Early one spring morning during the pandemic, I was in the Queenâs private plane on the tarmac of Belfast International Airport watching Boris Johnson frantically searching for the No. 10 mask his team wanted him to wear. He was full of âAhs!â and âOhs?â and âI must have it here somewheres!â, as he emptied his pockets. Then, he found one. He pulled out one of those blue-and-white disposable masks that you are only supposed to wear once and then throw away. This one looked like it had been used before.
Luckily, one of his aides had brought a spare and handed it over. âAh, sorry,â he mumbled apologetically before disembarking. As I followed him down the steps, I noticed the straps of that unwanted blue mask hanging out of his jacket pocket, flapping in the wind.
I often think back to this moment when reflecting on everything that has happened since: the scandal and resignation, the attempted comeback and, finally, his angry, conspiratorial departure from parliament last week. For me, the Belfast airport mask has become a kind of metaphor, representing both Johnsonâs own chaotic nature and that of his premiership. It has become the scene I return to as I consider those strange months in 2021, when the country was in various states of lockdown and I was spending my time going in and out of Downing Street to profile the prime minister.
Never during this time did I witness any overt rule breaking â no parties nor secret gatherings, no bottles of wine, no abandoned slices of cake. But what I did see was a strange performative obedience to the rules that differed inside and outside No 10, as typified by this moment in Belfast, and which, I think, helps to explain the extraordinary rise and fall of Boris Johnson.
It is worth pausing, though, to reflect on the extraordinary arc of his story. Three and a half years ago, Johnson won the biggest Conservative majority for 40 years. A month later, he took Britain out of the European Union. And a few months after that, almost died of Covid-19. By March 2021, when we arrived in Northern Ireland, Johnson seemed unassailable: here was a Prime Minister with an 80-seat majority, leading Labour in the polls, and seemingly on course for a decade in power.
Johnson talked openly to me about needing a long time in power to deliver his agenda. And yet, today, he is not only not Prime Minister, but he is no longer a Member of Parliament. His political career seems dead.
There has never been a fall from power quite as spectacular. Perhaps Anthony Eden is the most obvious parallel; he left office after the disaster of Suez but upon the order of his doctors. A better example, I think, might be David Lloyd George, the âdynamic forceâ of his age who could not grow old gracefully. In truth, though, neither Eden nor Lloyd Georgeâs downfall were quite as absurd, complete or sudden as Johnsonâs.
My trip to Northern Ireland came at a time when fairly draconian restrictions about what you could and could not do were still in place. Only a few weeks earlier, the prime minister had announced a âroadmapâ out of lockdown: for the first time, it was possible to meet one other person outside your household for âcoffee on a bench or a picnic in a parkâ. Looking back, what strikes me is just how all-consuming these rules had become â and yet, when I crossed the threshold into No 10, or joined the prime minister on a visit, a sense of normality reasserted itself.
I still remember the feeling of unease as I sat on the flight to Belfast maskless; a feeling that disappeared remarkably quickly as normality reimposed itself. To join the trip, everyone had been tested in a room set aside in some discreet corner of Downing Street: none of us had Covid on the flight. Yet even though we had been travelling maskless inside a flying metal tube, once we arrived, Johnson had had to put on his mask to go outside. This was the theatre of the absurd we were all inhabiting at the time.
I donât offer this memory as an excuse for the revelations about Johnsonâs behaviour which would eventually cost him his job, though perhaps I do offer it as some kind of atmospheric mitigation. The truth is, once you crossed the threshold of No 10 during the pandemic, you really did feel as though you were entering a different world. This is not just because of a failure of leadership, though of course that existed. It is because during this time, when the rest of us were sat at home figuring out how to escape our houses within the rules, in Downing Street, a large group of people were working together in close proximity every day, catching Covid, taking tests, travelling on public transport. Evidently, this bred a degree of complacency â and, I would argue, quiet contempt â for the rules they themselves were setting. The fact is, Johnson was plainly imposing rules on others that he himself did not believe in. He saw their absurdity and could not bring himself to play along convincingly.
This, I think, lies at the centre of what would become known as âPartygateâ, the scandal which would cost him everything. The irony of Johnsonâs fall is that it can be explained, in part, because he failed in the performance of the job as much as anything. On the plane in Northern Ireland, Johnson was only doing what he had always done: a daily, performative mockery of authority. Only this time, he was the authority â they were his rules.
The thing is, a central part of the job of any prime minister is performative: projecting qualities such as empathy and bravery, understanding and control. Being prime minister is about much more than bureaucratic management or efficient decision-making. In moments of national crisis, a prime minister has to shape peopleâs understanding of what is happening to them and to show them how things will improve.
During the Manchester terror attacks in 2017, Theresa May remained behind closed doors, working as hard as she could to keep people safe. In many ways, it was admirable. Yet, by staying in London rather than joining mourners in Manchester, she failed in her job. She was still acting as Home Secretary, not Prime Minister. What is odd, reflecting on Johnsonâs premiership, is that so did he, albeit for very different reasons.
The philosopher John Gray told me that the key to understanding Johnson was that the âmask has moulded to the faceâ. Just as we all have our public and private personas, so does Johnson. But with him, the chaos and mockery, jokes and shallowness, are both real and performative. This is the key to understanding Johnson. He uses chaos to distract; but he is also chaotic to the point at which he undermined his entire premiership.
Johnson once described Benjamin Disraeli as âthe greatest of all Tory magiciansâ, the heir to what he saw as his conservative tradition â and with some justification. Disraeliâs greatest biographer, Lord Blake, described him as âa slightly mocking observer surveying with sceptical amusement the very stage upon which he himself played a principal partâ. It is hard to think of a better description of Johnson himself. For Disraeli, this performance âaroused an inextinguishable repugnance among those moderate, serious, high-minded middle-of-the-road menâ who dominated British politics. The same is true for Johnson. As Disraeli himself wrote: âThe British People being subject to fogs and possessing a powerful Middle Class require grave statesmen.â The problem for Johnson was that he was never a grave statesman.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author" author="Tom McTague"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/03/boris-and-the-worlds-worst-birthday-party/[/su_unherd_related]
For a long time, the times were not grave, and Johnsonâs mocking observations worked for him. I remember the moments after he bounded down the stairs in Belfast, straight into the meet and greets that are a prime ministerâs daily life, offering almost clownishly over-performed elbow bumps, making everyone laugh. I noticed that whenever he left a group of people, they would immediately begin laughing with each other as they chatted, spirits lifted by their brief encounter with celebrity buffoonery.
Johnsonâs mocking cynicism was both his superpower and his shield. Writing in the LRB a decade ago, the novelist Jonathan Coe spotted that Johnson was the inevitable product of decades of cynical satirical humour in which politicians were treated as nothing better than absurd blowhards. âThese days, every politician is a laughing-stock,â Coe wrote, âand the laughter which occasionally used to illuminate the dark corners of the political world with dazzling, unexpected shafts of hilarity has become an unthinking reflex on our part, a tired Pavlovian reaction to situations that are too difficult or too depressing to think about clearly.â Johnsonâs skill was to understand this and to get in on the act, becoming his own satirist, safe in the knowledge that âthe best way to make sure the satire aimed at you is gentle and unchallenging is to create it yourselfâ. But as the late Barry Humphries put it, when everyone is being satirical and everything is a send-up, âthereâs an infuriating frivolity, cynicism and finally a vacuousnessâ to life. And into this vacuousness came Johnson.
While Coe gets close as to the source of Johnsonâs power, I think he misses a wider point. Poking fun at the hommes sĂ©rieux of our world was particularly attractive because of the failures of these serious men (and women). Johnson rose to prominence in the world that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, when ideological disputes seemed to have been settled and political battles were apparently being fought along managerial lines: about what worked and who was most competent to manage the system. It was a time of great hope and great projects: letting China into the WTO, expanding the EU, using Western military might to change the world â all apparently un-ideological and âevidence-basedâ but in fact just as faith-based as any other project in history.
Yet this world gave us the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, the implosion of the Arab world, mass, unexpected immigration, austerity and eventually Brexit. After 2016, Johnson rose to prominence mocking the egos of the establishment that presided over this mess, eventually grabbing power at the height of its failure. His opportunity came because of the failures of the political class at home and abroad.
One of Johnsonâs problems â perhaps his inescapable problem â is that he then became part of that failed political class. Only for so long can a prime minister wink at voters with wry, sceptical amusement at the unseriousness of his own government.
His brand of wry, mocking humour no longer suits the age. The world has moved on, but Johnson has not. Take a look at his resignation statement on Friday â a document that sounded far more like it was written by Donald Trump, full of conspiratorial anger and recrimination, than the old Boris Johnson. But Johnson without the humour is not so potent. And besides, Johnson himself no longer seems to represent the kind of insurgent populism he is now positioning himself to embody â his message neither populist nor popular.
Trump, that other populist who uses humour as a political weapon, in contrast, rails against China and puberty blockers, far-away wars and the Washington elite. His message and his humour has not changed. Johnson, however, talks as if the conservatism he stood for was some kind of conservatism of old: free-trade deals and tax cuts. This is the message many in his party want to hear, but not what won him power. Where is the Johnson who put up taxes and demanded a more interventionist Treasury to âlevel upâ the country?
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author" author="Tom McTague"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/04/the-political-power-of-deano/[/su_unherd_related]
Oddly, Trumpâs humour has aged better than Johnsonâs â that of the playground bully, not the wry observer. Trumpâs is brutal, crude, powerful, effective and as potent as ever. Johnson, on the other hand, seems to have lost his, at least for now. He is too angry to maintain the performance.
It would be unwise to rule out Johnson completely. Like Lloyd George, Johnson is a âdynamic forceâ who remains popular among Conservative party members. And as Stanley Baldwin put it, dynamic forces are terrible things. Should Labour make good on its poll lead today and win the next election, there will no doubt be a clamour for Johnson to return among some members of the Tory party
Johnson's great skill was to be able to harness the populist revolt without losing his old âmiddle-of-the-road menâ of England who the Conservative Party had long relied on. In this he was helped enormously by the figure of Jeremy Corbyn and the failures of parliament to enact the result of the referendum. Yet this trick looks impossible for him to pull off again. Johnson without humour is a different beast altogether; Johnson without humour and populism is even more so. We sank giggling into the sea; Iâm not sure you can do so twice.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFor me, Boris Johnson turned out to be something of a disappointment, because fate appointed him the agent to deliver change in a tumultuous age, and he failed to deliver. He wasn’t bad, but a rather ordinary technocrat of the type that are ten a penny these days, and very far from the political giant that you might have thought providence would have picked for itself. He’s a version of the Kung Fu Panda who never actually got round to learning any Kung Fu. Another figure he also reminds me of is Brian from LoB.
Having said all that, I think he has been treated absolutely disgustingly, by both his political opponents and his supposed colleagues (I don’t say on the left and on the right, because those labels are meaningless these days, as they all look like one big blob to me). He may have been a tad laissez-faire with the truth on occasion but he’s a politician, and in truth I don’t see any difference with either the sanctimonious left who loathed him (the pantheon of graun writers come to mind), or the sanctimonious technocratic right who loathed him even more (the likes of Gauke and Rory Stuart come to mind), the bunch of hypocrites. He may be have operated double standards on a few pifflingly minor issues (parties during lockdown etc) but so what, he’s a Tory, and by now I’m sure everyone knows what you get when you elect a Tory, so no one has any excuses to now cry foul.
Instead of a Gulliver bestriding Lilliput, we have had a rather ordinary politician brought low by midget colleagues at least as ordinary, but this, to my eyes, is not how you make and break a Prime Minister in any circumstances, and this applies as much to Truss as to Johnson. It even applies as much to Sturgeon, even if as a politician I don’t like her at all. That these extraordinary events have unfolded now is to me symptomatic of a second-tranche loss of deference, following on from the first-tranche in the sixties and seventies, and this time it’s not for the people holding office, but the office itself.
What is clear to me, is that none of this can possibly come cost free – and the cost is bound to fall on all of the denizens of the Westminster ecosystem, be they politician or bureaucrat or NGO grifter. Because of course they surely cannot be deluded enough to think that what they have visited upon Johnson, won’t in turn be visited on themselves eventually. They have been participating in a revolution without even knowing it, but as we know, revolutions eat their own children.
I see first hand how goverment departments not only have developed their own political agenda but disobey and ignore Ministers when there is a policy difference. Most recently, departments have begun openly attacking Ministers, going so far as to conspire with MPs and the media, through leaks and carefully planned policy failures, to have them weakened, isolated or even removed.
Pliable, promotion-seeking MPs on all sides sense the opportunity and facilitate the departments. A highly politicised media sees this as an easy way to secure the political changes they want.
The proliferation of executive jobs (paying multiples of an MP salary) in goverment quangos was once championed as a means of getting private sector involvement in the public sector. Now these positions, decided by departmental committee, are openly traded as favours in return for compliance and acquiescence of MPs.
The representatives of our democracy must now yield to the centralised authority of Whitehall. This is nothing short of the destruction of democracy.
The contention that it’s all the fault of the Civil service et al is rubbish. Even Osborne last wk was telling Tories ”Weâve been in office since 2010, weâre in charge of our countryâs destiny, and we should stop blaming others if we donât get things right”.
What the blame game highlights is the inherit laziness in many Right Wing politicians and often their supporters (usually alot of examples here on Unherd each day too). They love slogans but not the hard yards of detailed policy formulation and navigation through Parliament. Never clearer than in the car crash of recent immigration policy and in fact pretty much anything re: Brexit opportunities. Remember David Davis sitting in the negotiations with Barnier with nothing prepped and no folders nowhere near on top of his brief – a metaphor for everything that followed. More recently Mogg saying we’re burn 4.5k bits of EU legislation but doing absolutely no work on it (At least Kemi got her head down now and working through the detail). Where are the Tory policies on Housing, training, industrial strategy, education etc? 13 years they’ve had.
There is huge laziness through the core of the Right, which is why they look for a scapegoat. Pathetic.
You’re onto something there. I expect it’s true that all policians are lazy and are tempted to follow the ‘experts’. The so-called Right Wing are as bad, offering easy slogans but no coherent ideas. Johnson is a case in point, calling for a return to ‘proper conservatism’ which for him is just low taxes, deregulation and free trade – which he still couldn’t deliver.
I disagree that all politicians are lazy. Many are incredibly hard working in a job that doesn’t pay v well and has alot of personal cost. And they will question experts. Some of the Cmttee work in Parliament calling experts into to explain and be questioned is first class but often drowned out by other psycho-drama and those clever with slogans but low on substance and graft.
I think the role of experts and their advice going to a v important part of the Covid Inquiry. Time for scrutiny got limited and rapid decisions were needed. The great Statesmen and women when placed in such scenarios look to surround themselves with a range of opinions even if they don’t always like all those views to help hone effective decision making. We’ll find out how and if that happened during the Pandemic.
“A job that doesn’t pay very well.”
You are having a laugh aren’t you ?
“A job that doesn’t pay very well.”
You are having a laugh aren’t you ?
I disagree that all politicians are lazy. Many are incredibly hard working in a job that doesn’t pay v well and has alot of personal cost. And they will question experts. Some of the Cmttee work in Parliament calling experts into to explain and be questioned is first class but often drowned out by other psycho-drama and those clever with slogans but low on substance and graft.
I think the role of experts and their advice going to a v important part of the Covid Inquiry. Time for scrutiny got limited and rapid decisions were needed. The great Statesmen and women when placed in such scenarios look to surround themselves with a range of opinions even if they don’t always like all those views to help hone effective decision making. We’ll find out how and if that happened during the Pandemic.
You’re onto something there. I expect it’s true that all policians are lazy and are tempted to follow the ‘experts’. The so-called Right Wing are as bad, offering easy slogans but no coherent ideas. Johnson is a case in point, calling for a return to ‘proper conservatism’ which for him is just low taxes, deregulation and free trade – which he still couldn’t deliver.
Backstabbing has reached new heights !
Interesting, because my experience working in programme/project management in the Cabinet Office for a while, after years in the private sector, was the exact opposite. Fiercely ambitious civil servants keen to deliver whatever it was the minister wanted, because they saw it was the best way to advance their careers.
Itâs also worth noting the churn of senior civil servants, whose faces didnât fit with their political masters. I think the myth of the all powerful blob is a very convenient invention of incompetent politicians keen to deflect blame for their failures.
Does anyone really believe Liz Truss, say, was doing great things, in a great manner, but was stabbed in the back by the treacherous blob? Except the editor of the Daily Telegraph? Eg in the real world?
The blob is just populist nonsense. Itâs not even a British idea. Like most stupid slogans itâs borrowed from America. It means nothing & is usually repeated by people who donât have the nouce to advance ideas or think seriously about issues
The blob is just populist nonsense. Itâs not even a British idea. Like most stupid slogans itâs borrowed from America. It means nothing & is usually repeated by people who donât have the nouce to advance ideas or think seriously about issues
You are 100% right. But it is not an accident. It is not some spontaneous outpouring of progressive rage toward Brexit. When Blair and the EU New Order both siezed power in the 90s, they together set about the systemic demolition of the (rival to EU, unmodern to Blair) nation state. All you descrive – the creation of a permanent unelected Quangocracy or Technocracy was a de facto REVOLUTION in our governance. A 1917 moment. Nothing can overcome this New Order. The fake Tories are mainly part of it, squeaking about Net Zero & Equality & Diversity. Brexiteers were the Kulaks, with a very few hopeless hapless so called leaders like the Fool Johnson who ALL have been picked off by the Remainiacs one by one. This is the reason you read in despair about a supposed Tory Goverment allowing over 50% of Albanian asylum seekers in. The backlog us engineered and the laws all primed to subvert and impede national self interest Phrama companies are screaming to be allowed to invest and escape the EU style tax and regulation burden..but somehow Tories do nothing. The Blob..aggressively progressive pro EU and self interested rules us…AND the dwarves in any Cabinet. This is NMI in action. Power sits with them. This is the work and way of the EU’s New Order.
