Does Boris have a strategy?

What is Boris Johnson's strategy? Or is he stumbling from crisis to crisis, a victim of events?

There are two views. The first is that Boris is playing brinkmanship. So many times, we have heard it said that no-deal has to be an option to force the EU to agree a deal "best for Britain." It is a "who will blink the first" strategy. If that is the plan, then it has failed.

The second strategy is that Boris wants a no-deal Brexit and wants to blame the EU for the breakdown of the talks "It's all their fault!" That is what we see now - the blame game.

In any event, far from being the first to blink, the EU position has hardened. Boris offered no sensible or workable plan to deal with the problem of the Irish border.

So, now we are in the blame game. It might have some success with hardened Brexiteers, those who want to leave the EU without a deal. No-deal for them has become a kind of totem around which they do their war dance.

However, it may not be a strategy for winning the country - and certainly not for winning parliament.

While there was some appearance of seeking a deal, some at least of the former Tory MPs might have come on board. Now, they will be alarmed and not likely to back Boris.

It is all very foolish and typical of the childishness of those running the Downing Street spin machine.

I doubt Boris will be that pleased with the latest opinion polls. The Tories appear to have a commanding lead, but the fine details of the polling should give him cause for concern. He is now trapped in having promised what he might not now be able to deliver - a no-deal Brexit. Failure to deliver would see his poll ratings plummet. No-deal has become a litmus test for hard Brexiters who would desert Boris to support the Brexit Party.

We are often reminded of the majority voting to Leave in the referendum, but this doesn't now seem to be translating into a sure victory at the polls.

Labour is struggling to make headway, but there are signs that it has held its own against the LibDem tide sweeping up the remain votes with their commitment to revoke article 50 and stop Brexit. Currently, for Remainers, it is a lose, lose situation. Their tactics, if there are any, have been hopelessly wrong.

The opposition parties at Westminster have failed to come up with a united position to stop Boris. They refuse to take the obvious step of backing the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker prime minister, allowing them to bring a vote of confidence against Boris.

Labour's strategy of negotiating a deal and putting it back to the people is a sensible one, even if it is difficult to sell. Remainers need to consider that it is probably the best strategy if they want another referendum. The LibDems do not offer that. Just as "Leave means Leave", the LibDems have adopted "Remain means remain."

Boris might hope for an election on the single issue of Brexit, but in doing so, he might be making the same mistake as did Mrs May before him. He will be aware of that, and he will know that the polls do not show him clear of the 40% mark that would make a victory sure.

Furthermore, Boris has conceded the austerity issue. His strategy is to spend his way out of trouble. He will be in no position to point to Labour's programme as too costly. He won't be able to use the 'money tree' jibe. After all, he seems to have found one thriving in the Downing Street garden.

Will his domestic agenda fool voters? Or will they see that it as big tax breaks for the richest while the poorest suffer the consequences of a no-deal Brexit?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published an analysis of the potential costs of Brexit. It is stark reading, with a massive increase in the national debt and an enormous burden for many years to come. No doubt hard Brexiteers will dismiss it, as they have done every other such analysis. But it isn't an excellent backdrop for any party in a general election.

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

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

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog