THE MORAL CLIMATE OF THE TIME ?

My energy levels have been dropping recently or perhaps it’s just a matter of getting older. I can recall a comment my father in law made to me as I was climbing up a ladder to clear out some guttering above a dining room window which was causing problems.  He was then about the same age I am now. “I used to be able to do that” he said with a wistful chuckle. It made me laugh then and I completely understand what he meant, now. The incident was 34 years ago and I write this with a wistful chuckle in mind.

Unfortunately there is not much to chuckle about lately, wistfully or otherwise.  If my memory serves, Alistair Cooke - British/American Journalist and Commentator born in Salford, Lancashire and graduate from Jesus College Cambridge, as well as both Yale and Harvard, great fan and supporter of the United States, the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court – sent a letter from America to the BBC in the UK, concerning the Supreme Court. It can be heard at the following link:

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/letter-from-america-by-alistai-31163/episodes/the-supreme-court-1264296 

 

In this letter he praises the Court and its function as well as illustrating his argument for its continued existence and necessity. He states:

“It is the final protector of the citizen’s individual right against any encroachment by other individuals, by companies, by state laws, by federal laws, by the congress, the armed forces… by the president himself. (Its judgments are made) Referring always to the holy writ of the 1780’s (the Constitution) and giving it a modern interpretation according, as Justice Holmes said, to the moral climate of the time.”

 

What Mr Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in relation to the Constitution:

“The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form: they are organic, living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital, not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.”

 

In the last lines of the letter, Mr Cooke invites the listener to tune in next week when he will be discussing the Supreme Court’s decision on a case involving a 24 year old woman from Brooklyn, Cora McRae, who on the 1^st October 1976 went into a clinic and asked for an abortion. No, this is not Roe v – Wade, but a reference to the Hyde Amendment to the Medicare Act which provided funds for medical services. The Amendment restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. You can find the case at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._McRae

 

In his Television Series, America (1972-73), which ran for 13 episodes, Mr Cooke gives his account of the development of the United States, and in one of the episodes, he praises the formation of, and the effects of, the Supreme Court on the Nation as well as the surprising effect on its Justices. In the light of current developments in the United States, I believe that Mr Cooke is currently turning over in his grave or vaporising his ashes.

 

The Supreme Court has not always been brilliant, as some of its early rulings on race can testify, but it has usually come round to ‘the moral climate of the time’. This has been its saving grace. The tragedy now, is that it is operating in a climate without morals. It does not know where it sits. It has lost its way.

 

Where is the morality that claims states must be allowed to impose restrictions on an individual’s right to make crucial decisions about their personal physical and mental health, pandering to those who claim “a right to life” principle for unborn genetic material, whilst at the same time allowing the free use and possession of firearms which are responsible for the killing of thousands if not millions of very much alive citizens.

 

The right to life and the right to kill are indeed a problem. The United States apparently has no idea where to begin dealing with the complexities arising and pursues the dual strategy of stubborn adherence to some vague outmoded religious texts and a vague outmoded phrase contained in an 18^th Century document which are equally miles away from considering their origins and lines of growth. There is no longer any moral compass to indicate the path to take.

 

The divisions in that society have shattered any sense of direction towards what used to be considered a common goal. There are certain basic principles that float in the air, anti-racism, anti-religious bigotry, notions of freedom of speech, liberty of the citizen, but all they do is float in the air. The gatherings of young people under a white supremacist’s emblem are distressing. The continued antisemitism and racism, the blanket hostility towards any socially democratic position is rife across a vast number of old and terrifyingly young Americans. How did these divisions arise? How have so many young people become so alienated as to gather together high powered weaponry to slaughter anyone in “their way”? What ‘way’ are they following? Why are these divisions so intense? Where has any sense of morality or civility gone?

 

Is it any wonder that with the election of a supreme amoral psychotic narcissist, fortune would have it, to allow him to create a Supreme Court which has lost all sense of proportion and morality, which I suppose is the current climate of the time? No morality or sense of civility in sight. Whereas at one time, according to Mr Cooke’s observance of the Supreme Court of the United Sates, the court itself, for the most part, encouraged considered, intelligent, civil, and respectful thought to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and the individual citizens who live under that protection. Thus members from any political persuasion could come together as fellow Justices, not always agreeing, but for the most part protecting the citizen’s individual right against any encroachment by other individuals, by companies, by state laws, by federal laws, by the congress, the armed forces… by the president himself. Referring always to the Constitution and giving it a modern interpretation according to the moral climate of the time. It no longer exists. There is no moral climate.

 

That is a situation not too far distant from what is occurring in the United Kingdom. The lack of morality and the amoral conduct of the British Prime Minister and his colleagues is painfully apparent for the world to see, what with a totally illogical, inhumane and insane immigration policy concocted out of some fantastical brain, a prime minister sans character, sans principle, sans ethics, sans truth, sans everything one might want in a government leader. A thoroughly divisive individual who refuses to see that he has no integrity or real support to carry on. He fashioned a weak and pliable cabinet who cling to his coattails for dear life. Not one seems willing to say, “Boris, you’ve had it. Step aside and let us get on with the job. We no longer need you. Thank you and good bye. We’ll take it from here”.

 

There are outside voices galore, but none in a position to make him go. What is wrong with the conservative party? Have they no eyes to see, ears to hear, brains to think, voices to speak?  By now there should be a clamour, a noise so loud he can hear it from abroad. Yet there is nothing. The divisions are too deep and any sense of morality seems to have disappeared. That there are still Members of Parliament willing to continue in place with Boris Johnson as leader, and that there are still, despite every piece of visible and auditory evidence condemning him, people willing to vote for him and his party, is as baffling as it gets. No, there can be no morality with that sort of thinking in place.

 

Since the advent of Brexit, Trump and covid the world I thought I knew has vanished. I still am able to meet with friends who sometimes agree with my thinking. That is a saving grace, to be able to meet up with, eat with and drink with one’s friends, among whom are even relatives, is a great joy and makes the whole business of living somewhat worthwhile, and Celia of course.  Not everyone agrees on everything, naturally, but on the whole I think we are a civilised bunch. Some are slowly going downhill, but that’s just getting old, their younger fry are taking up the slack, so to speak. Most of the younger people I know are pretty terrific. I have considered their origin and the line of their growth. Will they be able to hold out and reverse what is happening around us? I do not know, but their mere existence is some way to that end. Hosanna in the highest!!

IN MEMORIUM

Just a note to remember three brave boys who tried to help people register to vote in the United States of America. 58 years ago today and practically seven months to the day after President John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Once again it appears that voting has become a problem in the United States of America.

On the 21^st June 1964 three Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) civil rights workers were killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi, USA:

Michael Henry Schwerner attended Pelham Memorial High School in Pelham New York. He was called Mickey by his friends. His mother, Anne Siegel (May 1, 1912 – November 29, 1996), was a science teacher at nearby New Rochelle High School, and his father, Nathan Schwerner (June 19, 1909 – March 6, 1991), was a businessman. Schwerner attended Michigan State University, originally intending to become a veterinarian. He transferred to Cornell University and switched his major to rural sociology. While an undergraduate at Cornell, he was initiated into the school's chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity. He entered graduate school at the School of Social Work at Columbia University..

As a boy, Schwerner befriended Robert Reich, who later became U.S. Secretary of Labour. Schwerner helped protect Reich, who was smaller, from bullies.

James Chaney was born the eldest son of Fannie Lee and Ben Chaney, Sr. His brother Ben was nine years younger, born in 1952. He also had three sisters, Barbara, Janice, and Julia. His parents separated for a time when James was young.

James attended Catholic school for the first nine grades, and was a member of St Joseph Catholic Church.

At the age of 15 as a high school student, he and some of his classmates began wearing paper badges reading “NAACP”, to mark their support for the national civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People founded in 1909. They were suspended for a week from the segregated high school, because the principal feared the reaction of the all-white school board. After high school, Chaney started as a plasterer's apprentice in a trade union.

In 1962, Chaney participated in a Freedom Rode from Tennessee to Greenville Mississippi, and in another from Greenville to Meridian. He and his younger brother participated in other non-violent demonstrations, as well. James Chaney started volunteering in late 1963, and joined the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in Meridian. He organized voter education classes, introduced CORE workers to local church leaders, and helped CORE workers get around the counties.

In 1964, he met with leaders of the Mt. Nebo Baptist Church to gain their support for letting Michael Schwerner, CORE's local leader, come to address the church members, to encourage them to use the church for voter education and registration. Chaney also acted as a liaison with other CORE members.

Andrew Goodman was born and raised in the Upper West Side of New York City, at 161 West 86 Street. He was the second of three boys born of Robert and Carolyn Goodman, and, like fellow murdered activist Michael Schwerner, was Jewish. His family and community were steeped in intellectual and socially progressive activism and were devoted to social justice. An activist at an early age, Goodman graduated from the progressive Walden School, which was said to have had a strongly formative influence on his outlook. He attended the Honours Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for a semester but withdrew after falling ill with pneumonia.

Goodman then enrolled at Queens College, New York City, where he was a friend and classmate of Paul Simon. With Goodman's brief experience as an Off-Broadway actor, he originally planned to study drama but switched to anthropology. Goodman's growing interest in anthropology seemed to parallel his increasing political seriousness.

In 1964, Goodman, recruited by John Lewis volunteered along with fellow activists Michael Schwerner, his wife Rita Schwerner Bender, and James Chaney to work on the "Freedom Summer" project of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to register black people to vote in Mississippi. Having protested U.S. President Lyndon Johnson’s presence at the opening of that year's World’s Fare, Goodman left New York to train and develop civil rights strategies at Western College for Women (now part of Miami University) in Oxford, Ohio. In mid-June, Goodman joined Schwerner in Meridian, Mississippi, where the latter was designated head of the field office. They worked in rural areas on registering blacks to vote. 

 

THERE IS A JOB THAT NEEDS DOING

The interconnectivity of nations round the world had been made evident not only by the Covid pandemic, but by the continuing economic and cultural shocks emanating from the conflict in Ukraine. That the one should follow so swiftly on the other is applying even greater pressure on world legislators to come to some form of collaboration or combined effort to bring the violence, both physical and mental, to a conclusion.

 

At the same time as European leaders are gathering to bring the Ukraine within the European Union, others are reenforcing their isolationist agendas, under some misguided concept of control. Russia is violently attempting to spread Putin’s dream of Tzardom. Alexander Lukashenko, shrinking into his hold on dictatorship of Belarus. Victor Orban is surreptitiously creating his stronghold on Hungary, in contradiction to that country’s membership of the European Union, the Ukrainians seek to join. The Scottish leadership are seeking separation from British isolationism and alleged ‘control’, in order to re-join the European Union, where it believes its best interest lie. It too, seeks to ‘take back control’, not to further separate itself from the world, but to join a greater community of nations, whose long term interests are similar to their own. To have achieved a free flowing connection both economic and cultural, only to have it brought down by a majority vote in England and Wales, must clearly have hurt.

 

To make a pretence of the United Kingdom, being a Union of separate distinct Nations, only to be controlled by the one nation of England, must have rankled over the years. To be given a separate Parliament and still to be treated like a local parish council, is obviously resented more than somewhat. To maintain that the Scottish people need the permission of a Boris Johnson to hold another referendum is insulting as well as an outrage to democracy.

 

To suggest that a previous public vote was a once in a lifetime vote, is to ignore the whole concept of democracy. Is an election meant to be a once in a lifetime procedure? It might seem to be the case in Russia or Belarus but that cannot be the case in any truly democratic society. Are people prevented from changing their minds? Are voters not allowed to voice their opinions, in particular when a policy they may have supported is found to have been a colossal mistake? Surely mistakes must be put right. Elections and referenda are useful tools to discover in what direction the citizens of a country seek to go.

 

Although the history of the United Kingdom has not traditionally or constitutionally resorted to referendums, having resorted to the tactic to gage the will of the people on a couple of previous occasions, it has become important, in particular situations, to discover the desires and thinking of the present population towards the policies of their elected representatives. As a result, it cannot be limited to a one time only ask. Populations evolve, needs change, and when policies are so clearly failing the people should have a voice. The demands of democracy are too important to be left hanging in the air. When a government is failing than there must be a change. It should not be necessary to wait and see if a current failing government can pull a rabbit out of a hat or by some other magic trick, turn things around. It should not be left to some popular noteworthy publicity driven coup, to allow ministers to continue to govern.

 

Harping back on excuses and alleged achievements do not overcome present incompetence. To have achieved one program in the past is no indication of future competence, particularly when the achievement is off the back of a system already in place. Were it not for an existing NHS, then the rollout of treatment and vaccinations would not have taken place.  The fact that it happened has nothing to do with Boris Johnson, although he likes to claim it as his achievement. Of course he would take credit for anything positive despite it really having nothing to do with him, other than being Prime Minister at the time. That does not make him any more competent then, than it does now. It was not his achievement. Why does he get any credit? It gets repeated over and over again when any minister is asked why they support Boris Johnson. The same garbage every time without fail. The fact of the matter is, his premiership is nothing like leadership, except in providing him with endless photo opportunities.

 

When ministers go on about government achievements and what they hope to achieve in the future, none of them have been asked why Boris Johnson is so essential to the Conservative Manifesto. If it is such a strong agenda, why not appoint a new leader who may have some semblance of integrity. That way they could carry on unhindered. Their majority would still be intact. Why is it such a problem? Given what Boris actually does, sit on machinery, pretend to do lessons in schools and whatever other publicity scenarios he devises, I would have thought any number of current ministers could fit the role. The rest could get on with the program. If however, the program is entirely Boris-dependent, then they should step aside out of patriotic duty to the country. They have no right to govern in such circumstances.

 

This country needs someone who has a global perspective. Someone who understands how our domestic situation is so very much part of what is happening around the world. The rise in the cost of living is world-wide, Inflation is not just a British problem. We need to be finding solutions that take into account influences from abroad and work together to resolve the effects certain problems in one country may have on another. So much stuff is interdependent. If the relationship between the UK and EU is so critically affected by commercial controls, does it not stand to reason that closer co-operation would resolve the issue. Is it not painfully obvious that the whole idea of Brexit has caused immeasurable damage and continues to do so?

 

For Britain to claim it’s all the EU’s fault is a monstrous deception. There would be no border force required either across the Irish sea or across the Irish land, were it not for some stupid misguided notion of control. Control of what exactly? The ability to go through a red or green channel? To follow a yellow sign? To fill in wads of paper? To pretend we do not need to cooperate with other nations? This country cannot feed itself, fuel itself, be itself, without the help of other nations.  It cannot fill the job vacancies that have mushroomed and is now having a hard time supporting its own citizens, in terms of health and well-being. Public medical assistance is at a crucial stage with ambulances waiting to discharge patients in overworked hospital reception areas and unable to pick up other emergencies in time to save lives.

 

How the hell is any of that taking control? This government has relinquished control into the hands of a feeble cabinet, run by a pathetic narcissist who, for some reason, cannot be told to give it up. What are they waiting for? Fighting for a place on a plane to Rwanda. If they are so keen on the flight perhaps they could take the one way ticket themselves and let the rest of us get back to trying to find people competent and worthy enough to do the job that needs doing.

 

If this country is ever to become a United Kingdom ever again, drastic change is required. If ever a Scottish referendum is to be defeated, drastic change is required. This government and its supporters are leading the country to splintering and ruin. It is not just outside forces that must be overcome; those are excuses for failure. The convict clown and all his circus act must get out of the ring. There is a job that needs doing.

 

This is a Prime Minister?
 

BECOMING A LITTLE PEOPLE

It is now impossible to understand the state of the world. Rational behaviour seems to have vanished entirely. Putin’s war in the Ukraine is, at present, the greatest crime. The conflicts in various places round the world are equally discouraging but make few or no headlines in the media. As to what is going on in the United States and the hearings in respect of the January 6^th insurrection, one is hardly surprised to see the divisiveness created by Mr Trump is continuing to escalate, again fuelled by Mr Trump and his supporters.  How the Department of Justice continues to avoid taking action against him is perplexing. The evidence against him from the date of the riotous attempted coup, you would think, is certainly sufficient to bring him before a court.

 

Be that as it may, the contempt for humanity and the rule of law currently displayed by the British Government is without question the flailing actions of a morally corrupt administration bankrupt of ideas, decency and integrity.   

 

That virtually the whole of the Clergy, most of the population and almost the entire civilised community believe the Rwandan initiative is inhumane, cruel and contrary to the concept of human rights, has no effect whatever on the thought process of this government. To continue to stick to a completely hopeless policy, which is in no way related to achieving its declared intention, is crassness personified. How does deporting asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda, going to deter the supposed vast criminal gangs from continuing to function and be brought to account before a court of law, or even come close to achieving that aim.  

 

There is no rational explanation for how this will work. To suggest that the prospect of being flown to a Rwandan detention centre will put off refugees from paying for passage in a boat across the channel, beggars’ belief. That it will be so successful as to put the traffickers out of business for lack of clientele is such a lack of understanding of the refugee crisis, that one wonders what world Ms Patel, Mr Johnson and supporters reside in. Do they really believe this is a clever and effective wheeze?

