Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FRAn agent of chaos. Leon Neal/WPA Pool /Getty
Pity the poor columnist attempting to write The Case for Boris: a blank screen sits before him, the cursor blinking helplessly. There simply is no case for Boris, no justification for any continued role in public life. None of the accusations against him — his constant lies, his disregard for Westminster conventions — would matter in the slightest if he were just competent, but he is not. And that is why he must go.
No one in living memory can have squandered such a far-reaching and revolutionary mandate for reform through such petty and absurd personal failings. Never the quasi-fascist wrecker of the constitution our more hysterical liberal commentariat still make him out to be, he was, as the phrase has it, simply a messy bitch who lives for drama, brought to these humiliating depths by the penumbra of chaos he carries swirling around him. Long presented as a threat to Westminster’s hallowed traditions, the charge against him is in truth far graver: if he is the best leader our political system can throw up, almost any other system of governance would seem an improvement.
It is the failings for which he is now condemned — the contempt in which he held Westminster’s institutions, his urge to override the sterile norms and petty taboos which have sunk British governance into a tar-pit of torpor and incapacity — which won him office in the first place. The people wanted him to break our failing state, and rebuild it in a way that finally worked for all the nation. With a historic majority in parliament, Johnson had almost unlimited power to drive through the Meiji Restoration our collapsing country so desperately requires. That he survived so long, and won such a parliamentary mandate for total change, is a reflection not on his personal qualities, about which no one ever had any doubt, but on the sheer disgust the vast majority of the country feels for his political enemies.
In all the long litany of failures he now drags around behind him, this is the bitterest draught for his voters — for us — to swallow: that there is nothing to show for any of it, for any of the turmoil and vitriol that has defined Britain’s politics under his tenure. The nation was used and discarded like any other of his brief, dramatic but doomed dalliances: our dignity alone demands a decisive end to this pointless drama.
Fate had granted Johnson an appointment with History: but he missed it, lost in a diary clash with wallpaper merchants, lobby courtiers and the endless need to flush away the squalid mess he was compelled to smear around the highest offices of the state. The governance of a nation is a sacred task: in a secular age, it is perhaps the only sacred office remaining. But whatever strange daimon brought Johnson to power also made him entirely unfit to wield it: his story is a cautionary tale for all of us. That is his only gift to History.
Johnson was — we can say was now — a creature born from chaos, thrust to power by the same inchoate demands for political revolution that are roiling every Western democracy. Yet instead of embracing meaningful reform and wielding power to transformative ends, he embroiled the nation and mired the entire governance of the country in his own domestic strife. The chosen agent of creative destruction entirely lacked a vision, a philosophy, or any justification whatsoever in his legislative record for the position he clings to so desperately, even now. He saw Brexit through, though not well; his support for Ukraine, self-serving though it may have been, inspired primarily by a craving for Zelenskyy’s reflected glamour, helped the country survive up to now, though he will not now be around to see Ukraine and Britain through the hard months ahead; but there is nothing else to add to his slim credit sheet.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“With a historic majority in parliament, Johnson had almost unlimited power to drive through the Meiji Restoration our collapsing country so desperately requires.”
It is worth noting that the majority of tory MPs would not have supported such an attempt. They are mostly liberals who dressed up as conservatives in order to get elected. Their main aim now is to get themselves a seat in the House of Lords before electoral disaster strikes them down.
Correct. Johnson and most of the so called Tories were NEVER committed to reform of the Blairite/Brownite Revolution. He was happily part of the liberal London Statist system and embraced all the credos of the Technocracy and Blob. He was not even a Gorbachev. He was happy with wokery. He embraced the madness of Net Zero. He expanded the reach and power of the State. He was near Corbynista in his socialism and blind to the danger of QE and the zero interest regime. He was comfy with a legal system warped by human rights and hence inactive in the fight versus identitarianism in the State. Yes there was a mandate from the electorate for a new revolution. But Johnson NEVER embraced it. Only Cummings and maybe 50 MPs did. He got the UK out of the EU but left it there. Reform was no part of his nor the fake Tory party’s plan. This is why nothing has happened. He bowed to the Blob but they hated him for threatening their property gravy train and spat him out.
Correct. Johnson and most of the so called Tories were NEVER committed to reform of the Blairite/Brownite Revolution. He was happily part of the liberal London Statist system and embraced all the credos of the Technocracy and Blob. He was not even a Gorbachev. He was happy with wokery. He embraced the madness of Net Zero. He expanded the reach and power of the State. He was near Corbynista in his socialism and blind to the danger of QE and the zero interest regime. He was comfy with a legal system warped by human rights and hence inactive in the fight versus identitarianism in the State. Yes there was a mandate from the electorate for a new revolution. But Johnson NEVER embraced it. Only Cummings and maybe 50 MPs did. He got the UK out of the EU but left it there. Reform was no part of his nor the fake Tory party’s plan. This is why nothing has happened. He bowed to the Blob but they hated him for threatening their property gravy train and spat him out.
“With a historic majority in parliament, Johnson had almost unlimited power to drive through the Meiji Restoration our collapsing country so desperately requires.”
It is worth noting that the majority of tory MPs would not have supported such an attempt. They are mostly liberals who dressed up as conservatives in order to get elected. Their main aim now is to get themselves a seat in the House of Lords before electoral disaster strikes them down.
On the face of it, the author gets much correct – Johnson did indeed fail badly on multiple fronts, but digging a bit deeper it’s worth examining the forces that conspired to put such a man in number 10 in the first place.
In short: Only a battering ram of pigheadedness, blind loyalty, opportunitism and at the time an utterly desperate electorate, was sufficient to break down the wall that was for years diligently being built to stop Brexit in its tacks by an establishment that wished to erase the mandate given to it by the public. The selection of medicroties, low IQs and chancers that ended up in cabinet reflected not just a general paucity of talent & skill in UK politics, but was made all the worse because those that could have been in their place had precluded themselves from selection; making it very clear in the preceding months and years that they had all but dispensed with the notion of serving the wishes of the public whatever they might be – even when so clearly instructed by the most significant vote in UK history.
So, in the end – and at the risk of letting him off the hook somewhat – Johnson was but a tragic symptom of a rot at the heart of UK politics: A complete lack of honour in most of our elected representatives, and prevailing attitude in them that they are our handlers rather than our servants.
His article, with its thinly-disguised contempt for democracy, is devoid of practical proposals.
I’ve no idea how you jumped to that conclusion about the author to be honest
A priori determination of outcome?
A priori determination of outcome?
I’ve no idea how you jumped to that conclusion about the author to be honest
His article, with its thinly-disguised contempt for democracy, is devoid of practical proposals.
On the face of it, the author gets much correct – Johnson did indeed fail badly on multiple fronts, but digging a bit deeper it’s worth examining the forces that conspired to put such a man in number 10 in the first place.
In short: Only a battering ram of pigheadedness, blind loyalty, opportunitism and at the time an utterly desperate electorate, was sufficient to break down the wall that was for years diligently being built to stop Brexit in its tacks by an establishment that wished to erase the mandate given to it by the public. The selection of medicroties, low IQs and chancers that ended up in cabinet reflected not just a general paucity of talent & skill in UK politics, but was made all the worse because those that could have been in their place had precluded themselves from selection; making it very clear in the preceding months and years that they had all but dispensed with the notion of serving the wishes of the public whatever they might be – even when so clearly instructed by the most significant vote in UK history.
So, in the end – and at the risk of letting him off the hook somewhat – Johnson was but a tragic symptom of a rot at the heart of UK politics: A complete lack of honour in most of our elected representatives, and prevailing attitude in them that they are our handlers rather than our servants.
Boris, for most of his life, has been like the dog who feels compelled to chase the car – but has never given any thought as to what the hell he might do if he actually caught it.
The stories of his boyhood ambition are legion. Once he’d lowered his sights from becoming “World King” to merely Prime Minister, he single-mindedly strove to achieve that goal. His route to Number 10 was circuitous and eventful, there were plenty of mishaps along the way – any one of which would have ended all hope of high office for the rest of us. But Mr Johnson – in the guise of his invented alter ego “Boris” – was not like the rest of us. He was a rockstar, achieving the single name recognition that few ever manage, he seemed impervious to scandals that would have ended other careers. Cavalier, full of bluster and obviously with little pressing regard for the truth – but a man of boundless energy, ready wit and an enthusiasm that radiated off him. He was an irresistible force.
No doubt the Johnson family psychodrama played its part in shaping him but, like his hero Churchill, he was driven by more than mere ambition – it was destiny, or so he believed. Churchill, for all his manifest personal faults, was tested to the utmost and took his moment – he proved to be a man of genuine substance, England’s hero. Alongside Nelson, his name will never be forgotten.
Boris, regrettably, when his moment came, proved to be a man of little substance. Having reached Downing St, he had achieved his “destiny”, and like the aforementioned dog with the car he didn’t seem to know what to do with it once he’d got it. He squandered all the good will he’d built up over years in the public’s imagination. His political instincts seemed to desert him – certainly any Conservative instincts – and he appeared fully in thrall to his wife’s green agenda. He was elected on the back of his promises over Brexit – yet, as has been detailed many times elsewhere, almost all those promises are thus far unmet. For Boris to be chased out of office over things as seemingly trivial as Partygate was the final disappointment for a PM who promised so much, had the manoeuvring room of an 80 seat majority to effect real and radical change, yet achieved so very little.
Of course he was always self-interested, but for all that, I must admit I had some hopes for him as PM, not as a leader so much as a figurehead. I’ll try and explain: Boris, as a Tory let’s not forget, managed to get the predominantly metro-left-leaning London to vote him in as Mayor, twice. He was successful as Mayor of London because he delegated responsibilities to good people on his staff, whilst he acted as London’s irrepressible “Ambassador of Fun” to the rest of the world. He was the colourful character around whom a broad-church approach could coalesce, whilst the more boring, prosaic functions were carried out by less colourful, more serious people. He had genuine cross-party cut-through, like no other politician of my lifetime. It was my hope that once the rancour of Brexit died down, with his popular appeal, a good cabinet and a newly functioning civil service around him (after Cummings had weeded out the Blairite obstructionists) Boris might be PM for at least 2 or 3 Parliaments. His energy and optimism would be a great advertisement for the country whilst more diligent backroom people would ensure that a post-Brexit, global-facing Britain would thrive.
Whether it was simply that, having achieved his dream of becoming PM, he lost interest, or whether it was his brush with Covid, the influence of his wife and the Downing St squabbles between her and Cummings, or whether he was simply captured by the blob, I don’t know, but somewhere along the way BoJo lost his mojo.
It would take a braver man than me to bet against his return to Politics – the man has defied political gravity more than once. But it’s hard to imagine that the Boris Johnson – who wrote so convincingly on the pages of the Spectator, Telegraph and elsewhere, of an optimistic, Conservative vision for Britain, yet who disappeared when he became PM, can either reinvent himself or reconvince his former support that he still has something to offer. Those who gave him their vote, and trusted him to deliver, will struggle to forgive a man who, with an 80 seat majority, failed to govern as a Tory.
Starmer should not gloat at the polls that show a strong Labour lead, at present. I would suggest that if voters desert the Tory party it is not because they no longer want Conservative policies, it is precisely because they do want them, ….. but have been forced to look to other parties to deliver them.
One could argue the Boris has done what was intended, that is, he provided Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson the opportunity to become rich and well connected. Nothing much else mattered, in the same vein that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair looked at the mega rich and wondered how it was that people of mediocre talent could become so wealthy. They both donned populist first names and built up a personality cult. Mr Blair now advises dubious regimes on political matters for large sums of similarly dubiously acquired money, whereas Mr Johnson has only just set out on that journey.
Blair did some decent things in the early years of his premiership, so the comparison is not so simple, but yes you are right about the money orientation of these two. Compare them to Atlee, Churchill etc,l — what a moral journey our leaders are going through. All part of our evolution into Argentina 2.0 I suspect
Blair did some decent things in the early years of his premiership, so the comparison is not so simple, but yes you are right about the money orientation of these two. Compare them to Atlee, Churchill etc,l — what a moral journey our leaders are going through. All part of our evolution into Argentina 2.0 I suspect
Excellent comment. Sums my feelings up well. Thanks.
Given his track record in the years preceding his premiership, the only real mystery to me is that the resultant smoking ruin was a surprise to anyone.
And yes, agree wholeheartedly with what you say – especially the final sentence.
One could argue the Boris has done what was intended, that is, he provided Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson the opportunity to become rich and well connected. Nothing much else mattered, in the same vein that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair looked at the mega rich and wondered how it was that people of mediocre talent could become so wealthy. They both donned populist first names and built up a personality cult. Mr Blair now advises dubious regimes on political matters for large sums of similarly dubiously acquired money, whereas Mr Johnson has only just set out on that journey.
Excellent comment. Sums my feelings up well. Thanks.
Given his track record in the years preceding his premiership, the only real mystery to me is that the resultant smoking ruin was a surprise to anyone.
And yes, agree wholeheartedly with what you say – especially the final sentence.
Boris, for most of his life, has been like the dog who feels compelled to chase the car – but has never given any thought as to what the hell he might do if he actually caught it.
The stories of his boyhood ambition are legion. Once he’d lowered his sights from becoming “World King” to merely Prime Minister, he single-mindedly strove to achieve that goal. His route to Number 10 was circuitous and eventful, there were plenty of mishaps along the way – any one of which would have ended all hope of high office for the rest of us. But Mr Johnson – in the guise of his invented alter ego “Boris” – was not like the rest of us. He was a rockstar, achieving the single name recognition that few ever manage, he seemed impervious to scandals that would have ended other careers. Cavalier, full of bluster and obviously with little pressing regard for the truth – but a man of boundless energy, ready wit and an enthusiasm that radiated off him. He was an irresistible force.
No doubt the Johnson family psychodrama played its part in shaping him but, like his hero Churchill, he was driven by more than mere ambition – it was destiny, or so he believed. Churchill, for all his manifest personal faults, was tested to the utmost and took his moment – he proved to be a man of genuine substance, England’s hero. Alongside Nelson, his name will never be forgotten.
Boris, regrettably, when his moment came, proved to be a man of little substance. Having reached Downing St, he had achieved his “destiny”, and like the aforementioned dog with the car he didn’t seem to know what to do with it once he’d got it. He squandered all the good will he’d built up over years in the public’s imagination. His political instincts seemed to desert him – certainly any Conservative instincts – and he appeared fully in thrall to his wife’s green agenda. He was elected on the back of his promises over Brexit – yet, as has been detailed many times elsewhere, almost all those promises are thus far unmet. For Boris to be chased out of office over things as seemingly trivial as Partygate was the final disappointment for a PM who promised so much, had the manoeuvring room of an 80 seat majority to effect real and radical change, yet achieved so very little.
Of course he was always self-interested, but for all that, I must admit I had some hopes for him as PM, not as a leader so much as a figurehead. I’ll try and explain: Boris, as a Tory let’s not forget, managed to get the predominantly metro-left-leaning London to vote him in as Mayor, twice. He was successful as Mayor of London because he delegated responsibilities to good people on his staff, whilst he acted as London’s irrepressible “Ambassador of Fun” to the rest of the world. He was the colourful character around whom a broad-church approach could coalesce, whilst the more boring, prosaic functions were carried out by less colourful, more serious people. He had genuine cross-party cut-through, like no other politician of my lifetime. It was my hope that once the rancour of Brexit died down, with his popular appeal, a good cabinet and a newly functioning civil service around him (after Cummings had weeded out the Blairite obstructionists) Boris might be PM for at least 2 or 3 Parliaments. His energy and optimism would be a great advertisement for the country whilst more diligent backroom people would ensure that a post-Brexit, global-facing Britain would thrive.
Whether it was simply that, having achieved his dream of becoming PM, he lost interest, or whether it was his brush with Covid, the influence of his wife and the Downing St squabbles between her and Cummings, or whether he was simply captured by the blob, I don’t know, but somewhere along the way BoJo lost his mojo.
It would take a braver man than me to bet against his return to Politics – the man has defied political gravity more than once. But it’s hard to imagine that the Boris Johnson – who wrote so convincingly on the pages of the Spectator, Telegraph and elsewhere, of an optimistic, Conservative vision for Britain, yet who disappeared when he became PM, can either reinvent himself or reconvince his former support that he still has something to offer. Those who gave him their vote, and trusted him to deliver, will struggle to forgive a man who, with an 80 seat majority, failed to govern as a Tory.
Starmer should not gloat at the polls that show a strong Labour lead, at present. I would suggest that if voters desert the Tory party it is not because they no longer want Conservative policies, it is precisely because they do want them, ….. but have been forced to look to other parties to deliver them.
Good article. Must have missed it when it was first out. I am utterly sick of the Tories.
Good article. Must have missed it when it was first out. I am utterly sick of the Tories.
A useless man. He had three years to try and reform this country but instead fell for the Covid and green agenda coolaid inspired by his despicable wife.
Best reply to date. Had he remained with Marina it could have been different but he couldn’t resist a younger model who effectively destroyed him.
Oh here we go. I knew I’d find it if I’ve scrolled through these sad posts – a woman is to blame for all these Boris related woes.
Such a blinkin cliche, but also a poor reflection on those who would promulgate it.
Oh here we go. I knew I’d find it if I’ve scrolled through these sad posts – a woman is to blame for all these Boris related woes.
Such a blinkin cliche, but also a poor reflection on those who would promulgate it.
Best reply to date. Had he remained with Marina it could have been different but he couldn’t resist a younger model who effectively destroyed him.
A useless man. He had three years to try and reform this country but instead fell for the Covid and green agenda coolaid inspired by his despicable wife.
Anyone who truly believed the Tories under Johnson were going to undertake a comprehensive overhaul of this country – Matt Goodwin, I’m looking at you – were hopelessly naïve. Johnson is in fact the ultimate Tory: a man utterly bereft of any guiding beliefs or principles, and completing lacking any kind of a vision for the country.
This has been obvious for years and I’m mystified why so many seemingly well-informed people thought his government would be otherwise. I suppose wishful thinking overrode common sense here. Don’t forget that in the 12 years they’ve been in power, they have not done a single thing to stop the relentless march of identity politics and woke ideology through every one of our national institutions.
I can only hope that the scale of the Tory defeat at the next election is so severe that it results in their total and final destruction.
About to say the same. You have done this better than I could have done.
Splendidly put Sir, but my one quibble is was this t**d ever a true Tory, or just a social justice, spastic, bed-wetter, simply masquerading as such?
If so he should suffer the fate of the late, lamented Admiral Byng.
About to say the same. You have done this better than I could have done.
Splendidly put Sir, but my one quibble is was this t**d ever a true Tory, or just a social justice, spastic, bed-wetter, simply masquerading as such?
If so he should suffer the fate of the late, lamented Admiral Byng.
Anyone who truly believed the Tories under Johnson were going to undertake a comprehensive overhaul of this country – Matt Goodwin, I’m looking at you – were hopelessly naïve. Johnson is in fact the ultimate Tory: a man utterly bereft of any guiding beliefs or principles, and completing lacking any kind of a vision for the country.
This has been obvious for years and I’m mystified why so many seemingly well-informed people thought his government would be otherwise. I suppose wishful thinking overrode common sense here. Don’t forget that in the 12 years they’ve been in power, they have not done a single thing to stop the relentless march of identity politics and woke ideology through every one of our national institutions.
I can only hope that the scale of the Tory defeat at the next election is so severe that it results in their total and final destruction.
I still don’t understand how such a transparently incompetent shit got the top job, or any job, in the first place.
Because the electorate were desperate, and were willing to sorbordinate considerations of competence (or at the least not give it too much thought) to the goal of having their vote in the referendum honoured.
And I don’t blame them one ittle bit.
It was either Brexit with Johnson or pretty much no Brexit at all.
The establishment and antidemocratic remainers forced this binary choice. Bedsides (nominally) seeing Brexit done, the only other slight win was that they had to suffer his tenure as well as us.
I still don’t see how ‘remainers’ are anti-democratic. Only one third of the electorate voted for Brexit (one third against, one third didn’t bother), and that on the basis of numerous false promises.
Hm. Obviously, like most Remainers, you “don’t see” why that is an antidemocratic argument.
Do enlighten us as to how lies are compatible with democracy. The electorate were told that millions of Turks would flood Britain. The electorate were promised 350m a week for eth NHS if they voted Leave. Any misrepresentation that flagrant would allow one to rescind a contract.
Do enlighten us as to how lies are compatible with democracy. The electorate were told that millions of Turks would flood Britain. The electorate were promised 350m a week for eth NHS if they voted Leave. Any misrepresentation that flagrant would allow one to rescind a contract.
Hm. Obviously, like most Remainers, you “don’t see” why that is an antidemocratic argument.
Oh for goodness sake, the lengths to which you have to go to find someone else to blame get ever more comical – Remainers somehow forced Boris on the 200k Tory party members!! Jeez I needed a laugh.
I bet you voted for him.
I still don’t see how ‘remainers’ are anti-democratic. Only one third of the electorate voted for Brexit (one third against, one third didn’t bother), and that on the basis of numerous false promises.
Oh for goodness sake, the lengths to which you have to go to find someone else to blame get ever more comical – Remainers somehow forced Boris on the 200k Tory party members!! Jeez I needed a laugh.
I bet you voted for him.
There was nobody else, sadly.
Oh sweet jesus, because loads of folks like yourself and others here on UnHerd lapped it up.
You should all be apologising to the rest of us…but I do know that won’t be happening.
Because the electorate were desperate, and were willing to sorbordinate considerations of competence (or at the least not give it too much thought) to the goal of having their vote in the referendum honoured.
And I don’t blame them one ittle bit.
It was either Brexit with Johnson or pretty much no Brexit at all.
The establishment and antidemocratic remainers forced this binary choice. Bedsides (nominally) seeing Brexit done, the only other slight win was that they had to suffer his tenure as well as us.
There was nobody else, sadly.
Oh sweet jesus, because loads of folks like yourself and others here on UnHerd lapped it up.
You should all be apologising to the rest of us…but I do know that won’t be happening.
I still don’t understand how such a transparently incompetent shit got the top job, or any job, in the first place.
The west is desperate for a populist who delivers. Maybe the task is too great. It will take an extraordinarily competent leader to make it happen.
Unfortunately, no matter how competent they are, they can do virtually nothing if the embedded state apparatus is opposed to their objectives.
Boris should have listened to Cummings and fired half the civil service
Gosh – fire c.50,000 people overnight!
500,000 would be nearer the mark
500,000 would be nearer the mark
Indeed – better to have govt by one strong man, or, at worst, a small cabal lol. Who knew that such a secret yearning for autocracy lurks in so many English hearts?
Yes the spirit of the ‘blessed’ Oliver is never far away!
Yes the spirit of the ‘blessed’ Oliver is never far away!
He didn’t need to. His policies ended up with thousands of vacancies, a crisis in the NHS, an under resourced Border force and immigration service, massive gaps in the armed forces etc etc.
He accomplished what you wanted just in a different way.
Gosh – fire c.50,000 people overnight!
Indeed – better to have govt by one strong man, or, at worst, a small cabal lol. Who knew that such a secret yearning for autocracy lurks in so many English hearts?
He didn’t need to. His policies ended up with thousands of vacancies, a crisis in the NHS, an under resourced Border force and immigration service, massive gaps in the armed forces etc etc.
He accomplished what you wanted just in a different way.
Boris should have listened to Cummings and fired half the civil service
Adolph Hitler managed to change things in short order, and IF he had died in say a plane crash in June 1939, he would, in the words of the late Professor A.J.P.Taylor* (1906-90) have gone down in history as “the greatest German Chancellor ever”.
(*Oriel College.)
You’ve proved my point about Brexit lol
What point?
What has Brexit got to do with Johnson’s incompetence?
What point?
What has Brexit got to do with Johnson’s incompetence?
AJPT wasn’t correct on this one and got criticised for it. Remember Kristallnecht and many race laws preceded June 39. As did the invasion/acquisition of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Come on CH we look to you as an aficionado of history. Don’t drift lazily into any suggestions Hitler did a few good things. V dangerous ground.
AJP was criticised at the time by his fellow Marxists such a the revolting Hobsbawm, but never withdrew his remark, and nor should he.
To maintain that everything that Hitler did was pure evil is just naive. You are letting your ‘heart ‘ rule your ‘head’.
As you probably know even as a mass killer his efforts pale against those of Stalin and Mao. Yet even here one cannot say that everything these two killers achieved was pure evil.
My one criticism of AJP would be over his chronology, 1936 might have been a better choice. Either way he was a great Lecturer!
Incidentally it is Kristallnacht NOT Kristallnecht! Attention to detail please.
I think that’s a deft move away from your comment CH, but not buying it.
I didn’t use the phrase evil, but regardless you’ll be hard pressed to find any good. He abolished democracy pretty much immediately and the rule of law was junked. So any good he did, like a few autobahns perhaps before you go there, was already at way too high a cost. It’s a v slippery slope to start trying to isolate one of two things and say he did jolly well there.
A debate as to whether Hitler, Mao or Stalin worse? Haven’t we got better things to debate and what point are you making if you argue he’s only third in that line-up? The Holocaust was historically unique and we should never forget that.
I am NOT making a “deft move away from (my) comment” What is wrong with your powers of comprehension?
A comparative analysis of the homicidal activity of Hitler, Stalin and Mao is perfectly justified in this context..
Sadly, the Holocaust is NOT unique! O that it was!
Have you forgotten the Rwanda Holocaust so soon? And if so, why so?
Come on Ms Watson you can do better than this.
Happy Christmas.
I am NOT making a “deft move away from (my) comment” What is wrong with your powers of comprehension?
A comparative analysis of the homicidal activity of Hitler, Stalin and Mao is perfectly justified in this context..
Sadly, the Holocaust is NOT unique! O that it was!
Have you forgotten the Rwanda Holocaust so soon? And if so, why so?
Come on Ms Watson you can do better than this.
Happy Christmas.
I think that’s a deft move away from your comment CH, but not buying it.
I didn’t use the phrase evil, but regardless you’ll be hard pressed to find any good. He abolished democracy pretty much immediately and the rule of law was junked. So any good he did, like a few autobahns perhaps before you go there, was already at way too high a cost. It’s a v slippery slope to start trying to isolate one of two things and say he did jolly well there.
A debate as to whether Hitler, Mao or Stalin worse? Haven’t we got better things to debate and what point are you making if you argue he’s only third in that line-up? The Holocaust was historically unique and we should never forget that.
AJP was criticised at the time by his fellow Marxists such a the revolting Hobsbawm, but never withdrew his remark, and nor should he.
To maintain that everything that Hitler did was pure evil is just naive. You are letting your ‘heart ‘ rule your ‘head’.
As you probably know even as a mass killer his efforts pale against those of Stalin and Mao. Yet even here one cannot say that everything these two killers achieved was pure evil.
My one criticism of AJP would be over his chronology, 1936 might have been a better choice. Either way he was a great Lecturer!
Incidentally it is Kristallnacht NOT Kristallnecht! Attention to detail please.
You’ve proved my point about Brexit lol
AJPT wasn’t correct on this one and got criticised for it. Remember Kristallnecht and many race laws preceded June 39. As did the invasion/acquisition of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Come on CH we look to you as an aficionado of history. Don’t drift lazily into any suggestions Hitler did a few good things. V dangerous ground.
Some undoubtedly are, but many have had a belly full of incompetent Populists who’s policies unravel due to the inherent contradictions. Fact we have Biden and Sunak not suggestive we are all begging for the next Populist. Just give us boring competency for a period please.
Unfortunately, no matter how competent they are, they can do virtually nothing if the embedded state apparatus is opposed to their objectives.
Adolph Hitler managed to change things in short order, and IF he had died in say a plane crash in June 1939, he would, in the words of the late Professor A.J.P.Taylor* (1906-90) have gone down in history as “the greatest German Chancellor ever”.
(*Oriel College.)
Some undoubtedly are, but many have had a belly full of incompetent Populists who’s policies unravel due to the inherent contradictions. Fact we have Biden and Sunak not suggestive we are all begging for the next Populist. Just give us boring competency for a period please.
The west is desperate for a populist who delivers. Maybe the task is too great. It will take an extraordinarily competent leader to make it happen.
If Corbyn had stuck to his long-standing principles and offered a Bennite Brexit programme the Red Wall would have held and Labour might have won.
Most of the Labour voter base and membership are remainers.Corbyn thought they’d stay loyal regardless, then the Lib Dems and the Greens showed he was wrong in early-to-mid 2019.
Highly improbable. There simply isn’ enough support in England for those policies and after Labour lost Scotland that’s critical. The best they could have done was a very weak minority with SNP support – which England consistently votes to avoid (and for good reason).
Add in Corbyn’s attitude to Russia (Salisbury poisoning response – let’s trust the Russians to investigate it !) and he was well on the way to losing the Red Wall regardless of other policies. Voting for Corbyn in 2017 was a free hit (protest vote) – no one expected him to win. He wasn’t getting the benefit of the doubt in 2019.
Most of the Labour voter base and membership are remainers.Corbyn thought they’d stay loyal regardless, then the Lib Dems and the Greens showed he was wrong in early-to-mid 2019.
Highly improbable. There simply isn’ enough support in England for those policies and after Labour lost Scotland that’s critical. The best they could have done was a very weak minority with SNP support – which England consistently votes to avoid (and for good reason).
Add in Corbyn’s attitude to Russia (Salisbury poisoning response – let’s trust the Russians to investigate it !) and he was well on the way to losing the Red Wall regardless of other policies. Voting for Corbyn in 2017 was a free hit (protest vote) – no one expected him to win. He wasn’t getting the benefit of the doubt in 2019.
If Corbyn had stuck to his long-standing principles and offered a Bennite Brexit programme the Red Wall would have held and Labour might have won.
Given the outstanding management of Florida by Governor DeSantis (I know; I live here), what do “progressives” have to fear? Were it not for a constantly hysterical media demonizing the next perceived threat to the power elites they protect (remember how they characterized the milksop Mitt Romney, of all people?), an honestly informed population would look forward to having a smart, competent, proven leader in the Oval for a change.
populism is when you promote laissez-faire economics, with culturally reactionary policies. somehow this isn’t elitist.
populism is when you promote laissez-faire economics, with culturally reactionary policies. somehow this isn’t elitist.
Given the outstanding management of Florida by Governor DeSantis (I know; I live here), what do “progressives” have to fear? Were it not for a constantly hysterical media demonizing the next perceived threat to the power elites they protect (remember how they characterized the milksop Mitt Romney, of all people?), an honestly informed population would look forward to having a smart, competent, proven leader in the Oval for a change.
As someone said, Boris never wanted to be PM. He wanted to have been PM. And judging from his fees for speeches, it is clear why.
People pay for his speeches? Ugh, there is no hope for this world….
£100K a pop!
£100K a pop!
People pay for his speeches? Ugh, there is no hope for this world….
As someone said, Boris never wanted to be PM. He wanted to have been PM. And judging from his fees for speeches, it is clear why.
Well said.
In short, Boris Johnson KS is: ‘NOT FIT TO COMMAND TROOPS’
KS? Just curious. The phrase would be used I think in a CO’s report on a subordinate.
King’s Scholar. (Eton).
King’s Scholar. (Eton).
Er he was running a country, not commanding troops …
Just a euphemism!
But did you vote for him CH?
Yes.
Yes.
But did you vote for him CH?
Just a euphemism!
KS? Just curious. The phrase would be used I think in a CO’s report on a subordinate.
Er he was running a country, not commanding troops …
Well said.
In short, Boris Johnson KS is: ‘NOT FIT TO COMMAND TROOPS’
Spoiler alert, conspiracy theory approaching – it was all a ploy by the PTB. Put in a complete duffer (and one of their own), let him muck it up big time, and then turn round and say “see, we told you it couldn’t work” and revert to business-as-normal ie first Mr Sunak to soften us up, and then Sir Keith to finish us off. TBH, I’m not sure anyone or anything is really capable of that, but from their point of view it’s been a brilliant success. We’re all doomed
Spoiler alert, conspiracy theory approaching – it was all a ploy by the PTB. Put in a complete duffer (and one of their own), let him muck it up big time, and then turn round and say “see, we told you it couldn’t work” and revert to business-as-normal ie first Mr Sunak to soften us up, and then Sir Keith to finish us off. TBH, I’m not sure anyone or anything is really capable of that, but from their point of view it’s been a brilliant success. We’re all doomed
Did Boris break Britain or did Britain break Boris?
Did Boris break Britain or did Britain break Boris?
After Hannibal won the Battle of Cannae, wiping out ten Roman legions, he turned up at the gates of Rome. He then ordered his army to march away again, and that was that.
One of his generals later chided him for such a missed opportunity: “Hannibal, it’s true what they say, that the Gods don’t bestow all their gifts on one person. You know how to win a victory, but not how to use it!”
You should have finished that story by describing how Scipio destroyed Hannibal at Zama, should you not?
You should have finished that story by describing how Scipio destroyed Hannibal at Zama, should you not?
After Hannibal won the Battle of Cannae, wiping out ten Roman legions, he turned up at the gates of Rome. He then ordered his army to march away again, and that was that.
One of his generals later chided him for such a missed opportunity: “Hannibal, it’s true what they say, that the Gods don’t bestow all their gifts on one person. You know how to win a victory, but not how to use it!”
Excellent- you have properly analysed and skewered the useless poltroon “Alex” Johnson.
Excellent- you have properly analysed and skewered the useless poltroon “Alex” Johnson.
Johnson’s “moment” should have been around 1995, when he might have led an insurgency from the back-benches against Maastricht, forced a Referendum and rendered its signature politically impossible.
He would then have averted the Blairite reconstruction of the Conservative Party by the apostate Thatcherite, David Cameron.
Quite how this would have played out is impossible to say, but it would have stopped the corruption of public institutions which is Blair’s great legacy.
Too overblown and long winded as usual from Aris Roussinos. Boris Johnson wanted to be Prime Minister, but not to achieve this or that ‘revolutionary change’, or indeed change of almost any sort, over which he has largely transactional views. This included Brexit, which was only ever a vehicle for him rather than a cause. Let’s not get into his (weak!) character here, but the idea that Bojo would have the tenacity and even acceptance of unpopularity to drive through major change is just obviously ridiculous when you say the words.
Then of course, the Conservative Party was -and is -not a united disciplined coherent party even to say the extent the SNP are. Almost any major change is always likely to be thwarted by its own members, as we see time and time again. One example of the many issues facing the country are the Conservatives broadly pro or anti mass migration?
YES! I have been saying this and more for years wile the nodding dogs of the MSM have just treated him as some quaint oddity who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He created this disaster – this is his Opus. He created the Cabinet of horrid cowards and appeasers. He gave UK the disaster it faces exactly as Chamberlain – with Eden and Halifax and all his Appeaser Bit* hes, created WWII.
One thing you totally have wrong though:
”his support for Ukraine, self-serving though it may have been, inspired primarily by a craving for Zelensky’s reflected glamour, helped the country survive up to now,”
Pyrrhic Victory is such a generous term here – too generous for this fiasco Biden and Boris created with the WWIII Hell on Earth. They enabled a Regional Conflict with NO Western Vital Interest to become the most destructive War in 80 years!. This is partly Boris’s creation – it may lead to the destruction of Europe into an economic depression – UK too. It certainly will cause millions to starve and billions to drop from poverty to abject poverty in the Third World. It will rob the workers of their pensions and savings all over the world.
Biden and Boris – The destruction they bring to this world in 3 years is only analogous to what another pair brought 80 years ago – Hi* ler and Muss* olini.
That Boris’s acolytes retain the power has doomed Britain. That Biden and his ilk retain power in USA has doomed the world.
No one can deny the scale of Johnson’s failure. This article is sad but fair. A Counter Factual Question: what would have happened if Covid had not arrived the same weeks he took power? What if the pandemic catastrophe had never happened? Would the foundations of a bright new fairer Britain free from the tentacles of the regulatory hell of the EU have been forged?
Like Aris, I doubt it. Perhaps his relationship with the braver but mad Robespierre Cummings would have survived and some effort to pare back the Blob & Technocracy may have begun. But there is zero evidence that Johnson was ready to tackle the equality mania, the spread of identitarianism and the perversion of our laws by the human rights legal machine. He was happily a part of the wokey illberal globalist London set. There is zero evidence that he even understood the dangers of QE and the zero interest rate regime – the Bomb he sat upon. On the contrary, there is ample proof that – like the awful May – he was a proud Neo-Statist, happy and ready to squander tax money in a profligate magic money manner to garner cheap popularity. On law money culture governance and enterprise, it is plain that he did not even comprehend the Brexit mandate for renewal and REFORM. He was not ready to fight against the excesses of the suffocating anti enterprise EU/Brownite redistributive socialist state he inherited. He had courage. But he was a chaotic chancer. He lacked the hard principles and iron will necessary to wage this hard war. His conversion to blind Net Zero extremism was the final proof of a moral collapse and surrender to London groupthink. Once he had bowed in panic to the Lockdown Hysterics in March 2020 and long beyond his fate was sealed. He thought he was a New Churchill waging a Covid War. He was deluded. And now we pay the price of that folly, without even a glimmer of the hope – last tasted in Jenuary 2020 – of the radical dynamic reform he should have fought for.
Bet you voted for him though. So prepared to share some of the blame?
I would have voted for him if I’d been in the UK. Despite his obvious character flaws he was the only one that promised to respect the result of the referendum
Is it true none of us were blessed with great choices. Nonetheless there were few Brexiteers quietly also highlighting this would not end well when putting a tick against Boris, and that was inevitable.
As regards respecting the result of the referendum – actually Corbyn was going to respect it too, but arguably almost as unfit to be a nations leader as Boris. But I think it’s debatable whether Boris even then really got Brexit done. NI is still a mess with no apparent resolution, and the TCA has only been half implemented – whilst UK goods are subject to checks on way out into EU, those coming in generally aren’t because we are so scared of further messing up our supply chains. What a marvellous bit of ingenuity, make it difficult for our companies but keep it easy for the Europeans! And as for immigration…well we may have stopped a few Rumanians picking our fruit but we’ve let more in from elsewhere.
Utter shambles, as was predicted.
Is it true none of us were blessed with great choices. Nonetheless there were few Brexiteers quietly also highlighting this would not end well when putting a tick against Boris, and that was inevitable.
As regards respecting the result of the referendum – actually Corbyn was going to respect it too, but arguably almost as unfit to be a nations leader as Boris. But I think it’s debatable whether Boris even then really got Brexit done. NI is still a mess with no apparent resolution, and the TCA has only been half implemented – whilst UK goods are subject to checks on way out into EU, those coming in generally aren’t because we are so scared of further messing up our supply chains. What a marvellous bit of ingenuity, make it difficult for our companies but keep it easy for the Europeans! And as for immigration…well we may have stopped a few Rumanians picking our fruit but we’ve let more in from elsewhere.
Utter shambles, as was predicted.
I would have voted for him if I’d been in the UK. Despite his obvious character flaws he was the only one that promised to respect the result of the referendum
Bet you voted for him though. So prepared to share some of the blame?
Your reply is incredibly hyperbolic and over the top in my opinion. While Biden is a useless, senile old fool and Boris a narcissistic chancer, being rather incompetent is a world away from the murderous f***ist dictatorships of the 30’s and 40’s.
Also blaming them for the fighting in Ukraine, when a single NATO boot hasn’t set foot on Ukrainian soil is just nonsense. It was Russian tanks and artillery that invaded, therefore the fault of that war lies with Putin and nobody else. Trying to blame others for the actions of that monster is simply idiotic.
Finally I don’t believe Chamberlains appeasement of H**ler was a cause of the Second World War, it merely delayed it
“when a single NATO boot hasn’t set foot on Ukrainian soil”,
..except the SBS, SAS, SRR and SFS who were there as the invasion started. The fault of the war lies with primarily with NATO – and it is acknowledged by Merkel that the Minsk agreements were a sham – the talks she was part of in Belarus were to buy time while Ukraine built fortifications in eastern regions, trained and armed troops. We should have nothing to do with it. As many suspect – it is a proxy war for a money laundering operation fronted by an actor. We spent two year being clearly lied to about Covid 19, you think you can believe a single thing you are told about Ukraine?
Merkel was reinventing the past in order to mask her own incompetence in leaving Germany reliant on the whims of a dictator. I find it hard to believe the Minsk agreements were part of some grand strategy of hers to defend Ukraine, especially as the Germans refused to help for a long time even after the invasion happened.
Also it’s been well documented that the west (US and UK in particular) helped train the Ukrainians after Crimea was stolen, in which case I’ll admit to being slightly clumsy with my wording. I’ll rephrase it as not a single NATO soldier has fired a bullet at the Russians
Not more of this delusional fantasy.
Fortunately, most people in this country don’t believe any of this nonsense and support Ukraine in fighting for its freedom and independence, And rightly so.
No one forced Putin to invade. His decision. His blunder. I notice he’s called it a “war” now.
Putin got up one morning and just decided to invade Ukraine..OK, that’s delusional. He explained clearly a number of times his reasons. Where exactly is the 100bn going? It’s going back to US weapon manufacturers in a large part – with 10% for the big guy.
In fact a number of the best Kremlin watchers suggest he did catch the vast majority of his politburo by surprise when he said we’re actually doing it.
Nonetheless the continual attempt by some to excuse an invasion of a young democracy particularly disappointing but illuminating. It shows the tendency to junk democracy if you can just have what you want infects a significant minority of us.
In fact a number of the best Kremlin watchers suggest he did catch the vast majority of his politburo by surprise when he said we’re actually doing it.
Nonetheless the continual attempt by some to excuse an invasion of a young democracy particularly disappointing but illuminating. It shows the tendency to junk democracy if you can just have what you want infects a significant minority of us.
Putin got up one morning and just decided to invade Ukraine..OK, that’s delusional. He explained clearly a number of times his reasons. Where exactly is the 100bn going? It’s going back to US weapon manufacturers in a large part – with 10% for the big guy.
“The fault of the war lies with primarily with NATO”
Complete horseshit.
Dear God, Brexiters are becoming more like MAGA Trumpers with every passing year.
Time for Russians to start looking in the mirror and start taking some responsibility for their own messes, instead of whining endlessly about NATO.
First, decades of communism had created a passive hoi polloi who needed orders form above. Second, Russians have no history of democracy anyway. Culturally, it’s unfamiliar to them. Only an educated minority of Russians miss its absence.
And the pillaging primarily was internal, and led by one V Putin & Cronies: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/has-vladimir-putin-always-been-corrupt-and-does-it-matter
The reality is that Russia has invaded its neighbours more times than it’s been invaded itself.
We’re urged, by the likes of Mearsheimer, to take seriously Putin’s putative fear that NATO, once settled in on Russia’s borders, will invade it. But the thoroughly legitimate, historically well-founded fear, on the part of Russia’s neighbours, that Putin might invade them? That’s something Putin’s Western apologists want us to dismiss out of hand. Indeed, they want more: they want us to accept Russia’s right to invade them. For it’s only Russia’s comfort, Russia’s security, Russia’s inviolability that matters. To all you appeasers, its neighbours’ freedom – including the freedom to form alliances to protect that freedom – is nothing but a provocation.
There’s a word for Mearsheimer’s kind of thinking. It’s not “realism” or “realpolitik.” It’s “appeasement.” Rank appeasement. Do whatever it takes to keep from rousing the beast. Somehow, it’s always OK for Putin to be belligerent; whenever he does so, it’s because he’s worried about us. But if we respond to his aggression in any way other than by stepping meekly back and letting him have his way, then whatever happens is the West’s fault.
See: https://usefulstooges.com/tag/john-j-mearsheimer/
Totally agree. Apart from the irrelevant BRexit reference. Who knows if the people pushing this nonsense are “Brexiteers” or not ? I don’t see any evidence or correlation.
Totally agree. Apart from the irrelevant BRexit reference. Who knows if the people pushing this nonsense are “Brexiteers” or not ? I don’t see any evidence or correlation.
Merkel was reinventing the past in order to mask her own incompetence in leaving Germany reliant on the whims of a dictator. I find it hard to believe the Minsk agreements were part of some grand strategy of hers to defend Ukraine, especially as the Germans refused to help for a long time even after the invasion happened.
Also it’s been well documented that the west (US and UK in particular) helped train the Ukrainians after Crimea was stolen, in which case I’ll admit to being slightly clumsy with my wording. I’ll rephrase it as not a single NATO soldier has fired a bullet at the Russians
Not more of this delusional fantasy.
Fortunately, most people in this country don’t believe any of this nonsense and support Ukraine in fighting for its freedom and independence, And rightly so.
No one forced Putin to invade. His decision. His blunder. I notice he’s called it a “war” now.
“The fault of the war lies with primarily with NATO”
Complete horseshit.
Dear God, Brexiters are becoming more like MAGA Trumpers with every passing year.
Time for Russians to start looking in the mirror and start taking some responsibility for their own messes, instead of whining endlessly about NATO.
First, decades of communism had created a passive hoi polloi who needed orders form above. Second, Russians have no history of democracy anyway. Culturally, it’s unfamiliar to them. Only an educated minority of Russians miss its absence.
And the pillaging primarily was internal, and led by one V Putin & Cronies: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/has-vladimir-putin-always-been-corrupt-and-does-it-matter
The reality is that Russia has invaded its neighbours more times than it’s been invaded itself.
We’re urged, by the likes of Mearsheimer, to take seriously Putin’s putative fear that NATO, once settled in on Russia’s borders, will invade it. But the thoroughly legitimate, historically well-founded fear, on the part of Russia’s neighbours, that Putin might invade them? That’s something Putin’s Western apologists want us to dismiss out of hand. Indeed, they want more: they want us to accept Russia’s right to invade them. For it’s only Russia’s comfort, Russia’s security, Russia’s inviolability that matters. To all you appeasers, its neighbours’ freedom – including the freedom to form alliances to protect that freedom – is nothing but a provocation.
There’s a word for Mearsheimer’s kind of thinking. It’s not “realism” or “realpolitik.” It’s “appeasement.” Rank appeasement. Do whatever it takes to keep from rousing the beast. Somehow, it’s always OK for Putin to be belligerent; whenever he does so, it’s because he’s worried about us. But if we respond to his aggression in any way other than by stepping meekly back and letting him have his way, then whatever happens is the West’s fault.
See: https://usefulstooges.com/tag/john-j-mearsheimer/
“blaming them for the fighting in Ukraine, when a single NATO boot hasn’t set foot”
Leaving aside the hypocrisy of blaming Russia while NATO nation soldiers DID set foot in Iraq, Libya etc and left them in ruins…
The US block didn’t set foot in Iraq 1953, Congo 1961 or Chile 1973. All of which, like Ukraine 2014, involved democratically elected governments that weren’t convenient to the West
Only difference is this time the Western block bit off more than they could chew.
Yet more self-delusion. Russia is losing and will lose. In fact, they lost the moment they invaded in February. The US is providing just enough support to Ukraine to maintain them right now. That can easily be increased. No one should be in any doubt now about the absolute supremacy of US/Western military equipment, training, tactics and intelligence. And the absolutely pitiful state of the same on the Russian side. Plus the crippling effects of endemic corruption on Russia’s ability to do anything of significant difficulty for itself.
US military tactics relies heavily on overwhelming air support. In this kind of conflict they are lost.
Evidently not in Ukraine. Massive superiority in US/NATO/Western defensive weapons (anti-tank, anti-missile), rockets and artillery is making the difference. Plus vastly superior intelligence and drones. Meanwhile, where’s the Russian airforce ?
Exactly PB.
The Patriot missile system the US has now provided only going to further reinforce this.
Exactly PB.
The Patriot missile system the US has now provided only going to further reinforce this.
Evidently not in Ukraine. Massive superiority in US/NATO/Western defensive weapons (anti-tank, anti-missile), rockets and artillery is making the difference. Plus vastly superior intelligence and drones. Meanwhile, where’s the Russian airforce ?
US military tactics relies heavily on overwhelming air support. In this kind of conflict they are lost.
Yet more self-delusion. Russia is losing and will lose. In fact, they lost the moment they invaded in February. The US is providing just enough support to Ukraine to maintain them right now. That can easily be increased. No one should be in any doubt now about the absolute supremacy of US/Western military equipment, training, tactics and intelligence. And the absolutely pitiful state of the same on the Russian side. Plus the crippling effects of endemic corruption on Russia’s ability to do anything of significant difficulty for itself.
History will reveal the extent on Johnson’s complicity in the Ukraine war. If you remember, there was a negotiated settlement almost agreed back in March, at the Istanbul conference. A sensible compromise (Crimea to remain Russian, self-determination for Donetsk and Luhansk) was on the table and Zelensky was minded to acknowledge force majeure and sign once the details had been agreed. At this point Johnson flew into Kiew; immediately after he left, Ukraine unilaterally withdrew from he negotiations and refused any concession to Russia.
I don’t suppose Johnson was only representing himself! We don’t know what he said, but it’s easy to guess the gist of it. and given Johnson’s penchant for exaggeration and personal aggrandizement, he may well not have acted merely as a messenger. How far Johnson was himself responsible for NATO’s bellicose posture, we don;t know; but he obviously revelled in it . Needless to say, he has walked away from the consequences and no doubt (being who he is) feels no responsibility for the thousands of deaths his words to Zelensky caused.
I think you’ll find JT that Johnson’s views on the matter rather of marginal importance (albeit his support for Ukraine probably one of the few good things he did, and as a WSC biographer not that surprising either).
Crimea is critical to Ukraine. They will never have proper security without it. I suspect until they showed the wherewithal to gradually degrade the Russian forces and then retake Kherson NATO, and esp the US, weren’t certain they could win. Now I suspect they think otherwise and will give them what is needed – the £1.85b package being voted through Congress the immediate evidence of that conclusion. It’ll take some months but with only 2 routes into Crimea, and both now in range of Ukrainian missiles and drones, the Kherson pattern may repeat.
So in summary the primary disagreement with you is that you imply Crimea much less important to future Ukrainian security. I think that’s an error in strategic thinking. It’s also an error in psychology. Ukraine come too far now, and sacrificed too much to settle for something that leaves them vulnerable and allows Putin to regroup.
I think you’ll find JT that Johnson’s views on the matter rather of marginal importance (albeit his support for Ukraine probably one of the few good things he did, and as a WSC biographer not that surprising either).
Crimea is critical to Ukraine. They will never have proper security without it. I suspect until they showed the wherewithal to gradually degrade the Russian forces and then retake Kherson NATO, and esp the US, weren’t certain they could win. Now I suspect they think otherwise and will give them what is needed – the £1.85b package being voted through Congress the immediate evidence of that conclusion. It’ll take some months but with only 2 routes into Crimea, and both now in range of Ukrainian missiles and drones, the Kherson pattern may repeat.
So in summary the primary disagreement with you is that you imply Crimea much less important to future Ukrainian security. I think that’s an error in strategic thinking. It’s also an error in psychology. Ukraine come too far now, and sacrificed too much to settle for something that leaves them vulnerable and allows Putin to regroup.
“when a single NATO boot hasn’t set foot on Ukrainian soil”,
..except the SBS, SAS, SRR and SFS who were there as the invasion started. The fault of the war lies with primarily with NATO – and it is acknowledged by Merkel that the Minsk agreements were a sham – the talks she was part of in Belarus were to buy time while Ukraine built fortifications in eastern regions, trained and armed troops. We should have nothing to do with it. As many suspect – it is a proxy war for a money laundering operation fronted by an actor. We spent two year being clearly lied to about Covid 19, you think you can believe a single thing you are told about Ukraine?
