One of the deeply annoying phrases that has entered popular culture is ‘whatever'. It seems to suggest that generic indifference does not matter when quite often it very clearly does. It is not in common use by me.
Despite that, I think I have finally realised that the use now given to that word does have a particular political meaning. It would seem to be an apt description of the politics of Boris Johnson.
I am quite sure John Crace is right to note that for Johnson being PM is now downhill all the way. It's just a grind that has to be done, and the thrill was all about securing the post. I suspect philandering will resume its appeal for him quite soon when he realises just how tedious is the job he has committed himself to for years to come.
I am also sure that Larry Elliott is right to note that the Johnson government may lack a firm economic creed. That, almost necessarily, has to be true. When Sajid Javid did, for example, extol policy little over three years ago that now flatly contradicts those he is now pursuing this has, by necessity, to be a government without a philosophy.
Excepting the pursuit of power, that is.
Or 'whatever', in the sense that 'whatever it takes to keep us popular is what we'll do.'
Hence Flybe.
Hence Northern Rail.
Both of which are going to be much harder to resolve than ministers imagine.
But 'whatever'.
Which reminds me of the person I once knew who told me whatever was necessary to keep me happy in the short term. Their claim might be rumbled as false within hours. Often they were caught out within days. But they persisted with the ploy. It ended in tears, of course. Mine of frustration. Theirs of failure. "Whatever' did not keep me happy.
I very strongly suspect that as a ploy it will fail for this government. But it looks like they will try it anyway. In the absence of any ideas - and their manifesto was accurate in revealing they have none - it's all they can do.
Which does not prevent me predicting the tears. I think they are on the cards. Indeed, self destruction seems to be the certain outcome for this government right now. 'Whatever' can be acceptable. Being indifferent to some outcomes is permissible. But it's quite emphatically not a basis for governing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I have said this myself Johnson seems bored with the job already. He did not come back for his holidays when the iran stuff was going on. He just could not be bothered. It seems to me he is not in the news much and always missing in action. Getting the job has always been the thrill for him, it’s like chasing women, once bagged, he slaps off. Pun intended
Really Richard ? That’s the level this site has sunk to ? Tolerating commenters who Think it is clever to imply our prime minister has physically assaulted Ex-partners ?
Shameful, absolutely shameful.
I agree it was close to the knuckle
There is also some evidence that was reported to suggest inappropriate behaviour but not of an ex partner
Sorry to duplicate a post – I find the BBC has gone completely docile recently in their current affairs reporting. It has all become very tame.
Either this government will work as you say Richard, which is just making up policy on the hoof to agree with Johnson’s latest whim, which will usually be a piece of populist crowd pleasing, or there is a deeper purpose, driven by the hard right psychopath Cummings.
If it’s the first it’s a recipe for expensive chaos. Ill thought out policy initiatives that’ll wrack up huge bills and won’t work, unless you’re a commercial lawyer or consultant. As the article you’ve tweeted re the UK being sued for approving the power station shows. And bailing out Flybe. Carbon emission targets, what are they?
Imagine if a Labour government behaved so carelessly? You’d never hear the end of it from the ‘free press’ would you?
If its the second, it’s even worse.
Agreed
I think the time has come to ignore Johnson himself and focus on who is pulling his strings. We know about Johnson from the very many people who have worked with him in the past. They paint a clear picture of someone lazy, unable to focus on detail, narcissistic and untrustworthy. So the question is: who is it to whom Johnson defers to set ‘his’ policy? One probability is Cummings (there was a credible commentator – but I can’t remember who – who said that Johnson was ‘mesmerised’ by him). Cummings is a wrecker. Thats all he knows. He hasnt got a scoobies how to build something once he has broken it. We know how well mathematical modelling worked in the finance sector, and that appears to be what Cummings wants to replicate across the piece with his SPAD recruitment.
So who else could be in the frame who Johnson believes, for the moment, will give most him the free ride he craves? Those are the people and their policies we should watch. Gove? Javid? Raab? or is it the IEA and the Tufton Street mob? Working out which of these (or combination) will give a clarity to current and future policy that is somewhat opaque from the constant U-turns and obfuscation which actually comes out of Johnson’s mouth. Whoever it is, they’ve played a blinder by recruiting this clown as a front man.
Indeed, who is really influencing Johnson? If it’s Cummings, I don’t have too much hope for the few emaining great public institutions of the UK; Civil Service, BBC, or NHS. Like a lot of the hard right, he just has a pathological dislike of them, especially the first two. He can destroy, but not create anything worthwhile in it’s place, as you say.
His blog comments back as far as 2004/5 show his extreme anti BBC bias, and his wholly destructive intentions towards it. Given his ‘talent’ for negative campaigning I’d say he’s already been engaged in an anti BBC campaign for some time now. And left wing opponents of the BBC like Sqwarkbox and The Canary are very useful to him, as is the polarisiation of opinion caused by Brexit. Divide and destroy seems to be his ethos.
Lovely. One of the few things Britain does really well, and a massive presence in my own life, is in the firing line of a destructive, vindictive political extremist, who has the ear of a weak, narcissistic leader. Life in this country just keeps on getting worse.
What is really discouraging is that no one seems to be filling the political void. It has been in decline for years, where once ministers would have resigned for indiscretions or incompetence it is now acceptable to just gloss over and carry on. What is needed is a total overhaul of how the UK is governed starting with the reform of the obsolete House Of Lords and the Monarchy as part of the constitutional process. Unfortunately politics has now become a game show rather than a serious examination of how to make things better for the population.
There’s a very apt commercial over here on this very subject:
https://youtu.be/tsxo7YDsBaY
Whatever 🙂
Actually, quite amusing
Times are a-changin! Whereas for years we’ve had the Neo-Darwinian mantra of “Survival of the Fittest” in biology that has turned right round to what matters is how “Arrival of the Fittest” is achieved. In other words from complete dependency on “random chance” it’s now recognised that even primitive life forms work collectively to “plan” the the best means for their survival and well-being. This change in thinking will be having repercussions in the way we organise our societies. Random chance may have suited right-wing Libertarians outlook on life but it no longer holds much water anymore!