In all our sanctuaries we sit at risk
  • Mr Johnson’s True Name

    These days, a growing number of people are coming up with rude names for Mr Johnson, the UK Prime Minster. I too have a name for him which could be described as rude. But, in my case, I would argue that the reason I use this name is not just to vent my exasperation or express my contempt, although I have to admit that the man arouses both these feelings in me, very frequently. But, more importantly, I believe my name for him represents a real effort accurately to describe the way he is and how he behaves. I call him “The Hoodlum Toad.”

    I have given him this name to draw out and to some extent give shape to the contrast between the sort of person we should be able to expect a nation’s leader to be – the qualities and behaviour that person is likely to display – and what we find instead in Mr Johnson.

    I am not talking here from any particular position on the “political spectrum,” so called. I do not vote Tory, but that is no explanation or reason for naming Mr Johnson in the way I have. And I am not referring to Mr Johnson’s position on that spectrum, either (whatever that is, if any). I am talking about individual human qualities, things like character, motivation, skills, values.

    Of course, a leader’s politics plays a part in how he or she is viewed, both by supporters and opponents. Opponents are likely to disagree more strongly, more frequently, with the philosophy, the policies, the approach.

    But should not all of us be able to assume that – whatever our leader’s political views, whichever political party he or she belongs to, that person will be of good character and have high ability ? We owe it to ourselves, surely, to our own self-respect and to the wellbeing of everyone around us, to choose a leader whom we can trust and look up to, who will guide and represent our nation fittingly and wisely, and whom other national leaders will trust and respect. We need our leader to deserve and make meaningful that quaint-sounding address they still use in the Commons – “Right Honourable.”  We need “Number Ten” to imply something better than just lockdown parties, grossly pretentious wall-paper, curiously acquired, and an endless stream of transparent toadie lies and evasions. Where has true “Right Honourable” gone ? We need to revive it. The real thing, in real practice.

    “Hoodlum Toad” is a pun of course. Deliberately, it implies and refers to a vivid common phrase – “lying toad.” It also reminds me of a children’s book called “Wind in the Willows” by Kenneth Grahame. This was written and is set in Edwardian England and Mr Toad of Toad Hall, one of its main characters, is gentry. There is no mention of where he was schooled, but Eton is a safe bet. He is vain and irresponsible and brings shame on his family and friends. He spends a great deal of time making self-congratulatory speeches in front of his mirror, he crashes fast cars and, at least for a while, gets away with being impossible. Then, quite rightly, he’s locked up. Then he escapes. And so on and so forth.

    For me, all of this describes Mr Johnson almost perfectly, with his extraordinary work record of twice being sacked for lying, his manner of gleeful, smirking roguishness and chaotic appearance and approach, even while being unashamedly old school “posh”, intolerant, unrestrained and autocratic. This is really who he is. “Hoodlum Toad” is Mr Johnson’s true name, almost all the others being simply masks, especially that puerile, self-serving and self-proclaimed “Boris” – as in “Call me Boris, smirk, scratch.” In assenting to join him in that joke of a name, we step into his cave, we disappear into his shadow. There, Kermit the Frog lurks with Peppa Pig, and a toy tractor “gets it done” by bursting through some bloated “world-beating” plastic bricks.

    To name Mr Johnson “Hoodlum Toad” is to witness to the fact that he doesn’t know, perhaps has never learnt, how to speak on behalf of Truth to his neighbours, colleagues, fellow-citizens, above all to himself. Detached from human conscience, he speaks only truth-free sales-and-evasion talk, in endlessly hollow service to Self, seeking to win people over through trickery. And there is no end, or further purpose, by which to justify this forked and hissing form of address. The Toad’s own hollow Self is his end, his only and entire end. It is what he lives for. He worships it. Around him at all times, inevitably, there is chaos and ruin.

    Posted:


  • Posted:


  •  

     

    I sent this poem and the one below to my own MP several days ago now. This MP is a Tory and belongs in the “2019 intake.” A member of the MP’s team contacted back just to check that I lived in her constituency and could thus expect her to “represent” me. I assured that person that I did and – sort of – could. The MP herself has not followed up.

    Posted:


  • Posted:


  • Posted:




  • Ethics in UK Politics

    Here below is the copy of a letter I’ve sent this week to Lord Evans of Weardale, Chair of the UK’s independent committee on standards in public life. By coincidence, just before Mr Johnson’s extraordinary contortions in the House of Commons two days ago, Lord Evans’ committee produced a report recommending certain improvements in the way ethical standards are maintained in parliament. Here is a link to a Guardian article on the subject, written by Rowena Mason. The committee’s recommendations were, of course, promptly rejected by Mr Johnson’s government, which seems to have “taken back control” of the whole subject of ethics. Its approach appears to be : whatever suits the Hoodlum Toad is “ethical,” (ie “Ethics are Me”) ; or “Ethics, my precious ? Why Bovver ?”

    Dear Lord Evans,

    I write to congratulate you and your committee on your recent report and recommendations and to thank you, not just for the work, but for the quality of the thinking behind it. The nation’s present executive has swiftly rejected it, of course, as was predictable. But that does not mean that you were wasting your time. Much of the practice of the present government does nothing but reinforce the pertinence of your recommendations and – all things being equal – their time will surely come.

    I have written to you on a couple of occasions over the last year or so and have been glad to have received replies from you. You will be receiving more correspondence than usual just now and I may not be so lucky this time ! But I do want to add my pennyworth again (and – in case it can help my voice carry a little further – have copied/pasted my letter into this blog-post). 

    I have earlier failed to convince you with my argument that truth-telling in politics cannot be left to gather dust on Lord Nolan’s list of guidelines (“precious” though Mr Johnson finds them) – with “loss of reputation” the only consequence for those who fail to honour it. Truth-telling by politicians is as fundamental to a life-supporting democracy as sound money to a healthy economy. Money and language are both currencies, means of exchange. Each is equally essential to any human society and – just as essentially – we need to be able to trust them. The politician who lies – at whatever level of seniority – is a forger, a fraud, a cheat and a thief, and warrants a response from society that matches those criminal offences.

    I am not the only one pursuing this line, of course. You will have been hearing the same kind argument from various quarters. I respect your doubts, but continue to think that the ever worsening, ever more cynical, ever less principled political climate of this nation, requires it. So I shall keep sounding off on the subject.

    I would add two more recommendations for a healthier House of Commons and UK governance. I realise they may not be within your Standards brief.

    1/ There should be a common Person Spec. drawn up for the qualities and experience and expertise required of any member of parliament, of whatever political party. No-one should be allowed to stand for parliament who cannot demonstrate qualities and experience that match the spec’s requirements. This would bring the House into the modern world where the rest of us live. To be merely popular or persuasive or partisan or Etonian are insufficient qualifications for being an active contributor to a nation’s governance.

    2/ No one should go into politics straight from university, with entire working lives being spent inside the “bubble”, devoid of first-hand experience of life and occupations “outside.” A good eight years of ordinary work previous to standing for parliament should be a minimum requirement, coupled with impeccable work references at the end of that time. Had this been a requirement when Mr Johnson began to be interested in politics, his public record of being sacked (twice) for lying, would have instantly debarred him from public life of any kind. Were he to apply for any job whatsoever outside the “bubble,” with that on his work record, no one would even short-list him, bar a criminal. 

    I have to conclude this letter by saying that, overall, it seems to me that our politics are in dire trouble, reflective of our nation’s trouble, all at sea and leaking. These various proposals, if implemented, would help, but would not cure. Mr Johnson appals me and disgraces us all, but I do not see him as the cause of our illness. He is just one of the many symptoms of it. The causes are as numerous as the symptoms are.

    Your sincerely

     

                                                                                                                                   

     

    Posted: