LAST THOUGHTS FOR 2021

On the last day of the year one should be upbeat and full of vigour. Given the events of the last 2 plus years, it is ‘a tough ask’.  Shortly after the United States Presidential election, I posted a blog on the 12^th November 2020, entitled “What Price Delusion/Where are we now?”

“Turbulent times at the beginnings of the republic, and no less turbulent now. We have a man in place who is clearly mentally unfit for the office. He has demonstrated this throughout the world with his belligerent and bullying behaviour. At the slightest pretext, and in particular when asked a simple question, he turns to vilification and insult. He does not debate, he attacks, mocks and attempts to belittle anyone who shows the slightest disagreement or objection to what he says and does. His narcissism is beyond belief. He treats the White House as if it were a television studio hosting The Apprentice, including his daughter, sons and son-in-law as advisers just as he did on his reality show. 

He has demonstrated little or no concern for the duties of his office or the people he is meant to represent. Nearly a quarter of a million deaths from the pandemic is considered nothing. No big deal. He refuses to accept any facts and denies what is before his very eyes with bombast and lies. Everything about him suggest a deluded and mentally impaired individual. Whilst mental illness does not call for condemnation, and normally invites offers of help to return to an acceptance of a relatively normal existence, when the patient occupies a position of grave importance such as President of the United States, it calls for removal and commitment to an institution where treatment is available. The tantrums we are witnessing as a result of the loss of his office are embarrassing and very sad, but also infuriating. So spoilt an individual needs a shock of some kind to bring him out of his trance, if delusion be a kind of trance.

America however, is in its own trance. The images of the various demonstrations in support of Mr. Trump and in support of Mr. Biden are dramatically distinguished by the number of assault weapons openly carried by the Trump camp. The picture of a man sporting a rifle over his shoulder whilst pushing his child in a carriage was jaw dropping. He shows just how dangerous Mr. Trump is. This image does not seem to disturb your average American. Their media is made up of reality television on the whole. Such behaviour is probably the current norm. The number of chats shows, real housewives of (name the city) and confrontation shows is bewildering.  

The current spectacle of who supports the president's delusions and who does not would be laughable were it not so serious. How any free thinking politician can stand by and regurgitate that 'the election is not over' and that 'the president has every right to contest' etc.. in too ridiculous. You will note that it is stated that the president has the right to object, but no one says his objections will actually change the result of the election. So why carry on the farce and the pretence of support? Perhaps they are all scared by the guns carried by the numbers who blindly voted for him. Their belief in his falsehoods and deceptions is again breath-taking.  The parallels with the Nazi takeover of Germany in the 1930's is frightening. Given the current state of play and the temperament of Mr Trump, I would not be surprised if he will attempt to use the military to stop any inauguration by anyone other than himself.”

 

The events of the 6^th January 2021 where therefore not really surprising. Many warnings were given by many others, the most public and emotional given by the State of Georgia’s Republican electoral official, Gabriel Sterling, who, on the 1^st December 2020 said: “It has got to stop, all of it, someone’s going to get shot, someone’s going to get killed, and it’s not right”.

 

The continuing effort to examine the events of a year ago, and the continuing denial and obstruction were perhaps just as predictable. The impending disaster of the November 2022 midterm elections will be the litmus test for the future of the American Public, and possibly the rest of the western world.  A tough ask indeed.

 

I realise that my repetitive refrain about the American condition may seem, or rather, is tedious, but the lurch towards right wing extremism throughout the world is cause for concern. I also know that public service and putting oneself before the public, with a view to improve their lives and living conditions, by being a democratically elected representative is very difficult to achieve without some degree of passion and tenacity. Sadly, too often it is just pure arrogance and ambition, and ambition must be made of stern stuff. As a result we have the likes of Putin, Lukashenko, Min Aung Hlaing, Victor Orban etc…

 

On top of the US election in November, we have the French presidential elections beginning on the 10^th of April 2022.  So far, 31 candidates have declared. They include the popular Marine Le Pen of the far right wing Rassemblement national and Éric Zemmour of the extreme right Reconquête party. There are also a number of very left candidates. It is assumed that M. Macron will stand again and will get through the first round.

 

According to the current polls, in the second round, he will face either Marine Le Pen or Valérie Pécresse. Valérie is from Les Républicains, a centre right, liberal conservative party. She has a one percentage point lead over Le Pen in the polls and could become France’s first woman President. What is distressing though, is that according to the first round polls, Le Penn (16%) and Zemmour (13%) have 29% of the polls whilst the next highest is Macron at 25% with Pécresse on 17%. In any event, it would appear that just of a quarter of the French public support the political far to extreme right.

 

 

 

Whilst looking up the origins of the phrase ‘it’s a tough ask’, I came across a blog from New Zealand entitled ‘The Standard (version 2.0)’. It is at: https://thestandard.org.nz/

There is an article from October, 2018 entitled “Fighting for a just cause is empowering”. It was a reflection the passing of New Zealand Activist Penny Bright: https://thestandard.org.nz/fighting-for-a-just-cause-is-empowering/

What is your cause worth fighting for? I think it worth a read, and think of those people who have acted upon a bit of graffiti I saw on a wall near the Sorbonne in Paris “Qu'attendez-vous pour changer le monde?” or

“What are you waiting for to change the world?

 

That would be some kind of New Year’s resolution.

THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEM

The Los Angeles Times leads with an article of a tragic incident at a North Hollywood Burlington Store at which several Los Angeles Police officers, fired at a suspect causing injuries from which he later died in hospital, but stray bullets killed a 14 year old girl and injured another person. Apparently a bullet went through a wall into a changing room where the 14 year old was trying on dresses.  The article reads:

[[  In an incident the police chief called “devastating and tragic,” an LAPD officer fatally shot a teenage girl at a Burlington clothing store during a chaotic confrontation that also left a suspect dead and another person injured.

The teenager was at the store in North Hollywood trying on dresses for a quinceañera, an LAPD source confirmed.

Preliminary information released by the Los Angeles Police Department indicated that police rounds penetrated a wall, killing the 14-year-old girl in a dressing room. Authorities said that they found a metal cable next to the suspect whom police officers were confronting but that no gun was recovered.

The violence late Thursday morning, just two days before Christmas at a bustling shopping district, left many people stunned and sparked questions about what prompted police to open fire. The state attorney general immediately launched a probe of the shooting.

“It’s just absolutely heart-breaking, and I cannot find words to try to comfort a mother and a family, but I will ensure them and the public and our people that we will conduct a complete and thorough investigation,” LAPD Chief Michel Moore, who was out of town with family but briefed on the incident, said in an interview with The Times on Thursday evening.

Officers responded about 11:45 a.m. to reports of an assault with a deadly weapon at the store near Victory and Laurel Canyon boulevards, according to the Police Department.

At the store, authorities encountered a man they said was assaulting someone, and they opened fire, according to preliminary findings by the Police Department. It was not immediately clear what prompted officers to shoot.

The man was taken into custody and died at the scene, said Officer Drake Madison, a spokesperson for the department.

During a search for additional suspects or victims, an officer found the slain girl, LAPD officials said in a Twitter post.

“One of the officer’s rounds penetrated a wall that was behind the suspect, beyond that wall was a dressing room. Officers search the dressing room and found a 14 year old female victim who was struck by gunfire,” the tweet from the LAPD’s media relations office read.

Another woman was injured and taken to a trauma centre, said Nicholas Prange, a spokesperson with the Fire Department. Her condition wasn’t immediately known.

Moore said police were still pulling video of the encounter, including from multiple closed-circuit cameras in the store, but that it appeared the girl was in a dressing room with her mother when she was struck.

“We have a young girl who was in a dressing room behind a wall that my understanding was in the path of where the officer fired,” Moore said. “This is a devastating and tragic circumstance, and it occurred during the actions of one of our officers.” Police have not identified the suspect or the victims.

The Times could not reach witnesses inside the Burlington when the shooting occurred. P William Briggs, president of the civilian Police Commission, which reviews all police shootings and decides whether the involved officers were justified in opening fire or should face administrative sanction or punishment, also called the shooting tragic and promised it would be thoroughly investigated….

(Chief) Moore said it did not appear that the officer who fired “would have known that there was anyone behind there or that he was looking at anyone other than the suspect and a wall,” but he said every aspect of what occurred and why would be analysed by LAPD investigators.

 

“There’s not a police officer in America who would ever want this type of circumstance to occur,” Moore stressed.  ]]

 

In my view Chief Moore can stress away. His comments are hollow in the light of the recent history of deaths as a result of police action. To claim that an officer would not have known anyone was behind a wall in a store demonstrates a complete lack of foreseeability and ignorance. He could not have known there were customers in the store? What kind of excuse is that? Guns and tragic avoidable mistakes are clearly rife throughout the United States. The gun culture is symptomatic of a society that has lost any connection with rational thought and civilised behaviour.

 

We have seen and heard recently a number of people in courtrooms giving accounts of their behaviour, in floods of tears. Whether it is by way of excuse, by way of redemption, or genuine remorse and plea for forgiveness, one cannot be sure. The apparent willingness of some juries to find such actions as excusable and void of responsibility is staggering in its acquiescence to the culture of violence.

 

Until such time as the second amendment is repealed or replaced, the country, which is ever increasingly becoming a confrontational society, open to violence at the drop of a hat, will continue to have mounting tragedies of this nature.

 

There is a man blaring out lies across the nation, supported by elected representatives in both houses of congress, who vilify one another with shameless abandon supporting the carrying of weapons of destruction openly. They do this with a swaggering arrogance all the while claiming to uphold the constitution. They have amassed millions of followers promoting fear and surreal conspiracy theories without any foundation whatsoever and a colossal disregard for the truth. All this is reenforced by a media circus empire giving voice to people whose hypocrisy and mendacity is blatant and unapologetic in its affront to decency and civilised society.

 

The fact that there is an electorate of some size willing to support these terrifying people is cause for major concern throughout the world. Reality and truth actually do matter, but the reverence for ignorance and deception is the new American religion.

 

What has been going on in the United States is there for all to see and hear in the videos and media outlets across the world. The country on which it has the least impact is the United States itself. The populace does not seem to see or hear what is going on around it and lives in some sort of fantasy alternative universe, where marvel comics are the reality. The tragedy is that the decent citizens are letting the corrupt miscreants tear them apart. Whilst the super heroes are glued to the silver screen, the super villains are free to roam the planet.

 

Forty eight years ago Presidential Counsel John Dean said: “I think there’s no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we’ve got. We have a cancer within… that’s growing. It’s growing daily. It’s compounding. It grows geometrically now, because it compounds itself.”

 

Whilst John Dean was clearly referring to the particular problem of Nixon’s White house of 1972/3, it is most certainly applicable to the entire country today. Those fatal words of the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, which were applicable solely to the neonate United States of 1776 which required a “well-regulated militia”, have been a growing tumour which has mushroomed into personal possession of massive fire power in a country that spends over $730 Billion per annum on a professional, more than regulated, militia, without the need of calling upon individual citizens to supply their own, 

 

The supreme court’s refusal time and again to realistically and properly interpret the historical meaning in the wording of that amendment, and to allow for the blanket and wholesale arming of every single citizen is beyond comprehension. It is based solely on the attitude and mindset of the American Citizen’s propensity for violence and supposedly self-protection.

 

Until that mindset is obliterated there will be more people tragically shot for looking the wrong way, being the wrong colour, or just trying on a dress.

 

 

CUT OFF FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD

Last year, on the 9^th December 2020, I posted a blog entitled The Suicide of American Democracy. It dealt with the rule of law and the problems of Incitement to Riot being perpetrated by Donald Trump and his acolytes. I suggested that the failure to enforce the rule of law at the time was tantamount to allowing mob rule, and indeed just one month later the mob invasion of the Capitol took place. Moving on from January 2021, we now have another point of view from Professor Barbara Walter of the University of California San Diego.

 

The professor was interviewed on CNN on the 20^th December and had a few words to say about the subject. America, according to current CIA research, is now an anocracy. This can be defined as a political system which is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic, often being vulnerable to political instability. During the course of the short interview it emerged from her that the United States is closer to civil war than one might think. America ceased being a democracy since January 2021 after five years of breakdown resulting from the Trump Presidency. The research leading her to this conclusion was conducted under the auspices of America’s own Central Intelligence Agency. 

 

The effects and consequences of such a conflict are too horrible to contemplate, not only for the United States, but the rest of the world as well. For now, the bubbling caldron that appears to be American politics, simmers on. We can only wait and hope that somehow the flame will be turned off and the contents allowed to cool down, for better consumption.

 

As to the current fiasco that is the United Kingdom, I leave you with this literary review from David Osland (author and journalist) about Lord of the Flies, the debut novel of Nobel Prize winning author William Golding, published in 1954:

BORIS & CO - OUT OUT OUT

The current state of affairs has put a lot of things in perspective. Government in a democracy is about ensuring the survival and continued growth and health, both mental and physical, of the population that elected it and put it in place. The individuals in government are representatives of the people, elected by the people, to co-operate together to look after the day to day business of providing a clean and healthy environment, housing, education, security and the freedoms to enjoy the benefits derived from that clean and healthy environment. These government representatives, with the consent of the governed, ensure the maintenance of the rule of law to maintain its principles of justice, equality and freedoms of religion, speech and movement.

In order to do that, in an everchanging set of circumstances, those representatives produce legislation as required to encourage the continued progress of this multicultural society. Again, it governs as representatives of the people, for the good of the people. The Acts of Government are to promote the welfare of the populace. Legislation is therefore not about keeping the current government in power. It is about serving the public and being true to the responsibilities that go with elected office. When the relationship between the electorate and the elected becomes a situation of us and them, something has gone terribly wrong, and when the legislation produced by the elected is clearly for the benefit of the power of the elected, it is a disaster.

Behind the show of the Government’s handling of the current health crisis for the benefit of all, relying on the science, and the public’s co-operation, to see us through this pandemic, there is something more sinister going on. Current legislation, other than that relating to the pandemic, is not about the public good, but the maintenance of power. The fog of the pandemic has obstructed our view of other equally important matters. Whilst claiming to support freedom of expression and movement, by not imposing lockdowns, and being reluctant to impose difficult measures on travel and contact between individuals, as it contradicts the concept of freedom of movement and expression, this government is putting forward even more dangerous and repressive legislation. It is doing so, solely for the purpose of maintaining its power.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill at present being viewed in the House of Lords is nothing more than a blue print for repression. The language is tortuous as well as vague in the extreme. Whilst giving the police authority increasing repressive powers, increasing penalties for certain public offences it is also criminalising demonstrations and protest under the heading of “Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”.  It has created an indictable offence with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

s.61- Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) does an act, or

(ii) omits to do an act that they are required to do by any enactment
                  or rule of law,

(b) the person’s act or omission—

(i) causes serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or

(ii) obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or
                  enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the
                  public at large, and

(c) the person intends that their act or omission will have a consequence
                 mentioned in paragraph (b) or is reckless as to whether it will have such
                 a consequence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) an act or omission causes serious harm to a
                  person if, as a result, the person—

(a) suffers death, personal injury or disease,

(b) suffers loss of, or damage to, property,

(c) suffers serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or
                 serious loss of amenity, or

(d) is put at risk of suffering anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
                  prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act or omission mentioned in
                  paragraph (a) of that subsection.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

                        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
                             months, to a fine or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
                 10 years, to a fine or to both.

