by

Homage to Ukraine

I suppose it might be some comfort to think Liz Truss reads George Orwell, however, Homage to Catalonia should not be the set text for developing our response to Russian aggression.

To support volunteers with no military training (and if she meant only those with military training she should have said so, in terms) to go to fight against an overwhelming military force is practically useless and morally reprehensible.

Does she really believe that “supporting” volunteers to go to Ukraine is going to change the course of the war? More like it will just increase the death toll. It is a gesture which costs the government nothing but for volunteers possibly everything.

If people wish to go to fight, I admire their bravery and their solidarity with the Ukraniane people. The government should not prevent them but it should certainly not encourage them.

The western allies judge Ukraine will eventually fall after a bloodbath but the risk of nuclear war is too great for direct military intervention. Our red lines have been set around Nato. We hope that sanctions and long term armed resistance to an imposed puppet government will lead to Putin’s fall.

There are signs that strategy may work. Indeed there are many positive signs that Putin, encouraged by many previous successful probes at the norms of international behaviour, has overreached himself. There are people who can end this carnage now, but they are all in Russia.

It is truly inspiring there are people in our country and around the world who wish to risk their lives to support the brave people of Ukraine. I cannot encourage them, the Foreign Secretary should not. Any that do go and fight in the defence of democracy should be revered as heroes. We should pay homage to them and all the people of Ukraine.

by

Democracy Matters

Against a nation with the second largest number of nuclear missiles and one of the largest armed forces in the world Ukrainians are preparing to fight in the streets of their capital to defend democracy. Given the significance of this for Putin’s own future, without a Russian coup, their resistance is almost certainly doomed to bloody defeat.

However the capture of Kyiv will only create a running sore of opposition to Putin which may well rally others within Russia. This will be reinforced by the country becoming a pariah state with sanctions bleeding the country slowly but surely over time.

The swiftness and scale of the western response and the contrasting laboured pace of the invasion have probably taken Putin by surprise. His fellow “strong” leaders in Hungary and Turkey have abandoned him and even China is far from offering unqualified support.

There are almost certainly members of the officer class in Russia and members of his golden circle of oligarchs who will be wondering where Putin is leading his country. The destruction of Kyiv and the associated bloodbath that seems inevitable will be a hollow victory and will raise even more questions amongst ordinary Russians.

The west’s strategy seems to be to sacrifice the Ukrainian people on the premise that they cannot risk a nuclear confrontation, and the hope sanctions and the ostracisation of Russia will lead to some change in Putin or a change of Putin. Given his actions nuclear escalation can certainly not be ruled out and so caution is wise.

However, if he takes Ukraine and creates a vassal state and then starts military “exercises” on the border with Finland what should the west do? Does the bloody destruction of every non-NATO country in Europe become the price to be paid for “peace”. Do we risk deterrence becoming a one way street?

The future for Ukraine looks bleak. They are on the front line of democracy. If our strategy is as set out above then every support we can provide should be given to its people. Weapons both now to support its defence and in the future to support its opposition. Humanitarian aid to meet whatever disaster Putin creates, and safe haven for the refugees fleeing the country mostly, women and children. And we should be ashamed that a Minister of our Government suggested they apply for potato picking visas.

Sadly our country has adopted Churchillian rhetoric about defending democracy but applied Chamberlainian procrastination in its actions to support those that are doing the work. We have been on the coat tails of pretty much the rest of the west. Germany acted decisively and swiftly at real risk of negative economic consequences for its country.

At the moment this sadly has the look of a war of attrition which will not end with the bloody destruction of Ukrainian cities and the murder of its leaders. Ultimately, the only resolution will be the deposition of Putin. The longer that takes the worse this will be for Ukraine, for Europe, and for Russia.

Ukrainians are providing an object lesson in how valuable democracy is for people who have only relatively recently achieved it. Overnight they have transformed themselves from ordinary citizens to resolute defenders of democracy fighting for freedom. Many have been separated from their families many of whom have, in the blink of an eye, become refugees.

In much of the west, 75 years of democracy have made us complacent about its permanence and even its value. Some arguing enlightened dictatorship would be better. What people usually mean is an enlightened dictatorship doing what they think is right. The problem is once you get a dictator it is what they think is right which matters, and there is little you can do about it.

Democracy does not always secure the best leaders but just occasionally it does. Volodymyr Zelensky has risen above leaders across the west as someone who genuinely is willing to die for his country. He can be under no illusion as to what will happen to him if captured by Russian troops.

Putin is where you can end up when you have no effective way of getting rid of a leader.

