So, Johnson apologised with, he claimed, ‘full humility.' The trouble was, no one relay believed that, and for one good reason. That reason is that even if his confusion about attending an obviously illegal birthday party was genuine (even if the credibility of doing so depended upon our belief in his incompetence) there is no way that the same excuse can be rolled out when the next round of penalties are issued, with these relating to events where such excuses will be impossible. In reality then what Johnson did when offering inadvertent incompetence as his defence on this occasion was to dig a seemingly impossible hurdle for himself to climb when the next fines are imposed.
This will not, not course, prevent Tory MPs voting to support him in any vote on a referral to the Standards Committee on Thursday. They will be three line whipped. But there will be many more than Mark Harper MP, who was the only Tory to tell Johnson to go, who will have their doubts about supporting Johnson in that vote. Any in their number who wants to be in a future, non-Johnson, government will have to think very hard about voting to protect a Prime Minister who will seemingly inevitably, and soon, be found guilty of deliberate criminal acts for which on possible excuse can be found. Sunak has already sacrificed his career to support Johnson. How many others will note that, and hold back?
It is no wonder then that Johnson looked profoundly shaken by events yesterday. So too did his front bench. Starmer knocked him out, and as far as I could tell never really withdrew his accusation that Johnson was dishonest. The Speaker was, as usual, made to look stupid. Starmer's anger was obviously real.
The Tories knew it. Long after they gave up defending Johnson the opposition's combined questions were still coming, but most Tory MPs had indicated their lack of support by then by leaving the House.
Can Johnson survive this? In the House he looked shocked, broken and almost confused, knowing that none of his usual bombastic approaches would work. And the reality is that things can only get worse from here as more fines, the Sue Gray report and maybe a Standards Committee report replete with photographs (which is why the government is so frightened of this) all head Johnson's way. 72% of the country think Johnson is a liar even though this still cannot be said in the Commons. The likelihood is that even this percentage will get worse.
I won't say Johnson will go. His ability to wriggle is extraordinary. But it looks as though it will get harder, and harder to stay. And the damage is done. We have a discredited Tory government. Priti Patel's shameless defence of the Rwanda extradition policy was another indication of that. Sajid Javid's lame defence of being a non-dom was another. It would take more than a miracle for this lot to survive.
But when Labour, and to some degree the SNP, only offer managerialism and not vision as alternatives what is it that is going to restore faith in parliament? Whilst all Labour can suggest to support those whose households are going to be in crisis this year is a windfall tax they are not the torch bearers for change. Those households do not understand a windfall tax. But they do instinctively know that such a charge will not keep them fed, warm and in their homes. And they are right, because it won't.
Labour has to get over its crushing fear of spending.
It has to show that it believes in the power of government to effect change in society.
It has to say what the change it wants is.
And it has to spell out what that will mean for people.
I want democracy restored, but not for its own sake, but for what it can do to redress the wrongs that otherwise exist in society. And the best way to achieve that goal is to start righting those wrongs.
I have laid out agendas for this, time and again. Knocking the Tories about, as happened yesterday, is all well and good. But knocking them out is what is required to save us from fascism. And that requires vision, confidence and a real promise of delivery. When will we get that?
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:
The wealth and power of the Tories and their billionaire backers depends on a rigged economy and the destruction of Democracy.
In judging how far they are willing to go look no further than the USA where despite having attempted to stage a coup Trump is still free and allowed to continue living in luxury. If he ever is convicted it will probably be for tax fraud, like fellow gangster Al Capone.
You wrote, Richard, that “Labour has to get over its crushing fear of spending.”
This concern chimes with financial discussions wherever I listen – British media, France 24, Al Jazeera – all want ‘growth’. Increase in financial growth goes pretty much in lockstep with increases in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) emissions.
Talk of insulating houses – (too many of which are unnecessarily large) currently requires mostly fossil-fuel-derived energy and other material resources. Nuclear power stations of whatever size, require quantities of steel and concrete – produced primarily using fossil fuels – when the desperate need is to dramatically reduce their use. Exponential expansion of such programs will, in the short and medium term, do the exact opposite of what is required.
It’s not just Extinction Rebellion saying this; a couple of weeks ago The Economist published: “Emissions must peak by 2025 for the world to have a chance of meeting the Paris goals” [https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2022/04/09/the-latest-ipcc-report-argues-that-stabilising-the-climate-will-require-fast-action?gclid=Cj0KCQjw3v6SBhCsARIsACyrRAk9AIDqJtxYSAz6jH8kzB0cCsj_Qa1XddRnIMSBFwJ_OS_JfVZliRwaApWTEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds ‘The latest IPCC report argues that stabilising the climate will require fast action’ (9th April 2022)]
Some economists resort to the concept of ‘decoupling’ but ‘A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions’ [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a – 11 June 2020] concludes: “that large rapid absolute reductions of resource use and GHG emissions cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates, hence decoupling needs to be complemented by sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets. …”
The research also states: “If achieving ambitious climate and sustainability targets are to be reconciled with continued GDP growth, an absolute decoupling (or ‘de-linking’; (Vehmas et al 2003)) of GDP from the use of biophysical resources and/or emissions is a logical necessity. …”
And “Currently, decoupling appears to depend on prior use and accumulation of materials and on extractive expansion and rising material flows elsewhere. As long as this is the case, DECOUPLING CANNOT BE ACHIEVED in the long-term or universally.
Because we all care about our children, consumption of all kinds in currently wealthy countries, must be cut dramatically and urgently.
So, the question is, what economic measures must replace ‘growth’?
Sufficiency
The Speaker is a chump – no doubt about it.
I watched Johnson’s performance wearily.
But Patel – what an arrogant performance – all these Tories are shit in my view and Johnson is the No.1 Duffer but if you want a Number 2 of a Number 2 then it’s got to be her.
The look on her face when she was defending the policy was just of someone full of resolute dogma and vindictiveness of the mob.
And then the Tool that is Angela Leadsom had to open her trap………………….oh dear.
It could have been a bad day for those who say women would make better politicians but at least Theresa May of all people questioned Patel and Yvette Cooper didn’t do too badly on the Opposition but it’s no good showing righteous anger at someone like Patel who just uses the energy to fire back; the best way to deal with her is the way May did – calmly and searchingly.
Whether male or female, unsuitable people are in charge at the moment.
‘Labour has to get over its crushing fear of spending.’
Yes, but the Labour leadership seems determined to avoid addressing the public spending question directly. It knows the BBC is on a speak-your- weight rota – ‘but where will the money come’, yet hasn’t the courage to challenge – the ‘if spending goes up, taxes must go up’.
As you say – offering no vision, no new ideas.
They won’t even acknowledge this is all being discussed here and elsewhere.
“But when Labour, and to some degree the SNP, only offer managerialism and not vision as alternatives what is it that is going to restore faith in parliament? Whilst all Labour can suggest to support those whose households are going to be in crisis this year is a windfall tax they are not the torch bearers for change. Those households do not understand a windfall tax. But they do instinctively know that such a charge will not keep them fed, warm and in their homes. And they are right, because it won’t.
Labour has to get over its crushing fear of spending.
It has to show that it believes in the power of government to effect change in society.
It has to say what the change it wants is.
And it has to spell out what that will mean for people.”
Brilliant piece of writing.
“It is no wonder then that Johnson looked profoundly shaken by events yesterday. So too did his front bench. ”
I thought that too. Yesterday.
Then today he comes back today, in PMQ’s, with the same old bombastic lies.
Indeed
He was ‘fulsome’ for an afternoon
Let’s be honest. The only way to measure Boris Johnson’s output is to use the Bristol scale.
But the papers seem full of stuff about Henry Windsor. The man formerly known as Prince.