The contention that it’s all the fault of the Civil service et al is rubbish. Even Osborne last wk was telling Tories ”Weâve been in office since 2010, weâre in charge of our countryâs destiny, and we should stop blaming others if we donât get things right”.
What the blame game highlights is the inherit laziness in many Right Wing politicians and often their supporters (usually alot of examples here on Unherd each day too). They love slogans but not the hard yards of detailed policy formulation and navigation through Parliament. Never clearer than in the car crash of recent immigration policy and in fact pretty much anything re: Brexit opportunities. Remember David Davis sitting in the negotiations with Barnier with nothing prepped and no folders nowhere near on top of his brief – a metaphor for everything that followed. More recently Mogg saying we’re burn 4.5k bits of EU legislation but doing absolutely no work on it (At least Kemi got her head down now and working through the detail). Where are the Tory policies on Housing, training, industrial strategy, education etc? 13 years they’ve had.
There is huge laziness through the core of the Right, which is why they look for a scapegoat. Pathetic.
Backstabbing has reached new heights !
Interesting, because my experience working in programme/project management in the Cabinet Office for a while, after years in the private sector, was the exact opposite. Fiercely ambitious civil servants keen to deliver whatever it was the minister wanted, because they saw it was the best way to advance their careers.
Itâs also worth noting the churn of senior civil servants, whose faces didnât fit with their political masters. I think the myth of the all powerful blob is a very convenient invention of incompetent politicians keen to deflect blame for their failures.
Does anyone really believe Liz Truss, say, was doing great things, in a great manner, but was stabbed in the back by the treacherous blob? Except the editor of the Daily Telegraph? Eg in the real world?
You are 100% right. But it is not an accident. It is not some spontaneous outpouring of progressive rage toward Brexit. When Blair and the EU New Order both siezed power in the 90s, they together set about the systemic demolition of the (rival to EU, unmodern to Blair) nation state. All you descrive – the creation of a permanent unelected Quangocracy or Technocracy was a de facto REVOLUTION in our governance. A 1917 moment. Nothing can overcome this New Order. The fake Tories are mainly part of it, squeaking about Net Zero & Equality & Diversity. Brexiteers were the Kulaks, with a very few hopeless hapless so called leaders like the Fool Johnson who ALL have been picked off by the Remainiacs one by one. This is the reason you read in despair about a supposed Tory Goverment allowing over 50% of Albanian asylum seekers in. The backlog us engineered and the laws all primed to subvert and impede national self interest Phrama companies are screaming to be allowed to invest and escape the EU style tax and regulation burden..but somehow Tories do nothing. The Blob..aggressively progressive pro EU and self interested rules us…AND the dwarves in any Cabinet. This is NMI in action. Power sits with them. This is the work and way of the EU’s New Order.
Calling Boris Johnson an “ordinary technocrat” is a tad misguided. Technocrats are distinguished by their commitment to order and detail and stickling compliance with The Rules…none of which were/are defining features of The Boris.
And “ordinary” is not an adjective I would ever attach to him. Sui generis, more like.
He is indeed Sui generis as an individual, but it turns out, ordinary as a leader and administrator. He craved being liked to such an extent that it hampered his own independent judgement. He may not have been ‘spreadsheet Boris’ but he may as well have been, given the extent to which he handed over decision-making to the army of ‘spreadsheet Phils’ running around Whitehall and the cabinet colleagues around him. He could impose his will on the electoral process (for which ability he was used by the Conservative Party even though they were always suspicious of him) but he didn’t manage to impose his will on the governance of the country to take it in a different direction – and here I’m being charitable in assuming that he wanted to and would have but for unfaithful colleagues and servants.
Isn’t the order, detail and follow through the job of departments ? Does one need to be the vision AND the bureaucrat all in one ?
Therein lies the problem – a complete failure to understand the mechanics of governing and just assuming a few bits of visionary waffle and hey presto everything gets done.
Ministers have to formulate policy and make decisions, often tough ones, every day.
Let’s give you an example – Braverman receives a report her asylum seeker processing capacity is now overloaded and can she agree the expenditure to expand it – both facilities and staff. Her HO budget is already max’d out so she has to go and make case to Treasury and PM. She delays doing that as doesn’t want to be seen as profligate Minster who can’t live within her budget and she also chooses to spend time waffling on about Rwanda and the lack of British values in these refugees instead. In the meantime system starts to implode behind her through lack of decision making that Ministers exist to make.
But what about fact that a WFH hostile Home Office bureaucracy were creating a backlog but processing barely 1 appilication a week!!!!! An accident? The fact their trade union us taking the decision maker to court to challenge the legitimacy of Rwanda decision suggests the problems do not just lie with the Executive. It is not a lazy excuse for the abject performance of the Tories. There is a systemic issue in play. In lockdown Ministers – who smazo gly did not RUN the NHS or PHE – openly cried, we are pulling every lever and nothing is happening! That is the Plan.
But what about fact that a WFH hostile Home Office bureaucracy were creating a backlog but processing barely 1 appilication a week!!!!! An accident? The fact their trade union us taking the decision maker to court to challenge the legitimacy of Rwanda decision suggests the problems do not just lie with the Executive. It is not a lazy excuse for the abject performance of the Tories. There is a systemic issue in play. In lockdown Ministers – who smazo gly did not RUN the NHS or PHE – openly cried, we are pulling every lever and nothing is happening! That is the Plan.
Therein lies the problem – a complete failure to understand the mechanics of governing and just assuming a few bits of visionary waffle and hey presto everything gets done.
Ministers have to formulate policy and make decisions, often tough ones, every day.
Let’s give you an example – Braverman receives a report her asylum seeker processing capacity is now overloaded and can she agree the expenditure to expand it – both facilities and staff. Her HO budget is already max’d out so she has to go and make case to Treasury and PM. She delays doing that as doesn’t want to be seen as profligate Minster who can’t live within her budget and she also chooses to spend time waffling on about Rwanda and the lack of British values in these refugees instead. In the meantime system starts to implode behind her through lack of decision making that Ministers exist to make.
He is indeed Sui generis as an individual, but it turns out, ordinary as a leader and administrator. He craved being liked to such an extent that it hampered his own independent judgement. He may not have been ‘spreadsheet Boris’ but he may as well have been, given the extent to which he handed over decision-making to the army of ‘spreadsheet Phils’ running around Whitehall and the cabinet colleagues around him. He could impose his will on the electoral process (for which ability he was used by the Conservative Party even though they were always suspicious of him) but he didn’t manage to impose his will on the governance of the country to take it in a different direction – and here I’m being charitable in assuming that he wanted to and would have but for unfaithful colleagues and servants.
Isn’t the order, detail and follow through the job of departments ? Does one need to be the vision AND the bureaucrat all in one ?
Absolutely masterful Prashant. Thank you for expressing so clearly many of the key elements of our current predicament. So many pithy and humorous points. I think we have permanently departed from that charming End of History delusion. These transitions of empire can take many decades to resolve, so detachment becomes a crucial life skill for our times.
Johnson did not secure a victory for the Conservative Party, nor for his personal style and ideas. Neither. The election was secured by the people voting as a bloc to defeat the sickening anti Democratic Remainiac Coup and to deliver the mandated exit from the EU…and to choke off rule by a pro IRA madman called Corbyn. The Fool Johnson’s political ideology was so wildly metro/ultra liberal/woke, he has cemented – with high taxes, furlough insanity and NHS First largesse – GDR style Socialism into the DNA of the UK – and with it guaranteed decline and suffering. A vain chancer, he has utterly destroyed and stripped all core values from the now zombie Conservative Party – chiefly by his abject 2 year surrender to the Blob on lockdown. Yes he secured the Referendum and has been toppled by the BBC and deranged Remainers over a cake and a leaving do. But like a chaotic retreating army in defeat, he has left a scorched earth behind him..and left us vulnerable to rule by ideas- free leftist lunatics. History will damn him.
is it April 1 st?…..
Something of a disappointment? What like The Yorkshire Ripper was not ” a very nice fellow”?
I see first hand how goverment departments not only have developed their own political agenda but disobey and ignore Ministers when there is a policy difference. Most recently, departments have begun openly attacking Ministers, going so far as to conspire with MPs and the media, through leaks and carefully planned policy failures, to have them weakened, isolated or even removed.
Pliable, promotion-seeking MPs on all sides sense the opportunity and facilitate the departments. A highly politicised media sees this as an easy way to secure the political changes they want.
The proliferation of executive jobs (paying multiples of an MP salary) in goverment quangos was once championed as a means of getting private sector involvement in the public sector. Now these positions, decided by departmental committee, are openly traded as favours in return for compliance and acquiescence of MPs.
The representatives of our democracy must now yield to the centralised authority of Whitehall. This is nothing short of the destruction of democracy.
Calling Boris Johnson an “ordinary technocrat” is a tad misguided. Technocrats are distinguished by their commitment to order and detail and stickling compliance with The Rules…none of which were/are defining features of The Boris.
And “ordinary” is not an adjective I would ever attach to him. Sui generis, more like.
Absolutely masterful Prashant. Thank you for expressing so clearly many of the key elements of our current predicament. So many pithy and humorous points. I think we have permanently departed from that charming End of History delusion. These transitions of empire can take many decades to resolve, so detachment becomes a crucial life skill for our times.
Johnson did not secure a victory for the Conservative Party, nor for his personal style and ideas. Neither. The election was secured by the people voting as a bloc to defeat the sickening anti Democratic Remainiac Coup and to deliver the mandated exit from the EU…and to choke off rule by a pro IRA madman called Corbyn. The Fool Johnson’s political ideology was so wildly metro/ultra liberal/woke, he has cemented – with high taxes, furlough insanity and NHS First largesse – GDR style Socialism into the DNA of the UK – and with it guaranteed decline and suffering. A vain chancer, he has utterly destroyed and stripped all core values from the now zombie Conservative Party – chiefly by his abject 2 year surrender to the Blob on lockdown. Yes he secured the Referendum and has been toppled by the BBC and deranged Remainers over a cake and a leaving do. But like a chaotic retreating army in defeat, he has left a scorched earth behind him..and left us vulnerable to rule by ideas- free leftist lunatics. History will damn him.
is it April 1 st?…..
Something of a disappointment? What like The Yorkshire Ripper was not ” a very nice fellow”?
For me, Boris Johnson turned out to be something of a disappointment, because fate appointed him the agent to deliver change in a tumultuous age, and he failed to deliver. He wasn’t bad, but a rather ordinary technocrat of the type that are ten a penny these days, and very far from the political giant that you might have thought providence would have picked for itself. He’s a version of the Kung Fu Panda who never actually got round to learning any Kung Fu. Another figure he also reminds me of is Brian from LoB.
Having said all that, I think he has been treated absolutely disgustingly, by both his political opponents and his supposed colleagues (I don’t say on the left and on the right, because those labels are meaningless these days, as they all look like one big blob to me). He may have been a tad laissez-faire with the truth on occasion but he’s a politician, and in truth I don’t see any difference with either the sanctimonious left who loathed him (the pantheon of graun writers come to mind), or the sanctimonious technocratic right who loathed him even more (the likes of Gauke and Rory Stuart come to mind), the bunch of hypocrites. He may be have operated double standards on a few pifflingly minor issues (parties during lockdown etc) but so what, he’s a Tory, and by now I’m sure everyone knows what you get when you elect a Tory, so no one has any excuses to now cry foul.
Instead of a Gulliver bestriding Lilliput, we have had a rather ordinary politician brought low by midget colleagues at least as ordinary, but this, to my eyes, is not how you make and break a Prime Minister in any circumstances, and this applies as much to Truss as to Johnson. It even applies as much to Sturgeon, even if as a politician I don’t like her at all. That these extraordinary events have unfolded now is to me symptomatic of a second-tranche loss of deference, following on from the first-tranche in the sixties and seventies, and this time it’s not for the people holding office, but the office itself.
What is clear to me, is that none of this can possibly come cost free – and the cost is bound to fall on all of the denizens of the Westminster ecosystem, be they politician or bureaucrat or NGO grifter. Because of course they surely cannot be deluded enough to think that what they have visited upon Johnson, won’t in turn be visited on themselves eventually. They have been participating in a revolution without even knowing it, but as we know, revolutions eat their own children.
Tom, youâre Unherdâs political editor. Unherd is one of the leading sources of alternative-to-mainstream analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and public affairs.
Youâre right that âthe rulesâ were a theatre of the absurd and you are right to call out the cynicism and hypocrisy of those making the rules, who clearly showed no regard for them at all.
But isnât the bigger story, here, how and why national and global political elites were able and willing to impose ârulesâ that *they themselves knew were nonsense*? They caused enormous lasting mental, physical and economic harms to millions of innocent victims, the true scale of which may never be known, and wasted hundreds of billions of pounds of public money. Yet, as one particularly odious man put it, they âgot away with itâ. Isnât it time they were held properly to account?
Perhaps you might consider, in your professional capacity, digging a bit deeper into the actual causes of death and into what went on at the highest international political levels during what you still refer to as âpandemicâ – and what they are up to now (WHO treaty etc)? A decent investigative journalistic team with the guts and the backing to do it (what do you say, Mr Marshall?) could make their names and put their publication truly on the map âŠ
Yes indeed. Iâm glad you said it because I was thinking the same thing. In the US odious rule makers lied to our faces every day and called us terrible names whilst they went to their hair salons, ate with family and friends at expensive restaurants, travelled wherever they liked, sent their children to fancy private schools, and donned useless masks for the cameras.
The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill has been doing gain-of-function experiments with genetically engineered organisms for years – all with the approval of the NIH. This is not because of a benign desire to make potent vaccines – it was proven as far back as 1965 that vaccines are useless against coronavirus – just as the current ones are against Covid 19.
I second commenter Horsmanâs urgent challenge to give readers and the rest of the world a serious expose on the âpandemicâ, what it really was, who was funding it, and why. For my part, I believe it is both a bio weapon and an exercise in mass control.
I entertained the âbio weaponâ hypothesis for a while. But Iâve since abandoned it, concluding that it was just another narrative designed to pump up hysteria. I do not believe any âgain of functionâ research has turned up any significantly altered viruses or antidotes to them. I do not believe the mRNA biotechnology can ever be scaled as production is so intricate and precise. I believe most people got injected with inactive substances… some got unlucky and got injected with contaminated substances. Iâm not buying the âspike proteinâ propaganda. I am unconvinced that myocarditis is caused by anything other than extreme stress (which we were all subjected to). But… my everyday observation shows me that many people who were injected seem to have very poor immune systems and many have developed autoimmune disease… so itâs definitely harmed people. I just think through a collapse of ethical practices not through design. But I remain open to emerging evidence.
An excellent synopsis.
I also initially favoured the âDoomsdayâ scenario of a (genetic?) bio weapon, as it seemed Machiavellian enough for our wonderful leaders.
However, recalling NBC* training of many years ago, and listening to scientists from Porton Down explaining how difficult âbio weaponsâ were both to produce and then âdeliverâ, my enthusiasm had somewhat waned.
Your epistle now has finally convinced me of the error of my ways, for which I thank you.
(* Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (Warfare.)
When FDR (or whoever it was) said âWe have nothing to fear but fear itselfâ, he knew exactly what he was talking about. We have just witnessed FEAR (TM) kill millions. We must fight their other fear campaigns (climate âemergencyâ, AI, aliens) tooth and nail!
Boris’s chronic inferiority obsession is KS to Oppidan classic
When FDR (or whoever it was) said âWe have nothing to fear but fear itselfâ, he knew exactly what he was talking about. We have just witnessed FEAR (TM) kill millions. We must fight their other fear campaigns (climate âemergencyâ, AI, aliens) tooth and nail!
Boris’s chronic inferiority obsession is KS to Oppidan classic
I’m confused are Amy and Andrew Horseman one and the same?
Absolutely not!
What then married? siblings? It’s a rather uncommon name to happen to both be here. Just curious.
What then married? siblings? It’s a rather uncommon name to happen to both be here. Just curious.
Absolutely not!
An excellent synopsis.
I also initially favoured the âDoomsdayâ scenario of a (genetic?) bio weapon, as it seemed Machiavellian enough for our wonderful leaders.
However, recalling NBC* training of many years ago, and listening to scientists from Porton Down explaining how difficult âbio weaponsâ were both to produce and then âdeliverâ, my enthusiasm had somewhat waned.
Your epistle now has finally convinced me of the error of my ways, for which I thank you.
(* Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (Warfare.)
I’m confused are Amy and Andrew Horseman one and the same?
This is absolute nonsense – the vaccines are certainly not useless although their effectiveness was oversold without doubt. You must be immensely gullible to believe that research 60 or so years ago proves categorically that a certain type of virus cannot be inoculated against.
The charge that the virus was very mild but somehow at the same time was an engineered bioweapon is obviously contradictory! But there is just no arguing with evidence free conspiracy theorists!
Well said.
Itâs actually zealots like you who cannot be argued with! Actually, the so-called âconspiracy theoristsâ ARE the ones who DO change their opinions when offered new evidence. And – as you point out, if it was developed as a bioweapon, itâs not a very good one! They have been trying to develop a Coronavirus vaccine FOR 60 years and all attempts fail as it mutates too quickly. It is clearly NOT a vaccine as the majority of jabbed people are getting âCovidâ multiple times. Even if you believe it was a useful prophylaxis, youâre basing your belief on evidence that doesnât really hold up. The trials are shoddy, too. You could look into it, read the Pfizer papers, etc. but you donât sound interested in challenging your dogmatic beliefs.
Game, set and match, well done!
Game, set and match, well done!
Well said.
Itâs actually zealots like you who cannot be argued with! Actually, the so-called âconspiracy theoristsâ ARE the ones who DO change their opinions when offered new evidence. And – as you point out, if it was developed as a bioweapon, itâs not a very good one! They have been trying to develop a Coronavirus vaccine FOR 60 years and all attempts fail as it mutates too quickly. It is clearly NOT a vaccine as the majority of jabbed people are getting âCovidâ multiple times. Even if you believe it was a useful prophylaxis, youâre basing your belief on evidence that doesnât really hold up. The trials are shoddy, too. You could look into it, read the Pfizer papers, etc. but you donât sound interested in challenging your dogmatic beliefs.
I entertained the âbio weaponâ hypothesis for a while. But Iâve since abandoned it, concluding that it was just another narrative designed to pump up hysteria. I do not believe any âgain of functionâ research has turned up any significantly altered viruses or antidotes to them. I do not believe the mRNA biotechnology can ever be scaled as production is so intricate and precise. I believe most people got injected with inactive substances… some got unlucky and got injected with contaminated substances. Iâm not buying the âspike proteinâ propaganda. I am unconvinced that myocarditis is caused by anything other than extreme stress (which we were all subjected to). But… my everyday observation shows me that many people who were injected seem to have very poor immune systems and many have developed autoimmune disease… so itâs definitely harmed people. I just think through a collapse of ethical practices not through design. But I remain open to emerging evidence.
This is absolute nonsense – the vaccines are certainly not useless although their effectiveness was oversold without doubt. You must be immensely gullible to believe that research 60 or so years ago proves categorically that a certain type of virus cannot be inoculated against.
The charge that the virus was very mild but somehow at the same time was an engineered bioweapon is obviously contradictory! But there is just no arguing with evidence free conspiracy theorists!
Yes indeed. Iâm glad you said it because I was thinking the same thing. In the US odious rule makers lied to our faces every day and called us terrible names whilst they went to their hair salons, ate with family and friends at expensive restaurants, travelled wherever they liked, sent their children to fancy private schools, and donned useless masks for the cameras.
The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill has been doing gain-of-function experiments with genetically engineered organisms for years – all with the approval of the NIH. This is not because of a benign desire to make potent vaccines – it was proven as far back as 1965 that vaccines are useless against coronavirus – just as the current ones are against Covid 19.
I second commenter Horsmanâs urgent challenge to give readers and the rest of the world a serious expose on the âpandemicâ, what it really was, who was funding it, and why. For my part, I believe it is both a bio weapon and an exercise in mass control.
Tom, youâre Unherdâs political editor. Unherd is one of the leading sources of alternative-to-mainstream analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and public affairs.
Youâre right that âthe rulesâ were a theatre of the absurd and you are right to call out the cynicism and hypocrisy of those making the rules, who clearly showed no regard for them at all.
But isnât the bigger story, here, how and why national and global political elites were able and willing to impose ârulesâ that *they themselves knew were nonsense*? They caused enormous lasting mental, physical and economic harms to millions of innocent victims, the true scale of which may never be known, and wasted hundreds of billions of pounds of public money. Yet, as one particularly odious man put it, they âgot away with itâ. Isnât it time they were held properly to account?
Perhaps you might consider, in your professional capacity, digging a bit deeper into the actual causes of death and into what went on at the highest international political levels during what you still refer to as âpandemicâ – and what they are up to now (WHO treaty etc)? A decent investigative journalistic team with the guts and the backing to do it (what do you say, Mr Marshall?) could make their names and put their publication truly on the map âŠ
Russians have a word called ‘Vranyo’, which basically means everyone knows everyone else is lying but doesn’t acknowledge it for fear of repercussions. It’s the sort of word that emerges in totalitarian regimes.
The entire Covid-era was an exercise in vranyo. Except I was stupid enough to think I wasn’t living in a totalitarian country.
The “no-honest-man” strategy. You make it so the law is sufficiently opaque, complex and tortuous that every single person is guilty of something. Those who control the justice system are then untouchable since every opponent will face legal prosecution and ruin first.
Wouldn’t we speak of an omertĂ ? Which I know is imported from Italian but I think it has integrated into colloquial English sufficiently to be considered part of the language.
Rubbish.
The “no-honest-man” strategy. You make it so the law is sufficiently opaque, complex and tortuous that every single person is guilty of something. Those who control the justice system are then untouchable since every opponent will face legal prosecution and ruin first.
Wouldn’t we speak of an omertĂ ? Which I know is imported from Italian but I think it has integrated into colloquial English sufficiently to be considered part of the language.
Rubbish.
Russians have a word called ‘Vranyo’, which basically means everyone knows everyone else is lying but doesn’t acknowledge it for fear of repercussions. It’s the sort of word that emerges in totalitarian regimes.
The entire Covid-era was an exercise in vranyo. Except I was stupid enough to think I wasn’t living in a totalitarian country.
Boris Johnson would have done well to recall two pieces of political advice – âwho, whom?â and âdance with the one that brought youâ – from Lenin and Shania Twain respectively. He lacked the attention to detail and ruthlessness to block or remove enemies from key roles, and was then buffeted by the events their actions – hostile both to him personally and to his political constituency – caused. And his desire to please the posh class he grew up within and was surrounded by – people like his brother and his wife – led him down the path of Net Zero, animal rights, lucrative foreign student visas for the university sector, a prominent role in the war in Ukraine, and vaccine mandates, which were just not a priority for the voters whose support he needed to hold on to.
Boris Johnson would have done well to recall two pieces of political advice – âwho, whom?â and âdance with the one that brought youâ – from Lenin and Shania Twain respectively. He lacked the attention to detail and ruthlessness to block or remove enemies from key roles, and was then buffeted by the events their actions – hostile both to him personally and to his political constituency – caused. And his desire to please the posh class he grew up within and was surrounded by – people like his brother and his wife – led him down the path of Net Zero, animal rights, lucrative foreign student visas for the university sector, a prominent role in the war in Ukraine, and vaccine mandates, which were just not a priority for the voters whose support he needed to hold on to.
“It was a time of great hope and great projects: letting China into the WTO, expanding the EU, using Western military might to change the world â all apparently un-ideological and âevidence-basedâ but in fact just as faith-based as any other project in history”.
I loved this sentence, as it embodies so many conversations I’ve had with acquaintances in Austria since Brexit.
They (quite rightly) critcise the way that Britain embarked on this massive project without so much as a whiff of a plan on how to achieve it or what to do afterwards. However, when I counter that this kind of “just do it and see what happens” approach (in other words, taking a leap of faith with an idea) is exactly the way in which the EU and the euro they love so much came into existence, they gawp at me like goldfish out of water.
As far as the euro is concerned, we’re still waiting for the sort of huge blowout crisis that will focus minds and force the completion of the currency’s basic architecture. The kind of situation where failure to make a decision would result in…well, something no one really wants to contemplate frankly. Nothing less than the economic fate of a continent has been left to chance. This is where that particular leap of faith has got us and yet it is not questioned with anywhere near the level of venom that Brexit/Trump/Meloni etc. are.
On a different note, I appreciate this analysis of Johnson, but I’m left wondering: what comes next? What kind of politician do we need in the world we live in today? Or what kind of politician will this world produce? And, most pertinently: do I really want to be thinking about this on a Monday morning?
âBritain embarked on this massive project without so much as a whiff of a plan on how to achieve it or what to do afterwards â.
Indeed, unlike the most famous Austrian ever who quite clearly had a master-plan and won the 1933 election on the back of it.
Responding to a post with a link to Austria with a snide remark about Hitler. How original, how constructive!
Come on, Charles – you can do better than that.
My sincere apologies, âGuilty as charged â.
I’m going to defend my ‘friend’ Charlie! If we’re trying to find someone similar to Boris, it’s not that easy… deluded, narcissistic, ego maniac, megalomaniac etc.
How very vulgar Liam. Been on the vino again?
How about Trump?
How very vulgar Liam. Been on the vino again?
How about Trump?
My sincere apologies, âGuilty as charged â.
I’m going to defend my ‘friend’ Charlie! If we’re trying to find someone similar to Boris, it’s not that easy… deluded, narcissistic, ego maniac, megalomaniac etc.
I’m told the master plan was devised by the German aristocracy with the connivance of American oligarchs such as Henry Ford: AH being merely a stooge (which they found they couldn’t later control) .. I don’t know; maybe you can enlighten me?
You may indeed think that, but I couldnât possibly comment.
You may indeed think that, but I couldnât possibly comment.
Responding to a post with a link to Austria with a snide remark about Hitler. How original, how constructive!
Come on, Charles – you can do better than that.
I’m told the master plan was devised by the German aristocracy with the connivance of American oligarchs such as Henry Ford: AH being merely a stooge (which they found they couldn’t later control) .. I don’t know; maybe you can enlighten me?
The weird thing about Brexit, at least to my mind, is that it was, indeed faith-based but that the faith wasn’t directed at any single project beyond the departure itself. Much has been made of Daniel Hanan and others having said, before the vote, that there was no question of Britain leaving the common market. And then, as soon as the vote had been won, realising that none of the freedoms they wanted could be achieved within the Common Market and becoming “no deal” fanatics. But he was only the most prominent of those who seemed to have spent a significant chunk of their adult lives, trying to bring about a project that they barely understood and certainly couldn’t describe. (Brexit means Brexit).
There’s nothing wrong with “taking a leap of faith with an idea”. There is, however, something deeply strange about taking a leap of faith without an idea. And yet, that is precisely what it was.
The Brexit campaign could win only by being such an enormous tent that it contained directly contradictory factions (e.g. Lexiteers, the Singapore on Thames gang and the migration hardliners to name but three).
It was always destined to disappoint its own partisans precisely because it had had to promise to be all things to all men.
To be clear, this is in contrast to the Euro whose animating idea was, in my view, pretty obvious. It was to place the economic foundations of Europe into a hard money, right of centre, straitjacket, from which no unorthodox politician could break any individual nation free.
The recent experience of Greece, Portugal and Spain may demonstrate that this was a terrible idea but it can scarcely come as a disappointment to its founders that, even in the wake of a catasrophic global financial crisis, those brutally harmed by their membership of the Euro could not escape it – despite the considerable democratic mandates of, e.g. Syriza and Podemos.
By comparison to Brexit, the motivations behind the Euro, were and are a model of limpid clarity.
The purpose of the Euro was to make what would’ve been very expensive German imported goods, affordable to all Europeans. A kind of mini hegemony (under the overall dollar hegemony). In return, Germany financed major EU structural funds spent in those countries.. The other reason was to prevent vultures from preying on weak individual currencies.
Yes, that is how it was done. It’s why the Germans wanted it and how they were able to sell it to non-Germans, but the basic idea was a continent whose economics were placed beyond the reach of politics.
An understandable desire on the part of late 20th century West Germans with their experience not only of hyper-inflation, Nazism and communism but also of the postwar economic miracle.
It’s just that, when you take something (anything), make it extremely powerful and then deliberately insulate it from democratic pressures, you create at least the possibility of a spectacular mess.
Yes, that is how it was done. It’s why the Germans wanted it and how they were able to sell it to non-Germans, but the basic idea was a continent whose economics were placed beyond the reach of politics.
An understandable desire on the part of late 20th century West Germans with their experience not only of hyper-inflation, Nazism and communism but also of the postwar economic miracle.
It’s just that, when you take something (anything), make it extremely powerful and then deliberately insulate it from democratic pressures, you create at least the possibility of a spectacular mess.
The purpose of the Euro was to make what would’ve been very expensive German imported goods, affordable to all Europeans. A kind of mini hegemony (under the overall dollar hegemony). In return, Germany financed major EU structural funds spent in those countries.. The other reason was to prevent vultures from preying on weak individual currencies.
You forget that the main motivator for Brexit was the risk, within the EU, of exposing and taxing the mega rich.. Since that was the only consideration no plan was necessary. As Boris might say, “let the bodies pile high”.
Sure, that might have been a motivator for some – they’d fit into the Singapore-on-Thames crowd in by brief scheme.
But I don’t think that’s what motivated my postie, mechanic, in-laws or a bunch of other people to vote for it. My whole point is that getting Brexit over the line required a bunch of people who findamentally disagreed about what Brexit was, to agree on the single in/out question.
All the disasters since are the consequence of a coalition which only ever represented a narrow majority, discoving that it didn’t agree with itself.
Having seen all that coming a mile off (including the fact that the EU wouldn’t actually tax the rich) I voted accordingly. Like a lot of people who shared my view, I complacently assumed that it was all obvious to enough people that the result was a foregone conclusion. Not proud of that.
Sure, that might have been a motivator for some – they’d fit into the Singapore-on-Thames crowd in by brief scheme.
But I don’t think that’s what motivated my postie, mechanic, in-laws or a bunch of other people to vote for it. My whole point is that getting Brexit over the line required a bunch of people who findamentally disagreed about what Brexit was, to agree on the single in/out question.
All the disasters since are the consequence of a coalition which only ever represented a narrow majority, discoving that it didn’t agree with itself.
Having seen all that coming a mile off (including the fact that the EU wouldn’t actually tax the rich) I voted accordingly. Like a lot of people who shared my view, I complacently assumed that it was all obvious to enough people that the result was a foregone conclusion. Not proud of that.
To be clear, this is in contrast to the Euro whose animating idea was, in my view, pretty obvious. It was to place the economic foundations of Europe into a hard money, right of centre, straitjacket, from which no unorthodox politician could break any individual nation free.
The recent experience of Greece, Portugal and Spain may demonstrate that this was a terrible idea but it can scarcely come as a disappointment to its founders that, even in the wake of a catasrophic global financial crisis, those brutally harmed by their membership of the Euro could not escape it – despite the considerable democratic mandates of, e.g. Syriza and Podemos.
By comparison to Brexit, the motivations behind the Euro, were and are a model of limpid clarity.
You forget that the main motivator for Brexit was the risk, within the EU, of exposing and taxing the mega rich.. Since that was the only consideration no plan was necessary. As Boris might say, “let the bodies pile high”.
âBritain embarked on this massive project without so much as a whiff of a plan on how to achieve it or what to do afterwards â.
Indeed, unlike the most famous Austrian ever who quite clearly had a master-plan and won the 1933 election on the back of it.
The weird thing about Brexit, at least to my mind, is that it was, indeed faith-based but that the faith wasn’t directed at any single project beyond the departure itself. Much has been made of Daniel Hanan and others having said, before the vote, that there was no question of Britain leaving the common market. And then, as soon as the vote had been won, realising that none of the freedoms they wanted could be achieved within the Common Market and becoming “no deal” fanatics. But he was only the most prominent of those who seemed to have spent a significant chunk of their adult lives, trying to bring about a project that they barely understood and certainly couldn’t describe. (Brexit means Brexit).
There’s nothing wrong with “taking a leap of faith with an idea”. There is, however, something deeply strange about taking a leap of faith without an idea. And yet, that is precisely what it was.
The Brexit campaign could win only by being such an enormous tent that it contained directly contradictory factions (e.g. Lexiteers, the Singapore on Thames gang and the migration hardliners to name but three).
It was always destined to disappoint its own partisans precisely because it had had to promise to be all things to all men.
“It was a time of great hope and great projects: letting China into the WTO, expanding the EU, using Western military might to change the world â all apparently un-ideological and âevidence-basedâ but in fact just as faith-based as any other project in history”.
I loved this sentence, as it embodies so many conversations I’ve had with acquaintances in Austria since Brexit.
They (quite rightly) critcise the way that Britain embarked on this massive project without so much as a whiff of a plan on how to achieve it or what to do afterwards. However, when I counter that this kind of “just do it and see what happens” approach (in other words, taking a leap of faith with an idea) is exactly the way in which the EU and the euro they love so much came into existence, they gawp at me like goldfish out of water.
As far as the euro is concerned, we’re still waiting for the sort of huge blowout crisis that will focus minds and force the completion of the currency’s basic architecture. The kind of situation where failure to make a decision would result in…well, something no one really wants to contemplate frankly. Nothing less than the economic fate of a continent has been left to chance. This is where that particular leap of faith has got us and yet it is not questioned with anywhere near the level of venom that Brexit/Trump/Meloni etc. are.
On a different note, I appreciate this analysis of Johnson, but I’m left wondering: what comes next? What kind of politician do we need in the world we live in today? Or what kind of politician will this world produce? And, most pertinently: do I really want to be thinking about this on a Monday morning?
Boris’s final act of buffoonery: giving a peerage to his hairdresser. He had one?
Boris’s final act of buffoonery: giving a peerage to his hairdresser. He had one?
He did not âalmost die of Covid 19â, he was taken to a hospital as part of that theatrical performance you witnessed. No one âalmost died of Covid 19â. People almost died – and many DID die – of horrific interventions ordered by our government. They died of pneumonia as they were denied antibiotics, they died of infections caused by being placed on closed ventilators, they died of organ failure caused by known toxic drugs (such as remdesivir), they died of over-prescribed sedatives and illegal and immoral âdo not resuscitateâ orders, they died of poorly tested and produced novel injectables, and they died of fear and neglect. Letâs start with that truth in all future discussions around what the British public were subjected to from 2020 onwards. There was NEVER a âdeadly threatâ to the British public from a virus and EVERYONE inside No.10 knew that, and THAT is why they behaved differently. Thank you for your eye-witness account of what we all suspected was going on. They all belong behind bars for duping the British public, and causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people. âDeath by government diktat â should be on those death certificates
He was in intensive care due to contracting Covid, most people would class that as nearly dying of coronavirus. We can argue about whether lockdowns were necessary to contain the virus or made the situation much worse (I lean towards the second option personally), but thereâs no doubting Covid 19 was a deadly virus for large numbers of people
I completely understand why you would feel that way because thatâs the narrative we were sold. In fact, the majority of people were suffering extreme stress and panic (severe panic attacks are so bad they can feel like heart attacks), which exacerbated the symptoms of whatever cold/flu bug was going around in the spring of 2020. âCovidâ stands for âCoronavirus Diseaseâ, not a new thing, rather the same thing thatâs been around for decades. In past years, weâve had cold/flu bugs that were just as bad, just minus the panic. Thereâs no way that man was on his death bed. That was media hype. It was drama… theatre… just like the satanic masking rituals.
