Today was supposed to be the big day for the Prime Minister. Having won his 80 seat majority last year, he now had full freedom and flexibility in shaping his government. Boris Johnson could decide who would continue in government and who would leave. That election result gave him the mandate to do so. All the talk of a Cabinet clear-out, mirroring that of last July, meant the Prime Minister’s authority was seen as supreme. He wanted the 13th February to be defined by his authority: removing ministers and promoting supposedly new talent.
Instead, the main newsline will be one of weakness: losing his Chancellor. Prime Ministers have a vast array of prerogative powers, but they cannot stop ministers from resigning. Sajid Javid decided to quit the Treasury, having never delivered a Budget. As someone who has seen previous premierships retain the same Chancellor throughout their time in office - George Osborne, Phillip Hammond - it is quite remarkable and unusual in contemporary British politics to see a Chancellor leave government while the Prime Minister remains the same. His successor now has a matter of weeks before the government budget, supposedly the flagship piece of legislation that will define the next few years. It is quite remarkable. To me, it shows how misinformed Westminster journalists - many of whom I admire and respect - can be. The convention wisdom was that all the Great Offices of State would remain the same. While less significant Cabinet posts would alter, the defining parts of government would see no change. They would be conserved, in line with the party in government. This was proven incorrect. According to journalists, it was all because of, you guessed it, Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s senior adviser wanted Javid to, for whatever reason, sack his aides. Clearly the former Chancellor’s loyalty was to his colleagues and not his neighbour in Number 10. It seems not a day goes by without discussion of the significance of Dominic Cummings. Even before he entered government last summer, the magnificent Brexit Channel 4 drama written by James Graham and staring Benedict Cumberbatch created an image of this genius, an evil genius if you will. Since his emergence as this domineering figure, journalists have combed through his vast blog website, with entries far longer than anything I’ve produced here. The Guardian have published a long read looking inside the mind of the senior adviser: what he believes, what he has done and how this will affect his behaviour. Most of the actions that have taken place during Johnson’s premiership have, one way or another, be attributed or blamed on Cummings. Whether it was the extended prorogation of Parliament, poor language used in Parliament, the decision for an election, the election campaign and the reshuffle decision, Johnson has managed to escape the full blame. Instead, he is often presented as a puppet of Cummings, simply following his orders and strategy in making his decisions. This is both inaccurate and a dereliction of duty. Repeated, it is argued that for all his bluster and incoherence, the Prime Minister is very clever. Having read Classics at Oxford, it is hard to disagree. Surely then, he is able to make the decisions about his government? By lumping the focus all on Cummings, Johnson is able to escape accountability and responsibility for the actions of his government. His adviser is seen as the ‘real’ Prime Minister who orders Johnson around. No longer can this narrative stand. Margaret Thatcher was completely right when she said ‘advisers advise and ministers decide.’ The responsibility for today’s surprise resignation because of a bizarre ultimatum must lie with the Prime Minister, not any adviser. ****************************************************************************************************************** Overseas, the Irish elections received a welcome level of coverage in the UK. Reporting by BBC Newsnight’s Lewis Goodall in particular has been superb, especially to those (like myself) who aren’t so aware of Irish politics. It’s yet another reason why I believe the BBC has to survive for its public service broadcasting is second to none. While I admit the entertainment genre can be perfectly served by the commercial sector, the BBC’s news output is second to none. When notions of the truth are being threatened, the aspiration towards impartially should be celebrated. Netflix and Amazon Prime cannot be relied upon to delivering such high quality news output. As for the election itself, the rise of Sinn Fein was the stand out element. This should be hugely concerning to all unionists. I believe, and will always believe, the United Kingdom is better together. That Mary Lou McDonald, the President of Sinn Fein, believes a border poll should be held and that EU nations should support a united Ireland is unsurprising but deeply concerning. My opposition towards Sinn Fein in particular goes further than simply their policy on a united Ireland. While I also disagree with the Social Democratic and Labour Party of Northern Ireland on the unionism/nationalism question, I at least respect their support for achieving change through the ballot box. The same cannot be said for Sinn Fein. Their links and affiliations towards the IRA - especially under Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness - are shameful, repulsive, morally abhorrent and should deny the party any influence and power in Irish politics. It is thanks to the failure of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael (led by Leo Varadkar), who look like two sides of the same coin, to offer radical change that has left voters choosing a party that has no right to high office. It is little wonder that small differences between the two major parties have made Sinn Fein the main opposition party. To prevent them from holding influence, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael must celebrate political differences with real policy disparities. I also think the outcome shows the dangers of using proportional electoral systems. I can only be grateful that Sinn Fein didn’t stand in enough seats to automatically win a majority. ****************************************************************************************************************** Recently, I appeared on ‘Insight’, the flagship political affairs show on RAW, Warwick University’s radio station. There, the point was made that, despite being thousands of miles away, the American election has received far greater attention than the Irish election. Initially, I was unsure as to why this was the case. Retrospectively, it is clear that America’s increased population and global clout on the world stage mean that their elections will always be given more scrutiny. At the moment, the main debate is surrounded by who will be the Democrat’s nominee to challenge Trump for the Presidency. Much of the debate has focused around centrist candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden compared to left-wing candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Once the final decision is made in July, the Democrats must unite around whoever the candidate is in the same way as Republicans united around Trump in 2016. I cannot stand the incumbent in the White House - his personality, policies and previous remarks all lead me to believe he is unfit to be the leader of the Free World. Nothing he had done in his three years as US President has changed my mind. But I am extremely pessimistic about his chances of removal this November. Incumbent Presidents are usually re-elected, the economy is doing well (according to the BBC’s Reality Check) and I don’t see how any of the Democrat candidates can win around Trump voters to their side. While I’m desperate to be proved wrong, I wouldn’t be surprised if this Christmas is the start of another four years of Trump in the White House.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|