 

On top of this charade of a policy, the Prime Minister of this country accuses lawyers representing individual refugees of aiding and abetting criminal gangs. When asked on the World at One on Wednesday 15 June 2022, the current Attorney General Suella Braverman, stated that it was right for lawyers to act for their clients, as had been the tradition at the Bar since its inception.  She made no comment about the Prime Minister’s comments, save to say that what he was quoted as saying, was not what he meant.  Clearly the Prime Minister says things he does not mean, according to his attorney general. She also supported the Rwandan policy come what may. 

 

Others interviewed were also of the view that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the current Human Rights Convention and decide for itself how it dealt with Human Rights.  They had no truck for the lefty lawyers the Prime Minister accused of aiding and abetting criminals. That is the claim of every country who seeks to do things which are morally reprehensible, and to get around situations it finds uncomfortable and obstructive to their power to do whatever it likes, particularly when human beings get in the way.

 

The fact is that the European Convention on Human Rights is historically based on rights as developed within the United Kingdom from the 13^th Century, through Magna Carta and the 18^th Century, through John Locke and various Scottish Philosophers of the Enlightenment. This is, according to some Member of Parliament, clearly something to be ignored.

 

The international adoption of these principles by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, The Rights of Man as declared under the French Revolution, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man also incorporated in the Constitution of the United States, and ever evolving as part of the British Constitution and common law, is hardly a matter for the present Government of the United Kingdom to be even thinking of moving away from. Yet it does appear to be moving in that direction every day this government is in power.

 

Its persistent threat through legislation against protest or criticism of any kind is more than somewhat insidious. Its isolationist and populist agenda are duplicitous and deceitful. Its assault on the rule of law and those who would defend it, is an outrage and displays a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French and Russian Revolutions, and I presume you all know what those unfortunate movements led to?

 

Is it any wonder that people appear to be turning away from news bulletins and political analysis of any kind? The outlook is so unendingly disheartening and depressing. Every world tragedy and human atrocity is ceaseless in its insistence that we pay attention to its effects; but, there is such a surfeit of despair and we are frustrated by our helplessness to do anything about it, or can only do very little that would alleviate the suffering.

 

I do not like recording these feelings. I have not been the most active of dissidents; but increasingly I am seeing the British people becoming almost as divided as the citizens of the United States, and so long as this government remains, so long will they be a little people; a silly people; greedy, barbarous and cruel, just as this cabinet has become. 

 

I make no apology for my theatrical references.

REFLECTING ON NORTHERN IRELAND - WHAT PRICE PROTOCOL?

The duplicity of Boris Johnson seemingly has no end. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU by 51.9%, a majority of 1,269,501 in a referendum where only 72% bothered to vote. In Northern Ireland, the electorate voted by 55.8% to remain in the European Union. In Scotland 62% voted to remain.

 

The Conservative party have wooed the DUP since it came into power and promised all sorts of things that would benefit them in Northern Ireland, with a view to keeping them on side. The DUP have gone along with the Conservative Party until, finally, the promises were exposed as a lie. Boris Johnson is the chief architect of the deception.

 

The Irish, having come to some form of agreement, to finally live together, dispensing with a border in order to, at least, do business with one another in peace under the security of the European Union, were now to separate themselves from that security blanket through the implementation of a new protocol that would allow them to continue to benefit from its previous free association between the North and South. It was meant to be a seamless transition from one state of affairs to another, whilst allowing the United Kingdom to go its own way.

 

Sadly for the Northern Irish citizens, who, for some obscure reason, feel devoted and tied to the United Kingdom, it hasn’t quite worked out as they had hoped. They were led to believe Boris Johnson’s lies about the prospective new system of trading with the EU.  Having chosen to separate from the EU, it was inevitable that borders would be introduced. What existed before the EU, would of necessity be reintroduced on exiting the EU. As the Channel had always been a border line between the United Kingdom and the Continent, there was very little to do except to bring back the paper work and open the duty free shops again.

