[If we are to have an interview with Boris Johnson that will bring up the many examples pertaining to his suitability for public office, this is how it will go…]
Q: A lot of people are asking why anyone should vote for your party when that could lead to you having a majority in the Commons to push through policies that are highly damaging for this country?
BJ: Balderdash! Nothing I’ve done or will do can ever be described as ‘damaging for this country’. My entire career is devoted to serving the public, and that’s the God’s honest truth.
Q: The truth? Isn’t that something you actually find rather difficult to handle? As a journalist, you were fired by The Times for making things up; as the Brussels Correspondent of the Telegraph, you repeatedly fabricated stories about what the European Commission was doing; and you were sacked from your job as shadow arts minister by your leader on the grounds that you had lied about an extra-marital affair.
BJ: Total piffles! I tell the truth on what matters. Everybody knows that.
Q: You mean like the people of Liverpool who lost loved ones at the Hillsborough disaster, and then found out that you, as Editor of The Spectator, falsely accused the victims as drunks who brought it on themselves; or the campaigners against the third runway at Heathrow who were given a solemn pledge from you to stand with them, but only until it suited your personal ambition to drop your opposition to the runway; or your old boss at the Daily Telegraph, Max Hastings, who knew you well and remarked that “Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade.”
BJ: It’s obvious we’re not going to agree about everything. But as a political leader, I deliver. Look at my record as London Mayor, the achievements speak for themselves.
Q: Are you referring to achievements such as closing 10 fire stations and removing 27 fire engines after promising you would do no such thing; declaring that you would eradicate rough sleeping in London by 2012 when during your term of office it actually doubled; telling people there would continue to be manned ticket offices at every tube station before you went on to close all of London's ticket offices; ignoring advice when you insisted on acquiring three water cannon vehicles, which were immediately banned by the Home Office from being used in London and ended up being sold for scrap; or wasting £53million of public funds over the ill-conceived Thames garden bridge project?
BJ: For heaven’s sake, try looking at the big picture. What’s most important for our country is Brexit, and I’m the only one capable of delivering it, because I believe in it and I would rather die in a ditch than let it slip.
Q: What exactly is it that you believe in relation to the European Union? In 2012, you said on the BBC Andrew Marr Show, ″it’s very simple – what most people in this country want is the Single Market, the Common Market.” You pointed out that even if we left the EU, “We’d still have huge numbers of staff trying to monitor what was going on in the Community, only we wouldn’t be able to sit in the Council of Ministers, we wouldn’t have any vote at all. Now I don’t think that’s a prospect that’s likely to appeal.” And you explained further in an article for the Daily Telegraph, “most of our problems are not caused by ‘Brussels’, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.”
BJ: It’s a free country, one can change one’s mind.
Q: So what changed yours? Could it be that when David Cameron put his political career on the line by backing Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, you thought that was your chance to become the favourite to succeed him with the Conservative Party becoming increasingly anti-EU, so you switched to backing Leave?
BJ: Absolutely not. It’s purely a matter of principle. Brexit is the correct path to take.
Q: And that is why you’re so incensed with MPs blocking it?
BJ: Of course. We must leave the EU. The moment we have agreed a way for our departure, we must take it, instead of coming up with pathetic excuses to vote it down.
Q: Yet when Theresa May agreed a way for Brexit, you voted it down. You blocked Brexit, because it helped to undermine her, force her to step down, and give you the chance to become the leader of the Tory Party, and by a quirk of procedures, Prime Minister of this country.
BJ: What utter nonsense! Theresa May’s deal was bad for the country. My deal is good for the country.
Q: But you don’t want Parliament to scrutinise it, and you don’t want to give the British people a ‘Final Say’ referendum to consider if on these terms it’d be better to leave or remain after all.
BJ: We must honour the 2016 referendum result.
Q: But as you said, it’s a free country, people can change their minds. It’s over three years since the 2016 referendum, and with far more details coming out now, shouldn’t people have a chance to reconsider?
BJ: Let me tell you something. When it comes to the most vital issues, you must leave it to the person at the top to make the ultimate decision. Why waste any more time when it can all be left to me to look after the interests of our country? There’s no conceivable reason why anyone should doubt my sincerity, my judgement, and my integrity. Trust me on this. I don’t lie.
Q: That just about sums it up.
--
Note: the dramatised interview above is based on information supplied in the articles to be found in the links below:
--
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solve-our-problems-says-Boris-Johnson.html
(Boris Johnson on why leaving the EU won’t solve the UK’s problems.)
--
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain
(Max Hastings, former editor of the Telegraph, on Boris Johnson; succinctly summing him up as someone who “cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification”)
--
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-lies-conservative-leader-candidate-list-times-banana-brexit-bus-a8929076.html
(On Boris Johnson’s record on telling lies)
--
https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/02/14/boris-johnson-remember-what-he-said/
(Boris Johnson on people wanting to stay in the Single Market)
--
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-are-we-so-surprised-that-boris-johnson-lied-when-he-s-been-sacked-for-lying-twice-before-a7105976.html
(More on Boris Johnson’s lies and false promises)
--
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/09/garden-bridge-cost-taxpayer-50m-failure-charity-undermines-public/
(Boris Johnson wasting £53million of public money on Thames garden bridge.)
--
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-faces-questions-over-fire-brigade-cuts-following-greenfell-fire-2017-6
(Boris Johnson presiding over the closure of fire stations and removal of fire engines)
--
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrow-expansion-boris-johnson-third-runway-bulldozers-climate-change-a8963241.html
(Boris Johnson’s U-turn on Heathrow’s third runway).
Friday 15 November 2019
Friday 1 November 2019
Proud to be Open-Minded
It is often said these days that progressives must engage with the ‘values’ of the neglected masses. And what values are we talking about here? Apparently, these are values founded on a deep-seated antipathy towards the outlook of the so-called liberal ‘elite’. Angry traditionalists, we are told, are fed up with out-of-touch modernists and their being open-minded about everything. But should we start queuing up to spout the ‘greatness’ of how it used to be?
Let’s look at a few stand-out issues. First and foremost, there is the narrow, monolithic ‘we’ who want to have their neighbourhood, religion, country, and customs, just the way they were back in the ‘golden age’ (before those foreigners arrived). That’s pitted against the cosmopolitan, multicultural, ‘anywherers’/’citizens of nowhere’ who allegedly have no sense of belonging or proper identity. In reality, people with diverse skin colours, accents, faiths, customs, backgrounds, have been cooperating and enriching each other’s lives for centuries. It is an established fact that in areas where there is more mixed interaction, people are more positive about diversity, whereas in places with low immigration or rigid social segregation, there is greater distrust and unease about ‘newcomers’. The way forward is to promote more social mixing and collaborative community ventures.
Secondly, open-mindedness about family structures and gender roles is another common target. Right-wing populists champion ‘values’ that are associated with the traditional male-dominated family model, and are often found to speak up against gender equality, same sex marriage, or tougher enforcement to tackle sexist abuse or domestic violence. Far from endorsing outmoded prejudices dressed up as ‘traditional values’, progressives should point positively to examples of thriving relationships and happy families that are not hampered by discriminatory attitudes.
Thirdly, the problem of insecurity can be dealt with through an open-minded pragmatic approach to see what works best, or it can be confronted with force regardless of circumstances. Those yearning for good old macho toughness will instinctively back the bombing and invasion of foreign countries, detention of suspects without trials, lengthy prison sentence irrespective of the offence, and capital punishment even when critical testimony has been retracted. By contrast, if one really wants greater security, one should be willing to explore what is actually going to be most effective under different conditions – choosing and combining, e.g., deploying diplomacy and/or armed intervention; opting for incarceration and/or rehabilitation; granting a second chance and/or imposing tough penalties.
Finally, and in general, those who crave for certainty without having to engage in thoughtful assessment are always more susceptible to demagogic rhetoric that feeds their prejudices, hands them false promises, and manipulates them to serve someone else’s ambitions. But to find answers that will truly attain for them a better quality of life, they should be assisted with improved understanding of how objective analyses and empirical investigations work, and supported by open-minded examination to arrive at the most reliable paths to reach their goals.
Those running scared of right-wing populists may want progressives to start espousing blinkered views because they think that would be an electoral asset. But the rest of us should enhance our outreach and cooperate with all citizens in learning to test out what will really help us individually and collectively.
We should be confident in our inclusive values and proud of our open-mindedness.
Let’s look at a few stand-out issues. First and foremost, there is the narrow, monolithic ‘we’ who want to have their neighbourhood, religion, country, and customs, just the way they were back in the ‘golden age’ (before those foreigners arrived). That’s pitted against the cosmopolitan, multicultural, ‘anywherers’/’citizens of nowhere’ who allegedly have no sense of belonging or proper identity. In reality, people with diverse skin colours, accents, faiths, customs, backgrounds, have been cooperating and enriching each other’s lives for centuries. It is an established fact that in areas where there is more mixed interaction, people are more positive about diversity, whereas in places with low immigration or rigid social segregation, there is greater distrust and unease about ‘newcomers’. The way forward is to promote more social mixing and collaborative community ventures.
Secondly, open-mindedness about family structures and gender roles is another common target. Right-wing populists champion ‘values’ that are associated with the traditional male-dominated family model, and are often found to speak up against gender equality, same sex marriage, or tougher enforcement to tackle sexist abuse or domestic violence. Far from endorsing outmoded prejudices dressed up as ‘traditional values’, progressives should point positively to examples of thriving relationships and happy families that are not hampered by discriminatory attitudes.
Thirdly, the problem of insecurity can be dealt with through an open-minded pragmatic approach to see what works best, or it can be confronted with force regardless of circumstances. Those yearning for good old macho toughness will instinctively back the bombing and invasion of foreign countries, detention of suspects without trials, lengthy prison sentence irrespective of the offence, and capital punishment even when critical testimony has been retracted. By contrast, if one really wants greater security, one should be willing to explore what is actually going to be most effective under different conditions – choosing and combining, e.g., deploying diplomacy and/or armed intervention; opting for incarceration and/or rehabilitation; granting a second chance and/or imposing tough penalties.
Finally, and in general, those who crave for certainty without having to engage in thoughtful assessment are always more susceptible to demagogic rhetoric that feeds their prejudices, hands them false promises, and manipulates them to serve someone else’s ambitions. But to find answers that will truly attain for them a better quality of life, they should be assisted with improved understanding of how objective analyses and empirical investigations work, and supported by open-minded examination to arrive at the most reliable paths to reach their goals.
Those running scared of right-wing populists may want progressives to start espousing blinkered views because they think that would be an electoral asset. But the rest of us should enhance our outreach and cooperate with all citizens in learning to test out what will really help us individually and collectively.
We should be confident in our inclusive values and proud of our open-mindedness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)