This clip is short and worth watching:
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1492801870351511552?s=20&t=sUFy4ZI3FWvB35nzJKVoew
The messaging in here is important.
It is that parliament does not matter. The appeal is beyond parliament to the 'the people'.
And the law does not matter because 'the people' obviously think that is the case.
So it is 'loyal to the people of the United Kingdom' to support a man who is so very obviously failing and is under police investigation for crimes.
That Northern Ireland has no Tory MPs does not matter. Nor does it matter that Scotland only has a few, and that there has never been a Tory administration in Wales or Scotland, and never looks like being so. The duty is to the people of the UK. Three of the four countries in the Union clearly do not agree.
That across the UK the Tories are way behind in polls now does not apparently matter. The people are not allowed to change their minds. Because a minority voted Tory in 2019 that is their settled will, apparently, which now trumps all other considerations.
Anyone knows Brandon Lewis is talking nonsense here.
Unless, of course, he is talking the language of the far-right, where such phrasing is used to justify a great deal, without reason.
So did he really mean that the will of a mythical people, created by his own imagination, should be followed and was he really saying parliament, law and the democratic processes should be ignored? Only he knows. But that the possibility of misinterpretation was created was in itself worrying.
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:
Wow – this looks like an emergent bunker mentality to me.
It seems that some in the Tory party (all?) think they are doing ‘God’s work’.
I think that it is fair to describe the Tory party as ‘sclerotic’. They’re hardening and doubling down on what they have been doing since 2010 it seems. They haven’t learnt a blessed thing.
Does anyone know if a certain Mr. Crosby is back in town yet? Because if he is, these sly and knowing appeals to nationalism are going to get much worse. In a decent world, Crosby would be in prison for hate crime and not employable as an advisor.
I watched that programme yesterday, and I wonder whether you are reading too much into Mr Lewis’s precise words.
It is a feature of the Andrew Marr Show (as it used to be) that it tried to “create” the news by trying to ambush interviewees with impossible questions – broadly on the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?” Sophie Raworth is a little more gentle than Marr was but still fed with a similar script; the producers know that a government minister cannot state live on air that he doesn’t have loyalty to his Prime Minister and by extension the entire government, but at the same time cannot publicly endorse breaking the law.
I thought Brandon Lewis handled it quite well, he said he was loyal to Johnson but qualified that as subject to the wider loyalty to the people of the country. He implied without stating it that his loyalty to Johnson would end if and when he no longer saw that as consistent with loyalty to the country. It is difficult to argue he intended to sideline parliament (whose views he might use as representative of the people) without asking him to clarify what was of necessity a straightforward single-sentence reply.
Whatever Mr Lewis’s personal views about democracy – like you I think it looks as if the Conservatives as a party despise it – I don’t think this reply represented his thoughts on that. And while many of us would consider Johnson already past the point of no return, it isn’t surprising that a minister remains on message.
We might have to disagree on that!
“…but at the same time cannot publicly endorse breaking the law…”
It didn’t stop him over the UK Internal Market Bill’s provisions being incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement.
“… specific and limited way…” should ring a few bells; for it was he.
This gives new meaning and impetus to “Let’s Go Brandon”.
I read this as code for “I am loyal to my own self interest”.
“I like being a government minister (the car, the salary, the right to boss people about) and to keep that show on the road I need to profess loyalty to the Prime Minister. But, I know his days are numbered and that, at some point I need to switch horses in order to keep a ministerial role under whoever follows Johnson. So, I profess a higher loyalty (to the people) that I can wheel out when it is tactically useful for me to dump my loyalty to Johnson…. watch this space!”
I think that is what he meant.
Maybe…
But still inappropriate
The duty would be to test a new prime minister with the electorate
A man happy to “break international law in a very specific and limited way”, I have zero interest in any politician who is happy to break the law and at the same time exhibits shows zero care for all the people of NI. If the DUP become a minority in May, this will certainly increase his ‘wool over the eyes’ work, yet I doubt his awareness or care for NI will increase. Then again bigger events may well force a few changes by May.
How convenient that you ignore the number of ways that other countries (including the EU on many occasions) have broken laws (or are under investigation for doing so).
Or does it not matter when it’s ‘your team’ doing it?
So your defence the next time you’re in court is that others have broken the law so you should be let off?
Is that how you think it works?
If not, please explain how you think it does.
When Johnson returns his questionnaire to the the police I wonder if it will be the equivalent of a ‘no comment’ interview. ie – blank.
What does he have to hide
Boris Johnson’s Partygate response to police won’t be made public, Downing Street has said.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-partygate-police-response-26223774
I’m wondering where your criticisms were when other countries e.g. the EU were breaking the law.
Certainly if your counterparty is choosing not to follow an agreement you have made between the two of you, then you have no obligation to follow that agreement yourself.
I can’t imagine that is controversial. Your analogy is false.
So, let me summarise.
You are not sure of your name or email address and can’t argue
Shall we conclude that you are out of your depth?
Richard,
“You are not sure of your name or email address”
Should we conclude this is just classical trolling? Start with a ‘below-the-line’ aggressive comment with a sweepingly generalised, unsubstantiated attack. Fail to back it up with facts when challenged. Continue the aggression. When exposed, simply flee the scene, and immediately move on to another thread. Start all over again.
It is the prime cause of the ruin of much social media. I occasionally write for a Scottish political Blog. Fortunately I have found only modest trolling (but then, I am not the Editor; in your shoes Richard). When I write I like to participate with commenters, as you do Richard. I write less often now, because although the trolling is limited it is very exasperating when you find that a narcissistic time-waster is solely intent on drawing the writer into a long, pointless exchange (not personally offensive but intended never to have an end or purpose), it is difficult to avoid; because the commenter keeps changing their identity, and carefully words the initial comment so it is difficult simply to identify and avoid. In the last article I wrote, a commenter decided to take the protean name changing disguise one step further; I was confronted with a commenter who identified him/herself as: @ John S Warren. That really is insulting. I objected, only to set off the endless, pointless debate. Fortunately the Editor removed all the offending comments. When you are confronted by a commenter using your name we really have reached the end of the line.
I do not suffer the attacks you receive, or have a Blog editor’s thankless job, like you Richard; but I am heartily sick of this pollution of public debate in a medium that should advance public debate, but is awash with mindless trolls. Now you know why I sometimes feel obliged to weigh in when you decide to allow a troll the oxygen of commenting.
I appreciate it
Thank you