THE ONS FIGURES FOR THIS NONSENSE ARE :-
DIED âDUE TO COVID-19.
Median age:-
MEN: : 81
WOMEN: : 85
Exactly. Around the same as life expectancy in the UK is anyway. These were normal, expected deaths from old age and disease… just because the word âCovidâ was written on the death certificate does not mean âCovidâ killed them! I hated that inane narrative of âHe was only 82, if that beastly Covid hadnât got him, he could have lived many more years!â As if people were âcheatedâ out of days they were entitled to by some factor that was all the fault of a child who didnât wear a mask. Hideous attitudes throughout this debacle.
FYI “death due to old age” hasn’t been allowed for many years.. age itself is not fatal.. Furthermore the actual ’cause’ of death is not a simple matter. There may be multiple causes each playing a part and it may not be obvious which played a greater or lesser part. To pronounce on it would require a degree of conjecture, albeit expert conjecture. Nut certainty is not on offer.
Covid19 will never be an immediate cause of death. It may be the solely to lung failure in which case it’s safe to say Covid19 was the (indirect) cause. But often, especially with the elderly, there will be other conditions which may well have contributed in addition to Covid19..
So it’s not necessarily a cover up. It may be but it’s not a simple black+white issue.
I don’t know wher you get your stats but you need to check them globally.
FYI “death due to old age” hasn’t been allowed for many years.. age itself is not fatal.. Furthermore the actual ’cause’ of death is not a simple matter. There may be multiple causes each playing a part and it may not be obvious which played a greater or lesser part. To pronounce on it would require a degree of conjecture, albeit expert conjecture. Nut certainty is not on offer.
Covid19 will never be an immediate cause of death. It may be the solely to lung failure in which case it’s safe to say Covid19 was the (indirect) cause. But often, especially with the elderly, there will be other conditions which may well have contributed in addition to Covid19..
So it’s not necessarily a cover up. It may be but it’s not a simple black+white issue.
I don’t know wher you get your stats but you need to check them globally.
So it was a very dangerous virus for the elderly
Yes, and most but NOT all were âalmost thereâ anyway.
How do you know that?!
Arenât you one of them you old scold?
Funny! Yep, just hanging in there with the old farts.
Same for me!
Same for me!
Funny! Yep, just hanging in there with the old farts.
Arenât you one of them you old scold?
How do you know that?!
The Flu is also a very dangerous virus for the elderly, without destructive lockdowns and wasting ÂŁ500 billion on furlough.
Yes, and most but NOT all were âalmost thereâ anyway.
The Flu is also a very dangerous virus for the elderly, without destructive lockdowns and wasting ÂŁ500 billion on furlough.
Exactly. Around the same as life expectancy in the UK is anyway. These were normal, expected deaths from old age and disease… just because the word âCovidâ was written on the death certificate does not mean âCovidâ killed them! I hated that inane narrative of âHe was only 82, if that beastly Covid hadnât got him, he could have lived many more years!â As if people were âcheatedâ out of days they were entitled to by some factor that was all the fault of a child who didnât wear a mask. Hideous attitudes throughout this debacle.
So it was a very dangerous virus for the elderly
Good grief, Amy.
Itâs not a narrative, itâs a fact. Large numbers of people died much earlier than they otherwise would have due to catching the virus, therefore for the elderly and vulnerable it was deadly
THE ONS FIGURES FOR THIS NONSENSE ARE :-
DIED âDUE TO COVID-19.
Median age:-
MEN: : 81
WOMEN: : 85
Good grief, Amy.
Itâs not a narrative, itâs a fact. Large numbers of people died much earlier than they otherwise would have due to catching the virus, therefore for the elderly and vulnerable it was deadly
Spare your sympathy.
It was Darwinian self-selection, he was an OBESE blob and got what he richly deserved.
Well aren’t you the compassionate one.
Thank you, praise indeed from a notorious old scold.
Yep, it takes one to know one.
Definition of a SCOLD:- A old woman who disturbs the public peace by noisy and quarrelsome or abusive behaviour.
What is the male equivalent or isnât there one?
A curmudgeon?
A curmudgeon?
Definition of a SCOLD:- A old woman who disturbs the public peace by noisy and quarrelsome or abusive behaviour.
What is the male equivalent or isnât there one?
Yep, it takes one to know one.
Thank you, praise indeed from a notorious old scold.
Well aren’t you the compassionate one.
Exactly.
I completely understand why you would feel that way because thatâs the narrative we were sold. In fact, the majority of people were suffering extreme stress and panic (severe panic attacks are so bad they can feel like heart attacks), which exacerbated the symptoms of whatever cold/flu bug was going around in the spring of 2020. âCovidâ stands for âCoronavirus Diseaseâ, not a new thing, rather the same thing thatâs been around for decades. In past years, weâve had cold/flu bugs that were just as bad, just minus the panic. Thereâs no way that man was on his death bed. That was media hype. It was drama… theatre… just like the satanic masking rituals.
Spare your sympathy.
It was Darwinian self-selection, he was an OBESE blob and got what he richly deserved.
Exactly.
Donât despair we are just starting a truly titanic Public Inquiry into all this, an Inquiry that will make the âBloody Sunday â and the Grenfell Inquiries âlook like Noddyâ.
Zillions will be spent, hundreds of Lawyers enriched beyond their wildest dreams and absolutely NOTHING, repeat NOTHING will be achieved.
No wonder the most educated nation in the world voted for Adolph in 1933.
Which year did they vote him in?!
It’s Adolf Charlie, nor Adolph and I seem to remember he ‘mucked up’ to quote Douglas Murray in the NatC jamboree. I know: “..but apart from that he’s just what you need now” – how about Cruela Braverman or Priti Patel, not that Murray would approve of either of those ladies due to, …well, …you know…
Slovenly research (yet again) Liam old chap!
AH was christened ALDOLPHUS for which the normal abbreviation is Adolph.
However both Adolph and Adolf are acceptable although I prefer the former. QED?
Charlie, old chap, you’re at it again with your “my brain is bigger than yours” thing.
Did you not receive a secondary education when you emigrated to the States?
Liam was WRONG, and should thus be corrected no?
Just sounds a bit one upmanship.
No just education.
No just education.
Just sounds a bit one upmanship.
Did you not receive a secondary education when you emigrated to the States?
Liam was WRONG, and should thus be corrected no?
Charlie, old chap, you’re at it again with your “my brain is bigger than yours” thing.
Slovenly research (yet again) Liam old chap!
AH was christened ALDOLPHUS for which the normal abbreviation is Adolph.
However both Adolph and Adolf are acceptable although I prefer the former. QED?
Which year did they vote him in?!
It’s Adolf Charlie, nor Adolph and I seem to remember he ‘mucked up’ to quote Douglas Murray in the NatC jamboree. I know: “..but apart from that he’s just what you need now” – how about Cruela Braverman or Priti Patel, not that Murray would approve of either of those ladies due to, …well, …you know…
Bojo was in ITU on a closed oxygen system that forces O2 into your lungs. Not quite full mechanical ventilation, but a treatment that can only be managed in such a high dependency environment. Without this his blood sats would drop dangerously low with significant mortality & morbidity risk. ITUs all over the country handling these sort of cases at that time doing a brilliant job once they’d understood the disease a bit more. Not all survived though, but many who may not have did.
But don’t let facts get in your way of twaddle.
How do you explain the ONS figures or are they bogus?
(Nothing would surprise me these days.)
Well the Public Inquiry will, eventually, give us a fully considered view we hope.
I suspect the ONS data is indicating we did well to reduce the risks that would have caused more death – but that involved alot societal impact. Certainly in hospitals we got better and better at managing the condition after initially not really knowing what was going on. But the volumes needing care crunched the ability to carry on treating other more planned care ailments. It’s the fact it curtailed most cancer care and other things like joint replacements etc, that meant we had to get the demand back down somehow. One issue I’m sure the Inquiry will surface is we went into the Pandemic with much less critical capacity than some other health systems and that meant we could absorb less without drastic measures.
One suspects Lockdown reduced the annual death rate due to other infections too creating a bit of a distortion.
So merely looking at the data now doesn’t indicate the comparison with ‘do nothing’.
But they’ll be proper statisticians able to assess this further I’m sure. The difficultly will always be the counter factual in a UK context – knowing what would have otherwise happened, but it’s why we need the Inquiry to get on with the assessment
Unless the figures are completely bogus, the information at it stands says that the overwhelming number of fatalities were amongst the very OLD. Older in fact than life expectancy itself!
I doubt if any Public Inquiry will be able to refute that fact, however hard they try.
When on Day One I heard the PM start bleating
about âProtect the NHSâ I instinctively knew we were about to witness the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on this planet, with the sole exception of the Resurrection.
And so sadly it has turned out to be, and the cumulative damage done to the life prospects of the âyoungâ has been enormous, and will continue to be so for years to come.
ps. I trust at least one the ridiculous âNightingale Hospitalsâ will be preserved for posterity.
Agree about the resurrection not that I ever went for it.
Yes CS, but the point is how many younger were saved by the measures. That’s the bit we can’t be sure of, and it’s also why the experience of Bojo himself informative.
As we all know v elderly can’t absorb critical intensive care, esp ventilation, as well so they weren’t triaged to it in general. ITUs were full of much younger. Not all made it but many did.
The ONS figures quite clearly indicate that C was a serious disease for the elderly* NOT the young.
This irritating fact was brought to the attention of the general public by the former Supreme Court Judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption. What he said in April 2020 still holds good now!
Boris being an obese blob hardly makes a great case study does he? In fact had he NOT been treated at St Thomasâs with exceptional care as one would expect for a sitting PM, he would probably have got the âchopâ.**
(* 80+.)
(** Certainly in my local hospital which somewhat resembled Scutari.)
I agree the âyoungâ affected much less by Virus and much more by measures to tackle it. Something the Inquiry must further assess – how could we have better balanced this?
But a big chunk of population fell in the middle- ITUs were full of them.
many overweight, vit D deficient, and other unfortunates with pre-existing conditions.
many overweight, vit D deficient, and other unfortunates with pre-existing conditions.
I agree the âyoungâ affected much less by Virus and much more by measures to tackle it. Something the Inquiry must further assess – how could we have better balanced this?
But a big chunk of population fell in the middle- ITUs were full of them.
The ONS figures quite clearly indicate that C was a serious disease for the elderly* NOT the young.
This irritating fact was brought to the attention of the general public by the former Supreme Court Judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption. What he said in April 2020 still holds good now!
Boris being an obese blob hardly makes a great case study does he? In fact had he NOT been treated at St Thomasâs with exceptional care as one would expect for a sitting PM, he would probably have got the âchopâ.**
(* 80+.)
(** Certainly in my local hospital which somewhat resembled Scutari.)
I thought the same (NHS – con trick – Resurrection) until it got undeniably satanic (masking children, worshipping injectables, etc.) and that led me back to Christianity. I believe we all need a moral compass and Christianity is the best one out there. I think most people in Britain DO have a Christian compass (or did before 2020) even if they donât call it that. As to the Resurrection, even if you want to see it as a metaphor (that if you die for the truth, you will not suffer in death), itâs valuable. The spiritual battle is only ever a personal one. None of us can actually compete with God, not even the Devil himself, though he never stops trying! Lives can never be âsavedâ, only souls can be saved… by JC. Amen.
As a fully paid up Pagan it is far too late for me, but thank you for the very kind thought.
I second that.
I second that.
As a fully paid up Pagan it is far too late for me, but thank you for the very kind thought.
Agree about the resurrection not that I ever went for it.
Yes CS, but the point is how many younger were saved by the measures. That’s the bit we can’t be sure of, and it’s also why the experience of Bojo himself informative.
As we all know v elderly can’t absorb critical intensive care, esp ventilation, as well so they weren’t triaged to it in general. ITUs were full of much younger. Not all made it but many did.
I thought the same (NHS – con trick – Resurrection) until it got undeniably satanic (masking children, worshipping injectables, etc.) and that led me back to Christianity. I believe we all need a moral compass and Christianity is the best one out there. I think most people in Britain DO have a Christian compass (or did before 2020) even if they donât call it that. As to the Resurrection, even if you want to see it as a metaphor (that if you die for the truth, you will not suffer in death), itâs valuable. The spiritual battle is only ever a personal one. None of us can actually compete with God, not even the Devil himself, though he never stops trying! Lives can never be âsavedâ, only souls can be saved… by JC. Amen.
Unless the figures are completely bogus, the information at it stands says that the overwhelming number of fatalities were amongst the very OLD. Older in fact than life expectancy itself!
I doubt if any Public Inquiry will be able to refute that fact, however hard they try.
When on Day One I heard the PM start bleating
about âProtect the NHSâ I instinctively knew we were about to witness the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on this planet, with the sole exception of the Resurrection.
And so sadly it has turned out to be, and the cumulative damage done to the life prospects of the âyoungâ has been enormous, and will continue to be so for years to come.
ps. I trust at least one the ridiculous âNightingale Hospitalsâ will be preserved for posterity.
Well the Public Inquiry will, eventually, give us a fully considered view we hope.
I suspect the ONS data is indicating we did well to reduce the risks that would have caused more death – but that involved alot societal impact. Certainly in hospitals we got better and better at managing the condition after initially not really knowing what was going on. But the volumes needing care crunched the ability to carry on treating other more planned care ailments. It’s the fact it curtailed most cancer care and other things like joint replacements etc, that meant we had to get the demand back down somehow. One issue I’m sure the Inquiry will surface is we went into the Pandemic with much less critical capacity than some other health systems and that meant we could absorb less without drastic measures.
One suspects Lockdown reduced the annual death rate due to other infections too creating a bit of a distortion.
So merely looking at the data now doesn’t indicate the comparison with ‘do nothing’.
But they’ll be proper statisticians able to assess this further I’m sure. The difficultly will always be the counter factual in a UK context – knowing what would have otherwise happened, but it’s why we need the Inquiry to get on with the assessment
â…may not have did.â Hmm, English lessons for you, perhaps, on top of Propaganda Awareness lessons. They lied. They all lied. We know that now. But youâre still spouting THE SCRIPT (TM). Let go of the belief system and engage with the truth. Mechanical ventilation kills people. âCovidâ does not kill people.
Yes, cytokine storms killed the poor victims of that mechanical ventilation. Many doctors warned that if any ventilation was required, an open system, similar to a C-pap, be used. Instead, old people with flu were murdered in hospital beds when they could have been given HCQ or Ivermectin and sent home to recover.
Oh for sure they lied about a number of things. But they didn’t lie about how ill Bojo was. I know through the trade he was in serious trouble, but got v good care quickly.
Boris was/is OBESE, no need for further discussion.
Boris was/is OBESE, no need for further discussion.
Covid does kill so does the flu virus. What about the epidemic of 1918 that killed 50 million people worldwide. Did they all die because of a conspiracy or because they were old?
The majority were young, look it up.
Exactly, that’s my point. It was rhetorical.
Exactly, that’s my point. It was rhetorical.
The majority were young, look it up.
Yes, cytokine storms killed the poor victims of that mechanical ventilation. Many doctors warned that if any ventilation was required, an open system, similar to a C-pap, be used. Instead, old people with flu were murdered in hospital beds when they could have been given HCQ or Ivermectin and sent home to recover.
Oh for sure they lied about a number of things. But they didn’t lie about how ill Bojo was. I know through the trade he was in serious trouble, but got v good care quickly.
Covid does kill so does the flu virus. What about the epidemic of 1918 that killed 50 million people worldwide. Did they all die because of a conspiracy or because they were old?
Well said.
How do you explain the ONS figures or are they bogus?
(Nothing would surprise me these days.)
â…may not have did.â Hmm, English lessons for you, perhaps, on top of Propaganda Awareness lessons. They lied. They all lied. We know that now. But youâre still spouting THE SCRIPT (TM). Let go of the belief system and engage with the truth. Mechanical ventilation kills people. âCovidâ does not kill people.
Well said.
Absolutely.
Rubbish. Millions of people died all over the world.
Millions die, all over the world, Clare, every year. There was NO overall excess death in the world in 2020. The same âmillionsâ who were expected to die in 2020, died in 2020, whatever they wrote on the death certificates. I understand why itâs hard to question the official narrative. I felt angry when I could no longer ignore the very obvious evidence that showed the twin towers were not destroyed by aeroplanes crashing into them alone, that it was clear there were explosives involved that were detonated in sequence, as building of that size simply cannot fall into their own footprint unless a controlled demolition is carefully planned. If youâre genuinely interested in the world and not just here to throw rocks at people, please consider an alternative explanation that the one offered by the mainstream media and establishment.
How close were you to the front-line when the storm was breaking AH? Genuinely out of interest.
I look at the data in hindsight and have lots of questions about the national approach. But I also remember what it was like as the patients flooded in and we ran out of capacity and staff, the latter dropping like flies too.
The number of frontline NHS and âkey workerâ staff who died of Covid in Scotland was exactly ZERO. But keep deluding yourself if it makes you feel better. I went into several hospitals in 2020 (A&E and post op for various reasons) and they were like ghost towns.
Aha but âyouâ had the wonderful DEVI SRIDHAR, FRSE to guide you did you not?
Aha but âyouâ had the wonderful DEVI SRIDHAR, FRSE to guide you did you not?
The number of frontline NHS and âkey workerâ staff who died of Covid in Scotland was exactly ZERO. But keep deluding yourself if it makes you feel better. I went into several hospitals in 2020 (A&E and post op for various reasons) and they were like ghost towns.
I have found it pointless to try to reason with people who are somewhat paranoid and have conspiracy theories. You’re invested in your beliefs for whatever reason.
You are behaving like a gaslighting troll, Clare, so Iâll refrain from engaging with you again… which is as you claim you wish anyway. Good luck in life, all the best to you.
You are behaving like a gaslighting troll, Clare, so Iâll refrain from engaging with you again… which is as you claim you wish anyway. Good luck in life, all the best to you.