What Do You Think Today?

[Avatar]

I think your next government is likely to be Labour regardless, but yes, the prospect of losing power almost immediately will probably galvanise some support, even if it costs in the long term.

Of course, I do hope he loses, more to wipe that smug look off his face than anything else.

--A

[I'm Murrin]

A general election before the 5 year term limit requires a two thirds majority vote in Parliament, if I'm remembering correctly. Not sure Johnson can spring it on people as a surprise.

Currently 141 Tory MPs have publicly announced their support for Johnson; he needs 180 to stay in power. He still seems fairly safe to me, but who knows.

I'm not as convinced that Labour can win election even in these conditions. The Tories have a historic majority right now and the system is stacked against the opposition even at the best of times. And Starmer isn't really an asset for Labour; he doesn't have any personality for people to get excited over.

I think the question really is, will the Tories extend their streak of electing some of the worst Prime Ministers in modern history. Cameron ruined the country by folding under the pressure from the right to hold a Brexit vote, May bollocksed up the Brexit negotiations by letting the hardliners have control at every step (and being generally weak as a leader), and Johnson was thoroughly corrupt and incompetent. Who's next?

God forbid they put Priti Patel in charge and just go full fash.

[peter]

Interesting vote (going on as I post).

It might not be the shoo-in for Johnson that some predict. Put brutally simplistically, if the choice facing Tory MPs is, vote for Johnson, see him win but pretty definitely loose the next election (and your seat in Parliament if your majority is slim, which is a shit-load of them), or don't vote for him, elect a new leader and maybe not loose the next election (or maybe not loose it as badly) - then the impetus will lean toward not supporting him.

This could result in a pretty catastrophic result for him, even if he wins. Say the result was two hundred for him, one sixty against, that is a huge chunk of your parliamentary support gone west, and it makes it very difficult to carry on with any conviction. I've just heard a reporter say that his performance in front of the 1922 Committee was not good (reading from notes, without any real confidence) so any wavering supporters won't be bolstered much by this.

I think he'll win - but by a much thinner margin than will be comfortable for him. He's then got the Parliamentary Privileges Committee investigation to look forward to and two by-elections the polling for which is atrocious. The temptation would have to be for him to throw in the towel and run for the hills. All depends how many he wins by. If he scores less than Theresa May did (as a percentage of support) then he'd might as well blow.

[peter]

211 to 148 in Johnson's favour.

Not as thin as I'd thought it would be - but a sobering result for the PM nevertheless. He's going to face a lot of stick over the coming days and weeks - and despite having won tonight, I heard earlier that if, say, the by-elections go really badly the Committee is in a position to alter the rules to allow for a further ballot to be taken.

Let's see how the press receive it tomorrow.

(Nb. I think I'm right in saying that he has done worse than Theresa May did in her vote of no confidence ballot. This will not please him at all.)

[Avatar]

Pipped at the post. Logged in to report this.

That's a worse result than Theresa May got, and she was ousted within 8 months of the vote. (Not that I expect him to do anything but cling shamelessly to power.)

More than 40% of his party went against him.

--A

[Forestal]

If we take nothing else from this vote it's this:

Boris wanted to have the vote, win and move on with no more talk of leadership battles, or fitness to lead the country. Having a mandate to carry on status quo.

Now we will have months of continued calls for resignations, shouting about Boris only have 59% of Tory MP support and that 60% of the electorate wants him gone.

He wanted a stronger position, he doesn't have that. He will grimly cling to power until the next election, where the Tories will likely lose by a landslide.

[peter]

Could be Forestal - but there are alternatives.

Thatcher won her vote by an approximately equal margin, but was forced out by her own cabinet two days later. This of course, won't happen to Johnson. The poor quality of the individuals he has gathered around himself ensures their clinging to their man, because they know that their own ship goes down with him.

May, who secured a higher percentage support than Johnson, was told seven months later that if she didn't go, the rules forbidding another vote of confidence would be changed.

Major was also removed within a short period of winning a vote of confidence, also I believe with a higher margin than Johnson's.

So this result does not look good for the PM, despite his claims to the contrary. It must be remembered that upwards of 160 of those who voted in favour of Johnson are either Government ministers, or have positions that will come to an end when Johnson falls. It doesn't mean that they all voted for Johnson, but it's a good bet that by far the majority did. This leaves a residual core of supporting backbenchers far smaller than the number who voted against the PM. No wonder Johnson looked glum when he left the building after the vote.

But I believe that the Financial Times have picked up on a significant thing missed by the other papers. Johnson in his rallying speech to Conservative MPs before the vote, made a remark that surprised many of those before him. He said that he was not sorry that he had attended the leaving parties of departing staff members during the lockdown and would do so again. This makes a nonsense of the apologies and regrets he expressed on numerous occasions both in the House and beyond. These comments could come back to haunt him.

In the meantime, he has the forthcoming by-elections and the Parliamentary Privileges Committee investigation to deal with. Either could spell doom for him in his damaged state and he'd better pray for a benevolent God to look kindly on him in both cases or he's toast. Much also depends upon the mood of backbenchers when he returns to the House and trys to get legislation passed. It was the inability to do so that scuppered May before him, and having effectively lost his parliamentary majority overnight in this vote, it is not unfeasible that he could suffer the same fate.

But one thing is for sure. This vote may quell things in Westminster for a day or two (likely not though) but it will definitely do nothing to assuage the anger out in the populace, within the constituencies. This is where the voting of true significance will take place. If the unthinkable were to happen and the Tories were to loose their eighty seat majority in the next election, either to a Labour win or more likely to a coalition of opposition forces, then it's likely that the Tory Party would immediately self destruct into the two halves that Johnson has briefly held together since taking office during the brexit debate. Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?

[Avatar]

Eh, my only issue is that it's going to take time. The older I get, the more impatient I am.

--A

[peter]

It only gets worse Av!



Gosh, I'm tired of all of this. Johnson is resetting his premiership for the nth time. Wants to "draw a line" under the partygate/leadership issues. The Tories are demanding tax cuts. Truly there is nothing new under the sun. Some bright spark has suggested bringing Jeremy Hunt in as Chancellor, the plan being that Hunt is good at Government while Johnson shines at winning elections. Sounds as palatable as putting salt in your tea to me but what do I know: some have called it the "dream team".

The Express tell us to "Be an optimist like the Queen and live longer." Well, I could say that she has every reason to be an optimist - about five hundred million of them at the last count - but that would be churlish at this time wouldn't it.

Disney are launching a Muslim superhero apparently - Ms Marvel or some such. Well it probably looked like a good idea on paper, but like Jules from Pulp Fiction with the dog, I won't ever know because I won't be watching it.

We are apparently heading for a "Summer of discontent" as the railways and other transport sectors prepare for major industrial action in pursuit of their wages claims. Prepare for the erection of a demonic figure for us all to hate (ala Arthur Skargill), this time in the form of cockney union leader Mick Lynch, general secretary of the RMT. Lynch say's that it is unreasonable to expect his workers to accept pay freezes and job losses in the face of inflation rates of nearing eleven percent, and hence the planned three days of strikes in the middle of June, just when the summer season is getting underway. This will, needless to say, give Johnson his 'miners moment' as he dons his hand-bag and blue skirt in emulation of the second of his greatest heroes - the inimitable Margret Thatcher (of whom he is but a pale shadow on his best day, and who would be turning in her grave at what the clown has done in the name of conservatism).

Oh, and the public accountants committee has said that the Government is gambling with millions of pounds of public money as a result of the "chaotic administration" of its flagship policy, the levelling up agenda. Now there's a suprise, piss-ups in a brewery and all of that.

[peter]

It appears that we are moving yet further into Brave New World territory with a range of 'love drugs' waiting just over the horizon to bolster our emotional receptivity or prop up ailing feelings when they begin to wane. This morning's Times reports on the comments of Dr Anna Machin, an Oxford evolutionary anthropologist that drugs such as MDMA and lab produced oxytocin (a naturally produced hormone said to influence emotions aside from its other known properties) can be tweaked into products that can be used recreationally (think taking a sqirt of oxytocin alongside a glass of prosecco) to increase your receptivity to approaches from members of the opposite (or the same I guess) sex.

Okay. If there's money to be made in it then no doubt the political will will be found/bought in order to bring it to market - but will we be the better of for it? Seems to me that there are already problems enough with the so called 'date rape' drugs and other recreational drugs that we have access to. Do we really need to introduce yet more?

---------------------------------0--------------------------------

If you listen to Boris Johnson in the House of Commons then you might believe that the UK is riding on the crest of a wave into the sunlit uplands of his post brexit future by the day as we speak. The OECD alas, seem to think differently.

Composed of 38 member states, the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation designed to "stimulate economic progress and world trade". (Presumably then, it has some idea of what it is talking about.) In its latest report it puts us second to bottom, above only Russia, in its assesment of the economic prospects facing the G20 countries, with a prediction of an economic flat-lining as our growth splutters to zero in the face of high inflation and interest rates and increasing taxes. The "highest growth in the G7" that Johnson continually crows about in the Commons,is after all, what we already knew - a smoke and mirrors trick only true because we fell further than any other country in the first place, and so we have seen a resultant faster spring-back as the country has reopened for business.

This report, featured today on the front of the Financial Times, will do nothing to convince Tory MPs that they have done the correct thing in keeping their man in place - in fact quite the opposite. My prediction is that Johnson is up for a rough time in the next few weeks and months, while the Tories gather the nuts to make the change. Andrew Marr said in interview yesterday that this is deeply damaging for the country and I agree with him. Johnson, leading a fractured party as he is, will not have the political courage to attempt anything of the political magnitude needed in order to tackle this situation, but will rather be limited to putting forth only the weakest and most insipid of policies that he can guarantee to get past his divided MPs. To do otherwise would lead him into Theresa May country where his failure to get any legislation passed could cause his party to demand his removal.

Thus, we approach the hour of our need, the greatest threat to our economic and societal future in generations, with a crippled and ineffective Prime Minister at the head of a sub-standard Cabinet, lacking in either the vision to get us through this, or the intellect to recognise their own deficiency.

----------------------------0----------------------------

Ewan Blair has done pretty well for himself. Smiling at us from the front of the FT today, we are told he is now worth a cool half billion pounds and sitting at the head of a business valued at 1.7 billion. Who'd have thought that there was so much money in apprentice recruitment? Still no place for sour grapes: I'm sure he would have done just as well had his dad been a shop keeper from Scunthorpe (and no doubt he still maintains his father's support for the Labour Party.....oh no - I forgot. His father turned the Labour Party into the Tory Party with a different name).

Still, coming from his humble background, as a good Labour man he would no doubt claim to be the case, he wouldn't want to listen too closely to the words of the Government's new 'social mobility tsar', Katherine Birbalsingh, as she gives her first speech today. She will reportedly tell people from poorer backgrounds that they "shouldn't aim too high". Be prepared, she will say, to take "smaller steps up the ladder". It isn't all about getting into the top universities or getting the top jobs. Satisfaction can be found at the lower levels as well - the levels at which you are perhaps better designed to shine. What - do you mean as toilet cleaners or shop assistants, shelf fillers in supermarkets. Ahhh - so that's where I have been going wrong! I'll think about that as I push my mop around the shop floor for minimum wage later on tonight. (Actually not tonight, because I'm not working today - but it just sounded better. Literary euphony as well as topical comment: see what you're getting here you lucky bastards!)

[peter]

Here's the news story that you won't read about in the newspapers this morning. ITV reported yesterday on a study done by the Centre for European Reform, an independent think tank that analyses how to improve the EU operations, into the impact of brexit on the UK economy.

The study's conclusions make for sobering reading, as did the report on ITV which began with an interview with Ian Perks, a Brixham fish exporter who recounted how Boris Johnson had told him on a pre brexit visit, that leaving the EU would reduce his administration load and free up his operation to make increased profits. On the contrary, he said. He admitted to having voted for leaving the EU, but now said he bitterly regretted his decision. His admin costs were three hundred pounds a day higher, export delays were increased in proportion and his whole business a shadow of its former self.

As for the costs to the UK as a whole, the Centre for European Reform study showed an overall shortfall in the economy of five percent in comparison to that which would have pertained had we not left the EU. This equates to around 31 billion pounds and is accompanied by a thirteen percent loss of business and Government investment, together with the same loss in terms of goods trade. The only sector that showed improvement over the predicted figures was that of service which was seven percent higher.

The figures were corrected for effects arising from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine by comparison with the same parameters of a range of European countries that had not left the EU, the UK performing worse in all areas in a manner that could only be attributed to Brexit.

As I say, you won't read about this in the papers today because heaven forbid that the truth of what the Tories under Johnson have done to this country should out. That wouldn't fit with the sunlit uplands picture at all. The ITV report concluded with a woman who voted to leave saying that of course there was going to be a period of readjustment following leaving, but it was worth the cost. Tell that to Ian Perks in the smouldering ruins of his business.

--------------------------0---------------------

Who the fuck is it that decides what gigs the Duke of Cambridge (that's Prince William for you yanks ) does, because today they need their arses kicked. At what point in time did they think it was good PR for the Prince, scion of one of the richest families in the world and beneficiary of numerous properties offering habitation up and down the length and breadth of the country, to don a Big Issue reflector jacket and cap, and parade grinning like a monkey at the fun of it all, in front of photographers of the nation's press.

The Big Issue, in case you didn't know, is the UK's leading social enterprise highlighting the issue of homelessness, and is epitomised by the sellers of street newspapers in every town, a workforce comprised of homeless people trying to get a leg up the ladder back into social inclusion.

Now I have no doubt that the Prince's intentions were good, the highlighting of the plight of the homeless in our country can only ever be a good thing - but it isn't and never will be fun. Sure, it must have been a laugh to put on the gear and pretend for half an hour that this was his life - but did no-one see how patronising, how insulting it would seem, to those who live the experience not for half an hour, but all day, every day of their lives? How fucking stupid are these people? If they wanted to undermine the monarchy in this country, to bring its thousand year gig at the pinnacle of privilege and wealth in our country to an end, they could not be making a better fist of it than they are.

------------------------0--------------------

Like everyone else who hears this story, I'll be very saddened if the UK citizens who were yesterday condemned to death by the proxy court in the Donbas, are indeed executed. At this point it seems that the sentence may be more for show purposes than anything else (Ukrainian prisoners proper seem to be being accorded the recognised prisoner of war status that the Geneva Convention demands), but its an unhappy development nevertheless.

Given that in both cases the fighters in question seem to have been longstanding residents in Ukraine (and full-time serving soldiers in the Ukrainian army) their labeling as foreign mercenary fighters seems spurious in the extreme, but in war these things happen. It might be no coincidence that the judgement and sentencing coincides with the holding in Kiev of a particular pro-Russian politician (of whose daughter Putin himself is God-father), so it might be that there is an angling towards a prisoner exchange of sorts in the offing.

But irrespective of this, the whole thing gives the lie to the advice given by Liz Truss (now quietly being forgotten) that British nationals up sticks and off to Ukraine to join the national forces over there. For anybody stupid enough to be be still considering taking her advice, this pronouncement should give them pause pause to rethink their position. Would that Boris Johnson would rethink his own position and sack the stupid article herself. That at least would be a positive move he could make toward getting his house back in order.

--------------------------0----------------------

Lastly, quick message to Boris Johnson in respect of his aping of Thatcher in respect of rolling out her 'right to buy' policy (which I absolutely agree with as it happens) - never mind the theatrics, just build some fucking houses. How hard can it be?

[peter]

I'm 65 years old with a knackered back and feet. I'm educated to masters degree level in science subjects and enjoy writing and reading when not at work. That's why I was pleased to receive a job suggestion from Glassdoor for a position that they said I looked "ideally suited for". Working for Biffa refuse collection services as a roadside refuse collector, the job would involve running alongside the collection wagon and humping refuse bins and sacks up into the crusher, before speeding on to the next house as the wagon proceeded up the road. For this I'd receive top-dollar money (and presumably discounted Zimmer-frame usage at the weekend). Those guys at Glassdoor have really got me nailed. It's uncanny. I'll be receiving my discounted holiday advertising for that flight on Tuesday to Rwanda next.

------------------0------------------

Speaking of which, I was pleased to hear that Prince Charles has voiced his anger and disgust with the policy which, despite much opposition at home and warnings from no less than the United Nations that it risks contravening our international legal obligations, Home Secretary Priti Patel intends to go ahead with.

The Telegraph informs us that the Prince, who formerly used to air his views on political issues much more freely, has been more reserved of late, "but is still willing to air his beliefs in private on issues he feels strongly about". The bastard! The complete bastard!

---------------------------------0-------------------------

Boris Johnson turned up at my local County agricultural extravaganza, The Royal Cornwall Show yesterday where he was photographed examining the best of the locality's bovine examples. I'm not aware that he is a farmer as such so can only think that he must have been stocking up on his much needed supply of bull-shit in preparation for the difficult weeks ahead.

-------------------------0-------------------

'Staycation'. That's a word that really irritates me. Like lots of these new-fangled words designed to make shit things sound better than they are. Staycation - it means staying at home, not going on holiday. It means that one of the things that you have taken for granted for most of your life has been lost (in greater or lesser degree, depending upon your circumstances). Never mind - it's all part of the new-normal. (And there's another fucking one!)

------------------------0----------------------

The i newspaper tells us that the Tory rebels are scouting around looking for a 'unity candidate' to replace the PM with for when they make their next bid to unseat him. The name of current Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi is being touted around as a possibility. As one of the most slippery, untrustworthy candidates available, as a man who has been wheeled out to support Johnson at his most egregious worst, when no other Minister could grease and elide his way past the PM's latest outrage, I can think of no-one better.

-------------------0------------------

Ex-footballer Michael Owen says that he doesn't want to see his daughter kissing on the latest series of Love Island - a program which traditionally features bikini clad Essex girls competing for the attention of muscle bound hunks in return for who knows what. I can help you with that one Michael - don't fucking watch it!

[peter]

Boris Johnson may have survived his vote of confidence, but make no mistake he is deep in the shit. Short weeks ago, he was facing screaming calls for windfall taxes and handouts to ease the cost of living crisis, now tory backbenchers (and some ministers) are raging about high taxation and demanding immediate tax cuts. There is no sign of Sunak being prepared to grant such cuts - certainly not to save Johnson's skin - and in truth how could he. Only a complete fiscal idiot would think that after the splurge of furlough and concomitant loss of revenue resulting from lockdown, that there would be more than dust at the bottom of the chancellor's purse. Certainly not enough to satisfy the Tories natural inclination to not fund......well - anything!

But back to Johnson, he's absolutely hog-tied between the demands of his backbenchers and his inability to force his will on his chancellor, or come to that, the rest of his cabinet. His failure to secure a convincing win in last week's vote has left him dangerously exposed to a leadership challenge, and he knows that all it would take would be for one of his key Ministers to walk out - accompanied by a few lesser members - and it's all over for him. This makes for a PM with no authority in his own cabinet and he will hate it. Gone are the glory days of his eighty seat majority - the result of the confidence vote effectively scuppers this - where he had the power, almost unlimited, to do whatever he wanted, irrespective of the views of those around the top table. Now it is him who must go to them for favours, and he will know that they have him by the balls. One slip, one push too far, one walk out the door, and it's goodbye Number 10.

Like many others, I'd thought that it would be either the two by-elections (that by all accounts the Tories are set to perform badly in) or the Parliamentary Privileges Committee investigation that would do for him - but I'm beginning to wonder. I watched a YouTube presentation where an old guy said that he believed that the by-election results would be already factored in to Tory thinking and that he had little doubt about Johnson's ability to slither past a poor committee verdict by sticking to the line that he had believed that he was telling the truth when speaking in the House. This guy said that he believed Johnson's end would come at the hands of his cabinet, in the form of a walkout and subsequent leadership challenge.

And in truth it cannot come too soon. The scale of the problems faced by this country, the havoc wrought by the combined effects of brexit, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, are too urgent to be addressed by a weak Prime Minister with a divided Government and Parliamentary Party. And choose whatever way you look at it, this Government, strong stable leadership it ain't!

------------------------0---------------------

Three papers at least, have this morning expressed their outrage that Prince Charles should have any views whatsoever as to what the Government is up to in respect of shipping off our unwanted asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Covered in the most despicable sheen of faux concern for 'the safety of migrants crossing the Channel', the Government insists that it will go ahead and ship out a plane full to that haven of humanity and understanding this Tuesday. And that our future monarch should have any ideas on the subject seems to fill them with fury. Veiled threats that "this kind of intervention will not be tolerated" when Charles succeeds to the throne have been given by anonymous individuals (no doubt closely associated with Priti Patel's office). Headlines in both the Mail and Express this morning call for Charles to keep his nose out of political decisions (ignoring the fact that he made his comments in private conversation), while the Government response serves merely to prove a point that I have raised before - that the Tories are in no way a particularly pro-monarchy party any more than the Labour. What form, I ask, will this non-toleration take? The beheading of the monarch in Trafalgar Square? The tearing down of the institution and replacement with a republic?

There is no answer to this question, but I for one have no problems with Prince Charles using his platform to air his views. Much is made of the Queen's complete impenetrability in terms of her actual beliefs - but this is of course bollocks. We know that she was used to give a veiled message of support for the Union by David Cameron in the Scottish independence referendum, she 'let slip' that she wanted out of the EU (well, she would, wouldn't she; it was an incursion into her sovereignty), and we know full well that she has liked some PM's and disliked others. No, I have no fear that a royal who airs his views has any intention towards a reduction in the rule of law and a redistribution toward the monarchy. It is Governments that we must most fear on that score. Besides, I get to air my views - why am I going to complain about someone else airing theirs? (Not that I happen to agree with Charles on the Rwanda policy being appalling has anything to do with it! )

[peter]

There was a time when the United Kingdom was considered to be the model example of international probity and rectitude. If our country made an international agreement, stated an intention to do follow a particular path, gave a promise that a certain arrangement would be honoured, it could be taken as read that that course would be a moral and conscionable one and would be adhered to, to the letter.

This alas, is no longer the case.

In the case of the proposed outsourcing of our asylum seeker problem to Rwanda, the policy is attracting condemnation from far and wide, with no lesser source than the United Nations telling us that it risks breaking our international obligations on human rights (never mind our legal agreements), yet our Government insists that it will proceed with the proposals as planned nevertheless. That a mere three decades ago huge numbers of Rwandan citizens were machete'd to death in front of a horrified world, that the UK itself was only last year questioning the human rights situation as it exists in the country today, it seems is neither here nor there.

In another case, today as I post, preparations are being made to lay before Parliament legislation to enable the trashing of an international treaty that the UK Government signed only a couple of short years ago, on the basis that either we "did not understand what we were signing" or that it was never really intended to be followed in the first place (as though you can sign such agreements with your fingers crossed behind your back). That the world will watch on as this is done, that it will be factored in to every single agreement we sign, every single commitment we make, every single statement of intent we issue, from this day forth, is as nothing to the political expediency of our Government saving its skin and surviving to dissemble on for another day.

This is where we have come to and make no mistake, the often cited heroes of our 'commander in chief' - Churchill and Thatcher both - will be turning in their graves at what we propose to do.

Our actions in both the above cases, fly in the face of every value they held, every standard that either of these political giants would have died for. They will leave us with a reputation for perfidy, a smell of something rotten at our core, that is absolutely in keeping with the grinning Quasimodo, the swivel eyed 'king for a day', that has bamboozled his way to the top of our polity on the back of a thin veneer of slick talking and valueless legerdemain. (Like the garish multicoloured sweet shops that now populate every corner of our capital city, the presentation is an alluring front, but the cover only thinly masks a mouth full of rotten teeth and halitosis.)

At what point are those few remaining politicians who care about our honour going to stand up and say enough is enough! Word has it that both Michael Gove (the levelling up secretary) and Chancellor Sunak are far less than happy with this direction of travel. Gove, himself as untrustworthy as his boss, at least on one occasion was honest - when he told us that putative leader Boris Johnson was entirely unfit to be Prime Minister; would that he would return to that position instead of simply holding his finger up to test the political wind for his own advantage. Surely, surely, surely, there must be members who can see that what is being done now will haunt us as a country for decades to come; it will frame who we are in the eyes of the world from this day forth.

What country in their right mind would touch us with a barge-pole after this display of our reliability, this evidence of our trustworthiness as a partner. For God's sake - stop this distortion of a Government before they inflict yet further damage upon our nation!

[Skyweir]

Well you’re hardly alone be ~ as a nation in this. And to be fair I’m not sure many governments ever truly are or have ever been “models of probity and rectitude. lol 😂

Perhaps such assessments are bound up more in how we as nations want to be seen.

The other thing is it’s amazing to me how short our national memories are. How quickly we as a population forget ~ however arguably a convenience does enable national resilience and nations tend to move on reasonably fluidly despite former gaffs or heinous atrocities.

Perhaps cognitive dissonance helps smooth the transition 🤷�♀� or just dumb luck

[peter]

Granted, the last couple of years has thrown a spotlight into some of the darker corners of Australian society, and what has been seen there has been less than becoming.

But yes, perhaps our memories are rosier than the reality ever was - but this is no reason for not striving to be better. I see no evidence of that in the actions of our current administration - rather a race to the bottom on the back of political expediency and cul-de-sac policy choices.

[peter]

Now here's an interesting idea.

Are Gove and Sunak about to present themselves as the Blair and Brown of a Tory revival, a restructuring toward the centre ground of Conservative values, designed to appeal to all parts of the Tory following, both Parliamentary and in the wider membership?

It would make a lot of sense. We've heard that so much of the support for Johnson rests on no more than there being no clear replacement candidate around which the party can rally. Certainly neither Gove nor Sunak could individually fit that bill - but together they might present a different picture.

There's a very good book called Freak, The Mighty about two schoolboys who are each one weak, one by virtue of his physical disabilities (but who has an excellent brain), the other by virtue of his slow intelligence (but who is in turn, very strong). Apart they present no challenge to their often cruel schoolmates, but they discover that if they team up (in the form of the strong one taking to carrying the disabled boy on his shoulders), then they become almost invincible.

Neither Gove nor Sunak can individually present a challenge to Johnson, nor could they present a force to win over the Parliamentary Party - but united together things might be very different. Sunak has had his day of ascendency - but it was a case of 'up like the rocket, down like the stick'. Gove on the other hand is simply neither trusted nor liked enough to step up and challenge Johnson for the prime position. Put them together however and you have an altogether different animal. They could present a formidable challenge that would lift them above any of the prospective names that have been touted - the Hunt's and Truss's of Johnson's lackluster challengers - and could truly galvanise the party to move into the future.

Is this what lies behind today's report that the pair are both unhappy with the proposals in respect of changing the withdrawal agreement? Have they sussed out that there is an opportunity for both to overcome their current misfortunes/limitations and seize the big prize. If they haven't, then they should. And if they have, then you heard it here first!

[peter]

You won't often find me in the same room as Boris Johnson on anything, but in the case of food production I think we are both singing from the same hymn sheet.

It's all very well being in favour of 'rewilding' the country, getting back to a harmonious balance with our natural habitat etc, but the fact is that there are nearly seventy million people in this country and they all need feeding. Estimates of our percentage of imported food range from the official Government figures of around fifty percent to a whopping eighty percent if you believe the figures from other sources. Almost impossible to get a true picture of the situation, but the one thing that can be said is that the figure is way higher than it was back in the eighties, where around eighty percent of food consumed was home produced.

Post-war governments in the UK have always been very fearful of becoming too dependent upon imported food with good reason: during the second world war the country came within a couple of weeks of running out of food (it happens very quickly when you are feeding numbers in the millions) and it was long after the war ended that the brake in the form of food rationing, was able to be lifted off food consumption. Given the increased levels of uncertainty in the world in which we live, rising tensions and a (what looks like long-term) war in Europe, it makes absolute sense to prioritize both food and energy production - to become as near self sufficient in both areas as is possible. Lovely as the rewilding idea is, it must take second place to the absolute need to feed the population. This is a clear area of Government responsibility and Johnson does right to understand this and act accordingly.

-------------------------------------0-----------------------------'

But just to re-establish balance, where he definitely does not do right is to turn his back on his legally binding treaty with the EU by unilaterally scrapping parts of the withdrawal agreement pertaining to the Northern Ireland Protocol, thereby reducing relations with our former partners to their lowest level since we split. I have said before that our leaving the EU quite possibly represented the first step in the process that will lead to the next war in Europe in which we will feature as belligerents, and I meant it. The worsening relationship between ourselves and our former EU partners is plain for all to see, and we do well to remember that the roots of the organisation itself lie in a combined desire on the part of nations battered senseless by half a century of near ceaseless war to bring it to an end.

Against this backdrop, not only is Johnson's policy, introduced into the House for its first reading yesterday, both dangerous in respect of the fragile stability that pertains on the island of Ireland, but also to the ongoing peace in Western Europe which has held since 1945. Needless to say, against this backdrop, the need to establish security of both food and energy production in the UK becomes all the more important.

------------------------------------0------------------------

There is a really interesting story that I am trying to verify that in Spain, large numbers of the elite (including the head of research into Covid vaccine production) paid huge sums to be injected with saline solution as opposed to the genuine vaccination products, thereby allowing them to be registered as having been vaccinated (with all of the advantages in terms of travel and attending of venues/hospitality etc) without having actually had the vaccine at all.

Like Neil Oliver (on whose YouTube post "Are we Stupid" I heard about this accusation), if it is indeed true I'd like to ask that head of vaccine research what exactly it was that prompted him to do this? Could it have been that he was less sure about the wisdom of injecting himself with biotechnology products that were still essentially in the trial stages of development, than he would have had the rest of us believe? I battered on about this at the time. It seems that perhaps I wasn't the only one who had reservations. I'll try to find out more on this story and come back with an update.

[peter]

Here we go.

Pertaining to the item above in my last post, it appears that in a coordinated operation, 2,200 members of the Spanish elite and celebrity world have been charged with purchasing false Covid-19 vaccination documentation allowing their names to appear on the National Immunization Register when they have in fact had no more than the saline injections used in placebo trials.

Most significant of those being charged is Jose Maria Fernandez Sousa-Faro, President of Spanish pharmaceutical giant PharmaMar, one of the companies leading research into the very vaccines that Sousa-Faro avoided taking.

This information first hit the news-stands in Spain's second largest daily newspaper, El Mundo, but has as yet received little attention by our ever so vigilant media who would normally never miss a trick when it comes to something exposing a powerful individual's failings - say like Jeremy Corbyn's reported anti-Semitism. Surprising, that.

[Avatar]

I agree with Sky that in the long run, it is not too likely to have a significant effect on international perception, although perhaps more in Europe than elsewhere.

(As for the Spanish thing, I would take it with a grain of salt myself...Impossible to prove and shades of conspiracy theory, what?)

--A