Why not sack Johnson?

Mary Dejevsky might well have a reasonable solution to some immediate Tory problems, but sacking Boris Johnson, with him then challenging Theresa May for the leadership, would be my preferred option. This is as it most likely would lead to an early general election. The sooner Labour is in power the better.

Dejevsky’s description of Johnson is spot on when she calls him “crass and gaffe-prone”, but where does she get the idea that he “possesses a sense of history”? Surely what he actually has, like many privately educated toffs, is a distorted vision of history, exaggerating the importance of Britain and looking back on a “glorious past” that was, in fact, a time of British-enforced slavery, barbarity and multiple atrocities.

As for having a “capacity for empathy”, it certainly wasn`t in evidence when insulting Buddhists in Burma, writing rude limericks about the Turkish leader, and thinking it funny to ridicule the dead in Libya.

Clearly, Johnson’s sense of humour is puerile in the extreme, but when it is allied with public-school arrogance, and an education which taught a totally biased and inaccurate version of imperial history, the result is a Foreign Secretary who brings embarrassment and shame to us all. MPs on all sides should be demanding his resignation. 

Next election is Labour`s to lose!

Solomon Hughes writes that Labour cannot count on the Tories having a similar "very bad Tory campaign", but correctly adds that there are "weaknesses we can aim at in the next election" (Morning Star, 29/09/17). Of course there are!

      The Tory party, even if the election doesn`t come until 2022, will still be the divided one it is now. Does anyone really believe it will have united around a "charismatic" leader like Rees-Mogg, Amber Rudd, or even the scheming Boris Johnson? Can anyone see their stirring speeches emboldening thousands of young activists across the country?

   Is the Tory party suddenly going to have a Damascene moment and  be no longer advocating lower taxes for the rich, divisive education policies, arms sales to whatever dictatorship willing to buy, and a national minimum wage well below  the level  required for a decent life? Of course not. These are the policies which form the basis of Conservatism in this country. Even when trifling changes are proposed, the lobbyists are quick to water them down to limit their significance further still.

      By the time of the next election, does anyone really think that the Tory government will have regulated the rental sector so that tenant exploitation by Rachman-like landlords will no longer exist, or that the public sector will be well funded with no recruitment crises in health and education? Social housing? A financial transaction tax?

 Furthermore, can we envisage this divided, back-stabbing coalition of selfish millionaires sealing a Brexit deal with hunky-doryness on all sides?  Will the results of callous austerity policies and cuts ever be forgotten?

     The current conference shows how fearful the Tory party is of Jeremy Corbyn, and it will do everything in its power both to liken him to Stalin, and to exaggerate dire consequences of socialist policies. Try what they will, they cannot match the popularity of Labour`s leader or its policies. Only rebellious disunity stands in the way of a Labour victory.

 

Johnson should go!

"Gaffe" is usually defined as "an unintentional act or remark", and is the most popular method of describing the numerous incidents when our country`s foreign secretary manages to insult the people, customs or leaders of other countries (The ambassador, Kipling - and Johnson, 30/09/17). Johnson may occasionally blurt out, like most of us, silly, inappropriate observations, but most of his insults simply are not "unintentional" at all. A recital of Kipling`s "Road to Mandalay" in "the most sacred Buddhist site" in the capital of of Myanmar is not something uttered inadvertedly. Johnson knew full well the impact his quoting of the poem would have, but still continued until the British ambassador`s intervention. Similarly, his writing of "a crude limerick about the Turkish president" was done to ridicule purposely, whilst his insulting comments about Hillary Clinton and Francoise Hollande have to be deliberate.

 Clearly, Johnson`s sense of humour is puerile in the extreme, but when it is allied with public school arrogance, and an education which taught a totally biased and inaccurate version of imperial history, the result is a foreign secretary who brings embarrassment and shame to us all.  MPs on all sides should be demanding his resignation. 

Next election:why Labour will win

What a shame the chief political commentator of the Sunday newspaper of our choice, Andrew Rawnsley, despite the absolute chaos being caused by a Tory administration bereft of principle and unity, is still unable to come to terms with the distinct possibility of a left-wing Labour party running the country (The shadows dancing on the walls at Labour`s Brighton celebration, 24.09.17). Not only does he sink yet again to the bottom of his Blairite barrel with the spurious suggestion that Corbyn`s age will make "the future of the leader" the "biggest taboo subject" at the Labour conference, Rawnsley also submits that the June election saw Labour as "the lucky beneficiary of freak circumstances that won`t necessarily be repeated" next time.

  Presumably the Tory party in 2022 will no longer be the divided one it is now, but will have united around a charismatic leader like Rees-Mogg or Amber Rudd, whose stirring speeches will have emboldened thousands of young activists across the country? It will no longer be advocating lower taxes for the rich, divisive education policies, arms sales to whatever dictatorship willing to buy, and a national minimum wage well below  the level  required for a decent life? By then the Tory government will have regulated the rental sector so that tenant exploitation by Rachman-like landlords will no longer exist, and the public sector will be well funded with no recruitment crises? The Brexit deal will have been sealed with hunky-doryness on all sides, and callous austerity policies and cuts forgotten?

     Rawnsley admits the "Corbyn sceptics in the parliamentary Labour party have gone mute since June", and not without reason. Time perhaps for Mr Rawnsley to follow suit!

Labour United`s season starts well!

With the season in its early stages, Labour United look set to improve on the encouraging results seen last June. Still relying too much both on the manager to weave his magic, and on the opposition being divided, with Conservative City`s leader clearly having "lost the dressing-room", Labour cannot assume victory to be inevitable. Hard work and thorough preparation are required.

    Home contests will be close, but as long as all stick to the game plan, concentrate on providing a united front, with no individuals trying to be different with an alternative plan of attack, all should be well. Old hands have had their day, the game has changed, the opposition are tougher and certainly better financed, and it is time to keep to the newer tactics which served them so well last season.

     Europe could well be a problem, and United have to be careful its policies do not divide the fans. Defence, too, can be problematic for Corbyn, but a principled approach works wonders!

     Conservative City`s finances have never been in better shape, which means their tactics can be adopted to suit the more modern times. Using social media to keep the fans up-to-date and well-informed, a tactic which worked well for United in the past, is something all opposition teams will copy. Having, and keeping, a young fan-base has always been City`s problem, but with its current manager, and with the list of leaders-in-waiting, lacking any plans to win their support,the dilemma looks set to remain.

     May`s managership has led to a dramatic change in tactics, with the formation now favouring a three-pronged attack on the right-wing, and too few offensives down the centre to worry the opposition. In fact, the three attackers are definitely more anti-strikers than "false number 9s"! One of the three, Davis, has a reputation for only putting in short shifts, whilst the strangely popular Johnson hits the news more for his off-the-ball behaviour than his skills in the opposition half. Johnson was May`s surprise selection, especially as his post-match gaffes tend to outnumber even his missed goal opportunities. Shooting on sight appears his modus operandi, whilst team mates would prefer a more considered approach. 

        The third anti-striker is renowned for wanting the "right result", and for not doing enough to achieve it. Considered the team expert on defence for a short while, Fox`s career seemed to have ended when it was discovered he had smuggled a close friend on to the team bus! Fans love a "fox in the box", but this Fox`s contribution has been minimal, and he might well be spending more time this season on the Conservative`s backbench. With rumours that the Maydays are over, and that Rees-Mogg`s wide right-wing approach offers new vision, anything is possible.

      United should prosper, however, with its approach to academies offering more opportunities to maximise potential, whilst City`s youth policy seems in disarray. Manager May dropped a bombshell when what could be the end of City`s academy system was announced. Rather than grooming the best talent in academies, as has been the common practice in recent years, May was going for selection at eleven, and hoping to see talent develop from there. This caused a huge outcry when announced, even amongst Conservative City`s traditional supporters, and the subsequent U-turn has added to the confusion, and to May`s imminent sacking. Chairman Murdoch cannot be pleased, and many suspect her belated return from holiday to pre-season sessions was simply a ploy to avoid widening the obvious cracks in City`s ranks. May`s refusal to spend, to prop up the team`s ailing performance, when money is clearly not a problem, judging by her profligacy regarding the team`s Northern Irish support, is only one of many problems. Her preference for rhetoric rather than action is another; "talking a good game" is something most managers do, but most actually attempt to transfer words into deeds!     

   It could well, therefore, be an excellent season for Labour United. One certainly cannot fault the shift being put in by manager Corbyn; let`s hope his pre-season efforts reap dividends.

Who is ruling Britain?

It`s an obvious question to ask, but very rarely delivered, especially by the mainstream media. The answer should be, of course, the prime minister, democratically elected only last June, but when one looks at the actions taken and in the process of being taken, it becomes more difficult to say that Theresa May is actually governing the country. That explains why the question - who is ruling Britain? - is so rarely, if at all, asked.Until now. What an opportunity thsi provides the Labourparty - ready-made fuel to add to the Tory misery. A possible question for the PM at the Wednesday session, too.

    If one looks back to May`s election as Tory leader, in July last year, it is difficult to forget that long list of seemingly good intentions, just as it is difficult to find any of those promises being put into action. She promised to "fight against the burning injustices", to help the "just about managing", to lead a government "not driven by the interests of the privileged few", and, when passing new laws, to "listen not to the mighty" but to us, the people! The autumn statement and a budget have passed since, but if the "Jams" have been assisted in any significant way, I must have missed it.

 What has been unmissable has been the way the promises have been watered down, not because we, the electorate insisted, but because the "mighty" lobbying elements did. The pro-business lobby has been behind much of May`s proposals on corporate reform, something she said was vital because excessive pay at the top threatens the "social fabric of our society". Not vital enough, however; the pledge on workers` representatives on company boards fell at the first hurdle, and now it is up to non-executive directors to stand up against CEOs and argue for better pay ratios. The latter will be published but no legislation has been promised to reduce the ratios; instead, there will be a new public register of companies facing regular shareholder opposition to their pay policies. It`s no wonder both the CBI president and the director general of the Institute of Directors are in approval. Their organisations` lobbying has borne fruit, nothing has changed, CEOs will continue to pocket at least around 100 times the pay of their average employees, and May`s promises have been forgotten; her rhetoric is well known for its ability to outweigh her actions, something clearly Labour can rally around, and repeat as one!

   Sadly, there is much more evidence which proves who actually is in charge of this country, and they clearly care not a jot about the "fabric" of our society. We might be very concerned that our government is selling weapons to the Saudis so that they can bomb Yemen, a country so devastated by war that famine and disease are rife, but that doesn`t stop the arms industry lobbyists winning the day.

     Then there`s the food industry, a lobby so influential it insists the public is not told the whole truth about what it eats; the government can harp on all it likes about putting the nation`s security first, but stands back when faced with food contamination threats. Disraeli`s 1875 legislation on food safety, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, was largely ineffective because of the 19th century`s shortage of analysts. Now we have the analysts, their work in the public sector has seen drastic cuts by years of Conservative-dominated governments, which have been intent on reducing massively the budgets of local authorities. Politicians never tire of telling us how "security" is their priority, justifying the billions spent every year on weapons and defence. What a shame, then, that they don`t attach similar importance to the people`s security from food contamination. The  Food Standards Agency apparently  wants to "improve relationships" with the food industry!  Is that an agency which is next to useless or what? Naming and shaming supermarkets and abattoirs for their contamination levels is not enough; it hasn`t exactly had much effect in reducing tax avoidance! And who takes responsibility  for all of this? Lobbyists, the people who are really ruling Britain.

Labour should be hammering home this point; the Tories are failing in their  responsibility to rule.  

Think of the biggest of the many U turns on the Tories` manifesto made since the election, and then consider who is responsible, not that the government`s arm needed much turning - the Tories clearly know exactly where their bread is buttered! No prizes for guessing which industry`s lobbying succeeded in getting rid of the pledge to cap energy costs, a vote-winner for Labour if ever there was one. 

The betting lobby ensures the continued existence of the addictive fixed-odds betting terminals on almost every high street, and a barrage of televised advertisements on primetime TV. The building industry`s influence over government means little or no affordable or social housing is being built, with doubt increasing about safety levels of those that have appeared, for very obvious and tragic reasons.

 As for the influence of the banking and financial sectors on government policy!! The lack of substantial regulation, the fact that next to no prison sentences have resulted from the many abuses and fraudulent acts, and the refusal of governments to introduce a financial transaction tax all speak volumes.

The question remains: who runs the country? One thing is certain, it`s not Theresa May, and the sooner the people know about it, the better. Labour should be shouting it from the rooftops!

Time to end this lame-duck government

The situation the country is now in is both ridiculous and frightening! We have a prime minister so divorced from reality she makes a statement claiming that there is a "great prize" awaiting us after Brexit, when the UK will become a "great global country" (Tory MPs in revolt as May threatens "soft" Brexiters, 03.09.17). Theresa May even thinks she will still be Tory leader in 2022!  Her party, as Andrew Rawnsley tells us, might be willing  to put up with a "lame-duck leader", because the alternative is a "bloodbath", followed by an election defeat, but the country cannot afford such selfish Tory mismanagement and the consequent "rudderless government"(How long will Mrs May survive? She`s the very last person to ask,03.09.17).

  Meanwhile, our uselessness in foreign affairs, personified by Johnson, results in arms being sold for use in Yemen, and offers nothing to ameliorate political and humanitarian catastrophes. At home, shortages of hospital beds, teachers, GPs and nurses, prison and police officers, firefighters, food and buildings` inspectors, HMRC staff and more, exacerbate problems caused by decreased funding for local authorities, and the many caused by government-enforced austerity policies and real-wage cuts.

   Not only MPs but all those with influence, from judges to lords, from archbishops to political commentators, should, in Anna Soubry`s words, see it as their duty, to "do what they believe is in the national interest", and speak out. Enough is enough, a general election is needed urgently. Political change at the top is essential.