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

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

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