(5) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of paragraph
                  24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (increase in magistrates’ court
                  power to impose imprisonment) the reference in subsection (4)(a) to 12 months
                  is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(6) The common law offence of public nuisance is abolished.

……etc.

There is more concerning imposing conditions on what is referred to as ‘one-person protests’ and so called “unauthorised encampments.”

In addition, under the guise of supposed co-operation between individuals in local government and individuals in the Police Force, the community will be monitored and controlled, with the stated intent of reducing serious violence. 

Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence

(1) The specified authorities for a local government area must collaborate with
      each other to prevent and reduce serious violence in the area.

(2) The duty imposed on the specified authorities for a local government area by
      subsection (1) includes a duty to plan together to exercise their functions so as
      to prevent and reduce serious violence in the area.

(3) In particular, the specified authorities for a local government area must—

(a) identify the kinds of serious violence that occur in the area,

(b) identify the causes of serious violence in the area, so far as it is possible
      to do so, and

(c) prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to
     prevent and reduce serious violence in the area.

(4) In preparing a strategy under this section for a local government area, the
      specified authorities for the area must ensure that the following are
      consulted—

            (a) each educational authority for the area;

(b) each prison authority for the area;

(c) each youth custody authority for the area.

(5) A strategy under this section for a local government area may specify an action
      to be carried out by—

            (a) an educational authority for the area,

(b) a prison authority for the area, or

(c) a youth custody authority for the area.

See section 14 for further provision about the duties of such authorities in
relation to such actions.

(6)  In preparing a strategy under this section for a local government area, the
       specified authorities for the area may invite participation from—

(a) in the case of a strategy for a local government area in England, a
     person of a description for the time being prescribed by order of the
     Secretary of State under section 5(3) of the Crime and Disorder Act
     1998;

(b) in the case of a strategy for a local government area in Wales, a person
      of a description for the time being prescribed by order of the Welsh
      Ministers under section 5(3) of that Act.

(7) Once a strategy has been prepared under this section for a local government
      area, the specified authorities for the area must—

(a) keep the strategy under review, and

(b) from time to time prepare and implement a revised strategy.

(8) A strategy under this section may cover an area that is wider than a local
      government area if it is also prepared in the exercise of the powers in section 8.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection
      with the publication and dissemination of a strategy under this section.

(10) References in subsections (4) to (9) to a strategy under this section include a
       revised strategy.

(11) This section does not affect any power of a specified authority to collaborate or
        plan apart from this section.

(12) For provisions about the interpretation of this section, see—

(a) section 10 and Schedule 1 (specified authorities and local government
                  areas);

(b) section 11 and Schedule2 (educational, prison and youth custody authorities);

(c) section12 (preventing and reducing serious violence).

Whilst I am more than happy to discuss strategies for preventing and reducing serious violence, I foresee a number of difficulties on the horizon. To begin with, by imposing this ‘duty to collaborate’ the Government is indicating clearly that it has no strategy to deal with violence other than to devolve the problem to local authority appointees, some head teachers or their appointed representative, administrators of institutions for incarceration of alleged offenders and the local police force.  It assumes that this combination of individuals will come up with some form of solution it cannot find for itself.

The frustrations that lead to violence are not too difficult to understand. Ignorance, poverty and unemployment are pretty much the foundations of serious violence. Ignorance, not just from lack of education, but from the promulgation of abusive behaviour, racism and religious bigotry.  Poverty, not just from lack of means, but lack of imagination, ambition and belief in oneself. Unemployment, not just from lack of a job but from an unwillingness or inability to create endeavour, the direct result of ignorance. It is a circle difficult to break.