If we are not going to fight with the Ukrainians, we should give them unstintingly of our support in every other possible way, even when it costs us. And we should humbly salute them and their leaders for their bravery in defending their country and defending democracy on our behalf.

by

Why Sue Grey’s Report is Irrelevant

Why are Conservative MP’s waiting for Sue Greys report? We are told it will establish the facts. But in reality the facts are no longer in question. Were there breaches of the law in relation to Covid? Did the PM attend where the breaches occurred? Yes to both as admitted by the PM at the dispatch box.

The question is, did the PM lie to Parliament and the country when he admitted the actions but claimed they were unintentional and the fault of the advice of others.

His ministers are running around trying to see if they can get a defence to fly with the country. Jacob Rees Mogg has tried them all. Blaming the civil servants for arranging the breaches; the complexity of his diary; advisors telling him the events were within the rules; a PM focused on his big job and not the meeting he was taken to.

All of these are attempts to demonstrate there was no intention to break, or knowledge he had broken, any laws.

If this does not work there is the defence about how good the PM has been on the “big calls” he has made. How, all this obsession with Partygate, driven by the media and opposition, is distracting the PM from dealing with a vast in-box of issues not least the attempt by President Putin to invade even more of the Ukraine. Mr Rees Mogg even had a go at trying to undermine the severity of the breach by talking about how excessive the rules were.

However well delivered in the meliflous tones of the upper class, however remorseless the politeness and however supported by classical references, Mr Rees Mogg’s arguments for the defence remain bunkum.

In essence the PM’s own argument seems to be the age old defence of the nursery. “He told me to do it.” To which over the years parents and primary school teachers have responded, “So if he told you to jump in the river would you?”

Despite what some people may call him the vast bulk of the population do not think the PM is stupid. And certainly not so mind numbingly stupid as not being able to distinguish, for himself, when he is engaged in breaking a law he has designed.

The country has decided he has lied. He has a track record of this which many people discounted when he was lancing the noxious boil of Brexit, which had petrified UK politics for years after the referendum. Lying about breaches of the Covid laws, however, are lies about something intensely personal for many people. His lies were about behaviour which was in direct contrast to the behaviour of millions of law abiding citizens convinced of the sense of what they were doing to control a deadly disease.

But does Partygate matter? In one view it pales into insignificance when you look at what is happening in the world at the moment. The challenges and threats are significant and many imminent. Ukraine and Putin more generally, the rise of China and its threats toward Taiwan, global Covid, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and the ticking time bomb of the existential climate crisis.

There is another view however which is about the challenge to democracy which is growing around the world. That challenge comes from “strong leaders” who certainly do not want to be held accountable for their kleptocratic behaviour by anything so awkward as democracy.

But it also comes from those within democracies who play fast and loose with the truth. Lying at the heart of government is corrosive. It involves more and more members of the government trying to defend the indefensible. Bending the truth, manipulating the facts, prevaricating to buy time. All the while undermining public confidence in the democratic system. It seems impossible to hold those who break the rules to account if they are rich and or powerful.

President Putin tells lies. He lies about state sponsored assassinations, little green men in Crimea, and the defensive purpose of a build up of 100k troops on the border with Ukraine.

It may be argued lying about breaking minor laws cannot be compared with the egregious life and death falsehoods of President Putin. But that would be a mistake. One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is trust in political leaders and this requires they speak the truth. If people do not feel trust in democracy they may be much less willing to defend it. Indeed they may be happy to try something different.

The PM behaved in a way which he knew would be totally unacceptable to the British public. He decided to try to pretend he had been misled into this behaviour. It does not wash. When you start telling lies to hold on to office you pave the way to ever more audacious falsehoods. Eventually, you do not lead by consent secured by convincing people with rational arguments you lead by force and state enforced “truth” which becomes whatever you want it to be.

The PM and President Putin may be at very different points on the spectrum in relation to lying. However, it is not a spectrum any leader should be on. People will forgive mistakes, they will even forgive some lies, but they will not forgive being taken for mugs. I am pretty sure the Tory party knows this and the PM’s days are numbered.

by

Grey reports, grey suits, grey days for the PM.

Late on Wednesday after PMQ’s and what appears to have been a poorly received meeting with Tory backbenchers the PM’s team went into crisis management overdrive.

First priority, don’t let things get worse by allowing the PM to speak to anyone. He needed to be unavailable for interview. That was quickly sorted when a member of the PM’s family tested positive for Covid. Why they thought to test the pet goldfish is unclear. In an uncharacteristically swift commitment to the rules the PM went straight into lock down.

Next they needed time. They needed a narrative to neuter the immediate calls for his resignation. Time is the only possible friend the PM has at the moment. Who knows what might happen tomorrow, Russia invade Ukraine, China invade Taiwan, Jacob Rees Mogg invade Scotland. Any of these would shift the spotlight and buy more time. But where could they get the time?

The investigation by Susan Grey was the solution. We all needed to wait for Susan’s fact finding work to be concluded before we came to any conclusions about the PM. Having all the facts is something that any fair judgement should be based on. It sounds so reasonable.

Obviously, this involves a jaw dropping piece of double think in that the PM confirmed the relevant facts at the dispatch box indeed apologised, with qualifications, for what he had done. Not clear what additional facts help in this decision. However, logic, truth, facts are all so many weapons to be picked up, bent and dropped as occasion requires.

Next, the detailed comms. This starts with presentational guidance and here we have the tried and tested 4 rule approach that has been used for years now. Rule one, consistency. Everyone recites exactly the same answer, whatever the question, across the media. Rule two, gravitas. Speak seriously, gravely and with absolute confidence. Do not, for a moment allow your brain to engage with what you are saying. This is the kind of schoolboy error which leads to doubt and that can be heard in the voice. Rule three. If the questioner suggests the answer does not address the question, then repeat the same answer speaking as before except more slowly and precisely, as if your questioner is either deaf or dim. Finally, rule four. Whatever questions are asked from then on revert to rule three.

Next, content. First, accept mistakes have been made. Next, point out the PM made a “fulsome” apology. Next the switch. Refer to the investigation into all the facts that is being carried out by Sue Grey. Emphasise how thorough and independent minded Sue is. Don’t mention who she will submit the report to. Then, the close. Claim it is obviously only fair to wait for all the facts before judgements should be made about who should and should not resign. Finally, refer, as if in passing, to what a good job the PM has done on the “big calls”, Brexit, and Vaccination. Don’t be drawn into detail on this.

So on Thursday morning it started on the Today programme and was repeated by different ministers through the course of the day. We need to wait for the facts to be determined by the estimable Susan Grey whose character is unimpeachable. Once she has completed her work we will all be in a better position to decide.

Next stage wheel out cabinet ministers to provide statements of support. Stick to the big calls line. Avoid detail. Don’t take questions.

Next, prepare to shape the appearance of the Sue Grey report. Provide selective leaks so its shock value is undermined. Get someone to read through forensically and look for any ways in which it can be undermined or weaponised. Don’t forget strict logic is not a constraint in the process.

Finally, make sure all those involved in the “alleged” parties know what they think and ensure they have not left any inadvertent clues lying about on their phones, laptops or other electronic devices.

The first part of all this is, I think, not far from the truth. You only have to listen to the news through the course of the day to know a clear narrative has been set and applied. The latter part may be true and actually is by far the riskiest part of the whole strategy. Usually it is the cover up that delivers the killer punch.

Having said all this I suspect all this effort is likely to be of no avail. It looks very much like the judgement train has left the station. The public are not going to carefully parse a dry report on facts about the parties. And it certainly will not change their opinion.

People have watched relatives die on IPads and adhered to the most stringent curtailment of their freedoms since the second world war at the behest of the PM. The vast bulk of the population have seen the logic of what was needed and behaved with incredible restraint and probity.

When the author of the rules flagrantly breaches them, it cuts through. When he apologises but goes on to say he did not realise it was a party. It adds insult to injury.

Boris has lost the public. What is more, if he battles on it is virtually certain he will make his position worse. Cabinet colleagues and leadership contenders will need to think carefully about how much of their political capital they are willing to expend on defending the indefensible.

This is not a situation where Labour supporters are making a routine call for resignation. Many thousands of Tory voters are doing the same. The PM’s one strength was his ability to connect with the public and win elections. He has now lost that. The past year has seen a succession of spectacular own goals which have eaten away at the credibility of the PM and the Conservative Party.

Boris is famous for being able to get out of tight corners, but his slippery skills are now set against the ruthless power focus of the Conservative Party. He now looks like a loser and worse a liability. There can be few believe he will be able to change.

On Sunday there will be some awful headlines and possibly some further revelations and new poll numbers showing Labour pulling ahead of the Tory’s. In their constituencies and constituency party Conservative MP’s will be getting a grilling from their Chairs particularly those in red wall seats. Positioning for a challenge has already started with soundings amongst grandees and funders.

The men in grey suits will be calculating when is the optimum time to tap the PM on the shoulder. Next week as MP’s come back from their constituencies one suspect the calculation will only be when not if.

Allowing a culture to arise where breaches of the rules within government are allowed is a serious failure of judgement. Participating in the breaches is a disgrace. Pretending you did not know is duplicitous. But the worst thing of all is not understanding what you have done is just wrong. That is what has hurt the public and that is the tragedy of Mr Johnson – not having a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong.