Skip to main content

Alas poor Boris I knew him well

Former Prime Minister David Cameron, who fled the scene following the Brexit vote in the referendum in 2016 has now rejoined the fray.  He rode into battle waving his new book and stating what we all knew, that Boris Johnson doesn't believe a word of what it is that Boris says about Brexit. 

David Cameron knows Boris well, alas. They were at Oxford together in the notorious Bullingdon Club, noted for its wealthy members, grand banquets, boisterous rituals, and somewhat destructive behaviour, including the vandalisation of restaurants and students' rooms.  Wrecking things is for them a strategy, good fun for the elitists they feel they are.  I suppose that is why Boris has set about wrecking our constitution.  

Meanwhile, students at Boris Johnson's former Oxford College have launched a petition calling for him to be banned from College grounds. 

I have no doubt, if I were a student at Balliol, I would support this motion…well almost…I would, however, question its legality and its wording. Can one really ban someone from Balliol? And if so, on what grounds can one do so? What are the consequences, and what is it trying to achieve?

It might make one feel good, but I don’t think it gets us anywhere. We are tactically being outwitted by master tacticians. This will simply play into their narrative.

They have done a blinder of prestidigitation. Boris and his cronies are the embodiment of the elite and privileged, and yet they have appealed to voters who feel that the elite and privileged have let them down, and turned their backs on them, or worse - ’they are in it for themselves'. Such voters are not going to be impressed by ‘a bunch’ of ‘elite and privileged’ students calling on their college to ban Boris. What better way to show that Boris is indeed the anti-establishment figure!

Meanwhile, the opposition forces continue to be disunited and unable to consolidate behind a clear strategy. This is why the general election, when it comes, is likely to produce a worse result than the one we now have. In short, it will be a mess.

You only need to go to ’the other Oxford’, the Oxford to find the reaction to this. It is the voice that never finds its way onto the platform that is ‘Voices from Oxford’, but we ignore it at our peril. Of course, Oxford voted overwhelmingly to remain. It was an oasis of joy in an otherwise miserable night of the referendum results. There were others, but we have failed to find a way of representing that voice.

After the result of the referendum, all three main parties accepted the result. It would have been inconceivable that they would not have done so. We are where we are because they could not find the next step, which was to support a deal and put it back to the people. It was instead like the charge of the light brigade. First, they fell over themselves outbidding each other o on how to move forward.

Those such as Chuka Umunna were amongst the first to urge acceptance of the referendum and for Corbyn to back the idea of a customs union etc. The Liberal Democrats followed suit. Onward, onward, rode the six hundred! Canons to the left of them and canons to the right.  I have chosen the word canon, not cannon. Never in the course of human history had so few made so many mistakes in such a short time….oops mixing things up there a bit.

That would not be so bad, but we see them making the same sorry mistakes again and again. A minority government has been able to outplay them. That is odd given that the majority of Parliament would remain in the EU. The majority have also voted against no-deal. Yet we seem stuck…The parliamentary arithmetic is the problem, and despite everything, the government still controls much of the agenda.

It is not at all helpful for political parties to start announcing they won’t work with others! Yet another tactical mistake as they seek to further polarise voters in or out. They want a referendum, yet want to immediately revoke article 50. That doesn’t go down well with voters. It looks like saying we are going to be in regardless. Of course, I would revoke article 50, but you see, it is about perceptions. We seem not to have learned the lesson of Trump's victory in the USA. Populism is challenging to counter. It isn’t really countered by a few chaps saying “I say, let’s pass a motion banning Boris’.

There is a fascinating history of Oxford passing resolutions. I am sure the press will render up the vote taken in 1933 on the motion “This house will under no circumstances fight for its King and country,” which passed resoundingly. I am sure many of that house regardless of how they voted did indeed fight for King and Country in 1939-45.

Having said all this, the young need to find a voice before it is too late. This is very much a generational thing. My generation, the baby boomers, have taken what we could from the benefits of our membership of the EU and are now wrecking the economy and the prospects for the next generation.

One of my neighbours, a life-long Tory, told me yesterday that they should have stopped anyone over 55 from voting. He had a point, but he knew he was making the point not seriously advocating it.

I feel sure Boris doesn’t really want a no-deal Brexit, but he has trapped himself in that narrative. To sell no-deal as ‘good for Britain’ is both irresponsible and a folly. So, will Boris try to wriggle a deal? He could only do so by concessions on the Irish border problem. How ironic it would be if he ends up presenting Mrs May’s deal. There shall be thunder and lightning.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As