What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

Reports in today's Guardian that rebel Tory backbench MPs are plotting to take control of the backbenchers committee, the 1922, by taking all eighteen seats on the said body when a selection is due to be made in three weeks time. This would free them to change the ruling that says Boris Johnson cannot face another vote of confidence within a year of his recent successful defence, when he scraped through with some forty percent of backbench Tory MPs saying they had no confidence in his leadership.

Meanwhile, in a different direction, Labour MP and Queen's Councillor Harriet Harmon has been named as the person who will lead the inquiry into whether Boris Johnson misled or lied to the House when he said (on multiple occasions) that there were no parties held in Downing Street and that all regulations had been followed. This appointment has caused a shout of outrage from Downing Street, who claim that Harmon is a biased Chairperson, already having implied that she believes Johnson to have lied. This will be, claim Downing Street, a "kangaroo court" which will have agreed in advance on the PM's guilt. Downing Street are also unhappy that witnesses will be able to give evidence anonymously - they had wanted the PM (with legal representation) to be able to subject witnesses to interrogation, but this apparently will not be allowed.

But much of this noise and complaining is probably strategy in itself. By starting early in its attempts to discredit the Parliamentary Privileges Committee investigation, the PM's office is preparing the ground for him to deny the validity of any findings that may not fall in his favour, and reduce the expectation that he would of necessity have to resign in the face of such negative findings. It would normally be the case that a minister who is found by such an investigation to have misled parliament would resign without delay - but of course Johnson (like Trump before him) is not bound by the rules of 'normal'.

But the news in other areas is doing nothing to help him. Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey said yesterday that the energy crisis will hit the UK worse than it's European counterparts, and that inflation is likely to be here for the long haul. The era of low inflation and interest rates is at an end, came his stark warning. His words were echoed by European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde, while Bailey hinted at a full half-percent raise in the base rate of interest, instead of the usual 0.1 percent moves, as he struggles to reign in inflation. None of this will serve to settle the nerves of Tory backbenchers who can see a crisis looming for them in the next general election.

Speaking of which, Boris Johnson is playing a canny hand, having hinted that he might go for a snap election this year on no less than three occasions - a possibility that will help to reign in potential rebellion within his ranks as MPs fear for their jobs should such an election be called. The election does not have to be held until December 2023, and the Tory backbenchers would like time to get their ducks in a row before they have to go to the polls. By threatening to spring this on them, Johnson is pulling the rug out from under possible dissenters from his leadership, by denying them time to get an organised revolt into play. Johnson is no fool, and he knows that an uncertain bunch of parliamentary backbenchers will be much easier to control than one who feel that time is on their side.

An additional headache for Johnson is the reportage on a fairly significant split within his cabinet on defence spending. John's, despite his avowed support of the fight in Ukraine against Russian aggression, is not backing his words up with money. In a turnaround from the Tory manifesto pledge to keep defence spending in line with inflation, Johnson is backing Chancellor Sunak in his refusal to announce increased sums, despite the war. On the other side, defence secretary Ben Wallace is clear that "this isn't defence spending.....it doesn't buy me more planes and ships." And Liz Truss, not to be outdone by the rising star of Wallace, is also letting it be known that she wants increased monies to go toward defence.

So once again, the "greased pig" of politics wakes up to find that the papers are not being kind to him, that the vultures are circling, the wolves smelling blood. Well - he has been described as a 'dead man walking' and as it says in the Bible, where the carcass is, there will the lions gather!

[peter]

(Gratitude to James O'Brien from whom the bulk of this post is egregiously lifted).)

The three pillars of our society, the church law and state, are all in their own way, under attack from the Johnson administration.

In the case of the church and the law, they both had the temerity to suggest that the policy of shipping our asylum seekers off to Rwanda (as indeed did Prince Charles, so I suppose we can include the monarchy in this as well as part of the state) was an immoral one and have duly been given a roasting thereby.

The church have been told in no uncertain terms that it should contain its comments to matters spiritual and leave the temporal stuff to the Government. There is a concerted campaign to paint the legal profession as (if you could believe it!) full of "lefty-lawyers" aiming to interfere with Government decision making, and (if a former Sun editor is to be believed) there is a likelihood that the recent "Prince Charles Accepts Suitcases Full of Cash from Dodgy Saudi Sheikh" was a Number 10 leak done in revenge for his saying that he found said Rwanda policy "appalling".

And of course it doesn't stop there. In attacking the impartiality of the Parliamentary Privileges Committee (in respect of its forthcoming investigation into the Johnson statements to the House), the Government is effectively putting into question the whole process of Government scrutiny by special committee - one of the fundamental processes via which the operation of the House is made practical, by in essence, taking a significant load away from the floor of the House itself and shifting the burden of scrutiny into select committee hands.

So the church is attacked, as is the law, the monarchy, the mechanisms of state. The universities don't get away with it either - I noted in a former post the attack on humanities courses, the means by which critical thinking skills are honed (always a danger to any administration that doesn't want an educated and thinking populace casting a cold eye upon its activities). The media is courted with promises of plum stories and interviews, and a revolving door operates between politics and the plum jobs therein - an incestuous relationship that undermines the very purpose of the institution - to hold the Government to account and ensure that what it does is legal, in the interest of the people and not beyond its constitutional remit.

So all in all, we have an administration hell-bent on undermining the very ground upon which our society rests. Hardly an area of life is not under attack in its own way and the PM himself seems to defy gravity and shrug off offences that would bring lesser mortals down with a bang. As I've mentioned, the normal form for any politician caught lying or misleading Parliament is to resign - but not the PM, not Johnson - because he's not normal and normal rules don't apply to him. He is the price we have to pay because he 'got brexit done', because in pursuit of that aim we chose to elect a man so palpably unfit for office that even his former campaign manager had stated so.

And as if any more proof were needed to demonstrate this, consider the following rather seedy revelation.

You will remember the recent story that appeared in the press, ever so briefly before it was pulled for whatever reasons (pressure of litigation or a quiet word in Murdoch's ear from Number 10 maybe), about Johnson, when he was Foreign Secretary having purportedly tried to get his then mistress a lucrative job in his office. Well according to this week's edition of the political magazine Private Eye, there is a bit more to this story that we hadn't been told. Reportedly, the affair between Johnson and his lover, then a press officer for the conservative party, only came to light when an unsuspecting work colleague caught them in flagrante in his foreign office office.

Understandably this is not the kind of thing that you want splashed all over the press - particularly if you were still married at the time of its occurrence - and you could understand why Johnson would (if it's true) want it suppressed. But more significant is the fact that it was suppressed, that the story was pulled (and this is the key point) as a result of pressure from Downing Street.

Personally I couldn't care less about Johnson getting his leg over in his office (silly bugger should have at least put a chair under the door handle - and let's hope there wasn't a 'Matt Hancock' style hidden camera in said office, or the story could get a whole lot more embarrassing yet) - but this isn't the point. The point is that it just shines a spotlight on the whole nature of the man. A man that will lie to his wife will not balk at lying to anyone else. And Johnson was not an innocent man, simply caught up in a love-affair over which he had no control. He was by all accounts a repeat offender. He was sacked from two jobs in the media for lying. His reputation goes ahead of him. But the main crime here was to think to use his office to feather the nest of his mistress. It's what his school teacher said with brass knobs on. "Boris cannot understand why everyone does not realize why he is different and why the rules that apply to normal people do not apply to him."

So this is our PM, and this is the Government he leads. Where does it end - I haven't a clue. But I have the feeling that Johnson is not concerning himself with that right now. He'll be laying down the groundwork for his next billet. Enjoying his freedom to do as he pleases with the enthusiasm of a kid in a sweetshop and a tenner in his pocket, and leaving the future to look after itself. The worry of that belongs to those who will have to live in it. Because Johnson won't - he'll be long gone by the time what he has done (or allowed to be done) comes to fruition.

