran but with variants spoken in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, among others?

a) Pashto

b) Farsi

c) Balochi

d) Armenian

Answer: b

Ten Years

It has been widely expected that President Trump might seek to override the constitution of the United States and stand for a third term.

This would be difficult. The 22nd Amendment to the constitution:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

ChatGPT asked me "Would you like to know what would need to happen to repeal the 22nd Amendment?

I thought you'd never ask.

Steps to Repeal the 22nd Amendment:

1. Proposal:
   One of two methods must be used:

   • A two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or

   • A constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50 states)—this has never been used successfully.

2. Ratification:
   If proposed, it must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50), either by:

   • The state legislatures, or

   • Special state ratifying conventions (as decided by Congress).

---

Why It's Unlikely:

• There is strong bipartisan support for term limits, especially since they protect against political entrenchment.

• A repeal would likely be seen as self-serving by any president or party pushing for it.

• No serious repeal effort has come close to passing since the amendment’s ratification in 1951.

You could add to that the obvious truth that if say Trump managed to get it repealed and stood again, what is there to stop a Democrat doing the same in the future? Joe Biden might return.

It should be noted that President Trump stated in an interview on 4th May that "I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president." So that's that, isn't it?

Let's put that aside and focus on the UK and its requirement for general elections every 5 years.

A lot of what Keir Starmer and his ministers have said is based on policies for a ten year programme. But that is simply predicated on the hope that they won't mess things up too much and they will get re-elected in 2029 or whenever.

So what's to stop the government repealing or amending the Parliament Act? The Act of 1911 set the maximum term of a Parliament at five years. Could the Government, with its 165 seat majority, just re-set the term to 10 years? Perhaps with provisos in the case of losing a confidence vote or the like. Or maybe even abolish the term limit entirely, meaning a Labour government for ever?

Theoretically this could get through the House of Commons. Maybe if you stacked the House of Lords with cronies - or abolished it - you'd get it through them.

But

Then there's the King.

By that same Parliament Act of 1911, the Monarch is required to give assent to a Bill in order for it to become law after being approved by the House of Commons and House of Lords. But if you're going to amend or repeal the Act, you'd get rid of that bit too, wouldn't you? The Royal Assent was last refused by Queen Anne in 1708.

It wouldn't be the first time the Act has been amended or superceded. The Parliament Act 1949 added limits to the powers of the House of Lords but maintained the five year limit. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011 set in stone a fixed election date five years after the previous election. It was repealed in 2022 but the five year limit stands to this day.

Until.....

Trump, Farage, who'd have thought it.

Brrrromance

Am I the only one who thinks yesterday's simul-announcement of a UK/US trade deal was weird and embarrassing?

This is a deal between two countries, not two people. And if the deal is announced by the leaders of those countries, you don't have to be best buddies! I was shocked by the British Prime Minister constantly saying Donald this, Donald that. It should have been Mr President not Donald. I was watching the President's face throughout Starmer's ramblings; not a flicker. My guess is he hated the familiarity, and so he should. I could find no record of him saying "Keir" yesterday.

If our Prime Minister wants our respect, surely it's not too much for us to ask him to behave respectfully, diplomatically and professionally in his interactions with world leaders. What if he gets to talk to Putin? "Thank you Vladimir for agreeing to a short ceasefire today". "Hey, Jong Un, how you doing today?" "Ali, can you please stop enriching uranium?"

In Parliament, there is no such crass informality. "Keir" has to say "the Leader of the Opposition", "the Honourable member for Clacton", "my honourable friend the Chancellor". No names, no buddies, no enemies, just civility.

I'm probably the only one who cares. Will I still vote for him? No, I'll vote for a candidate in my constituency, who may well become his "honourable friend". It's not personal.