There will never be a better example of Boris Johnson's unfitness for a responsible job than the Foreign Secretary's recent - disastrous - failure to recognise the importance of the Good Friday Agreement in the context of the Brexit negotiations. The Agreement is a full-scale international treaty, sponsored by the USA and registered with the United Nations. The idea that it could ever be buried in weasel words that slid over the crucial facts - let alone openly abrogated by unilateral decision by the UK [with or without the 'sanction' of a referendum] - shows a degree of lazy, slovenly negligence that is breathtaking.
It will be fascinating what twists and turns are now going to be enacted, in the full blaze of publicity.
Showing posts with label Boris Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boris Johnson. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Intelligence, Common Sense and Politics
Neither 'pure' intellectual capacity nor the applicability of a person's perception to the events in the visible and audible world around her [or him] can be measured with any degree of accuracy. Yet there is a common assumption within society that some peoples' processing-power for complex and abstract thought is greater than other peoples'; while other people are seen to have a greater-than-average capability to assess the movement of events and the actions of other people in ways that are useful guides for themselves and for others who trust them to base their own actions on. It is usually assumed that people with the highest perceived 'intelligence' are often not very 'practical': and very often it is manifest that a person of highly-rated academic intelligence is not capable of managing all aspects of their everyday life in a way that the generality of their community would consider to be sensible.
President Macron is well on the way to getting himself regarded as a vain and shallow man by allowing his acolytes to assert that he is 'too intelligent' and his utterances are too complex for ordinary folk [and press reporters] to understand. Some of President Trump's most obviously-infantile tweets are when he asserts that he is of superior intelligence; and he appears to be quite singularly lacking in both pure intellect and common sense. Boris Johnson is often asserted to be of a very high intelligence; but even those who quote this as a qualification for even higher office than he now holds also admit - often, before they are challenged on the point - that he lacks both assiduity in his current duties and any sort of empathy with the 'common man's' reaction to life's vagaries. Rowan Williams was elevated to the Archbishopric of Canterbury on a reputation for extremely superior intelligence: he was an utter failure in the role, as his sermons wandered off into incomprehensibility and his actions showed an almost total failure to address real-world situations.
By contrast, Stephen Hawking has shown, notwithstanding his extreme physical challenges, that he can combine both superior intelligence with the ability to explain theoretical physics to a wide audience. Clement Attlee is often described as the most under-rated prime minister of the twentieth century, and there is no doubt that he mastered every aspect of leading the country through the biggest-ever government-led socio-economic change in modern history; he was notoriously taciturn [thus leaving the fewest possible hostages to fortune] but he always ensured that he was clearly understood by the audience to which he addressed his comments.
The context in which I raise these issues is the present sorry and shameful state of the Brexit issue. A Tory whip who I shall not bother to name has demanded that university heads tell him the names and syllabus summaries of the lecturers who teach students about Brexit: the universities are rightly rejecting those demands, in most cases, as being unacceptable political interference with 'academic freedom'. The request is not necessary, anyway, as separate data which have recently been released show that a significant majority of lecturers on European affairs in UK universities are emphasising the extreme economic risks that will arise from Brexit, and the almost-certain economic damage that will be done by a 'hard Brexit' or a no-deal situation. Leaders from virtually every sector of business, large and small, are pressing similar views on the government: unless something very close to membership of the European Economic Area [EEA] succeeds EU membership, the effects on the economy, on jobs and on living standards will be catastrophic.
The point is being learned, in most places other than the headbanging quartile of the Conservative party, that tariffs are not 'the big issue': what would be lost by exit from the EEA are common regulatory standards which allow the free passage of goods and services between the member countries. It is the loss of common standards in everything from medicines through nuclear controls to aviation that would really bankrupt Britain if we walzed away into oblivion.
It is impossible to make a positive judgement of the intellectual capacity of the 'other two' Brexit ministers who are meant to form a team with Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary. Liam Fox [Trade Secretary] talks about future trade possibilities as if tariffs and WTO rules are all that really matter - which is fantasy - and David Davis gives increasing cause for worry. As 'Brexit Secretary' Davis is Mrs May's point-man on the 'divorce' negotiations with the EU, and he told the Commons Committee on his chosen subject yesterday that no definitive motion may be put before the Commons until after the Brexit deadline has passed [in March, 2019]; thus implying that whatever has been agreed, or failed to be agreed, by that date will be the future context for the nation to live with. This displays a lack of both intelligence and common sense that is truly spectacular. 'Number Ten' has already begun to 'clarify' what he may have meant, beyond presenting a further demonstration of the government's complete lack of competence. But is it crystal clear that any academic who is honestly and objectively trying to give her students an understanding of the events that are shaping their future lives must be highly critical of the process that is in hand and of the competence of the people who are conducting it.
President Macron is well on the way to getting himself regarded as a vain and shallow man by allowing his acolytes to assert that he is 'too intelligent' and his utterances are too complex for ordinary folk [and press reporters] to understand. Some of President Trump's most obviously-infantile tweets are when he asserts that he is of superior intelligence; and he appears to be quite singularly lacking in both pure intellect and common sense. Boris Johnson is often asserted to be of a very high intelligence; but even those who quote this as a qualification for even higher office than he now holds also admit - often, before they are challenged on the point - that he lacks both assiduity in his current duties and any sort of empathy with the 'common man's' reaction to life's vagaries. Rowan Williams was elevated to the Archbishopric of Canterbury on a reputation for extremely superior intelligence: he was an utter failure in the role, as his sermons wandered off into incomprehensibility and his actions showed an almost total failure to address real-world situations.
By contrast, Stephen Hawking has shown, notwithstanding his extreme physical challenges, that he can combine both superior intelligence with the ability to explain theoretical physics to a wide audience. Clement Attlee is often described as the most under-rated prime minister of the twentieth century, and there is no doubt that he mastered every aspect of leading the country through the biggest-ever government-led socio-economic change in modern history; he was notoriously taciturn [thus leaving the fewest possible hostages to fortune] but he always ensured that he was clearly understood by the audience to which he addressed his comments.
The context in which I raise these issues is the present sorry and shameful state of the Brexit issue. A Tory whip who I shall not bother to name has demanded that university heads tell him the names and syllabus summaries of the lecturers who teach students about Brexit: the universities are rightly rejecting those demands, in most cases, as being unacceptable political interference with 'academic freedom'. The request is not necessary, anyway, as separate data which have recently been released show that a significant majority of lecturers on European affairs in UK universities are emphasising the extreme economic risks that will arise from Brexit, and the almost-certain economic damage that will be done by a 'hard Brexit' or a no-deal situation. Leaders from virtually every sector of business, large and small, are pressing similar views on the government: unless something very close to membership of the European Economic Area [EEA] succeeds EU membership, the effects on the economy, on jobs and on living standards will be catastrophic.
The point is being learned, in most places other than the headbanging quartile of the Conservative party, that tariffs are not 'the big issue': what would be lost by exit from the EEA are common regulatory standards which allow the free passage of goods and services between the member countries. It is the loss of common standards in everything from medicines through nuclear controls to aviation that would really bankrupt Britain if we walzed away into oblivion.
It is impossible to make a positive judgement of the intellectual capacity of the 'other two' Brexit ministers who are meant to form a team with Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary. Liam Fox [Trade Secretary] talks about future trade possibilities as if tariffs and WTO rules are all that really matter - which is fantasy - and David Davis gives increasing cause for worry. As 'Brexit Secretary' Davis is Mrs May's point-man on the 'divorce' negotiations with the EU, and he told the Commons Committee on his chosen subject yesterday that no definitive motion may be put before the Commons until after the Brexit deadline has passed [in March, 2019]; thus implying that whatever has been agreed, or failed to be agreed, by that date will be the future context for the nation to live with. This displays a lack of both intelligence and common sense that is truly spectacular. 'Number Ten' has already begun to 'clarify' what he may have meant, beyond presenting a further demonstration of the government's complete lack of competence. But is it crystal clear that any academic who is honestly and objectively trying to give her students an understanding of the events that are shaping their future lives must be highly critical of the process that is in hand and of the competence of the people who are conducting it.
Monday, 9 October 2017
Mrs May Drags Out the Agony
Putting aside the disasters of the recent election and the very recent Tory Conference, as best she may, the Prime Minister will today fantasize in the House of Commons about 'progress' in the talks with the EU about Brexit.
From what has been released in advance, she plans to develop on the charade that she enacted in Florence a couple of weeks ago, when she spoke to much of her Cabinet, the British press and a few bored Italian officials about where she thought the negotiations had got to. She was spectacularly vague on all the relevant points about which EU officials and commentators had already asked repeatedly for clarification and specificity. She apparently intends to say to the Commons that she has now made everything crystal clear, and that the EU must now 'respond' by offering concessions.
The truth is, that David Cameron led to Tories to their surprise victory in the 2015 election by promising the referendum on leaving the EU. He confidently expected that this would produce a massive vote in favour of remaining, which would bury the Tory exiteers who had been a pain to the party since John Major accepted the Maastricht Treaty. The Liberals were removed from the scene, effectively, in 2015 by the kicking that they got for aligning with the Tories in the 2010 coalition that had increased student fees. Labour lost votes in Labour heartlands in that election, partly because they opposed the idea of the referendum. So, against all expectations, the Tories won the 2015 election; but their majority in the Commons was only half the size that would be needed to marginalise the thirty-or-so Conservative nutters who apparently believe - really believe - that Britain can survive as an independent economy in a world characterised by regional trade pacts, point protectionism and chauvinistic policies to protect sectors of the economy that are essential for national defence. These headbangers airily assert - contrary to all the available evidence - that if we boldly go where no sane man or woman would go, we will reap the same sort of rewards as the UK gained when we were both the only industrialised economy in the world and the most dominant imperial power. The sheer silliness of such thinking - or, maybe, absence of the power to think - needs no further comment.
By losing the election this year, Mrs May found herself left with around thirty MPs who are determined to devastate the economy in pursuit of their delusion. They will support Boris Johnson remaining in high office, and they are apparently demanding that the Chancellor be sacked for making reasoned statements about the probable economic effect of a 'hard Brexit'. Mrs May is evading giving a strong lead, and this will weaken her already-impossible position and contribute to the ultimate demise of the Tory party as we have known it.
The only powerful and patriotic thing that she should do - starting with her Commons statement today - is to say that the UK has been shamefully imprecise in the Brexit talks so far, to give a specific cash offer on the 'divorce bill' [making it quite clear that mediation is available] and make a sensible offer as to what would be the relations of UK courts and the EU Court in the period after March 2019. Then she should outline sensible terms for a post-Brexit relationship with the European Economic Area and defy the headbangers to force a general election that Labour would be likely to win.
The bonkers Brexiteers should be flushed out and forced to say - precisely - where the 'facts' arise that nobody else can see. Then they should fall into line to avert a Corbyn government.
The clock is ticking on Brexit, and Mrs May's attempts to evade the implosion of the Tory Party - though entirely comprehensible - are ruinous.
From what has been released in advance, she plans to develop on the charade that she enacted in Florence a couple of weeks ago, when she spoke to much of her Cabinet, the British press and a few bored Italian officials about where she thought the negotiations had got to. She was spectacularly vague on all the relevant points about which EU officials and commentators had already asked repeatedly for clarification and specificity. She apparently intends to say to the Commons that she has now made everything crystal clear, and that the EU must now 'respond' by offering concessions.
The truth is, that David Cameron led to Tories to their surprise victory in the 2015 election by promising the referendum on leaving the EU. He confidently expected that this would produce a massive vote in favour of remaining, which would bury the Tory exiteers who had been a pain to the party since John Major accepted the Maastricht Treaty. The Liberals were removed from the scene, effectively, in 2015 by the kicking that they got for aligning with the Tories in the 2010 coalition that had increased student fees. Labour lost votes in Labour heartlands in that election, partly because they opposed the idea of the referendum. So, against all expectations, the Tories won the 2015 election; but their majority in the Commons was only half the size that would be needed to marginalise the thirty-or-so Conservative nutters who apparently believe - really believe - that Britain can survive as an independent economy in a world characterised by regional trade pacts, point protectionism and chauvinistic policies to protect sectors of the economy that are essential for national defence. These headbangers airily assert - contrary to all the available evidence - that if we boldly go where no sane man or woman would go, we will reap the same sort of rewards as the UK gained when we were both the only industrialised economy in the world and the most dominant imperial power. The sheer silliness of such thinking - or, maybe, absence of the power to think - needs no further comment.
By losing the election this year, Mrs May found herself left with around thirty MPs who are determined to devastate the economy in pursuit of their delusion. They will support Boris Johnson remaining in high office, and they are apparently demanding that the Chancellor be sacked for making reasoned statements about the probable economic effect of a 'hard Brexit'. Mrs May is evading giving a strong lead, and this will weaken her already-impossible position and contribute to the ultimate demise of the Tory party as we have known it.