[peter]

Labour MP Kate Hoey has said that Northern Ireland was "sacrificed" in order to get brexit done. Thing is, she isn't (at least, I don't think she is) talking about the peace in the province - she doesn't seem to worry too much about that. No, what arch-brexiteer Baroness Hoey (no less) is refering to is the border down the Irish Sea. The fact that Northern Ireland was hived off to remain in the single market and customs union, while the rest of the UK went off on its merry way.

Another thing she doesn't seem to mind is that the 'race to the bottom' in employment terms and conditions - that all leave campaigning MPs claimed was never going to happen - is now well under way. This Government is in the process of introducing legislation to allow agency labour to be brought in, in order to lessen the impact of striking workers (or indeed to break the strikes altogether) - legislation that would never have been allowed under European employment law. As a labour MP, presumably concerned with such matters, you'd think that such things might cause her to have misgivings about the course of action that she advanced, and has got her way on, but no - on this issue she is strangely silent. That the above legislation will effectively make possible the 'fire and rehire' policy that the Government was so, so enraged about when it was carried out by P&O ferries on their long term employees, is another issue which we won't go into here, but again this is not something that Hoey seems to loose any sleep over. What Hoey wants is the hardest of all brexits that she was denied by Johnson's withdrawal agreement, that would have slapped a border bang down the middle of the island of Ireland, and reignited the 'troubles' faster than they are already being so.

But what is it that Hoey thinks that her part of the United Kingdom has exactly lost (I should say here, that she was born in County Antrim in NI) by its remaining closer to the EU - in the single market and customs union where even some of the staunchest brexiteers of Parliament are suddenly (and belatedly, it must be said) shouting that the rest of the UK should have remained as well?

As the weeks and months roll into years, and the effects of our leaving the EU are becoming more apparent, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we have scored a serious own goal.. In an era of global crisis and readjustment, post Covid and pre net zero, in an era that is seeing world economic markets buffeted and battered beyond their recent experience and in which the spectre of war in Europe is once again casting its dark shadow over the continent, we find ourselves alone and unsupported, and likely to suffer harder and longer than any of our neighbors in the Western world. Our fall has been further, our recovery likely to be slower, we once again face the prospect of being the sick man of Europe.

With each passing day, the reports come in as to the harm we have done to ourselves. Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that as a direct consequence of brexit our imports versus exports had risen to unprecedented levels, our balance of payments deficit is through the roof, and today the same paper reports that Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair says that the shortage of labour currently crippling his industry is directly attributable to the same. We are predicted by the OECD to be the slowest growing economy in the G7 in the next year and second to bottom in the G20 with only Russia sitting below us.

And when pressed to come up with the benefits that brexit has brought us, those who advanced the project are left at a loss. We can now sell fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces they tell us (we could before brexit). We can have a crown on the side of a pint of beer (we could do that as well). The latest one is some kind of thing relating to the painting of exit signs in road tunnel markings, that one dreamed up by Minister for Brexit Opportunities Jacob Rees-Mogg, or was it Lord Brexit himself, Nigel Farage, when asked for a tangible benefit that exiting had resulted in.

It may be that that comment was passed in humour - we already know the benefits that brexit brought Rees-Mogg..... his personal wealth rose to the tune of seven million pounds was it, on the day that we exited or something (I forgot the exact details) - but the truth is that we have shot ourselves in the foot big-time and the timing (if it ever could have been good) could not have been worse. We are the only country in the world to have deliberately and egregiously inflicted harm - serious harm - on our own economy, by our own choice, and the results of that folly are now coming home to roost.

It was always going to be a long term project, will be another of the excuses that you will hear put forward by those who advocated the move, sitting alongside the, we got the wrong kind of brexit one. It's all the remainers fault, it isn't even brexit, we're still bound in the EU, it'll come right in ten years or so........ you'll hear it all in the coming weeks and months as things go to hell in a handcart - but the truth, plain and simple is that we blew it. It was the wrong move at the wrong time, plain and simple. There's not much point in it all coming right in a few decades time if by that point we are so damaged as to be rubbing shoulders with Zimbabwe and Burundi, let alone be bottom of the G20. In fairness, it was always going to be a gamble; there was no way of knowing as you walked down the polling station toward the booth, whether leaving would work or not - it was a punt in the dark that you were either up for or not - and in the sales pitch of emotions versus reason, emotions was always going to win.

But we are where we are and there's not much point in bemoaning it (or, come to that, casting too much blame around). But it's pretty obvious now, if it wasn't before - and most remainers will say that it was - that we've been sold a pup. Boris Johnson said recently (and this is another refrain you'll here more of as time goes on) that we should "stop going on about brexit". Well, as was recently observed by someone I was listening to, that in itself is an admission that it was a dumb moove. When, they asked, was the last time you heard someone saying that you should stop going on about something that had been a resounding success? I'm not thinking or expecting to hear Johnson telling us to stop going on about the vaccine rollout anytime soon. I'd be a bit more mollified if one of them would actually just *admit* that they got it wrong.

But there you have it. Someone do me a favour and put the miserable Kate Hoey's feet to the fire over her brexit position will you. Aside from that I've had enough of it. Just getting Johnson out will be victory enough for me at the present. The screw up of brexit will have to be dealt with by the forthcoming generation for whom we have left such a mess. On the Johnson thing - what the fuck is he still doing as PM? The Tories knew that he wouldn't be able to run the country when they voted him in? What the hell is he still doing in there - he was always a one-trick pony and they knew that?

C'mon guys! Do what you know you have to do. Get the blonde fucker out on his arse and into the history books, and let's get to sorting this mess out!

[peter]

There is an agreement right across the front benches of both the Government and the opposition that we, the working people of this country should suck up an effective pay-cut by the acceptance of below inflation level pay increases. Not to do so, or even worse, to participate in industrial action in order to force higher level raises, would be socially irresponsible and lead to greater inflationary pressures on the economy.

This will be an argument that you will hear increasingly leveled across the media by politicians of all stripes as they seek to distance themselves from the workers who have the temerity to demand more. In the case of the Tories, one is not surprised that they are not behind workers on this, but in respect of the Labour leadership, it is a harder one to understand.

Of course, as Tony Blair let out on his Newsnight interview the other day, it's all about the optics. "If the Labour leadership is serious about wanting to get into Government," he said, "they have to start thinking about what they would say as if they were in Government - to present themselves as a suitable alternative to the one currently in situ." David Lammy, Shadow Secretary for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, said that it was all about negotiation and that he was not in favour of strike action, even in the face of little alternative being available to the workers in question.

But the funny thing here is that, though we wre hearing this united front in respect of our 'responsibility' to not pursue raises that keep pace with inflation, you hear no such calls for business, for landlords, for company shareholders, to take their share of this responsibility.

A case in point would be rents, which are set to rise on average by fifteen percent in the near future, but without any clamour from the Government that landlords should "be responsible", should take a hit to their profits, by accepting less than inflation rate increases. Similarly in the shops and in the purchasing of services, prices are rising often at higher rates than even the general rate of inflation, but without any suggestion that restraint should be exercised here - that perhaps some level of profit should be sacrificed for the greater good.

On the contrary, here it is business as usual, scooping it in and expecting the punter to shoulder the cost - the bottom line must be protected at all costs. But when it comes to the worker it's a different story. Suddenly it becomes irresponsible to not be prepared to take the hit, to see your standard of living knocked back ten, twenty, fifty years.

Which is why a straight talking bloke like Mick Lynch is suddenly resonating so well with how the punters feel. To see a bloke stand up and say, "No - fuck it! You take the hit for a change. Why should it always be the worker that shoulders the burden. Give us an inflation matching pay settlement (we didn't cause the inflation after all - we had nothing to do with it) and work out another way around it."

Well good luck to him, I say. More power to his elbow! Time and again those at the coal-face of our society have been expected to take the hit at the expense of protecting the profits of the few. I'm all for the looking after the interest of business, of service, in this country, but it must be prepared to shoulder its own proportion of the hit that is coming: it can't be wholly left to the working man and woman to carry the can.

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

On which subject, the supporting of business, is where my next comments will be directed.

It's not rocket science to get that business is the cornerstone upon which a whole society, a whole economy rests. Without business, there is no economy. A government has no money of its own. Every penny that it spends is money that it takes from the people, from the business that gives them labour and wages in return for the same, and as such it is the economy (and the business behind it) that is - and is always - the chief priority of any Government.

Which is why the single act of brexit - and the current activities of the Johnson administration - are so inexplicable in terms of what common sense dictates, as to be away with the fairies.

To drive a wedge between yourself and your biggest trading partner, the most successful trading block in the world - and then to exacerbate the situation by heaping insult onto injury and refusing to abide by agreements which you have signed but short months previously....... This is surely madness!

Our exports to the EU have fallen by fifteen percent in the last eighteen months and there is no sign that they will do anything but continue to fall. Small businesses in their tens of thousands are post brexit, finding it impossible to continue to export at all. Medium sized businesses are struggling to cope with the increased bureaucracy and costs that it entails and larger companies are simply passing these on to customers in a manner that is adding to our already crippling inflation.

And if the effects on exports are bad, the effects on labour - that other plank upon which business depends - are even worse. The travel industry is on its knees as a result of shortage of labour, as are the hospitality industry, the care sector and the itinerant labour dependent sectors of our agriculture. Barely a section of our economy is not effected by this and we have the almost unprecedented situation of a market awash with jobs, but with no available labour with which to fill them.

Such is the ineptitude of our Government, that far from acting in what is the clear and obvious necessity, by seeking to mitigate these dual problems of exports and labour that we face, it instead chooses to drive the wedge between ourselves and our biggest and closest trading partner even deeper than it currently is. This is madness heaped upon folly.

And it could all be sorted out overnight. By the simple expedient of our rejoining the single market and customs union, all export restrictions and increased administration could be lifted, the labour we so desperately need would flood back in, and we could begin to undo the damage that we have inflicted upon ourselves in our acts of willful self-harm over the last five years.

But our Government will never do this. To afraid of the backlash from the right of their membership, they will pursue this course of madness until our bleeding corpse is pulled from the gutters of world history and presented, stuffed and mounted, for the gaze of posterity to rest upon.

Look upon our works, ye Mighty and despair! Nothing remains beside the decay of our colossal wreck.....

(Boris Johnson; July 2022)

[peter]

Sir Kier Stamer, with the unerring accuracy of a man who can always be guaranteed to miss the target by a country mile, has come out and said that he has a plan to make brexit work, and it will be unveiled under the inspired new slogan of ......error.......Make Brexit Work.

The problem with this (as I see it Sir Kier) is that, the slogan isn't new, the promotion of it isn't new and (and here comes the real deal-breaker) there isn't actually a plan.

Because what 'the plan' really consists of, is saying lots of stuff about what the plan isn't, about what you won't do. Like rejoining the EU - you won't do that. Or rejoining the single market. You won't do that either. Or even the customs union. Nope - not that either. Freedom of movement? Forget it!

Okay Sir Kier - what is the plan....... What will you actually do to Make Brexit Work? Well we'll make new veterinary agreements and we'll make new security agreements and we'll .....Make Brexit Work!

Okay - enough with the piss-taking, I've actually got a degree of sympathy for Stamer in that I recognize the absolutely invidious position he finds himself in over the subject. It killed Labour in the last election and Stamer is keenly aware that it could well kill it again in the next. So what should he do?

Well, to date he has avoided the subject like the plague and has barely mentioned it since becoming leader. Unlike his Parliamentary Party, which is/was pretty much remainer to a man, his voter base out in the country is absolutely split down the middle, with his red-wall voters in the North in particular (who lent their votes to the Conservative candidates in the last election, thereby granting Johnson the majority he needed) simply waiting to be alienated once again.

But Stamer is not going to make that mistake. He knows full well that we need to be in the single market and customs union. We need all those EU workers to come and do the jobs for whom there are currently no workers (or that we simply won't do). But he is never going to say this. Instead he is staking his claim to the leaver votes that Labour lost in the last election by saying that this stuff is not going to happen. But in saying so, in playing the political game rather than saying what he knows to be true (that we desperately need to be back in these things), he risks pushing out as many votes on the other side (ie votes that will flee to the Liberal-Democrats, who come out and say clearly that we should re-enter the single market and customs union) as he pulls back in from the lost/lent Labour leave voters who voted Tory in the last election.

So why do I think he has missed the mark? Because he has failed to judge the country's mood is why. The pitfalls of the way that we left the EU are now so glaringly obvious to all but the most knuckle-headed non-thinker or the most swivel-eyed nationalist tub-thumper (who cares not a jot about the prosperity of the country as long as there are no black faces in it) that by this point a statement of the obvious will chime with the voter, not alienate him. People are in the main, ready for a dose of the truth. They can see that we got it wrong and will be prepared to see how it must be put right. Stamer needs to see that the lost voters of the North will come back of their own accord; Johnson the fool, has seen to this himself with his lies and his partying and all the rest of his shenanigans. He (Stamer) now needs to simply play it straight and he can get the votes from both sides of the brexit divide.

But as usual, he gets it wrong and takes the path that will once again result in Labour being decimated at the polls.

C'est la vie!

[peter]

An interesting hour of politics by any standards with the 'suprise' resignations of two of Johnson's key cabinet members, namely Health Secretary Sajid Javid followed very shortly thereafter (literally minutes between them) by the PM's Chancellor, Rishi Sunak.

The two men's offices are at pains to make clear that there was no prior collusion between the men for it to happen this way, but clearly at the least we can say that Javid's resignation must have pushed Sunak to rapidly follow suit, even if the two had not agreed the timing in advance.

The resignations follow the statement this morning of a previous head of the civil service that directly contradicted Johnson's claim that he had no prior knowledge of the disgraced ex Deputy Chief Whip's less than spotless past before appointing him to the position. (I haven't been talking about it, but Johnson's deputy chief whip went out on the piss last week, and groped a couple of blokes at a private members club. Turns out that he had a history of this kind of thing, but Johnson had ignored this and appointed him anyway.) Johnson had first sent out Dominic Raab this morning to contradict this version of events (ie that he, Johnson had been briefed on specific allegations made against the Whip way back when he was Foreign Secretary) and then later in the day claimed that, yes, this was the case but he had "forgotten about it".

He then gave a press conference in which he apologized for his error of judgement in appointing the transgressor to the position, and it was during the airing of this interview on the six o'clock news that suddenly, first Javid's and then Sunak's, resignations came in.

No ordinary politician would be able to survive the losses of such key members of the cabinet (the Chancellor in particular is deemed to be almost as important to a Government as the PM himself) - but Johnson is no ordinary politician. He has in the last weeks and months let it be known that he will not go quietly, but will have to be dragged out of Number 10 kicking and screaming......... and if what has occurred in the last hour is anything to go by, we might be about to see just that!

Numbers of the cabinet have immediately let it be known that they will not be deserting the PM (think the no-hopers like Dorries and Raab, Rees-Mogg and Schapps, who would never be in another cabinet again if Johnson were to loose his position) but significant others have yet to come out in support. Nadim Zahawi has yet to call it, and he definitely has leadership ambitions, and so far there is no word from Gove or Theresa Coffey. One more cabinet resignation in the next day or so (or indeed a couple of non-cabinet ministers) and Johnson is toast.

He's probably toast already, but the man's reputation as a greased pig is legendary. He slips out of pratfalls and traps that would leave others hanging up by the balls, and whose to say what could happen here. But for sure there will be much calculating going on in the Tory Party, much texting, phoning and meeting in shadowy corners, as politicians decide which side of the fence is it best to be on when the inevitable axe falls. To quick to jump, and if Johnson survives then your political career is over. Stay with him too long and you are tarnished by his disgraceful reputation. Jump and go for the honourable resignation look, or remain loyal and wear the stalwart servant outfit, sadly resigned to having to step up to the plate when your party and country needs you? Tricky calculations to make at a febrile time like this, and ones that your entire future could depend upon.

