WHAT''S THE BETTING

So we have now had the so called first debate between the prospective prime ministers in waiting. The BBC have produced these poll results today:

On looking at these results, I can only say I must have been watching a completely different program with an alternate Sunak and Truss. That she came across as better in every single matter raised by whichever pollster asked the questions is astonishing. Although she appears to have been one percentage point behind on the matter of who appeared to be more prime ministerial, the BBC text over the charts states:

“Truss was also seen as being more in touch, likeable, trustworthy, and "prime ministerial" than her rival by those surveyed. The foreign secretary outperformed Sunak on all issues covered in the debate, the poll found, particularly on Ukraine, cost of living and levelling up.”

I did not think that was the case at all, but then I am not a local conservative party member. What I can say is that I am not a bit surprised by the poll. Speaking as a biased London liberal, once the last two candidates were chosen by the conservative members of the house, it was a forgone conclusion that Ms Truss would be chosen by the party faithful. The first reason being she favours Boris Johnson. and the second, because she is from the appropriate ‘European’ background.

She also lies with the same easy nonchalance as Boris. When Chris Mason put a quote to her from Britannia Unchained by joint authors Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and herself, stating:

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.

She claimed “Those were not my words, I didn’t write that”. Somehow it got lost in the shuffle, and Chris Mason got no follow up question on this point, and she didn’t specifically deny subscribing to the words.

Dominic Raab was later asked about the comment on Newsnight and he too fudged around claiming he did not in fact write those words. Which one of the authors did write those words, and if none of them did, as might now appear to be the case, how did they get there? One can only suspect Priti Patel.

What is boils down to is that Liz Truss has as much respect for the truth and the British public, the ordinary people she is so in touch with, as Boris Johnson. You can lie to them with impunity and they will still support you.  I would venture to suggest that those sentiments are supported to the hilt by the majority of the local Conservative party membership.

But that little hiccup was only a minor matter, brushed over quickly and we moved on. All in all a useless exercise. It was an attempt to make this charade seem more democratic by allowing the general public to participate visually in the game. The general public, the ordinary people, actually have no say in the matter of choosing the prime minister whatsoever. Ms Truss is now of course the odds on favourite at 2/9 at Ladbrokes, the money bets are on what percentage of the membership's vote will she get, starting with 45%-50% at 7/2. As the percentage goes up so do the odds. The smallest odds of 5/2 are the 55%-60% bracket. I would guess 65-70% at 8/1 is a good bet, and 50-55% at 4/1, is not bad.

I have no doubt that the worst idlers in the world will be crowding out the betting shops up until the 5th September, if only to help with their cost of living crisis.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT

In response to the comment made on the previous blog TIME TO CALL 'EM AS WE SEE 'EM, from Michael:

 

"I don’t think it is racial - a knee jerk London liberal analysis. Sunak problem is he is is too smooth and he is the candidate of the great and good. Truss, backed heaven help us by Jacob Rees Smogg and Shrunken Smith speaks to the twitter feed response. See Clare Foges in Times today who is very good on this." 

 

May I just point to the various tribunals and enquiries into various British Institutions such as the Police Force, Cricket etc.. which have found endemic racism and concluded that institutional racism is a serious problem in public life. I take the view that my knee jerk London liberal analysis may have something to do with those findings. I have, as have you, been in and around many of London’s boroughs, police stations and courts over the last 50 years and have not failed to notice that there is an undercurrent of prejudice and bigotry of all kinds. Perhaps my view is biased as a London liberal and old fashioned hippy, but when I first came to the UK in 1965, looking for a room, there were adverts indicating that only Europeans need apply. I was also asked by a prospective landlord if my flatmate, who he had not yet met, was ‘European’. One prospective landlady asked rhetorically “You’re not English, are you?”.  I was also very much around in the run up to the March 1966 General Election. I attended a number of hustings. One involving Quintin Hogg, in St John’s Wood, was quite an eye opener as to the nature of his conservative supporters, particularly in relation to a heckler. I also attended a Liberal Party meeting with Jo Grimond, at the Hampstead Theatre Club, a very different affair, much smaller, more polite and, surprisingly, far more civilised than the well-heeled St John’s Wood purple rinse brigade.  So if I take a view that the current local Conservative Party members may harbour certain racist feelings, it is based on, I think, long observation. I accept that my London Liberal analysis may well be biased, but knee jerk? Perhaps, that you do not see the racial element in this situation indicates a well-intentioned conservative knee jerk naivete (tee hee). The sad part is that since I came to the UK all those years ago the problems of prejudice and bigotry still flourish. 

 

As to Clare Foges, I am sorry, but I would have to subscribe to The Times in order to read her article. I know that’s a poor excuse, but my London Liberal analysis gives me pause when it comes to a chief speech writer for David Cameron and Boris Johnson. I realise, again, a poor excuse that does me no credit. One should be able to absorb all kinds of opinion and views without prejudice.  But, in keeping with Boris Johnson's current theme of film quotes, as Auda abu Tayi said to Ali ibn el Kharish, of Lawrence, “He is not perfect”.

 

 

 

TIME TO CALL 'EM AS WE SEE 'EM

Chris Mason, Political Editor of BBC News begins an item with the following:

"One is the continuity candidate who stabbed Boris in the back. The other is the change candidate who stayed loyal." A senior Conservative MP recounts the words of a local party member, when I ask why so many polls and surveys of Tory party members suggest Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is comfortably more popular than the former Chancellor Rishi Sunak, right now at least.

What is bizarre about this comment is that the candidate who allegedly stabbed Boris in the back is actually the change candidate and the so called loyal candidate is the continuity candidate. Think about it. Mr Sunak resigned for two reasons; one, he could not continue to support the lies and two, he could not bring himself to agree to reduce or discard his economic measures which were at odds with Mr Johnson. On the other hand, Ms Truss seeks to promote the tax changes that Mr Johnson was so hot to pursue and which she takes up with great relish.  She is clearly just more of the same.  Her continuity consists not only in policy but in being completely inept and incapable of leading a government. She will no doubt keep many of the current cabinet in place, whereas Mr Sunak will not. Mr Sunak will, in any event, have to find other people to form his cabinet, as the current members are unlikely to want to serve in a cabinet with him as leader.

If indeed local conservative party members view the two candidates as indicated by Chris Mason’s senior Conservative MP, then the country is in for yet more degradation and depression, possibly for the next two years. This will prove to be a disaster.

I read that the current conservative party membership is, on average, 50 years of age, and possibly more, reasonably well-heeled and in higher paid employment. One assumes that their level of education is also, possibly, of a higher calibre. That being the case, how they can possibly take the view expressed above? 

My own view is that Ms Truss’s popularity with the majority of the local conservative party membership is because they are mostly white. To pretend there is no racial element in this selection of Conservative Party Leader is to pretend that racism has no bearing whatsoever in British life. The question has been pointedly avoided by everyone concerned. The mere fact that a mixed variety of MP’s are elected to Parliament is a reflection of the makeup of the population of their constituencies, not because there is no racism in the United Kingdom. That some are chosen for ministerial positions, is one thing, but to actually be made Prime Minister is another matter altogether; particularly for the makeup of the average current local Conservative party member, who have the thoroughly undemocratic right to make that choice.

I may be painting a stereotypical image of this local Conservative party member, but given the comments one reads in most journals and magazines, it is not far off the mark. Were I to exclude the proposition that they are mostly racist, I would be in complete denial, as it would seem most of the media appear to be. They do not want the contest to appear to be racially problematic, so it is not mentioned and the pretence that this is a just and proper method of choosing the next Prime Minster of this country is played out to the full. No one dares to mention it or broach the subject.

To pretend that racism plays no part in this charade of choice of Conservative Party leader is beyond the height of hypocrisy. As a result we will have an even more incompetent and unsuitable person as the Queen’s First Minister, who is not above lying to, or misleading, the public with the same facility as her predecessor. She claimed that there was more room for borrowing because the amount currently being borrowed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was less than the United States. What has that got to do with anything? The United States has four times the population, and the current GDP is over $25 trillion whereas the UK’s is just over $3 trillion, or about one eighth of the United States. To suggest the UK is in the same league economically is vastly misleading as well as making no sense whatever. No wonder Mr Sunak suggests she’s in a fantasy world.

Europe combined, including the United Kingdom would be in the region of $18 to $19 trillion which is just about equivalent to China, the second largest economy. This would indeed be a powerful position to have. At present, the State of California alone has a GDP as great as the United Kingdom. So for the UK to presume to be comfortable with increased borrowing on the scale of the United States as a whole is indeed a fantasy world. Yet Liz Truss makes the case in that fashion. If this is not misleading, what is?

That is just one aspect of her delusion. Her headlong confrontation with the EU generally and, currently, France in particular, breaches international law and serves no purpose other than to make her popular in the minds of those local Conservative party members. Her so called deal making is a joke, and her claim of managing to free Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has nothing to do with her, save that she happened to be Foreign Secretary and Britain paid a large debt owing to Iran. Claiming credit for other people’s work is continuing in the line of Boris Johnson, which is, no doubt why the local Conservative Party members support her. To emulate a blowhard seems to be de rigueur with the party.

Somehow, despite their economic and educational standing, these local members seem to have very poor analytic capabilities, but that is reflected in their choice of leader Ms Truss, a woman with very poor capabilities of any kind. If an election is not called from the 5^th of September next, this country is in for a very sorry couple of years. 

On the other hand, whether Mr Sunak will prove to be any better in the long run is debateable, clearly. He certainly gives the impression of being good with money, and he has a lot of it. Is that enough? Is it likely we will ever find out? Enjoy what summer we have left.

 

 

NB: Some might suggest that Ms Kemi Badenoch received considerable support from her colleagues which demonstrates that racism had no bearing in the matter. I would love to think so, but underneath the façade of political correctness, she didn’t stand a chance. Grow up.

GOOD RIDDANCE ?

We are in for the most ludicrous selection of a head of government devised by a constitutional monarchy, which prides itself as a democratic government supported by the mother of parliaments, with an hereditary, but apolitical, sovereign as head of state.

 

At present, the current first minister of state is a thoroughly disgraced figure, an acknowledged mendacious clown, who is till applauded by members of his party as he departs, perhaps finally, from the public scene.  That he has been allowed these last few moments of bluster and posturing as the victim of uncontrollable political forces is in itself a disgrace, and a diminution of the Conservative party that has permitted it. That they do not see, or take in, the damage he has caused, is a classic symptom of mass denial, or as Mr Johnson himself put it, the herd instinct is powerful and when the heard moves, it moves. So conservative MPs huddle together and politely applaud his last flourish. Are the hurrahs of the ‘thank god he’s gone’ kind, or are they ‘so sorry to see the great man go’ kind. In either case the effect would be the same. What they should really do is turn their backs to him in silence as he leaves the chamber. But that will not happen, they will be waving order papers instead.

 

I write this at 12 noon approaches and his last prime minister questions is about to begin.

 

As expected, there was very little change in the conservative party support, spouting the same nonsense with remarkable repetition, roll out of vaccine, getting Brexit done, lifting lockdown.

Constant repetition of thanking the prime minister from conservative party members all thanking him for his leadership. A sad reflection of a once respectable political party. That they are supporting this charade is the most appalling show the clown has ever conducted. He deserves no thanks of any kind, but they popped up again and again. The last thank you’s were a list of achievements which he had little to do with, except for the disaster he leaves behind. He had no real answers to any relevant questions from opposition MPs. That conservatives stood and applauded him was the last shame of this government. He has lied to them on unprecedented levels for the last 3 years, and they thank and applaud him. What is government about if that is the reception given to a proven liar, dissembler and convicted criminal?

You will note Liz Truss and Nadine Dorries applauding – Rishi Sunak was absent.

How can one trust this lot to choose the next prime minister ?

WE'RE HAVING A HEATWAVE

A couple of items on YouTube caught my eye and are, in my view, worth a look at. To begin, a few remarks about Boris Johnson. What the future holds for the Conservative Party, the next Prime Minister and the United Kingdom, is difficult to contemplate. All the candidates currently running for the Leadership of the Party and hence the Office of Prime Minister were strong supporters of this man. He is still allowed to behave like the conquering hero in Parliament, despite being a colossal disgrace to the office. The government has held its own vote of confidence and given Boris a final say. How crass is that. The party is clearly without shame and deserves to be completely cast out of office at the next general election. That will of course not happen, but God only knows why. The British electorate are a tragic bunch at the present time.

As to Donald Trump, here is a view from Chris Hayes on MSNBC. What I am still bewildered about is why is it taking so long for any Department of Justice, State or Federal, to bring an indictment against Donald Trump. In my view, there is ample evidence to have brought him before a court since the 6^th January 2021. Even before that his behaviour, and that of his supporters, was categorised as lethally dangerous back in December 2020. I have added a reminder of what Gabriel Sterling said at the time. If this is not evidence of a continuing incitement on the part of the then President, I don't know what is. The current situation seems it’s as if it never happened. What is wrong with America? The evidence is clear, act on it.  

 

IT'S ALL GONE TOO FAR, ALL OF IT. IT HAS TO STOP.

THE NEXT PRIME MINISTER

That the current eight candidates, for leadership of the Conservative Party, are the best of the bunch of 358 demonstrates just how low the party has sunk. Six of them supported a clown and charlatan for the entirety of his tenure of office as Prime Minister. They failed throughout the last two and a half years to show any real respect for the office of Prime Minister, by supporting a man clearly unfit for the office. That they supported him in this for so long, speaks more of their personal ambition than any real belief in what it means to hold the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. They singularly failed to protect the office and instead protected the man. They clearly have no real understanding of what it entails to be Prime Minister.

By the way they are vying for the office one would think they are seeking to head up a firm of accountants. “I will produce the most effective balance sheet that will put money in your pocket”. What they mean is they will put lots money in the pockets of those who already have it and some loose change in the pockets of the rest. I hear cries of “You’ll be better off by £900 a year”; that’s £2.46 a day for the average tax paying family, which has already been erased by inflation. I hear nothing for those on benefits. The fact that one's income is below taxation level is not great. To say fewer people will be paying tax, in effect means they need assistance. Not having to pay tax does not mean you are better off. Reducing the amount of tax businesses and the well-off pay is not helping those in need. Nor does it necessarily mean people will flock to invest more money in enterprises, create jobs, or produce a high wage, high skilled and high productive economy. That is the flim flam we have had for some time and that has been the mantra of six of the candidates for leadership of the conservative party, if not all eight.

The tragedy is that the leader of the party will also be Prime Minister, for however long a time before the next general election. I previously operated under the assumption that because individual members were elected in individual constituencies, the election of the local MP was of some importance. I did not understand quite the dual aspect nature of the British voting public. The leader of a party does have a bearing on the choice of party the elector will vote for, even if they have little regard for or even know who their local MP might be. In effect, they are primarily voting for a political party. The leader of that party inherits the office of the Prime Minister. In theory the office is conferred upon the party leader by the crown. The Office of Prime Minster therefore, carries with it certain characteristics.

He or she will be the Sovereign’s first minister. The whole integrity of the Crown, and the Nation, cloaks the office. Whatever the prime minister does or says carries weight way beyond the nation’s borders. The office speaks for the entire nation and therefore any agreements made or promises given, or opinions held must be crystal clear and adhered to. It is imperative that the prime minister’s word is the Nation's bond. If the Office is to have and keep the respect it has gained over 300 years, then the character of the individual occupying the office must be one of unimpeachable integrity.  In any event, particularly during their time in office. That is why there is a ministerial code of conduct. It does not need to be written down, It is implied with the office.

It is the same with any state. Every Sovereign, Prime Minister, or President is meant to be representative of the State. If agreements and treaties between nations are to have any credibility, then those individuals actually signing and entering into those agreements are doing so in the name of the Nation concerned, and those agreements are made law. It is the nature of the rule of law that contracts are kept. If there is a breach by any party, then there are consequences.

We all know that an agreement is only as good as the parties to the agreement. Which is why it is imperative for any nation, in order to maintain its integrity and character, must uphold its bond. Nations cannot afford to lose their character. By doing so they belittle and besmirch their standing in the international community and become pariah. So to with first ministers.

To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., I have a dream, I have a dream that candidates for the office of prime minster will not be judged by the colour of their politics, or their abilities as an accountant, but by the content of their character.

So far, the demonstrations of character by the current eight show little promise. Liz Truss is hell bent on breaching international law and supported Boris Johnson throughout, having previously stated, in relation to the 2016 European Referendum: 

"I don't want my daughters to grow up in a world where they need a visa or permit to work in Europe, or where they are hampered from growing a business because of extortionate call costs and barriers to trade. Every parent wants their children to grow up in a healthy environment with clean water, fresh air and thriving natural wonders. Being part of the EU helps protect these precious resources and spaces."

If ever hypocrisy were a characteristic of integrity, Ms Truss certainly has lots of it.  

Suella Braverman is equally complicit despite being an officer of the court, as well as her continuous support for a diminished Boris Johnson. Her remarks are completely opposite to notions of the rule of law.

As to Penny Mordant, well:

 

Which, I’m afraid is just what will happen to the country. She, is brave, will jump right in, and fall flat.

The shift to the right has never been more pronounced than at this moment in British politics. I could go on, but I would simply quote what Ian Blackford, leader of the Scottish National Party in the House of Commons, said today during Prime Minister’s questions:

“Whoever becomes the next Tory leader will make Genghis Kahn look like a moderate”

WHEN WILL WE MAKE AN END

The United Kingdom is at present going through the outrageously undemocratic process of choosing a political party leader who will become the next holder of the highest executive office in the country. It is one of the quirks of the British Parliamentary system that has evolved through the ruling class, the aristocracy of the United Kingdom and, on the whole, wealthy middle class merchants.

 

Of the last 55 Prime Ministers to date, 42 attended Oxford or Cambridge and 33 attended Eton, Harrow or Westminster Schools. The Duke of Wellington, Disraeli, Lloyd-George, Churchill, James Callaghan and John Major did not attend University; however, Wellington was at Eton and Churchill at Harrow. Callaghan and Major attended Grammar Schools which later became comprehensives.  Callaghan trained as a civil servant with the Inland Revenue, whilst John Major did a correspondence Course in Banking.  The sole Doctorate is held by Gordon Brown who attended a comprehensive in Kirkaldy and the University of Edinburgh.

 

Make of those facts what you will, but there has clearly been a sense of entitlement engrained in particular public schools, Cambridge and Oxford. What is to be noted now, that there appears to be a concerted effort by those in contention to emphasize just how self-made and underprivileged they were and the difficult backgrounds they came from, as well as being first or second generation immigrants, keenly in touch with the general ordinary population.

 

So far as one can tell, the front runners are: Rishi Sunak, who attended Winchester School, Oxford University and prestigious Stanford University in California; Penny Mordant who attended Oaklands Catholic School and University of Reading; Tom Tugendhat who attended St Paul’s School, the University of Bristol and Gonville and Caius Cambridge; and Liz Truss who attended a community school, Roundhay School, and Merton College Oxford. Not a very great departure from the normal course of such events, you might think. None of them could in any way be classified as underprivileged.

 

The two candidates who have any real connection with ‘ordinary people’ are perhaps Penny Mordant and certainly Nadhim Zahawi, the Kurdish Refugee, who clearly has done very well for himself. One might think that his becoming a Conservative MP is perhaps a specific career decision. What is the clearest path to riches other than following the conservative capitalist business plan? There is an air of John Mortimer’s character of Leslie Titmuss about Zahawi; but then, there is an air of Titmuss about most of the candidates for the Conservative Leadership.

 

Despite their words of “doing it for the people of this country”, “upholding sovereignty”, lowering taxes, encouraging investment, creating jobs, there is nothing in their agenda that shows anything other than their ambition and precious little of their desire to be honest public servants, with an eye on the complete welfare of the individual citizen’s right to freedom, health and safety, both economic and physical.  They pay lip service to concepts of liberty whilst at the same time lining up repressive and restrictive legislation to prevent dissent or opposition of any kind, and draconian methods of closing down borders to prevent anyone they do not like from venturing into the country. They are even willing to go as far as withdrawing a person’s birth right to nationality and all the protections that are meant to go with it.

 

These are not generous or charitable people. Their belief that the undisciplined laissez fair economy will solve all our woes is paramount. They claim, in effect, there is no real need for taxation save to provide a standing armed military and police force. So no need to inhibit companies. They will provide the enterprise, work and employment for all. It’s only a matter of letting them get on with it. All will sort itself out in the end. Government will not only, not interfere in business activity, but will prevent anyone else from interfering by making it a criminal offence to do so. Unions will be banned as well as demonstrations or gatherings of any kind which might disrupt commercial activities.

 

As to the matter of health, that too will eventually be hived off to private enterprise, most likely controlled by American Equity Corporations and the pharmaceutical industries. Of course, the private insurance companies will benefit immensely from private subscriptions, which will replace the current National Insurance Scheme. State pensions will likewise be slowly absorbed by private corporations.

 

This agenda is not far off and will only succeed in creating even greater disparity between the rich and the poor. It is what they are after. They keep going on about small government, non-interference, money in people’s pockets to spend as they like, letting the market place do its work. This is the real fairy tale. It is not just a matter of balancing the books, it’s a matter of getting rid of the books altogether and handing them out to any private businesses willing to take them on. Private enterprise is after all much more efficient than Government, so who needs it. The small matter of the welfare of the individual citizen is of no consequence.

 

These people see the United Kingdom as a separate land from the rest of the earth, hovering over the landscape like some giant spaceship with troublesome tunnels and conduits to the ground, only requiring control. Any attempt to trespass will be met with transportation to a faraway station, out of sight and out of mind. Deals are to be made solely with the elite.

 

This is the science fiction world envisaged by the current conservative party. Seeking to satisfy a minority of the electorate on the assumption that opposition parties are incapable of rallying their supporters to get off their asses and vote. In this particular instance getting out the vote in every constituency is of paramount importance. The only way change will occur, is if the total electorate is sufficiently motivated to get to the polls and remove the conservative candidates from office.  Not that the whole of the conservative party is of the variety of the current figures vying for leadership, but those of the centre right have been squeezed out by the right of the party. Indeed, the centre right has been pushed towards the centre left, just to stay relevant, which is something they do not like and which is driving them out of the party altogether or certainly keeping them silent and unable to curb the disastrous agenda from the Brexiters, populist isolationists, and nationalists.   

 

The long and short of it comes back to the group view of entitlement. That group which believes they are the ones who are destined to rule. They seek to safeguard their freedom to be able to continue to rule. So any protest or opposition has to be stifled and stopped in its tracks. So long as you think as they think, you will be entitled to be free. You will be able to voice your opinion so long as it conforms to state opinion. You will be free to do anything you like so long as it does not interfere with the rule of the rulers. The rule of the rulers will be law. Any opposition to that will be drowned out, crushed and incarcerated. To think otherwise would be wrong. What is right will be what you are told is right. There are societies that are like that, to wit currently Russia, Belarus, China, Myanmar and a number of others.

 

The entirety of British history has been a repudiation of that kind of thinking. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom has been the development of the rule of law, the protection of the individual and the duty of care of each citizen towards every other citizen and human being. That is the true thread that binds this nation together. To try and minimise its effects by reserving it for an elite group of people or one single section of society is completely contrary to its very existence.

 

This minority of the electorate are moving the country towards anarchy and hateful division. They claim otherwise, but seek to remove every aspect of human rights, born in this nation, and signed up to by numerous nations around the world. The current government seeks to renege on its international commitments in every aspect. They claim to support a beleaguered Ukraine, anxiously wanting to join the European Union, all the while doing all it can to break away entirely from that very Union, and breaching the agreements it has made. They claim a lead in counselling for world peace whilst disrespecting every aspect of international law. The overall hypocrisy of this Government is so shocking it is a wonder that any other nation would seek to associate with it.

 

Do I exaggerate the position? I think not. When an ordinary Member of Parliament flips the finger at people voicing their opinion, with the excuse that she is a victim of the mob and just getting her own back, that speaks of arrogance and entitlement.  That her party has not censured her is indicative of their own arrogance and sense of entitlement. Her fellow members when asked whether she should apologise, say yes, but none have said she should be suspended or removed from the party. It is no longer a question of it being just a human reaction. The gathering of people was nothing to do with her in any event, but her arrogance in assuming that she was the specific object of protest tells its own story and the sentiments expressed apply to every single one who just wants to move on and let it go. The party has been moving on and letting things go for far too long. The resignations from Boris Johnson’s Government came far to late. Enough is enough I’m sorry to say is not good enough. 

 

There is an exchange between two characters in the film Judgment at Nuremberg.

“We never thought it would come to that”

“The first time you let it happen, it came to that”

 

Just so with this government, the first time they overlooked a flagrant breach of ministerial code and responsibility, that was enough. That it took them so long to act, condemns them all. That those very same people seek the office they fell so short of protecting is merely a continuation of that arrogance and sense of entitlement. How the British people can support this fiasco is depressing. Where is the outrage? What kind of country is this that allows this charade to continue? 

 

I do try to remain positive, I look at the overall history of the United Kingdom and rejoice in its continuing development towards an intelligent, multicultural, civilised inclusive society, where freedom and respect for the merest individual is the paramount object of the duty of care and rule of law. I see that very society being airbrushed away, just as the Supreme Court of the United States is brushing away the very Constitution on which it sits. The two countries where most of the world’s refugees look for succour are letting the side down as never before. Please tell me I’m wrong, or is it simply a question of:

 

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever. 

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to the place where he arose.

 

(Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1, Verses 4 & 5) 

 

ONE CAN BUT HOPE

I started writing this blog a couple of days ago, before the resignation of Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately he remains Prime Minister until a new leader is elected. A big mistake, in my view. But more later.