The only powerful and patriotic thing that she should do - starting with her Commons statement today - is to say that the UK has been shamefully imprecise in the Brexit talks so far, to give a specific cash offer on the 'divorce bill' [making it quite clear that mediation is available] and make a sensible offer as to what would be the relations of UK courts and the EU Court in the period after March 2019. Then she should outline sensible terms for a post-Brexit relationship with the European Economic Area and defy the headbangers to force a general election that Labour would be likely to win.
The bonkers Brexiteers should be flushed out and forced to say - precisely - where the 'facts' arise that nobody else can see. Then they should fall into line to avert a Corbyn government.
The clock is ticking on Brexit, and Mrs May's attempts to evade the implosion of the Tory Party - though entirely comprehensible - are ruinous.
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
Back to Blogging: Barnier and Boris
I have begun to draft a prolonged 'Thinkpiece', and am already thinking that it is probably going to be too wordy for the normal blog format. I'll press on with it for a few days, but in the meantime I intend to carry on blogging most days in simple, short dollops. It seems to suit my temperament.
This morning, the radio brought me the shocking early gossip that David Davis - the Brexit Secretary who has made such heavy weather of a simple job, so far - has suggested that in the summer of 2019 he will retire and leave to Boris Johnson the task of implementing whatever Brexit deal the UK ends up with at the March deadline. The one reassuring thought to which this gives rise is that it is probably Johnson's destiny to lead the Tory party to a defeat of greater proportions than that of 1945.
The prospect of two dangerous Marxists leading a cosmetically-rational Labour majority in the Commons down a road to ruin is not enough to scare anybody sensible into voting for Boris, who seems anxious to display his complete failure to understand either the crazy orthodox Economics of the 'free market' school or the realities of economic existence. I have not heard his comment on the scandal of the botched roll-out of the Single Benefit, and suspect that he has not made one. I don't suppose that he would understand even as little as does the Prime Minister of the situation of people who are faced with the prospect of having no income for an average period of six weeks. Most Conservative MPs seem mollified by the assurance that these desperate individuals can get a loan of half the level of benefit that they can expect ultimately to get, on strict payback terms. So little do most recipients trust the system to treat them fairly that they suspect that if they took up the offer of the loan they would be under even more intense scrutiny than they already have been. The disconnect between the 'hard Brexiteer' minority in the Commons and the grassroots of the electorate - including traditional Tory voters - has become greater than one could have forecast even a year ago.
In the 2017 General Election Mrs May got a greater Conservative vote than did her predecessor in either 2010 or 2015: but that did not translate into a majority of Commons seats: just as happened when Hillary Clinton's three million vote lead in the election failed to translate into Electoral College votes in the USA. Mrs May's largely zombie-like performance since her wining defeat is comprehensible, but it is desperately bad for the country. Her most egregious error was to hire a hall in Florence in which to make a statement to some of her ministers and to the British press [and a handful of local Italian politicians] that she should have made in more precise terms to the House of Commons six months earlier. That would have obviated the 'need' for any election in the UK, and made it possible for M Barnier to say: "Ah, now I begin to understand where she is coming from: let's start the serious talking."
Mrs May could, possibly, have been a competent prime minister: had she possessed the one essential quality that she conspicuously lacks: confidence in her own instincts. This seems increasingly to be derived from the circumstances of her upbringing an early career. A nice home in the home counties, a nice school in the home counties, an easy passage into an easy degree at a top university, a comfortable partnership with a slightly younger man, a job in the Bank of England and an easy passage to a safe parliamentary seat. There has been no need in that life to struggle: no hardship; not even experience of work in a competitive business: and how all that now shows!
The same goes for Boris, of course; his troubles have come from his lies and his lusts. Jeremy Corbyn's origins in the family manor house and his career on the champagne socialist circuit have kept him carefully isolated from the harsh realities of life. Here we have three of a kind; and there are more of their kind all around.
It is good to have practical builders like Philip Hammond and successful competitive investment managers like the egregious Mr Mogg to bring balance to our political life!
This morning, the radio brought me the shocking early gossip that David Davis - the Brexit Secretary who has made such heavy weather of a simple job, so far - has suggested that in the summer of 2019 he will retire and leave to Boris Johnson the task of implementing whatever Brexit deal the UK ends up with at the March deadline. The one reassuring thought to which this gives rise is that it is probably Johnson's destiny to lead the Tory party to a defeat of greater proportions than that of 1945.
The prospect of two dangerous Marxists leading a cosmetically-rational Labour majority in the Commons down a road to ruin is not enough to scare anybody sensible into voting for Boris, who seems anxious to display his complete failure to understand either the crazy orthodox Economics of the 'free market' school or the realities of economic existence. I have not heard his comment on the scandal of the botched roll-out of the Single Benefit, and suspect that he has not made one. I don't suppose that he would understand even as little as does the Prime Minister of the situation of people who are faced with the prospect of having no income for an average period of six weeks. Most Conservative MPs seem mollified by the assurance that these desperate individuals can get a loan of half the level of benefit that they can expect ultimately to get, on strict payback terms. So little do most recipients trust the system to treat them fairly that they suspect that if they took up the offer of the loan they would be under even more intense scrutiny than they already have been. The disconnect between the 'hard Brexiteer' minority in the Commons and the grassroots of the electorate - including traditional Tory voters - has become greater than one could have forecast even a year ago.
In the 2017 General Election Mrs May got a greater Conservative vote than did her predecessor in either 2010 or 2015: but that did not translate into a majority of Commons seats: just as happened when Hillary Clinton's three million vote lead in the election failed to translate into Electoral College votes in the USA. Mrs May's largely zombie-like performance since her wining defeat is comprehensible, but it is desperately bad for the country. Her most egregious error was to hire a hall in Florence in which to make a statement to some of her ministers and to the British press [and a handful of local Italian politicians] that she should have made in more precise terms to the House of Commons six months earlier. That would have obviated the 'need' for any election in the UK, and made it possible for M Barnier to say: "Ah, now I begin to understand where she is coming from: let's start the serious talking."
Mrs May could, possibly, have been a competent prime minister: had she possessed the one essential quality that she conspicuously lacks: confidence in her own instincts. This seems increasingly to be derived from the circumstances of her upbringing an early career. A nice home in the home counties, a nice school in the home counties, an easy passage into an easy degree at a top university, a comfortable partnership with a slightly younger man, a job in the Bank of England and an easy passage to a safe parliamentary seat. There has been no need in that life to struggle: no hardship; not even experience of work in a competitive business: and how all that now shows!
The same goes for Boris, of course; his troubles have come from his lies and his lusts. Jeremy Corbyn's origins in the family manor house and his career on the champagne socialist circuit have kept him carefully isolated from the harsh realities of life. Here we have three of a kind; and there are more of their kind all around.
It is good to have practical builders like Philip Hammond and successful competitive investment managers like the egregious Mr Mogg to bring balance to our political life!
Saturday, 30 September 2017
Brexit Buffoons, Regulations and Point Protectionism
Boris Johnson has sounded-off again, this time to the Sun, with his demands about Brexit. The transition must be absolutely no more than two years, and the UK should not accept new EU regulations in that period. This keeps him in front of the 'hard Brexiteers' in the Conservative Party, ahead of what is certain to be a very painful party conference for the Prime Minister who decided to hold an election, then ran it the way her close advisers suggested, and so lost her parliamentary majority. Members of the party from all factions know that the Corbyn-McDonnell chances of winning a general election [in England, Wales, and - just possibly - the lost Labour heartlands of Scotland] are astonishingly high. Thus the Tories dare not topple the leader, simply because there is no obvious alternative who could surely prevent the party from disintegrating sufficiently to force a general election.
Thus the Conservatives have to negotiate Brexit: with an increasing majority of the party daily becoming more aware [as are Labour MPs] that the complete separation of the UK from the European Economic Area would put the livelihoods of all sixty million people who depend on the UK economy in grave jeopardy. The Minority of fervent Brexiteers, together with the ambitious chancers who have joined them, assert that the UK can open up huge vistas of trade all over the world, by making trade agreements with a whole raft of countries under WTO Rules.
The World Trade Organisation had its origins in GATT - the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - which was set up alongside the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [normally called the World Bank] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] by the victorious allies at the end of the Second World War in the belief that the two devastating wars of the twentieth century were largely economic in origin. The USSR was wholly, dogmatically convinced that the First World War was the result of expansionist imperialist competition between the European powers; and they ascribed the second to a re-run of the same conflict between a resurgent Germany and the 'Anglo-Saxon' states that had succeeded in 1918 and then dissipated the fruits of victory in the Depression of the 'thirties. The USA and the UK shared the view that the competitive inefficiencies of capitalism had exacerbated the economic problems of the late 'twenties and early 'thirties. The idea behind the new system was to provide transparent means by which each economy could grow as part of a successful international community.
The USSR soon withdrew from active participation in the institutions, and compelled its satellites to leave as well. Then the international organisations served the 'capitalist' world, in an uneasy relationship with the 'third world' of notionally 'non-aligned' countries [which asserted their independence of both the USSR-led and US-led pattern of alliances that maintained the cold war from 1949 to 1992]. During that period the GATT became the WTO, and had to accommodate itself to a global reality where the rhetoric of free trade was greatly modified by each country building up defensive mounds of regulations that kept out many imports that other countries could offer them in greater quantity and of more sophisticated design than their own factories could produce; without imposing tariffs that openly breached WTO rules. When such rules failed, and a government wanted to exclude some import, they could - and did - simply impose 'extraordinary' tariffs, usually 'temporarily' to keep out the unwelcome export. That is what I have called point protectionism in this blog. The recent spat engineered in the USA by Boeing is merely one of thousands of examples.
If Boris Johnson and Liam Fox are such starry-eyed innocents that they believe that WTO Rules will be enough to ensure that the UK can make a safe transit into a post-EU trading world, they are profoundly dangerous.
Thus the Conservatives have to negotiate Brexit: with an increasing majority of the party daily becoming more aware [as are Labour MPs] that the complete separation of the UK from the European Economic Area would put the livelihoods of all sixty million people who depend on the UK economy in grave jeopardy. The Minority of fervent Brexiteers, together with the ambitious chancers who have joined them, assert that the UK can open up huge vistas of trade all over the world, by making trade agreements with a whole raft of countries under WTO Rules.
The World Trade Organisation had its origins in GATT - the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - which was set up alongside the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [normally called the World Bank] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] by the victorious allies at the end of the Second World War in the belief that the two devastating wars of the twentieth century were largely economic in origin. The USSR was wholly, dogmatically convinced that the First World War was the result of expansionist imperialist competition between the European powers; and they ascribed the second to a re-run of the same conflict between a resurgent Germany and the 'Anglo-Saxon' states that had succeeded in 1918 and then dissipated the fruits of victory in the Depression of the 'thirties. The USA and the UK shared the view that the competitive inefficiencies of capitalism had exacerbated the economic problems of the late 'twenties and early 'thirties. The idea behind the new system was to provide transparent means by which each economy could grow as part of a successful international community.
The USSR soon withdrew from active participation in the institutions, and compelled its satellites to leave as well. Then the international organisations served the 'capitalist' world, in an uneasy relationship with the 'third world' of notionally 'non-aligned' countries [which asserted their independence of both the USSR-led and US-led pattern of alliances that maintained the cold war from 1949 to 1992]. During that period the GATT became the WTO, and had to accommodate itself to a global reality where the rhetoric of free trade was greatly modified by each country building up defensive mounds of regulations that kept out many imports that other countries could offer them in greater quantity and of more sophisticated design than their own factories could produce; without imposing tariffs that openly breached WTO rules. When such rules failed, and a government wanted to exclude some import, they could - and did - simply impose 'extraordinary' tariffs, usually 'temporarily' to keep out the unwelcome export. That is what I have called point protectionism in this blog. The recent spat engineered in the USA by Boeing is merely one of thousands of examples.
If Boris Johnson and Liam Fox are such starry-eyed innocents that they believe that WTO Rules will be enough to ensure that the UK can make a safe transit into a post-EU trading world, they are profoundly dangerous.
Monday, 12 June 2017
Being Mr May
A huge burden has fallen on the shoulders of Philip May over the past few days. His wife opened her innings as Prime Minister extremely well; then within a very short time she embraced a clutch of harebrained policies that undercut her position - notably her advocacy of foxhunting and grammar schools. Then she opted for a general election, at a time when the opinion polls indicated that the Labour party was seriously unpopular; apparently without checking that her own situation was strong. Thereafter she relied an her two close confidants, who had been unpopular at the Home Office where they had [or so it is now alleged] led her into several delusory paths. Thus came about the catastrophic manifesto and the idiocy of constantly asserting that she was 'strong and stable' as she demonstrated herself, and her position, to be anything but secure.
