Friday 31 July 2020

The UK's first spoilt brat PM

It may seem a strange thing to say but wealth, privilege and an elite education can have a very infantilising effect - on males particularly. A perfect example of this phenomenon is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. As a child, he declared that his ambition was become president of the world. He was educated at Eton College and Oxford; at the former he is said to have expected to receive perks and privileges without having to do anything to earn them. Clearly his sense of entitlement developed at an early age. 

It is perhaps not very surprising that at university he became president of the Oxford Union, and even less so that he joined the Bullingdon Club, described by Wikipedia as "a private all-male dining club for Oxford University students. It is known for its wealthy members, grand banquets, boisterous rituals, and occasionally bad behaviour, including vandalism of restaurants and students' rooms." They always got away with trashing restaurants because their rich daddies reached for their cheque books; less privileged young men would undoubtedly have ended up in court.

By the time he left Oxford, he was clearly of the view that what was most important to him was obtaining what he wanted, irrespective of the cost or consequences, a pattern of behaviour that persists today.

Like Trump, he is a serial liar, but there's a difference: Trump cannot tell the difference between the truth and his own thought processes, while Johnson regards the truth as acceptable collateral damage in order to achieve whatever end he has set his sights upon. He was sacked from The Times in 1988 for making up a quote in an article, and he lost his job in 2004 as shadow arts minister of the Tory Party for allegedly lying about an extra-marital affair.

As Kirsty Major wrote in The Independent in 2016:

"As Mayor of London he promised to totally eradicate rough sleeping by 2012; it doubled under his leadership. His 2008 manifesto promised there would be manned ticket offices at every station; he closed all of London's ticket offices. He aimed to reduce transport fares; they increased by 4.2 per cent."

It's obvious that he was prepared to say absolutely anything to be elected, and having won, he made little effort to keep his promises. On the contrary, he was more interested in his pet vanity projects, cutting what he saw as unnecessary public sector costs, and helping his rich friends in business. He automatically upheld all appeals to him against refusals by local authorities to grant planning permission for developments. He was so irritated by a London Assembly member demanding an explanation how fire safety could be improved while fire brigade staffing levels were being cut and fire stations closed that he dismissively blurted out: "Get stuffed!" While this was before the Grenfell disaster, it was nonetheless a wholly unacceptable response, and it typifies his impatience with any questioning of his decisions, which is surely what the Assembly is for. This aversion to accountability has been a defining characteristic of his political career. 

His notorious Garden Bridge project cost £53 million, including £43 million of public money, despite never even being started. To date, I have't heard a word of apology for such a waste of public money. As a trade union rep, I represented one of my members who had been wrongly accused of deliberately misspending public money, a matter of little more than £100; if I'd lost the case, he would have been sacked. Johnson's squandering of millions of pounds hasn't earned him so much as a slap on the wrist.

He bought two water cannons, even though it is illegal to use them in the UK; presumably he either didn't know they couldn't be used because of his habitual inattention to detail, or in his breezy and ill-informed self-confidence he believed he could obtain permission to use them. Either way, his successor was unable to sell them and they were scrapped at a loss of more than £300,000. Who pays? The taxpayer, obviously.

As PM, during the worst pandemic to hit the UK for a century, he considered it important to spend nearly a million pounds repainting an aeroplane in patriotic livery so show Britain is ... well, I'm not actually sure what!
 
These projects derive from Johnson's self image as the man whose destiny post-EU is to recreate an image of UK greatness in the eyes of the world - not unlike Trump's mantra 'Make America Great Again'. That he fails time and again doesn't seem to dent this self-belief.

A fine example is when he managed to get himself infected with COVID19 by deliberately shaking hands with everyone, including patients suffering from the virus, that he'd met during a tour of a hospital, a foolish activity that he boasted about on television. My view is that he felt it showed him as a fearless leader and a man of decisive action during a crisis, but the reality is that, as well as making himself ill, he probably spread the disease further, both in the hospital and elsewhere. It is not impossible that his stupidity caused deaths. He was acting with the same sense of personal invincibility as reckless teenage youths performing stupid and dangerous stunts. 

The breezy and jokey persona that he has applied to his progression down the path to prime minister, the post he feels he was born to hold, has proved wholly unsuited to dealing with a dangerous pandemic. Faced with this disaster, he decided to exploit it to show that, unshackled from the EU, Britain could now be 'world-beating', leading the world in pandemic reduction.

Instead of simply purchasing effective ventilators, he set British industrialists the task of devising a superior, British, 'world-beating' version. Some of them were disgusted when he joked that it could be called 'Operation Last Gasp'. There's a time and place for humour, but a cheap gag about people dying when you're ostensibly in charge of overseeing a pandemic is extremely difficult to excuse.

He wasted around £11 million on a 'world-beating' track & trace system which didn't work and was abandoned - more public money squandered on yet another failed, 'world-beating', vanity project. The pattern just keeps on repeating itself.

Referring to the possible introduction of local lockdowns, he used the analogy of an amusement arcade game, Whack-A-Mole. Such a frivolous comparison is scarcely appropriate to describe a method of tackling a virus that has so far killed close to 50,000 of his fellow British citizens, but is quite typical of his inability to treat a very serious situation with the gravity it deserves.

Extraordinarily, he has recently been boasting about his government's overall approach to CV19, even though the UK's rate of excess deaths is the highest, especially in England, which is particularly significant because it is the only UK nation without an elected assembly of its own and is therefore subject to direct rule by Johnson's government.

Johnson has the sense of entitlement of a rich, spoilt brat who expects to receive what he desires without any need to earn it. His personal life has been a series of self-indulgent affairs that has left an unknown number of children - six at least - in its wake. He is a philanderer with a sociopathically under-developed sense of self-restraint. Like most such males, he would probably assert that he loves women, but in reality such behaviour is closer to exploitation than affection - he wants it, he takes it, and then flees.

It is signally unfortunate that, at a time of a national crisis that is killing tens of thousands of Britons, seriously damaging the economy and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs, we are led by an immature, vain liar with an overweening sense of entitlement and the mindset of a spoilt, lazy, public schoolboy who has been granted far too much of his own way.

► P.S. Since writing this post earlier today, I have learned that Johnson has launched an - in the words of the official government website - "independent panel to look at judicial review. A panel of experts will examine if there is a need to reform the judicial review process after an independent review was launched by government today (31 July)".

This government has had a number of setbacks because of judicial reviews, most humiliatingly when it was ruled that Johnson had broken the law last year by advising the head of state to suspend Parliament, which he did to close down parliamentary scrutiny of his embarrassing performance during the Brexit crisis. This high-handed action was quite typical of his sense that he is entitled to get whatever he wants.

However, because the Supreme Court blocked this shabby tactic, he has predictably responded by trying to have the rules changed. I say 'predictably' because simply accepting the judgment and moving on could be interpreted as an admission that he was wrong, something his self-importance could never tolerate. I am certain that he intends to ensure that future legal challenges to any similar overbearing actions by his government will become much more difficult to win, if not downright impossible. I'd like to be wrong, but with Johnson's record, it seems unlikely I shall be.

► This is a follow-up to a previous post: 

Wednesday 22 July 2020

The Russia Report and an Apology for Nigel

By happy coincidence, the publication of the controversial "Russia Report" yesterday followed my previous blog post about Luke Harding's chapter in "Shadow State" about the influence of Russia upon the EU Referendum.
Well, as we know, Russia denies all charges of interference. No surprise there, and, as people with a penchant for selective facts have picked up,  there seems to be no evidence of Russian influence either on the referendum, the Leave campaign or, presumably, the Brexit Party. One particularly aggrieved individual with this penchant is our old mate, Nigel Farage. Nigel feels himself vindicated, as he says on Twitter:
"Years of lies and smears from Remain politicians and much of our media. There is no evidence of Russian involvement with http://Leave.EU or me in the referendum. It was all a hoax — apologies are now required". Well, Nigel will get no apologies from me and I'm happy to say that his smug declaration has been received with scorn by many commentators. One reply on Twitter put it nicely:
“I’m not sure you’ve read the same report as everybody else, Farage,” said @HerbyCumberland. “Lack of hard evidence does NOT vindicate you or anybody else. We already knew that specific named persons appear in the unpublished classified annex. You are, as usual, being very economical with the truth.”
Quoted in "The New European":
"David Head said: “Come off it. The Russia report is explicit in concluding that no evidence was sought of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum.
Instead of "Not Guilty", Nigel, Arron Banks and Leave.EU have earned a verdict that is only handed down in Scottish courts: "Not Proven". There is more to be said about Nigel, his cronies and the Brexit menagerie, but I'll save that for later. As far as the government is concerned, I don't think any less of them than I already did, but their response is as shifty and mendacious as is that of the Russian government. Witness their 20-page reply to the Russia report in which, as ITV says:
"...the government said there was no need to investigate alleged Russian activity during the Brexit referendum because regular assessments are made by Intelligence and Security Agencies."
Strangely, these assessments did not pick up on the fact that Twitter found 3, 841 accounts registered to the Russian Internet Research Agency - the same accounts active in supporting Donald Trump during his victorious presidential campaign. (See my last post, or Luke Harding's book, Shadow State).
There is little to be gained by pointing out the shaky relation that this government has with the truth - especially the present Prime Minister. That's very much in the public domain. Besides this, they are all Brexit supporters, so they have a vested interest in ignoring foreign interference in the EU referendum, because it could have led to the result being declared invalid. Alistair Campbell, on ITV News, said: "Brexit is a fraud". 
LibDem leader, Sir Ed Davey was quoted:
"He (Davey) accused Boris Johnson of refusing “a cross-party call to launch an inquiry because he is worried about what it might find”
And, as James O'Brien is saying on LBC as I type, this negligence, deliberate or otherwise, could cost the Conservatives votes at the next election.
This government, then, has many good reasons to let sleeping dogs lie.
Returning to dogs, I would like to conclude by returning to the hounds of Brexit - Nigel Farage, Arron Banks, Anne Widdecombe and the Brexit Party. I'd like to return, briefly, to a topic I wrote about in September, 2019, which was the refusal of Brexit MEPs to support the EU Parliament's resolution to call for the release of EU/Iranian dual nationals being unjustly detained in Iran. I noted that Gordon Brown, M.P., had commented on possible financial links between Russia and the Brexit Party, via the Leave campaigner, Arron Banks. From this, I surmised that the Brexit shower had voted this way because Iran was Russia's ally. No conclusive evidence of Arron Banks receiving Russian money has been found, primarily because no-one has looked for it. Nevertheless, I still find the Brexit Party behaviour on this issue contemptible - and suspicious.
There is one foreign observer who finds all this of great interest - he's been in all the papers.

Saturday 18 July 2020

"The Shadow State" - Brexit, Putin and Trump

I some times think that we are living in a collective nightmare in the UK and elsewhere. Covid-19 is frightening enough without Brexit, Trump and the bizarre antics of our "leaders". Fortunately, there are a number of perspicacious writers who work very hard to provide a truthful picture of what is happening. One such is the Guardian journalist, Luke Harding, who has written some excellent works on the relationship of President Putin with the West, as well as the murder of Alexander Litvinenko and the attempted murder of the Skripals in Salisbury. His latest book, "Shadow State" is a wide-ranging expose of Putin-directed interference in Western society, ranging from the bungled assassination attempt in Salisbury to the interference in the US presidential election - and much more.
"Shadow State" is, as John Sweeney says in the Guardian, "a necessary book", for all of us who are concerned at what we see happening politically. It provides us with details that we would not otherwise have. One example: six months after the Salisbury debacle, which was carried out by two GRU agents, their boss, Igor Korobov, died in "mysterious circumstances". A GRU defector described this as murder. Putin, he believed, was angry at the failure of the mission.
Even the Daily Mail, though ungraciously failing to mention Harding's book, joined in the controversy:

"A former MI6 spy has accused Boris Johnson and Theresa May of turning a blind eye to claims Vladimir Putin secretly bankrolled Brexit and held a grip on Donald Trump.
Christopher Steele, the veteran intelligence operative and Russia specialist, told MPs the May administration prioritised politics over national security. He said the government 'threw a blanket' over his 2016 'dirty dossier' about the US President to avoid souring relations with the White House ahead of forging a cross-Atlantic trade deal after Brexit."


That is a very serious accusation, and Harding makes much the same charge in his book. He also deals extensively with the Russian connection with Trump, and the election interference in the USA and Ukraine.. Two excellent reviews in The Guardian and The Scotsman cover this, but I wish to focus upon Chapter 9 : "Moscow Gold". This chapter deals primarily with the alleged meddling of Russia in the EU referendum, and brings back into scrutiny our dear old pal, Nigel Farage.