 

This was clearly not the case for the Irish Border. It would have to be reconstructed and the border posts, fences and gates be brought back to life, as well as the paperwork and duty free shops. Boris thought nothing of this and blithely said, no problem, no need to put back the border, not necessary, we’ll sort it all out at the ports along the Irish Sea, Belfast and Derry, and he was believed when he said that there would be no border at all, let alone on the Sea between the Islands. He had a magic wand that would make it all happened as if actual facts and realities did not matter. It would be as seamless as Dover and Calais. Hah!

 

Boris now claims he did not know what he was doing, or at least what has happened was not what he intended. He inadvertently signed an agreement and forgot to read the terms and conditions that he made. He is very good at claiming that he did not understand the terms and conditions that he makes at the start of implementing agreements. His duplicity takes the form of innocent stupidity. Now, of course, it is not so easy to back track.

 

He has committed the United Kingdom to certain obligations. He created the necessity for implementing new treaties for co-existence with the rest of the world, and in particular with the UK’s nearest neighbours. These treaties are legally binding. They are international agreements.  Once entered into, they have the force of law. Unilaterally breaking those international agreements will have consequences and no doubt penalties. One does not need to be a lawyer to understand that.

 

The United Kingdom cannot claim it’s all the other party’s fault for being intransigent. The United Kingdom created the necessity for the new agreement and after several years of blathering, signed up to a deal it had freely, of its own volition, agreed to. It had instigated the difficulties through a referendum and resolved them under the auspices of Boris Johnson who got Brexit done.

 

To get it done, he lied. He now lies about his lying. He continues to do so. He cannot help himself. How is it that his cabinet still listen to him or have anything to do with him? Lord knows what he promised Mr Zelensky, when they first met, in order for Mr Zelensky to congratulate him on his vote of confidence majority. I doubt he would have bothered had Boris not made some sort of promise, which he will no doubt in the future deny, or claim it was unintended.

 

But I digress. Why Northern Ireland seeks to remain part of the United Kingdom is a mystery. They have been misled and lied to by the UK Government for just on 100 years since its creation by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which came into force on the 3^rd of May 1921. It has a population of just under 2 million people. After all the shenanigans of recent times why on earth does it still wish to be part of the United Kingdom. Given the latest election results, it seems likely that they could be more inclined to go their own way, just as the Scots appear to wish to do. I really have no idea, but I would urge the Northern Irish to carefully consider their position, because Boris Johnson will do nothing to help them. He will make it seems as if he is, but in reality will only be doing something if it helps Boris Johnson. He doesn’t do others. He only does himself, and any transgression from that is unintended and inadvertent.

 

MR STARMER, RIDE THE TIDE

I confess my stupidity and ignorance in respect of British Democracy. I had assumed a Vote of No Confidence would involve the whole of the House of Commons. I did not take in that this particular vote of no confidence was confined solely to the conservative party. I was ignorant of the various forms of no confidence votes.

 

I was unaware that a party, elected into power by some 20+% of the entire electorate (many of whom did not vote) was then able to question its leadership, solely on the basis of what its own party members thought. As a result, only 32.5%, of all members of parliament, supported the prime minister, and now claim he has a democratic mandate to continue in office. 

 

Had the vote been open to the entirety of the house of commons, the vote would have most likely been 418 no confidence, 219 confident (I have included the Democratic Unionist Party in this figure although they are probably not too happy with Mr Johnson at present) and some 13 missing members. That would mean 64.3% of parliament had no confidence in this Prime Minister.

 

However one looks at the figures, the Prime Minister is a long way from having a mandate to govern on behalf of the British people, particularly in the light of current polling figures putting this governing party below the opposition. Mr Johnson is far from being endorsed by the British public. Clinging to power is an insult to the country and to the Parliament he misleads at every turn. That there are MPs who continue to support him with completely untenable arguments is an even bigger tragedy for the country. It will allow this shamble to continue for another 2 to 3 years.

 

The country cannot afford to let this happen. Some mechanism must be put in place to never allow this sort of dilemma to exist. There must be a proper process of impeaching a Prime Minister who has committed a criminal offence and who has lied repeatedly to Parliament and thereby to the entire country.

 

I am aware that most of you are already aware of this charade of a parliamentary exercise, but it is only a sudden realisation to me. I bow my head in shame, which is more than can be said for Boris Johnson. For him, it’s all part of the Bullingdon Club game of let’s play government.

 

I heard Mr Sajid Javid on Radio Four, going on about getting the job done, and supporting Boris Johnson. No one asked him why Mr Johnson was so necessary to get things done. Could the conservative party not get things done without him at all?

 

Are they so weak that they need Mr Johnson to carry out their legislative programme? Are their policies so connected to Mr Johnson that the party would cease to exist without him? What are they afraid of? If the conservative party is so tied to a law breaker and habitual misleader of the house what have they become? Is he greater than the party? If that is the case it is a grievous fault, and grievously will the party answer for it.

 

It is time for the Labour Party to stand up. To express the specific policies it would intend to pursue if in government and not just criticise the Conservatives and make vague suggestions of what it would do otherwise. It must be bold and state specifics. They must answer the question “What would you do?” with clarity and perspective, not waffle. 

There is a tide in the affairs of people, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. Mr Starmer, for goodness’ sake, ride the tide, you may never get another chance.

NON POSSUMUS ALIQUID ABIRE

I do not know for certain what has occurred in the lives of Boris Johnson’s current cabinet to make them so completely ignorant of the meaning of integrity. They appear to have no concept of truthfulness, trustworthiness, rectitude or credibility.  That some find it acceptable that breaking the law is not in breach of a ministerial code is baffling. The logic that an inadvertent or non-deliberate breach of the code is therefore not a breach, flies in the face of logic as well as the rule of law. Ignorance of the law may indeed, on occasion, be an excuse for certain kinds of behaviour, but when a legislator, in high office, who was instrumental in establishing the rules claims ignorance of the rules, then credibility is seriously in question, or perhaps the person’s mental capacity has become suspect.  

Either way, that person is objectively no longer capable of maintaining their position in that office. In addition, when they refuse to acknowledge the fault and seek to override the very rules of which they were in breach, that amounts to deliberate duplicity, and calls into question any alleged inadvertent or accidental behaviour. 

THEY ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE

As to the cabinet, they all came into adulthood during the 1980’s and 90’s. That would make them Thatcher’s Children, Margaret Thatcher having come to power in 1979 and remained there till November 1990. During that era, the idea of wholesale laissez faire capitalism, opportunism, populism and spin doctoring became the norm of British politics. Slowly but steadily notions of unimpeachable integrity and behaviour on the part of Parliamentarians began to ooze away into the ether, leading to the expenses scandal of 2009, following on from the financial crisis of 2007-2008 as a result of the serious risk-taking and greed which was born and matured during the 1980’s and 1990’s, the very years this current cabinet came to maturity. So is it any wonder they haven’t an inkling of integrity about them? They are the ‘loads a money’ generation and to hell with everyone else. We can get away with anything. Non possumus aliquid abire  is their mantra.

Their first reaction to any question is to proffer excuses for inadvertent, incompetent, ineffectual performance in their respective jobs. That they are allowed to get away with this miserable charade of government is the result of a gullible and inattentive electorate who have for too long accepted the very undemocratic system of voting for what they believe to be mother of democratic parliaments.

That the most important political office in the land is not directly elected by the populace is questionable. Voting for a political party on a first post the post basis is equally questionable. Relying on a minority elected party leader to carry a political party to power is most definitely problematic.

The notion that the more entertaining and allegedly charismatic performer should be elected as a party leader seems to be the way. The Ukrainians elected a professional comedian, which somehow, in a time of crisis, has worked out for them. The British have elected an amateur clown, which has been a catastrophic disappointment. The United States had previously elected a complete narcissistic television personality buffoon, which has left it with a potentially permanent divided and violent population. So it seemingly goes around the world, particularly with the likes of Putin, Orban and numbers of other previously mentioned national populists.

My thinking is prompted by Dominic Raab claiming that although the Prime Minister was fined for breaking the law, he had done so inadvertently or unintentionally and therefore had not breached the ministerial code of conduct. He does not say anything about misleading parliament, which was also done, apparently, unintentionally. Perhaps Boris being Prime Minister is unintentional or inadvertent. Dominic Raab is the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. That he should utter such an outrageous statement so completely contrary to the rule of law makes him even more unfit  for his office than Mr Johnson. His comments are deliberate and intended to excuse criminal behaviour. The tragedy is that he doesn’t even pretend to realise the gravity of his ignorance and duplicity.

The even greater tragedy is that he too will probably survive in office under the moto Non possumus aliquid abire. I fear the great British electorate hasn’t a clue what they have brought upon themselves despite a clamour of warning voices, which only a few like-minded souls are able to hear.