Most significant, and dangerous for the entire country, was her inability to explain how she would lead the negotiations on Britain's exit from the European Union. Part way through the election campaign I decided that this was because she genuinely did not understand what was expected of her. I do not think that she begins to understand what a 'hard Brexit' would be, or what catastrophic effects in would have on the entire population. I do not think that she understands any economic issue at all, whether in terms of rational ratiocination or idiotic economic theory.
She has now put her party in a position when they are in office but not in power, and even Boris Johnson has been able to see that she has earned the painful position that she must now be kept in for as long as possible. Michael Fallon and other senior ministers have made it clear that she will be controlled from now on; that policy will be made in cabinet, and she must follow it. So there is a hope that the country will get a decent outcome, and the Tories may even achieve a little credibility.
Mrs May will not enjoy that situation. Recently it has been made even more clear than before that she it utterly dependent on her husband: to a degree that makes her marriage very different from Denis Thatcher's. Denis became a popular figure, who was seen as powerless but fully autonomous; and Margaret's loyalty to him was unquestioned. Mrs May's dependency is palpable and painful, and the removal of her guard-dogs leaves the couple dangerously exposed in their isolation from real life.
Prime Minister's spouses have long been important, but to go back just eighty years, no-one doubted the calming and cheering influence of Lady Churchill. Then, when Labour won by a landslide in 1945, as Harold Laski and Herbert Morrison were said to be plotting to remove Clement Attlee from the Labour leadership, Mrs Attlee drove the small family car to the palace and her husband was given the King's commission; thus the plotters were stymied. Lady Eden took her husband on holiday when he ran off his trolley after Suez, and thereafter the nation was polite about the difficulties of the MacMillan marriage. Mary Wilson became a national treasure, supporting Harold in sickness and in health and later taking care of Lady Thatcher when she was a demented widow. Cherie Booth's independent career - and her republican reputation - did her no harm, nor did she have any detrimental effect on Tony Blair's career. His relatively recent marriage, and the children it produced, gave Gordon Brown a positive future after his defeat; and the loss of office after the loss of the referendum reanimated "Sam Cam's" career.
How Mr May fits into that catalogue is yet to be proven: but few people could envy him.
Most significant, and dangerous for the entire country, was her inability to explain how she would lead the negotiations on Britain's exit from the European Union. Part way through the election campaign I decided that this was because she genuinely did not understand what was expected of her. I do not think that she begins to understand what a 'hard Brexit' would be, or what catastrophic effects in would have on the entire population. I do not think that she understands any economic issue at all, whether in terms of rational ratiocination or idiotic economic theory.
She has now put her party in a position when they are in office but not in power, and even Boris Johnson has been able to see that she has earned the painful position that she must now be kept in for as long as possible. Michael Fallon and other senior ministers have made it clear that she will be controlled from now on; that policy will be made in cabinet, and she must follow it. So there is a hope that the country will get a decent outcome, and the Tories may even achieve a little credibility.
Mrs May will not enjoy that situation. Recently it has been made even more clear than before that she it utterly dependent on her husband: to a degree that makes her marriage very different from Denis Thatcher's. Denis became a popular figure, who was seen as powerless but fully autonomous; and Margaret's loyalty to him was unquestioned. Mrs May's dependency is palpable and painful, and the removal of her guard-dogs leaves the couple dangerously exposed in their isolation from real life.
Prime Minister's spouses have long been important, but to go back just eighty years, no-one doubted the calming and cheering influence of Lady Churchill. Then, when Labour won by a landslide in 1945, as Harold Laski and Herbert Morrison were said to be plotting to remove Clement Attlee from the Labour leadership, Mrs Attlee drove the small family car to the palace and her husband was given the King's commission; thus the plotters were stymied. Lady Eden took her husband on holiday when he ran off his trolley after Suez, and thereafter the nation was polite about the difficulties of the MacMillan marriage. Mary Wilson became a national treasure, supporting Harold in sickness and in health and later taking care of Lady Thatcher when she was a demented widow. Cherie Booth's independent career - and her republican reputation - did her no harm, nor did she have any detrimental effect on Tony Blair's career. His relatively recent marriage, and the children it produced, gave Gordon Brown a positive future after his defeat; and the loss of office after the loss of the referendum reanimated "Sam Cam's" career.
How Mr May fits into that catalogue is yet to be proven: but few people could envy him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)