I had forgotten how, at the start of the referendum campaign, the accepted wisdom was that Remain would win convincingly. At the time, it never occurred to me that, as Harding says:
"For Putin, Brexit was a highly desirable outcome. His pan-European objective was to break up the EU and weaken the UK and NATO."
Putin's men in London, Ambassador Yakovenko and a thinly-disguised FSB spy, Alexander Udod, set out to help bring this about. The man seen in two of the pictures above, is Arron Banks, a UKIP donor whom I believed was part of  Vote Leave but was in fact a co-founder of Leave.EU, which, says Harding, was:
"...an insurgent outfit. It had an unapologetically anti-immigrant message. Banks...would give Leave.EU £8.4 million".
In November 2018, the UK electoral commission acted on information that the "true source" of the money wasn't Banks. Which brings us back to the spy, Udod. He met Banks at the UKIP conference in Doncaster, 2014, and invited him to lunch with the Russian ambassador. Banks has written that he did not take the Russian officials seriously, but concealed the fact that he met Yakovenko a number of times after this. There was sufficient cause for concern about these links with Russian bigwigs, and alleged Russian offers of business deals that Banks, and his sidekick, Wigmore, were hauled before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Affairs Committee in 2018. They (what a surprise!) denied any wrongdoing and posed as victims of Remainers in the media and in politics.
While being questioned, however, they made some interesting admissions. Wigmore said that "referendums were not about facts" and "it's about emotion". He also admitted lying to the press about the fact that Banks, who has a Russian wife and three children of dual nationality, was in Russia in 2016. (Banks said he and his family stayed in Moscow and visited the Hermitage museum. The Hermitage is in St Petersburg). He said that his job was to be "provocative". Jo Stevens MP asked what was the difference between provocation and lies. For those of us who found the Leave campaign inherently dubious, it raises the question: how many more lies were told by Leave during the referendum campaign?
Banks has written a book called "The Bad Boys of Brexit" in which he claims that Leave used "the power of social media". Luke Harding comments:
"What Banks doesn't say is that Putin helped in this cyber effort".
The Brexit-boosting Twitter accounts were later used in Putin's campaign to support Trump, causing the Democrat senator, Adam Schiff, to observe:
"From what we've seen, the parallels between the Russian intervention in Brexit and the Russian intervention in the Trump campaign appear to be extraordinary".
 In 2018, Twitter found 3.841 accounts credited to the Russian Internet Research Agency. This was endorsed by a parliamentary inquiry into fake news in 2019. Harding again:
"Moscow's playbook in the UK was the same as in the US".
In other words, they played upon populist and racist themes: immigration, Syrian refugees, EU migrants taking council houses and ISIS terrorism. Nigel Farage and the other Brexit luminaries have never acknowledged this, still less condemned it.
As for Mr Banks' finances, there was no Russian gold. However, Banks funded Nigel to the tune of £450 000, as well as the millions mentioned above. The National Crime Agency (NCA) has investigated Banks' share in diamond mines in South Africa and Lesotho, which could have been used to launder money from Moscow. It dropped the investigation, and the results of the investigation were not made public.
Harding remarks upon the difference between Teresa May's strident denunciation of Russia's role in the Salisbury poisoning with a curious inactivity towards investigating Russian meddling in the EU referendum. Harding again:
"...the British political class and the BBC ignored Russia's possible role in the Brexit vote".
Rightly, there has been no such restraint over the alleged attempts by Russia to hack into research into a Covid-19 vaccine, although the campaign bears all the the hallmarks of the two campaigns discussed above. The BBC has led the charge of denunciation reporting, and reported the predictable Russian response:
"We do not have information about who may have hacked into pharmaceutical companies and research centres in Great Britain. We can say one thing - Russia has nothing at all to do with these attempts," said Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for President Putin, according to the Tass news agency".
What a surprise, eh? Well, none at all, really. What is - perhaps - puzzling to some is the blatant way in which Russia's agents behave. It's almost as if they revel in being discovered. Harding, when commenting upon the Salisbury poisoning, says here:
"The message of the Skripal affair...could be boiled down to two words: "Fuck you".
He quotes a US presidential adviser as saying:
"They don't care about being discovered. It sends a signal that we have no respect for you".
Quite - but they are no less disrespectful when attacking American luminaries. During the last US presidential election, on my YouTube feed, I kept getting videos making scurrilous allegations about Hilary Clinton's sexuality, i.e. that she was a lesbian. At the time I could tell these videos were part of a concerted effort to discredit Clinton, but didn't know who was behind it - although I was bemused at why I was receiving them. Now, I know who was behind it, but am angry at receiving the videos; the sexuality of an American politician or anyone else is of no interest to me. Had I been an American voter, I would still have voted for Clinton, whatever her sexuality. I get a number of Russian hits on this blog, and I hope that my Russian readers - at least those who work for the hacking agencies - will take note for the next election in which they seek to interfere.
To conclude - who benefits from all this? Who gains by it? Well, here he is...

PS - I strongly recommend Luke Harding's book!