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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,