Skip to main content

Another opportunity missed?

Another opportunity missed? It seems that opposition parties still cannot agree on a possible caretaker prime minister in the event of Boris Johnson losing a confidence vote in parliament.

The failure to put aside party advantage is decisive.  Constitutionally, it would be right for the Queen to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he could form a government.  The Labour party received 41% of the vote in the general election.   By all accounts, the SNP would support him.

It is easy enough to conjure alternative names out of a hat: Margaret Beckett, Ken Clarke.  But these are desperate attempts to avoid Jeremy Corbyn entering No 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister.

Why should they want to do that?  Isn't stopping a 'no-deal' Brexit more critical?

Jo Swinson, the LibDem leader, says it is because "he is unfit to govern."   One wonders why she considers Jeremy Corbyn less able than Boris Johnson, or even herself.

 No, it is for party advantage.  What they desperately want to avoid is Jeremy Corbyn looking "Prime-ministerial".  The trappings of office change perceptions.  Who knows Corbyn may be seen to do an excellent job of the task in hand.

The most straightforward move to stop Boris, and probably the most persuasive, is to put Jeremy Corbyn in as caretaker prime minister.  The failure to agree on that simply reflects the appallingly bad tactics of Remainers in parliament.  

In the end, should we leave the EU without a deal, or with a bad last-ditch agreement cobbled together by Boris Johnson, Remain MPs would be as responsible for this calamity as Boris Johnson.

They have it in their grasp to stop Boris.  Their failure to do so has more to do with party politics and manoeuvring for the general election than it does Brexit.  They are putting party before country.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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