Boris Johnson

by

Bad and Badder, Dumb and Dumber

The Conservative leadership process has whittled the runners down to two. This may be as a result of an incompetent attempt to game the process or it may be the will of the Party but the two candidates are vying with each other to appear farthest to the right. The continuous drift in that direction over the past decade has resulted in a number of bizarre decisions. With “One Person Toryism” exemplified by Boris Johnson removing the whip from such giants of “One Nation Conservatism” as Michael Heseltine and perhaps culminating in the appointment of Liz Truss as Prime Minister. Someone whose blind ideological fervour was only excelled by her gross incompetence and lack of personal insight.

At one time this drift to the right would be seen as a strategic mistake. The orthodox view being that there were bedrocks of political support on the right and the left and in order to win, parties had to extend their appeal as far as possible in the direction or their opponents to secure the floating voters who would determine the outcome of the election. This had a moderating effect preventing parties drifting too far away from the centre ground.

It may be argued that this balancing process reasserted itself at the last election. However other “theories” are available to explain this landslide shift. The “pendulum theory” which suggests the electorate just feel its time to give the other side a go. A theory based on young children’s universal appeal to fairness when they have not “had a turn” on the bouncy castle yet. Another is that a party which has been in government for a long time has “run out of steam”. They are “exhausted” and unable to come up with new ideas to address the evolving challenges they face. Again it relies on an analysis which simplifies and anthropomorphises a complex social/political reality.

My own guess is the main driver of the last election was, above all, the complete lack of credibility of the Tories, informed by their spectacular incompetence in managing, public services, the economy, a global pandemic, the national finances, in fact, pretty much anything they turned their inattention to.

Supporters of the Labour party may rejoice at the options being put forward for the Conservative Party leadership. They may feel the option of bad or badder for their opponents is a positive thing as both candidates seem set to push the party further away from the “centre” where elections are supposed to be won.

This view may be too optimistic. If we look across the Atlantic we have in the Republican Party a situation which could be characterised as dumb and dumber but none the less may have a winning strategy. A strategy based on moving the bedrock.

Donald Trump is certainly not the sharpest knife in the draw. His record demonstrates he does not have the moral insight, the intellectual capacity nor the personal interest to address the fundamental problems facing the United States at the moment. His shortcomings are well documented and largely come out of his own mouth.

He does have one real strength however. He has, inadvertently, acted as a lightening rod for the broad discontent which has been building across America for at least the last two decades, but with roots going much further back. The growing awareness that the age of the American Dream has passed and the sense that history might be moving East has created a level of uncertainty about the future which has not existed previously for many Americans. Whilst the Dream may never have existed as promoted, there was a long period of sustained and significant growth in the US which meant it was normal for parents to expect their offspring to be better off than they were.

The tectonic plates of growing inequality, a concentration of economic power and willingness to use this to exercise political influence/control, ignored by both Republicans and Democrats, began to reveal themselves in tensions and fissures in the body politic. This process exploded into sharp relief in the earth shivering event which for short hand was called the credit crunch in 2007/8. The credibility of the political elite was significantly undermined by its response to this crisis created by the purely profit motivated innovations of the banking and wider financial sector. To address the rapidly building catastrophe Main Street was sacrificed to Wall Street. Millions of hard working Americans lost their homes and their life savings whilst the banks were bailed out.

Prolonged austerity, “difficult decisions”, technological change and globalisation seemed to be leaving huge numbers of Americans behind. Low wage, short term jobs replaced the blue collar jobs that had sustained decent lifestyles for millions, their circumstances becoming increasingly challenging and, indeed, desperate if any members of the family fell ill. A widespread feeling they were the victims of processes they did not understand but a strong feeling of unfairness, being ignored and left behind.

Fertile ground for someone to come along with slogan simple solutions. Particularly, ones which focused the blame on foreigners in general and immigrants in particular. This approach has manifest risks both for the United States (indeed their very unity) and the wider world given the pivotal role the nation plays in global economics and diplomacy.

To blame the current problems of the United States just on Donald Trump, even accepting the wide range of personal failings he suffers from, is unfair. The leadership of the conservative right in the US has to accept a substantial proportion of the blame. They have remained dumb when some of their number have turned their back on bipartisan politics and the conventions which resulted and sustained that approach. The refusal of a Republican Senate to confirm appointments to the Supreme Court of the sitting president was a particularly egregious example of this, which happened before Trump was elected.

When you start down this road you are faced with having to rationalise and make sense of statements and policy proposals which are incomprehensible, inconsistent or even contradictory. A lot of very clever people have to race around trying to minimise the damage being done. Ultimately you end up having to support a convicted felon as your candidate for the White House.

Remaining dumb in the face of a clearly unqualified candidates ramblings, or “weavings”, results in a spiral into a realm of dumber and dumber actions which may have existential implications not just for the United States and not just for countries around the world but indeed for the future of the planet.

The party political system has many functions. One of its key functions in the past has been to train and develop political leaders. And, perhaps more importantly to winnow out those who are simply incapable of doing what is a very difficult task. On both sides of the Atlantic the parties of the right have failed in this critical function. Their desire for power has overwhelmed all other considerations. Leaders and political policies have become judged first and foremost on whether they will secure power not whether they will contribute to the welfare or wellbeing of their citizens.

Such a value free environment is set I fear to end badly. Conservatives who should and probably do know better need to stand up and be counted. Easier to propose than to do. Liz Cheney, a person of impeccable right-wing conservative credentials took a very public and brave stance against Trump and paid the price as her party turned against her and ousted her. Indeed there are many Republicans who have made a stand but the Republican party machine is so much in awe of Trump’s ability to shift a bedrock of voters that they continue to boost his credibility by backing him.

Going back to the theory about how the floating voters in the centre of politics are a reassuring stabiliser against extremist positions. This mechanism breaks down if the bedrocks of political support move and the centre ground is shifted to the right or indeed the left. What The Republicans have done in the US has been to shift the centre to the right. This process has been going on for many years however it became supercharged when Donald Trump came to dominate the political landscape. His character, or lack of it, has raised the stakes significantly. His challenge to the rule of law, constitutional conventions, the very notion of rational argument and, indeed, any view of the world other than his own has changed the very nature of politics.

This same process of the centre right being undermined from the far right is evident in the the United Kingdom but has not had a character as egregious as Trump to supercharge it. However problematic they are bad and badder do not constitute the same level of threat to democracy as the dumb and dumber issue that the States face… yet.

It may seem odd for someone on the left to be concerned about the health of the right. However, democracies have to be based on compromise. There needs to be a broad degree of agreement of what is acceptable and what the aims of government, in the broadest sense, are. When this breaks down, whatever the longevity or sophistication of its institutions and conventions might be, democracy is at risk. When this is combined with an unstable demagogue much worse may happen. If Donald Trump is elected in November the Republican Party will have to take responsibility for what follows. They may regret this for a very long time.

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.

by

Following the Science

On 3 March 2020 one of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies’ (SAGE) sub-groups said the government should be advising the public to avoid shaking hands. On the very same day Boris Johnson told a press conference that he was still shaking everyones hand.

One might say, in the face of an epidemic, the like of which the world has not seen for 100 years, this was an initial failure to get to grips with the seriousness of the issue and the epidemiological science around how to respond.

To be fair the early advice from SAGE and others was not as definitive as sometimes supposed. A Special Report by Reuters in April 2020 provides a more nuanced picture of the evolving scientific consensus. It indicates even the scientists struggled to keep pace with the disease.

It was not until Italy had locked down, our TV screens were full of Italian hospitals being overwhelmed and an Imperial College report projected 500k deaths that the Prime Minister said we “must” stay at home and certain businesses “must” close, instituting the first lock down.

We then had nightly press conferences at which the government would always state they were “following the science” and therefore “doing the right thing at the right time”. It was so obviously a mantra with a covert message-management role attempting to push responsibility for actions limiting the freedom and economic activity of the nation, unprecedented outside of war time, onto scientists. Providing cover against the natural concerns of the public and also the concerns of their own back benchers.

It was disingenuous and over time the emptiness of the mantra became plain. The issue of face masks was one where the science seemed to follow availability logistics. Instead of saying there were not enough masks for everyone the message was that the masks were useless, in fact more likely to cause infection, and anyway we needed them all for the frontline staff. Ignoring the inherent contradictions in the messaging its duplicty became apparent as availability increased and masks became increasingly compulsory.

We will not have a real understanding of the culpabilities and mistakes made by government and others until long after the epidemic has run its course. However, there is one simple critique of the “following the science mantra” which can be made in principle. Government’s job is to lead not follow.

Government needs to take account of the science in relation to health, but it needs to combine and balance that with an assessment of the economic consequences of actions to limit the virus and also on the likely impact and response of the general population to calls for severe limits to their freedoms.

As the economic consequences of the lock down began to become clearer the mantra about following the science started to be challenged by back benchers and qualified by ministers. Growing concerns about the impact on the national economy led to arguments being made that the cure was worse than the disease.

The need to open up was argued in order to: save jobs; prevent young people from having their education permanently damaged; improve mental health; and enable hospitals to deal with those with life threatening diseases that had been pushed back in order to deal with Covid-19 patients. Clearly there is real strength in all of these points.

So we opened up, schools, universities, shops and hospitality. As predicted this led to an increase in infection rates. A more sophisticated response was designed to deal with the problem. A “world class” track and trace system combined with a geographic, locally tailored but nationally determined, tiered response was to enable us to simultaneously keep the economy going and control the virus.

It appears the scientific community have a much clearer appreciation of the nature of the threat the virus now poses. They have far fewer reservations about models which predict much worse outcomes. What is more they have experience that the modelling so far has tended to underestimate the virulence and impact of the virus.

From a lay persons perspective the constant increase in infection rates and hospitalisations always looked as if there could only be one outcome. A second lock down. It looks as though that is what is going to be announced imminently. It also looks as if the government are following the science once more but again they are behind the pace, and days matter.

There are strong voices now arguing government needs to give due weight to all the other considerations around the economy, education etc. However, what they do not seem to be taking account of is the synchronisation of the pandemic.

The first wave seemed to roll across Europe sequentially, this time the wave seems to be occurring in parallel across the continent. what is more the second wave is starting from a higher level of infection. If twenty people are infected and the numbers of infection double every 7 days it is one thing. If one hundred thousand people are infected doubling every 7 days it is another matter altogether.

If the disease gets away from us, and it looks like it might if we continue as we are, the hospitals will be overwhelmed. It will not matter whether you have Covid-19 or cancer you will not be able to get treatment.

According to the CIPD more than 30% of the UK workforce are over 50, many others will have underlying health issues. If hospitals are inundated will they be willing to go to work? Will they go out shopping for anything other than essentials.

The idea that we can beat the virus without severe economic pain is unrealistic. We either proactively accept the pain in another lockdown which will help save lives and control the spread, or we try sophisticated tiers of action which will lead to more deaths and ultimately the same economic pain.