It's often said however that the one that weilds the knife never wears the crown, and I'm betting that this will apply to both Javid and Sunak. They've started the ball rolling and Johnson's crown may fall - but my gut feeling is that it won't fall into either of their laps.

[peter]

A sort of eerie calm has descended on things this morning, following last night's drama in which the Prime Minister faced off a revolt that now seems to be accepted as a coordinated push by his ex Chancellor and Health Secretary.

I speculated above as to whether the then minister for education Nadhim Zahawi would follow suit and jump ship (thereby dealing Johnson the death blow needed to finish him off), but it appears that, while he obviously thought about it, the chance for advancement now as opposed to the possibility of advancement in the future won over. Rumor has it that Johnson had wanted to appoint the current foreign secretary Liz Truss to the prime position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but Zahawi used his leverage to muscle her out by saying that if he didn't get the job, he was walking. (Should make for an interesting atmosphere in the Cabinet meeting later today.)

The feeling this morning ranges from Johnson's being finished - that he cannot recover from the wounds that Javid and Sunak have inflicted - to his clinging onto his position by the thinnest whisp of his fingertips. Certainly either could be true, but one fact remains - he's still there, and while ever that remains to be the case he's still in with a chance.

This morning he is trying to rally his team to come out swinging: the talk from the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg is that the Sunak departure could free up the PM to give the tax reductions that Sunak so opposed. The PM will come out defiantly optimistic and determined to soldier on. (One report has it that when asked by one of his aides whether he would resign following the resignations, his response was "Fuck that!") He will say that he now has the freedom to pursue his own aims, with a Chancellor by his side who is in tune with the same. Change, he will say, is good, and it's a good thing to have cleared the decks and blown away some steam. He will, he will say, now get on with the job he was elected to do.

But it might not be that easy. Both Javid and Sunak referred to the PM's integrity and honesty in Government (if not using those actual words, then obliquely) and Sunak said in his resignation letter that the British public could be relied upon to realise the truth - that if something looked to good and sounded too good, then it probably was too good (he was referring to Johnson's plan to reduce taxes while simultaneously increasing spending - a policy mixture that he, Sunak, thought was misguided and inflationary).

I speculated that a few non-cabinet ministerial resignations could also bring Johnson down, but while a number of junior ministers have indeed jumped ship, no-one of sufficient clout to unseat the PM has yet done so.

So has the coup (or revolt) failed? Well, it's certainly stalled for the moment - but failed, it's to early to say. Truss probably feels like walking - she's bound to be pissed that Zahawi pushed her out of the plum job - but if she did so now it would look like sour grapes and would damage her future chances of getting the top job. In fact, her staying in with the now despised PM at all has probably damaged her chances anyway (as it has, the chances of any of the other people who have pledged their support for the sooner or later doomed PM). The clever money was to distance yourself from the failing Johnson and his amoral shenanigans when the chance arose (trouble with that was that, if you weren't first or second to do so, then you looked like a follower rather than a leader) rather than stick around to be tainted by his stench. The 'loyal and steadfast servant' thing is good - but not if the person you are loyal to has the image of a Hitler or a Hussain (not suggesting that Johnson has that bad a reputation, but it isn't - let's face it - good).

Zahawi himself will also have damaged his chances by displaying that his thirst for power trumps his rectitude. He will be soiled by association with Johnson, where Javid and Sunak (albeit late in the day) have shown that they at least have a point beyond which their moral compass will kick in and say that enough is enough. Or that, at least, is the impression that they are trying to project; in reality they are just playing the power-game like as though it were a game of chess, always after toppling the king and grabbing his crown. Sunak, in particular, has indicated that he still fancies a pop at the top job, despite his star having waned considerably of late. He clearly thinks he can overcome this and win back lost ground - and maybe he can, maybe he can.

Anyway, the day will bring whatever it brings. Maybe Johnson will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of yesterday's debacle - or maybe the machinations of the Tory Party in blood-frenzy will bring him down yet. But as Beth Rigby said following the resignations yesterday.... things look like they're about to get messy - very messy indeed!

(Edit: One last thought. Will Johnson go for a final throw of the dice and call for a snap election? It would be a shit or bust ploy to pull the party behind him and could well backfire. But he's in a corner to be sure, and it may be his best shot at survival. Watch, as they say, this space!)

[peter]

Cripes! I'm not sure where we go from here?

In a bizarre sort of UK version of the Trump endgame, yesterday Boris Johnson literally refused, against the massed advice of virtually his entire cabinet, against the resignation of 42 of his Government Ministers, against the advice of the 1922 committee of backbenchers that he could not win a shortly to be announced second confidence vote, to throw in the towel.

In an act of defiance that some have described as delusional, the PM said that he had a personal mandate from the British people to continue to do the job he had been elected to do (some truth in that, but no evidence that that mandate would be repeated tomorrow in the face of Johnson's behaviour since he was voted PM - well, not exactly, but you know what I mean - in the last election) and would under no circumstances quit. To enforce his meaning, he sacked his levelling up secretary Michael Gove, calling him a disloyal/backstabbing/plotting schemer whose loyalty had never been worth a spit (or words to that effect) when Gove had the temerity to be the first to tell him that the game was up.

By this morning virtually every cabinet member of note has told him in person that he should quit - but he simply won't have it. "You'll have to dip your hands in blood" are his words to his cabinet this morning, screamed in huge letters from the front page of the Sun newspaper, and it seems that all but the most sycophantic Johnson loyalists are prepared to do so. In fact the only ones to date who have not advised his departure, or suddenly been called away on 'important business', are the 'spaniel like' Nadine Dorries (whose interest in the PM seems to be slightly more than political, if you get my drift) and Jacob Rees-Mogg who is not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box (to put it mildly).

Priti Patel, Grant Schapps, Suella Braverman and even newly appointed Chancellor Zahawi have all told the PM that the game is up, and foreign secretary Liz Truss and defence secretary Ben Wallace (both possible leadership contenders) have kept silent, offering neither support nor advice to the beleaguered PM and only the cabinet fools Dorries and Rees-Mogg remain on-side.

So what happens now?

Well, assuming (as one MP put it) Johnson hasn't actually lost the plot - I mean seriously....gone bat-shit crazy on us - then I suppose we wait until after the weekend by which point the second vote of confidence will be organised. Presumably Johnson then gets beaten and has, like it or not, to step down - or he refuses, calls in the army and transforms us overnight into a military style dictatorship. No - only kidding - I have no doubt that in the event of his loosing a second vote of confidence that he would go, and then we have a leadership contest for a replacement PM first by the Parliamentary Tory MPs and then (to decide between the final two candidates) a ballot of the Party membership.

Johnson is adamant that such a leadership contest would see the Tories out of power for a decade and is determined to press on with the business of Government, despite his travails. He told the liaison committee yesterday that he was having a "splendid week", and there is a suggestion that he might try to unleash a blitz of tax-cuts and spending pledges in an attempt to woo his backbenchers and the public back on-side, all cobbled together with the aid of the new Chancellor - who yesterday was amongst those telling him to quit.

It's unprecedented: it's unparalleled. By now 'Big Dog' should be Big Log (nasty, that - don't think about it) ready to be flushed down the pan of history. But like unto that other unpleasant intrusion into our workaday lives, it simply refuses to 'quit the scene'.

(Edit; With upwards of sixty Government ministers and sundry individuals having now resigned Boris Johnson has bowed to the inevitable and announced his intention to resign as PM. As one wag put it yesterday, who would have thought that Boris Johnson would ever be forced to resign over a sex scandal that didn't involve him! )

[Avatar]

Damn it, you beat me again.

Well well. I never thought I'd see the day when that buffoon bowed to inevitability.



What fresh hell awaits...

--A

[peter]

I was up at not much after 5am this morning Av.

I've watched the man's resignation speech today. Not a shred of regret or humility over what he has done to his party or the country. All about self, self, self. Now to add insult to injury, he's sticking in post while a successor is chosen, despite the deep unhappiness of the majority of his backbenchers at this idea. He can make shit-loads of mischief while he waits for this to be done, hence the reason why they want him out of office asap.

Looks like there's going to be a wide choice of potential leadership bids coming forward in the next day or two. Michael Gove has ruled himself out, but the attorney general Suela Braverman has stepped up (she's pretty on the right of the party) and will likely be joined by Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid, and Jeremy Hunt very shortly. Steve Baker (also from the right wing) has indicated that he is thinking about running, and Tom Tugendhat from the left is also thought to be ready to declare.

Johnson's continuing presence is casting a pall over the whole proceedings, with some even suggesting that he might simply try to dig in until the October conference and try to rehabilitate himself in the party's eyes in so doing. If say, Russia were to bomb Kiev and Johnson were to visit Zelensky (who has already tweeted that Johnson will be sorely missed by both himself and the people of Ukraine), he could make really good political capital from it and then woo the conference, leaving on a high note. Dominic Cummings has warned that he is up to something, and while it's difficult to see what he can do to prevent the inevitable, one simply cannot trust him. This is why the backbenchers want him out.

If Johnson did decide to do something for his party instead of just thinking about himself for a change, he could go to the queen and ask to be released, after which a caretaker leader could take up the reins (say deputy PM Dominic Raab for example) until the new leader is elected. With no sign of Johnson's being prepared to do this, the Tories are at present trying to rush through the early stage leadership contest preparations, in order to minimise the time he gets to remain in office.

Johnson to a tee, right to the end.



The problem for the Tories at present is that they are essentially two parties within a single party. The left, one nation Tory Party of old (as it were) still holds many seats but is matched by a much more right wing element as represented by the ERG group of the brexit referendum. There is no way that candidates from each wing can unify both elements and bring the party back to a single functional entity. This leadership election threatens to blow the party apart, if not physically in Parliament, then at least in the eyes of the electorate who will be watching on. The division within the party is deep and toxic and this election can only serve to bring this out.

[peter]

You can't write much of an epitaph on Boris Johnson's premiership except to say that he got brexit over the line (done? - not a chance..... they're two different things), he delivered a good vaccine rollout (well - he allowed our world class NHS service to deliver it via an impressive temporary infrastructure of other minister's making), and he destroyed his almost unassailable position, his unequalled power to do pretty much as he chose (in terms of political policy), by his complete inability to rein in the worst aspects of his character - the same aspects that are epitomised by his throwing that champagne bottle from the window of his chauffeur driven car on his way down for a sexy weekend with his floozy of the day, all those years ago. He was a man who simply could not rein himself in, could not get himself to believe, to understand, that the rules applied to him as well.

She had asked, from the back seat where they were canoodling and drinking, what she should do with the empty bottle. He took it from her, wound down the window, and said, "This."

There you have it in that one contemptuous gesture. A two fingered salute to all of the standards and rules that apply to the common herd (the same herd that he referred to, with the same contempt yesterday in his resignation speech), a desire to be seen as 'the big man', as something above the norm, and free to pursue his desires and ends by whatever means, fair or foul, that were expedite on the day, without cost or liability.

And now he can retire, safe in the knowledge that his earning potential is staggering - almost infinite - upon the back of his (previous) occupation of the role of Prime Minister of the UK. Book contracts in the millions, speech appointments in the millions, executive directorships that yield hundreds of thousands without even having to turn up for work. The sky is the limit. Yet he leaves behind him a smoking ruin of a party, a country not much better, and a legacy of brexit that for which, even the Financial Times say this morning, that the future prospects do not look good.

Already the blood-fest that will be the Tory Party leadership election has started. On last night's Newsnight, Jacob Rees-Mogg said of former chancellor Rishi Sunak's leadership bid, "Rishi was not a good Chancellor, he was a Chancellor who was not alert to the inflationary problem." This will be as nothing in the days and weeks ahead as the Tory wolves step out and show their true colours. For three weeks plus they will devour themselves and each other in a feeding frenzy that will make a shark kill look like feeding time at the front-room goldfish bowl.

Then, having chosen their next champion, they'll try to pretend that everything is back to normal, that they all love each other really, and they are a "united party" centered around a common set of goals (which could be true I suppose - if self enrichment and contempt for anyone or anything not successful in scrambling over the shoulders of his compatriots to reach the top of the greasy pole are the goals in question).

And what of the Labour Party? My first thinking is that the police in Durham will suddenly find that the heat is off them in coming to a decision on the guilt or otherwise of the Labour leader, and will to a degree be freed from the political ramifications of any decision that they come to. I think that they will put Labour leader Kier Stamer in a difficult position regarding his own leadership by saying that he did break the rules of no gatherings for social purposes during lockdowns - but that they are not going to fine him. Stamer has pledged to resign if fined for breaking the rules - but left open the question if he will do so if only found to have broken the rules, but is not fined.

To date he simply hasn't responded to any questions on this point. I think he's about to be tested on it, and as an ex head of the Crown Prosecution Service, it would not look good if he were to be seen to be playing word games with the law. If he's found guilty, the press will scream for his blood and the Labour Party will have little choice but to deliver him up. Then we'll have a change of leadership in both parties. I'm putting my money on this. Stamer is simply not cutting through as Labour leader and the change from Boris Johnson in the Tories is going to demand something new and fresh from the Labour Party as well. Already, the realisation that a new Tory leader with nearly two years to 'bed in' represents a disaster for any chance of victory in the next general election is hitting home in Labour circles - just how much more would they have liked to go to that election against a Tory leader that oversaw a thirty thousand vote swing against the party in a safe Conservative seat, cannot be overstated. The retreat of Johnson and his replacement with a new leader untainted by his scandals is a disaster for Labour, and they are going to need to respond with something big themselves in order to counter it. Johnson has already laid the groundwork for the fight against the party in the next election by saying that they would overturn brexit and take the country back into the EU. This will be the continued thrust of the new Tory leadership over the coming months, despite Stamer's recent statements to the contrary.

So everything is in abeyance until this 'little local difficulty' is sorted out. The Government of the nation is paralysed, in total stasis while the new Tory leader and PM is found. Hence why most Tory MPs want Johnson out - because in the face of the greatest trauma that the country has faced for decades, he has pledged not to perform any significant policy changes (it was the only way he could stay on as caretaker leader) thus paralysing the Government's ability to act. At least a new caretaker PM might be trusted to meet our most pressing needs as they arise. We have a summer of threatened discontent, strikes without number in the offing, a cost of living crisis, inflation running rampant, a potential new wave of covid, a war in Ukraine, a looming trade war with Europe and the potential for a breakdown of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, food and supply chain issues, a crisis in the labour market with hundreds of thousands of unfilled jobs and no workers to do them........ and now no Government.

I mean it. No Government. One of the reasons why Johnson eventually saw the reality of the situation was when it became clear that there were no ministers or MPs available to replace the tsunami of those resigning - that Government was grinding to a halt. And so it remains. At the education department there are no Minister's in position whatsoever. Others are down to levels where they are barely functional. There is currently, and at the worst possible time given our current parlous state, no effective Government in the UK. If that isn't a sobering thought to begin your day with in the UK, then I don't know what is.

[TheFallen]

Johnson strikes me pretty much as the archetypal and classic Shakespearian tragic anti-hero.

There's no doubt that in many ways the guy is no fool - and a lot smarter than his adopted bumbling persona would lead one to believe. He could have been a good PM - not a great one at all in the league of Churchill and Thatcher, but a good one nonetheless.

However, much like the otherwise laudable Macbeth and Othello were each undone by their own fatal flaws (blind ambition in one case and blind jealousy in the other), Boris was entirely the architect of his own comeuppance, brought down by his own personal Achilles heel... blind arrogance.