In order to do what is being asked of them, the specified authorities will have to provide the strategy to deal with that ignorance, poverty and unemployment, and that will of necessity require substantial funding by the taxpayer, who, at present pays taxes to the government. Indeed, are these not matters for which our elected representatives have put themselves forward to deal with? It should not be about passing the buck and packing it off to lower tier administration to cope with. Will central government pass on any of that tax revenue to deal with the problem they are imposing on others? I doubt it.

So please pay attention and look through the fog assembled by Boris and Co. Write to your MP to cast out this proposed legislation, or any legislation that restricts your rights by restricting and putting a straightjacket on the rule of law. The rule of law is about protecting the individual not protecting individual administrations. Each of us has a duty of care to the other, we are responsible for each other’s freedoms. This current lot will accuse you of selfishness by not supporting them. They will say they are the ones protecting individual freedom by locking up the nuisance demonstrators who are keeping you from getting to work on time by blocking roads, busses, tubes, trains and assorted thoroughfares. They seek to bamboozle you into thinking the legislation is for your benefit, when in fact it is to supress dissention to maintain their seats in government. 

I was sent this video by a concerned citizen. Thank you Emma.

 

MULTICULTURAL DYSFUNCTION

The United Kingdom is at present made up of a multicultural society. An entry in Wikipedia informs: The United Kingdom is an ethnically diverse society. In 2011, 8 million people in the UK were from an ethnic minority background of which 4.3 million are Asian or British Asian, 1.9 million are Black or Black British and 1.2 million are of Mixed ethnicity. The foreign-born population increased from about 5.3 million in 2004 to nearly 9.3 million in 2018 or 14% of the total population.

 

That seems to indicate that between 2004 and 2018 there was a 75% increase in that foreign born population, and assuming a similar percentage increase over the past 3 years, one could expect that there are now some 10.4 million currently residing in the United Kingdom. That would now be slightly over 14% of the current total population. These are people from some 61 different countries throughout the world. Here is a chart and map indicated the levels of that population by country:

 

In the United Kingdom, apart from English, there are six main regional languages, Scots, Ulster-Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Within that 14 plus percent of foreign citizens, there may be some 60 other languages regularly used throughout the British Isles. As to religion, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Buddhist seem to be the favoured stated religions from the 2011 census. There are clearly other religious beliefs in the mix and jist under 33% left the question blank or stated specifically no religion, which means some 67% of the population expressed a religious preference of some kind.

 

So, although the majority profess to be white (86%) and Christian (59%) there is a pretty lively mix of ethnicities and beliefs to classify the United Kingdom as a very multicultural society. Therefore, in order to properly function as an independent sovereign state, it must blend together every part of its multicultural population with the existing state of affairs which has developed since its foundations were established some 1000 plus years ago and has been evolving ever since into its current parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

 

The problem is, that, although the historical record is clear Britain has always been a multicultural society of sorts, the white Christian majority have held sway for so long that the multicultural or foreign element has had considerable difficulty in establishing itself and making its influence take effect. It is only recently, in the last 75 years or so, starting to find its feet; nonetheless, as against those 1000 years of history, it seems of little consequence. 

 

Indeed, in examining the current Government front bench, and the Opposition’s shadow bench, out of some 200 ministerial jobs only 6 or 7 Conservatives are of Asian or African origins and it is the same for their shadow Labour counterparts. That is just 3%. In order to level up, there should be at least 28 in number, and that only amounts to 4% of members of Parliament. There are 67 serving members of parliament from ethnic minorities - 42 are Labour, 22 Conservative, 2 Liberal Democrats and 1 Scottish National Party. That is 10.3% of the membership.

 

One would have thought, given the high profile of that 10.3%, which has clearly attracted a large number of voters to get elected, that the problem of bigotry and prejudice, both racial and religious, would be on the wane. Not a bit of it. Incidents of racism and religious intolerance continue to be reported. It is an everyday occurrence.

 

It is not helped by the likes of Ms Patel whose anti-immigration stance is surprising, given her parents were immigrants to the UK from Uganda in the 1960s. Indeed, with her family’s history of travel and emigration one would have thought she would have a more flexible approach. She has, however, aligned herself to the right of the conservative party and taken a separatist isolationist position. She is very much the corporate PR poster girl in the current guise of public servant. She is intolerant, a fact that has been well established by her record in public office and the amount of compensation that has been paid to victims of her intolerance, paid in settlements to keep her from being too closely examined before tribunals and courts. She is manifestly unfit to hold her position in government. What has she got on Boris Johnson?

 

Similarly, one is nonplussed by her political ally Kwasi Kwarteng, whose parents immigrated to the UK from Ghana, also in the 1960’s.  They both co-authored along with Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss Britannia Unchained.

 

The book asserts that the UK has a "bloated state, high taxes and excessive regulation". It then says: “The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music."

It goes on to claim the UK should “stop indulging in irrelevant debates about sharing the pie between manufacturing and services, the north and the south, women and men”.

These are the people that are telling the British public they are all about levelling up.

How on earth has the electorate seen fit to elect these people to government? They are ill suited, unfit and incompetent to hold their jobs. Dominic Raab has shown himself to be just what he claims the British worker to be, an idler with low productivity. His being on holiday at crucial foreign office moments is on record. Just what does he have on Boris Johnson to be Deputy Prime Minister?

What have they all got on Boris Johnson?

In effect, we not only have a multicultural society, but a multi dysfunctional society.

I seem to complain a lot about our lot; however, I am coming to the view, that, rather like the Italians, the British public seem to be getting along without a government. We are quite happy muddling along, queuing for jabs, sometimes masking up, going around and about, eating and drinking, working on line, shopping on line, zooming away, carrying on regardless, but perhaps not paying enough attention when we go to the polling booth.  

What sort of government is in place does matter. There are a number of citizens who cannot carry on regardless. Taking a superior and arrogant hard line against the general public seems to be a staple attitude of those in the government. We have seen video evidence of the crass behaviour at No: 10. Resignations or dismissals of a few unelected advisors is not fixing the problem. Those at the top must start behaving like the public servants they are holding themselves out to be. They are clearly incapable of doing so. They should all, each and every one, resign or shape up. Get rid of the clown and his acolytes.  

SPEAKING OF THOMAS HOBBES

It would seem that Boris Johnson has attracted the epithet of clown. I have referred to him as such on many an occasion. He has been associated with the attribute by many Guardian columnists. There are other journals who have combined the word with his name and I have heard many of my friends and relatives in the United States describe him as such. President Macron is not the first to notice.

Perhaps it is something in the way he walks or waddles. There is something penguin like about his gait. Be that as it may, he is the very personification of what clowning is about. He is forever seeking a photo opportunity to go on display. He appears to love wearing a hard hat, some smock, apron or other industrial protective apparel, riding and driving some agricultural, road maintenance or warehouse machinery and attempting to operate factory appliances. He loves being around and about, demonstrating his skills at strategic condescension to whatever group is assembled before him. He has of late failed rather spectacularly in front of the CBI. Has he at last been found out?

I was having coffee with a friend yesterday morning and he mentioned the concept of “the privilege of absurdity”.  I thought this sounds like a description of Boris Johnson. He went on (I paraphrase) “It is from Thomas Hobbes Leviathan in which he writes the privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject but man only”.

There is much to ponder in that phrase. Boris Johnson takes full advantage of the privilege although, it is so much part of his character that his state of being is absurdity. He glories in it and then moves on to the next display. Indeed, his ability to blank out his previous behaviour from one second to the next is uncanny. He seems to be forever moving on leaving a completely blank space behind him. He has no past, only present. His view forward is in fact just as blank as his past. It does not matter what he says about the future, as he catches up with it, it is soon past and can be erased. Quite a remarkable feat. It is I suppose ‘living each day as if it were the last’. Woody Allen added the observation “one day you will be right”.

In the meantime, the country suffers from his presence in the job of prime minister. His spur of the moment stratagems is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately there has to be some planning. Without that, the moment to moment reactive method of governance becomes repetitious and so we have a stop and start approach to dealing with the pandemic and its variances. Hence plan B becomes a partial plan B, which is not plan B at all; but, that’s in the past, let us move on. And so it goes…

 

It is difficult to know or predict where one goes from here. The polls indicate a neck and neck preference between the Conservative and Labour Parties at 37%. The Liberal Democrats and greens have been hovering around 9% and 6% respectively for the last year. Plaid Cymru have good support in Wales and keep the Welsh Labour Party afloat in the Welsh Parliament, whilst the Scottish National Party dominate in the Scottish Parliament where they are firmly assisted by the Green Party.

 

What it boils down to is that no single party has any overwhelming support from the British electorate. We have a government that is completely self-serving having been put into place by an electoral system that is totally undemocratic, and the public, for some obscure reason, seems to go along with it. Consequently demonstrations have no effect whatsoever.  Would that demonstrations indicated a dramatic fall in support of any party governing party, should it fail to take notice of discontent, then there might be some changes; however, continuing to vote as we vote in Britain, has little or no effect in actually improving the situation. 

 

How many more times do we have to hear about learning lessons when it comes to child abuse. How many more enquiries does it take to learn lessons about anything. The construction of Grenfell Tower, with its use of dangerously flammable material is nothing new. Fire regulations in the United Kingdom have been useless and appalling in its enforcement. Since I came to this country in 1965 there has been very little in the way of managing fire safety, given the kinds of electric heaters and paraffin heaters I first encountered at the time.  One would have thought the great fire of London had never happened and, it would seem, no lessons have been learned for the last 355 years.

 

I am not suggesting that we go back in time but the British Government between 1942 and 1945 consisted of a coalition of five parties – Conservative, labour, Liberal National, Liberal and National Labour.  The coalition Majority was 604 seats out of 615 or 98% of members of Parliament, with Churchill (Conservative) as Prime Minister, Clement Atlee (Labour) as Deputy Prime Minister. Although the majority of the cabinet were members of the Conservative Party, there were quite a few influential members from the Labour Party (Ernest Bevin - Minister of labour. Stafford Cripps, Herbert Morrison – Home Secretary) and Independents of the National Coalition Party (Richard Casey, Lord Wotton, John Anderson).

Say what you like about these men, but they toughed it out and maintained a strong solidarity which filtered down to the general public. Profiteering and black-marketing went on to be sure, but there was a semblance of integrity about the leadership and the government.

 

One would have thought that the current medical and health crisis would have been the spur for just such a coalition, not only in individual countries, but round the world. But no, what we have is a turn towards separatism and extremism. The debacle of the Trump era is still present. The separatist Brexit fiasco has yet to reach its full catastrophic effect. Gangsters of the likes of Putin and Lukashenko seem to thrive. The internet is awash with hackers, scammers and deviants. Our current Government has little or no integrity of any kind. Having “got Brexit done” with a deal they lauded at the time, they are now trying to extricate themselves from a mess they created by failing to uphold the rule of law, blaming others and dishonouring the reputation of a country that could at one time claim to be almost unimpeachable, so far as the rest of the world was concerned. That is clearly no longer, and far from, the case.

 

There is an excellent piece in the Guardian by Sylvie Bermann, French ambassador to the UK from 2014 to 2017, entitled It is impossible to work seriously with Boris Johnson’s government:

(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/04/it-is-impossible-to-work-seriously-with-boris-johnsons-government) It’s a short comment but worth a read.

 

Boris Johnson has made a habit of shitting on his own doorstep, and is unlikely to ever learn any lesson. He does not read and digest, he skims and moves on. If ever anyone fulfilled the concept of privilege of the absurd, he’s it.

 

My apologies to Thomas Hobbes for tinkering with his concept as stated in Leviathan, but I’m sure he wont mind. He died 342 years ago today.

 

Hobbes 5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679