 

Crisis? What crisis? More to the point, which crisis? There are so many to choose from. Dealing with situations that cause major upheaval across the planet, and consequently threatens the existence of all forms of life, has been one of the more compelling issues confronting world leaders. Attempts at coming together have spawned a variety of international agreements and groups, joining together to find solutions and offering help and assistance in the process.

 

Two cataclysmic world wars, causing major difficulties for the most advanced economies, brought about, in 1945, the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization whose purpose is to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. The UN has six principal organs: the General Assembly; the Security Council; the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); the Trusteeship Council; the International Court of Justice; and the UN Secretariat. There are a multitude of specialised agencies, funds and programmes (World Bank, World Health, World Food, UNESCO, UNICEF. etc.)

 

On top of this world group, we also have the emergence of the G7. This was originally the G8, and inter-governmental political forum of most wealthy nations including France, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia, which has been suspended since 2014 and has now withdrawn entirely.  The President of the European Commission participates as an equal member in all summit events. Their topics for discussion include health, law enforcement, labour, economic and social development, energy, environment, foreign affairs, justice and interior, terrorism and trade. The forum originated around 1975 thirty years after the founding of the United Nations.

 

Almost fifteen years on, in 1999, we have the formation of the G20, a collection of twenty of the world’s largest economies, conceived as a bloc that would bring together the most important industrialised and developing economies to discuss international economics and financial stability, as well as other pressing global issues. As well as the European Union (EU), the countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States. Spain is invited as a permanent guest.

 

The G20 apparently represent 80% of global economic output and about 60% of the world’s population. The G7 produce about 53% of global net wealth, and if one includes the whole of the European Union, it rises to 60%. As most of the G7 are also members of the G20, the additional 13 nations, therefore, account for some 20% of global net wealth.

 

Nonetheless, like all organisations, they are only as effective as the individual participants are willing to make it so. The various upheavals around the world, most notably the middle east, the horn of Africa, the far east and most recently Eastern Europe, seem to indicate a rather sad lack of effectiveness on the part of world leaders.

 

Their group summits produce the occasional trade agreement and the Group Photo op, all smiles and congratulations. Here are a few past pictures of  members.

 

 

My point is, that with all these organisations set up to keep the peace round the world, the entire United Nations, the G20 and G7 seem powerless to stop Vladimir Putin’s military operation, which he knows very well is outrageous bluster and the most shameful and disgraceful act of any world leader in the 21^st century, perhaps even greater that any in the 20^th century, simply because he knows better. His excuses for land and power grabbing are lame in the extreme. He has only succeeded in extending the existing military alliance in the North Western Hemisphere and comes closer, daily, to extending the hostilities and the violence.  This is a man on too many steroids. His behaviour is akin to those American teenagers, shooting up schools, because they feel neglected and want some attention. It would be simply tragic if the damage he has done was similar to that, but his demonstration of petulance has gone way beyond tragic into major catastrophic criminal behaviour. Whether he ever answers for it will depend, in the long run of the will of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice; as well as the G7 and G20.

 

That he has bamboozled the Russian people into believing the explanations for his actions is perhaps not surprising, in a country that appears to be conditioned to be ruled by tyrants. Their best shot at freedom and possible unified democracy in 1917 was dissipated by men too ideologically rigid and grasping for power that emerged as Stalinism and dictatorships. There was a brief spell in 1989, but, once again precipitating into Vladimir Putin who has effectively ruled for the past 23 years and counting.

 

The idea of continued rule was equally on the mind of the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In his case, unfortunately for him, there is a free press and still the ability for ministers of the Crown to finally develop some gumption and stand up against mendacity, deception and arrogant stupidity. The United Kingdom has been a leaderless nation for some time.

 

The lawyer and author John Mortimer titled his autobiography “Clinging to the Wreckage”, which is a most accurate description of Boris Johnson’s attempts at remaining in office and which continues with his new caretaker position. In my view he should just go. The ludicrous and nonsensical situation of Boris Johnson remaining in office until a new leader is elected is continuing the damage.  The proper course of action to take would be a general election in the very near future, as soon as a new leader/prime minister is appointed through the Conservative party’s system of choosing the next leader. The entire electorate should then decide just who should remain in government.

 

The first thing on any new government’s agenda is for a more properly democratic electoral system is put in place. There should also be put in place an effective method or getting rid of a prime minister who has clearly lost credibility to continue in the office. It should not just be a single party’s decision, but a non-partisan committee of MP’s who have the power to dismiss the Prime Minister for ‘cause’. A sort of impeachment committee if you will, and it would be the entire Parliamentary body who would make the final decision.

 

Any party leader who assumes the position of Prime Minister, is meant to be a representative of the entire country. As a consequence of being given this position, it should fall to the whole of the parliament, the people’s representatives as a whole, who should have a say in whether or not the person holding the office should no longer have it. That does not mean that whatever party is in government cannot take their own action, but the country should not be in a similar position again, unable to remove a miscreant from office, when it is clear that a Prime Minister’s gross misconduct is in question.

 

A party may have its own reasons for removing a leader, which may be for party political reasons, but when it comes to breaches of codes of conduct, the rule of law, or any serious misconduct, then it should be open to the whole of the parliamentary body to have a say in his or her immediate removal from office. 

 

The contrast between the departure of Teresa May or even Margaret Thatcher, and that of Boris Johnson are a clear instance of, on the one hand, disputes relating to political policy, and on the other, instances of breaking the law and the serial mendacious misleading of Parliament. These are quite different matters. Both Thatcher and May gave up somewhat graciously, and did not ferociously continue with false aggrandisement to claim ignorance of his lies and boasts of a so called personal mandate that does not in fact exist. His delusions are unforgivable, which is why he should just go.  

The majority of the electorate did not support the conservative party, and certainly not Boris Johnson. It is only because of a first past the post system that the party has this ridiculous majority. That must change. Why journalist keep referring to the parliamentary majority as a mandate of the people is beyond me. Do the math for Christ’s sake. It is not a mandate of the people. It may be a mandate from the party, but that is something quite different again.  It is a consequence of the system. It is far from a truly democratic mandate of the people. Winning an election in the UK is a mandate of the few, by the few, for the few; it has nothing to do with the majority of the electorate.  Again, that must change. 

Keir Starmer goes on about a fresh start for the country. I wonder if he just means a different group of people being in government, running along the same lines and system, or a truly fresh start with the implementation of a much more democratic electoral system, perhaps making things more difficult, but at least government with a real people’s mandate. A government that actually represents the whole of the country, not just a party political agenda, but a multiple of agenda’s that take into account the desires and views of the variety and multicultural electorate that exist in the UK. Not an easy proposition, I know, and one that may be cumbersome, but it would reflect the needs of the population, giving voice to many who have none now. Striving to bring unity has got to be better than constant adversarial bickering.

 

Is that not why we stick with the United Nations and continue, despite the difficulties, with G’s of 7, 8 or 20. I believe at some point, a difference might be achieved. It’s just a matter of will. Perhaps at some point, the continuing pressure brought by these international groups may bring about a peace, one can but hope. If democracies lead by example, then the current glee being expressed by the Kremlin over the departure of Boris Johnson from the scene, might just give way to self-belief and give the Russian people and their political representatives the gumption to deal with the departure of their own serial mendacious head of state. One can but hope.

I NO LONGER KNOW WHAT TO THINK

“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk” said Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, after winning the vote in a primary for re-election to Congress in the Mid-term elections. Two days before the primary she apparently told a religious service “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church.”

 

What is most disconcerting is not so much her brainless stupidity in not understanding the principles of the Constitution and the meaning of the first amendment, but the fact that, on the basis of this display of colossal ignorance, she has been supported by Republican voters who seek to give her another term in Congress.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The very foundation of the United States, so far as the myths of history are concerned, was to allow people to live and worshipe as they saw fit. The reason many left the old world behind, was to avoid the continuing persecution of their religious way of life, and establish a system of government that did not allow the state to interfere with any religious practice. It was meant to be an end of bigotry - freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the freedom to express grievance.  It is unconstitutional to make laws prohibiting or curtailing the ability to think freely and to express one views. The state would henceforth be set apart. What we do in our private lives will not be interfered with by our administrative lives. It follows therefore, that the state is free of religion and must maintain an objective distance. What belongs to and is part of the state shall be separate. 

 

To that end, schools established and supported by the state shall be free of religion. The pupils and parents are perfectly free to exercise the own religious beliefs, but cannot impose them on others who have different beliefs. All beliefs can therefor co-exist in the religiously neutral environment of the school. The citizen is of course perfectly capable of setting up their own private school or educational establishment to promote and teach their religion, but not with the support of the state, which, constitutionally must take an objective stance apart. 

 

Like most things, rational argument in the United States, the attempt at objectivity, impartiality and equitability, has become skewered by dogmatic religious belief. What the founding fathers sought to establish has, seemingly been slowly eroding under the weight of fundamentalist rhetoric. 

There is an opinion piece by Barbara Perry, published by CNN on the 29^th June 2022, entitled:

Brick by Brick, the wall between religion and government is collapsing in America.

Ms B Perry

Barbara Ann Perry is a presidency and U.S. Supreme Court expert, as well as a biographer of the Kennedys. She is also the Gerald L. Baliles Professor and Director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Centre, where she co-chairs the Presidential Oral History Program. As an oral historian, Perry has conducted more than 100 interviews for the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush Presidential Oral History Projects, researched the President Clinton Project interviews, and directed the Edward Kennedy Oral History Project.

Perry was born in Louisville, Kentucky. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from University of Louisville. Perry earned a Master of Arts degree in Politics, philosophy, and economics from Hertford College, Oxford. Perry earned a Ph.D. in American government from the University of Virginia. 

 

She writes:

 

What an irony that the central character's name in the Supreme Court's most recent school-prayer drama is Joseph Kennedy, the same appellation as President John F. Kennedy's father. Facing strong anti-Catholic sentiment, Kennedy, the first Irish Catholic to become president, felt compelled to proclaim in 1960 his adherence to strict separation of church and state, assuring opponents that his policies wouldn't reflect his personal religious views or the teachings of his faith.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," the candidate told a meeting of Protestant ministers in Houston. "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me."

Because the US Supreme Court's current six person majority (John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), all with conservative Catholic backgrounds, have expressed interest in historical bases for judicial decisions, it's worth noting that Kennedy's assertions not only preserved his political viability but reflected Jeffersonian ideals firmly embedded in our two-centuries-old constitutional cosmos.

The court's ruling this week in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District ignores our founding values and eschews decades of its own precedents that enshrined them. Gorsuch's majority opinion, joined by his five fellow conservatives, ruled that Kennedy, a football coach at a Bremerton, Washington, public school has First Amendment freedom of speech and religion rights to kneel and pray at the 50-yard line after games, surrounded by players and spectators. Allowing him to do so doesn't violate the Constitution's ban on state establishment of religion, according to the nation's highest court.

The First Amendment's clauses guaranteeing free exercise of religion and prohibiting government's establishment thereof have been on a collision course since they entered the US Constitution in 1791. Simply put, does government allowance of religion in the public square constitute establishing it? To unravel this conundrum, Supreme Court justices have taken three different approaches:

Strict separation of church and state: This position hews most closely to Thomas Jefferson's vision of a "wall" between government and religion that he adopted in 1802 to explain his agreement with a Connecticut Baptist association's concept of religious liberty.

The Supreme Court first adopted the wall metaphor in an 1878 case upholding a federal law against polygamy in the territories. Justice Hugo Black became its most prolific champion, defining it explicitly in a 1947 case where he distinguished between allowing government reimbursement of bus fare to religious-school students' parents and banning state aid directly to parochial schools. He applied it in 1962 to overturn compelled state-written prayer in public schools. Then-President Kennedy responded that parents could encourage their children to pray at home and in houses of worship.

Neutrality toward religion: Adopted as a judicial midpoint between separation and accommodation, Chief Justice Warren Burger developed the “Lemon test”, named for the party in a 1971 case that struck down Pennsylvania's aid to religious schools. To maintain government neutrality regarding religion, a policy had to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion and avoid excessive entanglement between church and state.

Moderately conservative Justices Sandra O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy (no relation to the president or the football coach) added two more components to neutrality. States' relation to religion should neither appear to endorse it nor coerce people, especially students, to participate in it. Applying this test, in 1992, Kennedy struck down the practice of prayers offered by clergy at public school commencements.

Accommodation of religion: Conservative justices believe that strict adherence to the separation approach violates the free exercise of religion. They view the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as prohibiting the creation of a state church and raising public money to support it, which the founders knew privileged the official religion to the detriment of others.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading advocate of religious accommodation, argued in 1994, "Once this Court has abandoned text and history as guides, nothing prevents it from calling religious toleration the establishment of religion." Accommodationists now represent a half-dozen votes on the current Supreme Court.

In each of the four religion cases this term, supporting the football coach’s prayer at public school football games, allowing parents to use Maine's tuition grants for religious school tuition, requiring Texas to permit a spiritual adviser to pray over and comfort death-row inmates at their executions and siding with a Christian group that wanted to be among those private organizations allowed to fly its flag outside of Boston's City Hall, the court adopted an accommodationist posture. Arguably, the overturning of Roe v. Wade also reflects the triumph of a conservative religious viewpoint, though judicial norms prevent such an admission.

Brick by brick, if not by bulldozer, the wall between religion and government is collapsing. Does it matter? It does if the United States still wants not only to protect religion from government but government from religion.

As the founders feared, when religious faith becomes the guiding force in politics, the historic American experiment in creating a pluralistic republic is most at risk. Allowing the utmost religious freedom, within the bounds of high walls between church and state, has spared the US from the kinds of religious wars that have plagued human history and riled modern nations.

President Kennedy's devotion to the Jeffersonian principle of separating religion and government to promote religious freedom has proven more salutary to the American regime than will be the desire to accommodate Coach Kennedy's prayer spectacle at public school football games. 

 

One could suggest that the rot started with Justice Scalia whose views pushed the court into cementing the law on the possession of weapons; but, the current make up the court, now even more politicised toward republican conservatism and big business, has managed to not only skewer the United States, but the world at large with its latest ruling relating to climate change and the capability of the United States meeting its environmental commitments.

 

Returning to Ms Boebert, she is only one of many who would applaud the trend. What she fails to see is that with religion dictating the government, particularly a fundamentalist regime, it is more than likely that she would lose her right of free speech as well her right to bear arms which are currently protected by the secular nature of the Constitution. 

 

Weapons and free thought do not sit well with hard line Religion One only has to see the results of Islamist fundamentalism around the world to realise that only the powers that be would have AK47’s and no back talk of any kind is to be tolerated. Indeed, hard line religion and free thought are poles apart.  

One wonders just what sort of religion Lauren Boebert adheres to. In any event, what she is too ignorant to foresee, is that by continuing on the path she seems to be striving for, she will bring about chaos and ruin of the very country she purports to make great. By dismantling the very building blocks of the rule of law she will only promote nothing but her own destruction.

 

Turning to Boris Johnson, journalists reporting from other countries have made clear the continuing irony of the British Prime Minister, glowingly supporting the Ukraine in its bid for freedom and joining the European Union, and enjoining the ‘allies’ to increase support for the Ukrainian forces. How this charlatan, who pushed the United Kingdom away from the EU and the ‘allies’, who deliberately intends to breach agreements he voluntarily entered into, dares to associate himself with western democratic leaders, is a public outrage. His attempts at grandstanding and being buddy buddy with the members of NATO and the G7 have not gone unnoticed by the foreign press, who now regard him as extremely suspect. Who does he think he's kidding? How the conservative party of Great Britain maintains this aloof posture in the face of what has become a global embarrassment is … I am lost for words.