I'm next to certain that this loathsome and career-ending character trait was at least in part engendered by his background - he was brought up in a sphere of immense wealth and immense privilege. As such, his sickening sense of entitlement, "far better than thou" and "do as I say, not do as I do - I make the rules for the little people to obey - they don't apply to me" have been entirely ingrained for decades. It's not coincidental that he's yet another product of the rarified cloisters of Eton school, the greenhouse for the uber-privileged - along with many others, odiously slick "Call me Dave" Cameron and repugnantly supercilious Jacob Rees-Mogg (the man with the face one would never tire of punching) were close contemporaries of Bozo there.

The resignation speech was an exercise in disgrace, evidencing an utter lack of self-awareness and as such, absolutely yes, very Trumpian. Not one scintilla of apology or accepting responsibility for his eternal levels of blatant dishonesty. Instead, according to BoZo, he's been thrown out by "the herd" and that is, he tells us, an "eccentric" decision.

No, BoZo. It's all of your own making. And the fact that even at this point you are still utterly incapable of realising this only goes to show that your overweening arrogance is blind indeed.

The Johnson saga very definitely merits being turned into a cautionary tale. One counselling against hubris.

As to replacements? Nobody in the least confidence-inspiring springs to mind. I imagine that (ironically) we'll get some anodyne and weak-willed Keir Starmer clone - which really isn't what we need right now. Here's a list of those who'd be not at all a good thing, IMV:-

Liz Truss (God help us)
Priti Patel (Pol Pot in Louboutin high heels)
Michael Gove (shoot me now)
Grant Shaaps (great idea - give the leadership to the guy who's screwed up transport)
Sajid Javid (what'd be the point?)
Nadim Zahawi (ditto - equally a non-event)

And my personal jury's out on:-

Jeremy Hunt (ever the bridesmaid, never the bride)
Tom Tugendhat (I don't know enough)
Ben Wallace (ditto)
Penny Mordaunt (who?)
Suella Braverman (Who??)
Steve Baker (WHO???)

And then there's Rishi... without a doubt a competent chancellor in very difficult times (Sajid Javid, who was briefly the previous chancellor, took a look at the unexpected avalanche heading towards him and promptly ran away to hide). But would Rishi make a good PM? I am not at all sure...

[peter]

Hey TF!

Crossover post there - I was dotting the i's etc while you posted!

Do you think that Stamer will go shortly as well? I'm betting on it.

On the Tory leadership, I'd take a punt on Ben Wallace. He's the only Minister not tainted by association with Johnson (he's kept himself to himself and concentrated on his job), he's riding high on his dealing with the Ukraine crisis and the public like him. He also has the only real justification for staying in situ during the Pincher debacle because of the need for stability at the top of our defence administration. He'll reap the rewards of this and secure the top job.

[TheFallen]

Hey Pete

I don't know whether Keir will get the bullet or not - it depends on Durham as you say. There are some real militant harpies on the Labour front bench right next to him, so I'm actually okay with an ineffectual stuffed shirt as Labour leader!

Re the Tories, I think it'll come down to:-

Ben Wallace
Tom Tugendhat
Jeremy Hunt
Rishi Sunak (if he throws his hat in).

As to who'd be the least crappy choice (it was ever thus), I'm not sure... out of the above, Hunt seems the least memorable.

*** Added Edit ***

News just in. Durham Police have cleared Sir Keir "no charisma, no personality, no backbone and no cojones" Starmet and Angela "Hell, I've got more chip-on-the-shoulder bottled-up aggression for the both of us" Rayner of breaching lockdown regulations.

[peter]

Yes - I timed that prediction to perfection!

This morning, Rishi Sunak has thrown his hat into the ring with a slick video presentation of himself as 'the grown up candidate' - the one who will tell it like it is. Though he seems to be the bookies favourite and the papers have been very - almost strangely - accepting of his very un-Conservative intention to stay with high taxes until the economy, in particular inflation, is back under control, I'm not so sure that the Parliamentary Party or indeed the Tory membership will wear it. A list of things that could do for him reads i) his high tax record and intentions, ii) his perceived role in the bringing down of Johnson, iii) his wealth and the non-dom business, iv) Johnson/Number 10 are determined that he won't be rewarded for his perfidy, v) the unmentionable thing that the membership might hold against him.

The list of announced runners is still pretty short, but prospective ones seems to be endless. I'd thought that Ben Wallace would be right up there, but the membership it seems have not much heard of him. He could come through yet, but I don't know.... I just tremble at the idea of Liz Truss or (God save us) Priti Patel securing the job - surely there must be someone better amongst the (one paper suggests) dozens of potential hopefuls out there? But whatever way, it looks like it's going to be a packed field and under such circumstances odd results can be thrown up.

In terms of Stamer's being cleared, yesterday he gave a press conference where for the first time ever he threw away that wounded puppy thing and actually looked like a potential leader in waiting. Certainly he is riding on a crest of relief and will fly high for a while, especially in the face of the Tory gladiatorial blood-fest.

As for Johnson, the cheap bastard. Turns out that he wants to stay in situ so as to be able to throw a big shindig at Chequers without having to spring a chunk of dosh for it. Who'd have guessed it!

[peter]

Well, the second of my predictions has fallen with the declaration of Defense Secretary Ben Wallace not to stand for the Tory leadership, but to be fair to him, who can blame him.

The country is in such turmoil, has been reduced to such a shit-show by that clown - no, not clown..... clowns are 'funny' and there is nothing funny about Johnson - nothing funny at all - by the soon to be ex Prime Minister, that you'd have to be nuts to want the job.

You will sit at the head of a country on the verge of industrial action the scale of which has not been seen for half a century, ditto inflation, the economy in tatters, the worst effects of brexit heading towards us like an express train toward a virgin tied on the tracks and in charge of a Union about to be torn asunder with the attendant loss of power, security and respect that will bring. There will be food and supply shortages in the offing, an energy price crisis on your plate within days of taking office, no money, no trade policy, no-one in the world with the slightest interest in dealing with us and a legacy of the almost criminal negligence of your party in reducing us to this state, sitting on your shoulders for the press and media generally to take pot-shots at.

Who in their right mind would want to step into Johnson's shoes and take up the mantle of leadership that he has so unwillingly set aside?

Well, let's have a look.

We've got Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak. We know about them. We've got Liz Truss, not actually declared yet, but about to do so. We've got Nadhim Zahawi, the ex education secretary, who bulldozed himself into the Chancellor's position and then promptly told Johnson it was time to quit. We've got Jeremy Hunt who has the single advantage of never having been inJohnson's Government.

Actually I'm going to stop there for a moment.....

Think about it. These people, with the exception of Hunt, are going to stand there on the hustings and tell us how integrity and honesty are key to their pitch's, how they were mortified by what transpired under the Johnson watch - yet to a man and woman, they came out week after week and supported him. Peddled his excuses, enabled his worst excesses, covered for his transgressions. Never so much as turning a hair, they enabled the single worst Prime Minister that this country has ever had to traduce the honourable tradition of their party, to lie and cheat and bamboozle his way through his premiership, for three agonizing years. They oversaw the wrecking of the economy, the reduction of our reputation to the level of the guy who follows a circus elephant around with a shovel, the bringing of our best traditions to their knees - and they did not a thing to stop it. On the contrary, they stayed with the PM until the end, or at best, only jumped ship when it was absolutely clear that the Johnson premiership had crash-burned beyond the point of resuscitation. Suddenly now they are full of integrity and honesty. They are not worth a spit.

Anyway, there are other candidates, Suela Braverman, Tom Tugendhat, Grant Schapps and someone called Kemi Badenoch who I've never heard of a former equalities minister apparently). I'm simply not going to go through them all because it would be dull and I can't be bothered. Suffice to say that if the entire bunch were to dissapear in a puff of smoke you'd barely even notice.

No. I'm wondering if there was more to the sudden change of decision by Boris Johnson, to throw in the towel on Thursday morning.

You will remember - or you possibly won't because very little was made of it in the media - that on the Wednesday, the day after things began to seriously unravel for him, Johnson made an appearance before the liaison committee of MPs, the committee that get to grill him on what he has been doing. Aware that his days were numbered and that this could well be the final time that they would get to question him, the committee - much to Johnson's chagrin - decided to question the PM on his meetings/links with the Lebedev family (father and son), of whom we have learned a little in the past.

Briefly, Johnson has had a longstanding friendship with Evgeny (now Lord) Lebedev, son of former KGB agent and spy Alexander Lebedev. It was Johnson who pushed for Lebedev to be given a peerage, against the advice of the security services and it was with Lebedev that, back when he was Foreign Secretary, he slipped his security and went off, unaccompanied to Italy to attend one of the notorious parties of Silvano Berlusconi. At this same party was to be found Lebedev's father Alexander, who while not officially a Russian state officer anymore, still had very close links to the Kremlin.

During the course of the liaison committee meeting, Johnson was questioned on this visit and other meetings with the Lebedev's, and admitted that he had met with both father and son in unaccompanied situations, while he was Foreign Secretary (and possibly when he was actually Prime Minister as well). During the meeting a spad behind him apparently passed him a note that the camera picked up telling him to "Stop talking!" He was digging himself into a hole that as PM, could only result in a huge scandal that would probably result in his resignation, if not his investigation by the police for treason.

Think about it. A British Foreign Secretary slips his security and goes off to a party with an ex KGB agent and spy - and slap bang in the middle of the Cambridge poisoning scandal in which the agent's country is implicated in the murder of a British citizen and the seriously injuring of another (let alone the two Russian family members who were poisoned). He, the then Foreign Secretary, now PM, gets pissed in said agents company with no-one to oversee what he is saying, is asked to give the Russian Foreign Secretary a call (and whatever else we have no idea), and then makes minimal report back to his office in the UK as to what he has been up to.

And this admission has raised not a squeak from the media. Not so much as a murmur.

Now up to this point, Johnson was adamant that he was going to fight on (this was on Wednesday night). He was bullish in the meeting, telling the liaison committee that he was having a terrific week and seemingly had no intention whatsoever as regards resignation over the Pincher affair. Suddenly however, on Thursday morning all has changed. The question is, what happened over the course of Wednesday night to bring about this change. Was it quietly put to Johnson that his admission of the unaccompanied meetings with the Lebedev's constituted a security breach that would have to be at least investigated under oath? That, if he did not resign the following day, that the shit-storm that would descend upon him would make the Pincher affair, Partygate and the Owen Patterson scandals pale into nothing?

The Mail, far from screaming about traitors in the Tory Government tearing Johnson down, should be turning their gaze toward exactly what their man has been up to, what he may have revealed in his inebriated state at these parties or worse, what his loyalties have actually been while he has been the Prime Minister of our country.

[peter]

Currently standing at ten, the number of candidates for the Tory Party leadership (and by extension, the new Prime Minister of the country) is rising by the day. Home Secretary Priti Patel is expected to declare today and it is entirely possible that yet more hopefuls may pitch in as well.

The campaign, not even officially started yet, is already getting 'down and dirty' with anonymous dossiers being circulated about Sunak's links to Dominic Cummings (which he denies) and Zahawi's tax affairs (and a claimed investigation by the serious fraud office) which he also denies. Zahawi has made a plaintive plea in today's Telegraph to "keep it clean" - a bit rich coming from him - but there is little chance of that. Tory Party leadership elections are notoriously bloody affairs and this one looks like it's going to be the worst to date.

The sheer volume of candidates and the paucity of time available to whittle them down before the Parliamentary summer recess (in about ten days time) is proving a real headache for the party organisers, and it is suggested that the bar of minimum nomination numbers required in order to be able to stand will be set much higher than normal, at around twenty five. In the last leadership contest only eight proposers were required and the high figure this time is purely a reflection of the imperative to limit numbers to doable levels, in terms of getting down to two final candidates by the end of next week (or earlier).

The two final names will (unless the difference between them is so stark as to make one pull out on the basis of continuance being a waste of time) be put to the party membership, currently standing at around 200,000. These Tory Party members (as old and bigoted a bunch as you could wish for) will get to choose the next PM for the whole country. If it's a choice between a white skinned person and a coloured one, the white will win. If it is between two people of colour, then the furthest to the right will win. Simple as that really.

But one of the consequences of Boris Johnson having to rely on such low-grade politicians as he could get to support him (which was the only criteria upon which membership of his cabinet was based) was that all we have now, as potential leaders are - yes - low grade politicians.

They are falling over themselves with their claims to be the biggest tax cutters of the bunch - some estimates of the greatest cost of these cuts to the fiscal coffers are as much as forty billion pounds - and are putting forward no plans as to where these monies are to be found (or more correctly, how the shortfall in revenues resultant from these cuts are to be accommodated).

Ex Chancellor, Rishi Sunak is alone in not promising cuts. He can't really - he was the Chancellor who put taxes up to the highest levels they've been for seventy years. But in fairness, he's got a point. "If it sounds too good to be true," he says, "then it is too good to be true." He's absolutely right on this. Common sense tells you that you can't put three quarters of the workforce on hold at home and give them eighty percent of their wages for months without having to pay for it at some point. Borrowed money has to be payed back. That's how it works, and all of the tax cutting pledges of the rest of the candidates would have to be paid for with yet more borrowing. This is the brutal truth that the Javid's and the Truss's are simply not talking about.

Jeremy Hunt, the only candidate of stature that is not tainted by association with Johnson, is at least somewhat cognisant of this. He's striking a half-way position where he says that reducing tax on business in order to get the economy going must take precedence over personal tax cutting, which must come later when finances allow for it. The policy, he says, cannot be seen as an immediate fix, but must be structured in terms of a chartered course over ten years, with tax cuts and breaks being made as and when the public finances are gradually brought back into order. Makes sense to me, but I doubt it will cut it with hard brexiteers and far right Tories who want tax cuts all and everywhere right now. Their argument is "pay for it with swingeing cuts to the state." End off. That this would leave society's most vulnerable absolutely high and dry is of no concern to them. I doubt that Hunt is going to get much of a hearing in all of this, and with Johnson himself absolutely adamant that Sunak pays the price for his perfidy (as Bozo see's it) I'm thinking that he won't get too far in the race either, despite his being the bookies favourite at the moment.

Which all leaves a pretty dismal prospect for the future. Priti Patel? Lizz Truss? Nadhim Zahawi? Javid? For reasons I've indicated, it would have to be Truss out of that lot - a prospect that can only leave one feeling depressed and resigned to a future of continuing bad choices - and we'll just have to suck it up. Perhaps she'll be so distracted by the prospect of investigating all those new pork markets that she'll forget about screwing up the economy while she's about it. Don't give much for the chances of continuing peace in Northern Ireland though, given her record with the EU. Still - at least it won't be Priti Patel, so I won't have to worry about the 'knock on the door' in the middle of the night any time soon. Hopefully.

[peter]

Loads'a money! Want a few quid tosh? Here's a barrow full - fill yer boots.

So goes the refrain from most of the Tory hopefuls as the superfast leadership election gets under way, but in truth none of them have the faintest idea how such giveaways could be funded and when questioned become surly and evasive.

Right wing support seems to be galvanising behind Truss while the other wing of the party seems still to be an open field (not that there's many center candidates to choose from).

We will apparently have a new PM by September 5th and Johnson will be out, but will by all accounts still exercise a sort of Trumpian influence on the Party. It is to get him out ASAP that is the primary cause of the haste with which the leadership contest is being held. His capacity to do yet further damage to the party is still high - news out yesterday of another job he was trying to secure for a floozy he was shagging, while in Tory Central Office or somewhere. It all goes to cement the impression of a polity full to overflowing with libidinous rakes and self interested charlatans that the Party are so desperately trying to put behind them.

As I said yesterday, the calculation once it gets to the membership is pretty easy - white skin over colour, then right wing over left. (In fact Liz Truss as the white and right candidate has probably already nailed it. She was a remainer in the referendum battle, but has successfully converted enough to win over the ERG wing of the Parliamentary Party, so the membership will probably forgive her that.

I was interested to hear that Michael Gove has given his support to Kemi Badenoch. Who? Yes, exactly. I have never heard of her and neither has anyone else. She hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of winning and Gove knows it. He has to be seen to support someone and this is his way of saying that all the candidates are crap. Because there is only one candidate that Gove could bring himself to support - and that's himself. But he's not standing (because he knows he couldn't win it and he doesn't want the job.....at the moment...... anyway).

So there isn't much to add at the moment. Truss it'll be, and God alone knows what kind of fuck up she'll make of the job. Like throwing petrol on the fire I'd imagine.

[peter]

Actually, it's interesting and I've been giving it a bit of thought. (See above post from an hour or so ago.)

How can I be so sure it will be Truss? Well do you think that the same people who voted for brexit are going to vote in a coloured Prime Minister?

It could, I suppose feasibly be Hunt, but he's nowhere near right wing enough, so I'm betting on a Sunak - Truss final standoff. And here's where it's going to get embarrassing for the Tory Party. Because Sunak will be annihilated by the membership, demonstrating beyond argument or question the underlying (and often not so underlying) racism of the Party. In fact even in the Parliamentary part of the contest, the racist aspect will play its role. That the right wing has gravitated toward Truss is already an indication that a candidate's skin colour will be a factor. It would be really embarrassing if in the final two chosen, the difference in levels of support meant that the second placer had little option but to pull out - and this could easily happen. They'd say (as they will if it goes to the membership and Sunak is slaughtered) that it was all down to his tax policy - but underneath they'd know the truth - that he was simply the wrong colour.

It's going to be embarrassing - you wait. Our true racism as a nation is about to be on display for all to see.

And God help me, I sort of understand it, because it just isn't quite as simple as that.

Is it so wrong to want your Prime Minister to be 'one of your own'? For him/her not to be the product of a peripatetic perambulating family, used to hopping from one continent to another in the way that the rest of us change our clothes? If you continually keep a non dom/green card status in the background, so that you can 'jump ship' if it becomes advantageous for you to do so at any time, can people be blamed for thinking that you have not the loyalty to the country required of its first minister?

So yes - I understand the view and believe that it can be held without there necessarily being a racist background to it (though there clearly often is), but I do not not subscribe to it. Candidates should be taken at face value (if that isn't a bad way of putting it). Their honour can be questioned (how does Javid justify his saying he will cut a tax that he said not six months ago was a moral imperative for the Exchequer to levy) but not their patriotism. You have to believe that they will want the best for this country and will govern according to this principle or what's the point?

(6pm edit: The final list of eight candidates has now been released. Patel is not running, Shapps is out and transfering his votes to Sunak. Jabob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries are backing Liz Truss, who will gain from Patel's withdrawal by scooping up her share of the vote.)

[peter]

It's hackneyed, but the old cliche stating that the hand that wields the knife never wears the crown has a degree of truth to it.

Yesterday, the fellow who brought all this about (other than the twat Johnson himself, who spaffed his eighty seat majority up the wall with nothing more than his own deplorable behaviour) Sajid Javid had to resign from the race after failing to get even the minimal support required to proceed to the actual race proper.

So let's look at the remaining candidates and see if we can't say something honest about each one that the mainstream media are never going to say in their coverage.

Sunak, the high-tax Chancellor. Everyone loved him when he was throwing out furlough money. Now everyone hates him because he's trying to get it back. A Johnson enabler until the point where it became obvious that to continue supporting him was to damage his chance of ever becoming PM. If Johnson's premiership were a film, Sunak stayed until the credits were rolling (and then only jumped ship because Javid made it impossible for him not to). A weak man who could not understand the plight of people at the bottom end of our social hierarchy if he lived to be a hundred.

Liz Truss. As sharp as a knife made out of butter, a woman that would have us at loggerheads with the EU as quickly as lager turns to piss. Truss has spent more time doing Thatcher style photo ops than Thatcher herself and as trade and then foreign secretary has negotiated exactly no trade agreements (in which we did not simply give the other side exactly what they asked for in return for nothing ourselves) at all. By all means give her as much pork and cheese as she wants - but the PM's job? You must be kidding. (Oh, a Johnson enabler as well.)

Penny Mordaunt. Go and watch her campaign launch video. Go and watch it! Complete with green fields and strains of 'I Vow to Thee My Country' playing in the background, the only thing not wheeled out (think statues of Churchill etc) is Mordaunt herself. She isn't in it - no kidding! The low point is where the narrator says that the Conservative Party do not have a monopoly on "good people" while showing a picture of murdered MP Jo Cox, who was killed by a rabid brexiteer during the referendum campaign, who screamed "Britain first!" as he stabbed her. Mordaunt was a hard-core brexiteer, but the sheer bad taste of using this tragic lady's picture doesn't seem to occur to her. She kept quiet during her membership of the Johnson Government. She clearly knew he was a liability and didn't even try to defend him - but she was one of the ones to whom the Javid resignation speech comment, "to do nothing is an action of itself," was directed - and he was dead right. An enabler.

Tom Tugendhat. A Johnson critic for a long time now, so no Johnsonian stench around him - but precious little else either. Who is he? What has he done? He's an ex service person who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not sure that given yesterday's revelations of SAS putative war crimes in the former country (allegedly multiple summery killings and executions of service age Afghan civilian detainees under their belts) this is going to do him any favours. Where will he stand on the retrospective committal to trial of those accused of such crimes?

Kemi Badenoch. She seems on the face of it a pretty good person, and would actually be pretty competent at the job. But she does labour under the millstone of having Michael Gove supporting her and that's a bit like having Dr Crippen as your husband in this particular race. Besides, I mean, who the **** has ever heard of her? She could be the best candidate since pumpkin pie but who is ever going to vote for her? Besides, she was the equalities minister, and looking around it doesn't seem to me that she achieved much in the way of equality in my neck of the woods. If she was any good, surely she'd be in the Labour Party..... and on the left wing of that!

Suella Braverman. She's the current attorney general and has been in the Johnson cabinet for a couple of years. Plenty of time, as a champion of the Law, I'd think, to call him out for.... HAVING TWENTY PLUS FUCKING PARTIES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FUCKING LOCKDOWN REGULATIONS! Or perhaps I'm expecting too much for someone supposedly concerned with the rule of law? Perhaps she adheres to the thinking that has the law like a fishing net. It catches the small fishes, but the big ones can simply break through it and swim on with impunity. Well swim back to the back benches Suella - because that's where you are headed!

Jeremy Hunt. Not tainted by association with Johnson, but boring as fuck. My choice for the best candidate as it happens.

And finally, Nadhim Zahawi. Where to start. The biggest Johnson enabler of the lot. Slippery as a bag of greased eels that have fallen into a vat of KY Jelly. Week after week, we heard his odd halting-stumbling speech manner spewing out excuses for Johnson on the Sunday morning political shows. There was no action of Johnson's so bad, no breach of the rules so egregious, that Zahawi could not in his cod-sincerity schmooze over, justify in his circumlocuting round the houses manner - and it made you sick to the stomach to hear it. His background in business is as convoluted and mercurial as his words are circumlocuting. Under investigation for who knows what, money and connections pile up, twist about, come back in on themselves in a manner both opaque and convoluted. Watch Sky news presenter Kay Burley trying to nail him down if you don't believe me. And then, once he had gained the second position in the Government (forcing Johnson to give him Sunak's recently vacated position as Chancellor of the Exchequer) he immediately showed his true colours by turning on the PM and demanding his resignation. They say that in the Tory Party the leadership mantle always goes to the one who wants it the most, the one who is more ruthless than anyone else in his or her pursuit of it. If that is indeed the case then Zahawi is PM already. God help us if this man is successful because he'd be Priti Patel with brains.

But that's it. You pays your money and takes your choice. You know what mine is - I still think it's Truss first and the rest nowhere, but time will tell. My previous predictions have not turned out to be very close to the mark, so on that form don't put your shirt on it. But if you decide to, you can get, "Three and a half to one on the Truss! - who wants it?"