Predicting these next three things is dicey–the last two depend heavily on who wins the election and that depends, to some degree, on the debate. The other one, which I’ll go after first is also quite uncertain in some ways.

The Republican National Convention is set to meet in Milwaukee, Jul 15-18. This is the city that Trump recently insulted but I’ll bet that makes very little difference in how the MAGA folks feel and therefore will make very little difference to his reception. Certainly, this is not a convention in which there is serious doubt as to who will get the Presidential nomination. Actually there hasn’t been one of those since the 1960’s, or, perhaps stretching a bit, the 1980’s.

But you never know about conventions. Everything may go just about exactly as planned and still weird things happen. H L Mencken once pointed out that you can sit through hours of boredom at a convention, then something ridiculous and unusual , something absurd will happen that–well, I don’t think he said it makes it all worth it, but you get the idea, I’ll bet. And maybe this will happen in Milwaukee.

There have been many “moments” at conventions that stick in memories of those who experience them in person or on media, or later read about them or saw TV or movie news clips of them. Here are some of my favorites(No I did not see all of them)–The NY Democratic convention of 1924 in which the KKK dominated south and the Al Smith dominated north just about fought each other to a draw, before narrowly defeating an anti-Klan plank in the platform; The 1940 Republicans in Philadelphia nominating a former Democrat, Wendell Willkie to the roars of approval of his backers who had secured places in the balcony; The 1948 Democrats listening to Huber Humphrey tell them it was time to move “out from the shadow of state’s rights and into the sunshine of human rights;” the 1960 Dems in LA listening to Eugene McCarthy make a pleading nominating speech for 2-time loser Adlai Stevenson-“I tell you, do not reject this man …who made us all proud to be Democrats.” Then the same convention nominating the putative(and actual, it turned out)first Roman Catholic President as JFK finally got his majority from Wyoming, alphabetically the last state in the roll call.

There were others, later–NY Gov Rockefeller at San Francisco in 1964 telling the majority conservative convention what they didn’t want to hear about things like justice, and giving little nods to the delegates as they hissed and booed. The awful mess the Democrats had, partially of their own making, in 1968 Chicago with protesters, and finally police beating protesters in the streets. The 1976 Democrats taking a chance on a born again southern Governor, Jimmy Carter. Four years later the Republicans taking their own chances on a former movie actor(and Governor)Ronald Reagan. The 1992 Dems going for a handsome, charming and also brilliant southern governor who would bring glory and shame and was the best Democratic politician of the late 20th century(that’s Bill Clinton, by the way). Well, I won’t go on–I’m about to get into contemporary America here. But all these conventions and others have provided excitement. Conventions nearly always do, thoug some far more than others.

The Republicans will presumably meet with almost no suspense at all, unless Trump chooses to wait until the convention to announce his choice for running mate. But things could still be interesting. Perhaps Larry Hogan, former Governor and US Senatorial candidate for Maryland will make his presence know. He is just about the only Republican politician of note who is likely to say anything short of admiring about Trump–well, he and maybe Mitt Romney and Chris Christie.

But there will be a real convention at least, not a covid-dominated TV only one such as 2020 gave us. There will really be delegates in the seats and reporters in the aisles. And there will be much talk about the future and what a second Trump term would mean. This might be interesting, because if some of the more extreme MAGA-types have their way there will a lot of far right oratory which may impress the base and depress the others–including millions watching on TV who sort of want to vote for Trump but don’t like the extremism or vicious words of Marjorie Taylor Green.

One always wants to be careful about taking party platforms and other promises too seriously–sometimes they’re strictly for show. But the platform usually gives a clue as to where the leaders want to go. At least I assume there will be a platform to analyze. In 2020 the Republicans just announced Trump was their platform and let it go at that. Even they won’t want to try that again. Will they?

Most likely the Republican convention will not be a mess in the, uh, conventional way. Quarrelling, disputes and people yelling “Mr. Chairman” in order to try to make fellow delegates listen–or to impress a TV audience. Certainly I don’t anticipate brawls in the streets although there could be some anti-Trump demonstrators who will make(or try to)their points.

About all TV followers can do is take note of who gets to speak and see what they say. Oh, yeah, we can guess most of it but one never knows how these folks will go. Also watch for anything like the slightest bit of diversion from the MAGA line. I can’t imagine there will be much, perhaps not any. But if there is it could denote possible divisions down the road. In any event, the debate may determine some of this. I don’t know what attitudes Trump is like to take tonight, but they could be indicators of what’s to come, particularly what he plans to promote and allow at the convention.

It is even more difficult to guess at what the British election will mean for political life there including their foreign policy. With the election nearing it is still difficult to say who is going to win by how much. British politics, which I can remember as breaking down to what was sometimes called a modified two party system has become much more complicated. Back then, a generation or so ago, the two main parties were the Conservatives(sometimes called, as a sort of nickname, The Tories, their original name),and the Laborites; and there were the Liberals. The Liberals had once been, for about a century or more, just about equal with the Conservatives for the position of No 1. The new Labor Party appeared in the very late 19th century and by shortly after WWI had replaced the Liberals as no 2, sometimes electing their own Prime Minister(but not many before WWII).

The Liberals, meanwhile, faded to third place, but hung on to a place in memory and to a small but I think fairly loyal following which kept them , just barely, in the game. Sometimes, when the House of Commons was a very close divide between the two others, the Liberals could hold the balance of power by choosing one way or another to give their support.

The Liberals survive only in a sense today. For a generation or more they have been combined with a “new” party, the Social Democrats and now the two of them are one as the Liberal Democrats. They actually made a coalition government with David Cameron’s Conservatives some years ago.

Two relative newcomers are the UKIP(United Kingdom Independent party) and the British Reform Party. These are both conservative groups, sometimes described as right-wing populists. They violently oppose most immigration and particularly Islamic influence.

They both were strongly for Brexit as they wish to keep the UK “indepedent” of Europe.

They are a confusing pair to compare or define as they tend to change leadership frequently and therefore some opinions may be in and then out again in short order. A former Conservative politician, Nigel Fararge(who has run for the Commons many times and lost) has played a leading role in both of them and at present seems to be once again aligned with the Reform Party. As to foreign policy he is mainly known for blaming the Ukrainian war on Putin but arguing the West antagonized him by building up NATO. He sounds like an uncertain supporter of Ukraine in the unlikely circumstance that he should achieve much power or influence.

The UKIP and The Reform party are largely alike, as stated. It is difficult to see them as having much real influence, but if they got it it is even harder to surmise what they would do with it in foreign policy(or much of anything else). I should think that to the extent they are taken seriously as possible British power figures by foreign governments, they are regarded as unpredictable and possible trouble makers.

Despite paying fairly close attention to British affairs, I am at something of a loss to guess what the election will mean to UK foreign policy. While it began with a dicey relationship with Israel(dicey because of their touchy colonial-subject relations previously)they became allies against anti-colonialist policies and anti-Western leaders in the Arab world a few years later. They have frequently taken the same side in disputes at the UN. It would be my guess that in the unlikely event of continuing Conservative leadership in Westminster, they would likely maintain their relationship. I would also expect the Conservatives to remain strong supporters of Ukraine.

But continuing Conservative rule appears very unlikely. While the polls are at considerable variance almost all of them predict a huge Conservative defeat. Some go so far as to say they Tories will slip below 100 Members of the Commons and become the 3rd largest party there, which would mean the Liberals would be the “official opposition” for the first time in about a century.

The Laborites would rule and Sir Keir Starmer would become Prime Minister. He seems a stable and possibly forceful leader to me and I would have some confidence in him. I saw David Lammy who would likely be Foreign secretary on TV the other night and was very impressed with him–an honest-seeming, humorous and generous sounding politician who took issues seriously, but did not do the same with himself, usually a good sign.

These two would at least be the beginnings of a good government, I think. And regarding their foreign policy–well, it is questionable to guess on people about whom one knows little, but I would expect the Labor foreign policy to differ little from that of Rishi Sunak, the current Conservative PM. I think strong support for Ukraine and a serious effort to bring a halt to the disaster in Gaza would be seriously pursued. That is my not-very-well-informed opinion. If tested, I hope it’s right.

So the issues are we have explored here are about to be off and running. As I type this in my home town library, we are about 4 hours short of the debate, about 2 hours short of the lead-in(in lead-in and following discussion time it’s like the Super Bowl). So watch and enjoy and reflect. It is assumed by many, and the certainly may be right, that the debate will be the biggest deciding factor in how Americans vote this year.