Skip to main content

Where's Boris?

It is said that Boris Johnson is 'fuming' because people say they don't trust him.  Whether or not Boris tells the truth, he certainly hides from it.

He hides from a lot of things - and has been known to hide in a refrigerator to avoid interviews!  I suppose that is an excellent way to cool down!

Well, now the country is flooding, and Boris is nowhere to be seen.  The country is flooding, and the minister responsible says that our flood defences are 'working'.  There's a flood! What is working about that?  Some people are chest high in water in their own homes: what flood defence worked for them?

But Boris is nowhere to be seen.

For all his blustering tomfoolery, Boris isn't useful in a crisis.

Now, there is a good argument that he should keep out of the way.  After all, what could he do wading around in his wellington boots looking silly?
Being silly has prevented him from appearing in the past. Remember that dangling fiasco on a high-wire during the Olympics?

Boris doesn't appear because he knows he will get questions, and he doesn't like questions. One question would be "What have the Tory governments being doing to improve flood defences over the last decade?"

He is more likely to point the finger at his predecessors in No. 10 than find an answer.

The government did increase spending on flood defences in England up to four years ago.  However, funding peaked in 2014-15 at about £950m after heavy winter flooding and has been lower in every year since.

The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, says that spending on London and the South East has been considerably higher than elsewhere in the country.  He is right. 

Spending in London and the South East in 2017 was £116 per head and £180 per head respectively. In contrast, funding in the West Midlands and north-east amounts to just £14 and £33 per head.

Perhaps that is why Boris hides from the people whose homes are flooded in the West Midlands and the North East and regions outside London and the South East. 


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

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

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho