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”