“blaming them for the fighting in Ukraine, when a single NATO boot hasn’t set foot”
Leaving aside the hypocrisy of blaming Russia while NATO nation soldiers DID set foot in Iraq, Libya etc and left them in ruins…
The US block didn’t set foot in Iraq 1953, Congo 1961 or Chile 1973. All of which, like Ukraine 2014, involved democratically elected governments that weren’t convenient to the West
Only difference is this time the Western block bit off more than they could chew.
History will reveal the extent on Johnson’s complicity in the Ukraine war. If you remember, there was a negotiated settlement almost agreed back in March, at the Istanbul conference. A sensible compromise (Crimea to remain Russian, self-determination for Donetsk and Luhansk) was on the table and Zelensky was minded to acknowledge force majeure and sign once the details had been agreed. At this point Johnson flew into Kiew; immediately after he left, Ukraine unilaterally withdrew from he negotiations and refused any concession to Russia.
I don’t suppose Johnson was only representing himself! We don’t know what he said, but it’s easy to guess the gist of it. and given Johnson’s penchant for exaggeration and personal aggrandizement, he may well not have acted merely as a messenger. How far Johnson was himself responsible for NATO’s bellicose posture, we don;t know; but he obviously revelled in it . Needless to say, he has walked away from the consequences and no doubt (being who he is) feels no responsibility for the thousands of deaths his words to Zelensky caused.
No one can deny the scale of Johnson’s failure. This article is sad but fair. A Counter Factual Question: what would have happened if Covid had not arrived the same weeks he took power? What if the pandemic catastrophe had never happened? Would the foundations of a bright new fairer Britain free from the tentacles of the regulatory hell of the EU have been forged?
Like Aris, I doubt it. Perhaps his relationship with the braver but mad Robespierre Cummings would have survived and some effort to pare back the Blob & Technocracy may have begun. But there is zero evidence that Johnson was ready to tackle the equality mania, the spread of identitarianism and the perversion of our laws by the human rights legal machine. He was happily a part of the wokey illberal globalist London set. There is zero evidence that he even understood the dangers of QE and the zero interest rate regime – the Bomb he sat upon. On the contrary, there is ample proof that – like the awful May – he was a proud Neo-Statist, happy and ready to squander tax money in a profligate magic money manner to garner cheap popularity. On law money culture governance and enterprise, it is plain that he did not even comprehend the Brexit mandate for renewal and REFORM. He was not ready to fight against the excesses of the suffocating anti enterprise EU/Brownite redistributive socialist state he inherited. He had courage. But he was a chaotic chancer. He lacked the hard principles and iron will necessary to wage this hard war. His conversion to blind Net Zero extremism was the final proof of a moral collapse and surrender to London groupthink. Once he had bowed in panic to the Lockdown Hysterics in March 2020 and long beyond his fate was sealed. He thought he was a New Churchill waging a Covid War. He was deluded. And now we pay the price of that folly, without even a glimmer of the hope – last tasted in Jenuary 2020 – of the radical dynamic reform he should have fought for.
Your reply is incredibly hyperbolic and over the top in my opinion. While Biden is a useless, senile old fool and Boris a narcissistic chancer, being rather incompetent is a world away from the murderous f***ist dictatorships of the 30’s and 40’s.
Also blaming them for the fighting in Ukraine, when a single NATO boot hasn’t set foot on Ukrainian soil is just nonsense. It was Russian tanks and artillery that invaded, therefore the fault of that war lies with Putin and nobody else. Trying to blame others for the actions of that monster is simply idiotic.
Finally I don’t believe Chamberlains appeasement of H**ler was a cause of the Second World War, it merely delayed it
YES! I have been saying this and more for years wile the nodding dogs of the MSM have just treated him as some quaint oddity who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He created this disaster – this is his Opus. He created the Cabinet of horrid cowards and appeasers. He gave UK the disaster it faces exactly as Chamberlain – with Eden and Halifax and all his Appeaser Bit* hes, created WWII.
One thing you totally have wrong though:
”his support for Ukraine, self-serving though it may have been, inspired primarily by a craving for Zelensky’s reflected glamour, helped the country survive up to now,”
Pyrrhic Victory is such a generous term here – too generous for this fiasco Biden and Boris created with the WWIII Hell on Earth. They enabled a Regional Conflict with NO Western Vital Interest to become the most destructive War in 80 years!. This is partly Boris’s creation – it may lead to the destruction of Europe into an economic depression – UK too. It certainly will cause millions to starve and billions to drop from poverty to abject poverty in the Third World. It will rob the workers of their pensions and savings all over the world.
Biden and Boris – The destruction they bring to this world in 3 years is only analogous to what another pair brought 80 years ago – Hi* ler and Muss* olini.
That Boris’s acolytes retain the power has doomed Britain. That Biden and his ilk retain power in USA has doomed the world.
Better late than never I guess. Now didn’t a few folks say ‘this will not end well’? And from recollection weren’t they as numerous on the right as the left ?
Intoxication takes many forms, and as he’d leapt on the Brexit Bandwagon with his boosterism and blokey bluster the right wing Brexiteers thought they had their magic card. Problem is whether Boris broke Brexit or Brexit broke Boris one or the other was inevitable.
Buyers remorse can take a life time of course.
Better late than never I guess. Now didn’t a few folks say ‘this will not end well’? And from recollection weren’t they as numerous on the right as the left ?
Intoxication takes many forms, and as he’d leapt on the Brexit Bandwagon with his boosterism and blokey bluster the right wing Brexiteers thought they had their magic card. Problem is whether Boris broke Brexit or Brexit broke Boris one or the other was inevitable.
Buyers remorse can take a life time of course.
Frankly, if you wanted vital reform to the UK you shouldn’t have tried to back a renegotiation of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU for the sake of ideologue-driven deregulation that even British businesses don’t want.
Brexit was always a reactionary project. It was the remainers who had the real solutions all along. For all the talk of the Lib Dems being undemocratic, they were the ones promoting a PR and the federal britain.
Frankly, if you wanted vital reform to the UK you shouldn’t have tried to back a renegotiation of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU for the sake of ideologue-driven deregulation that even British businesses don’t want.
Brexit was always a reactionary project. It was the remainers who had the real solutions all along. For all the talk of the Lib Dems being undemocratic, they were the ones promoting a PR and the federal britain.
So, not content with vilifying Europe, the Brexiters are also driven by a hatred of, and contempt for, the UK itself:
“The Brexit vote afforded an extraordinary opportunity to reform Britain’s sclerotic institutions, and steer us out of the state’s ongoing death spiral.”
Death spiral? The UK? Is the man quite mad?
Very obvious through that such a crackpot call to revolutionary arms can never be carried by any party calling itself “conservative”.
The Brexiters are revolutionaries, and, like all revolutionaries, afflicted by certainty.
Like all deluded revolutionaries (most Communists), they never can admit to any failings in their plan.
Oh no, the only problem will always be that the implementers weren’t pure / extreme / committed enough.
The article is short on detail through – what – and in detail please, without the windy rhetoric and lofty posturing – does the writer propose?
Brexiters have had 6 years to think about this. Where’s the plan? Where’s the beef?
Unsubstantiated insults no longer cut it.
If you can’t produce a coherent set of proposals after all this time, pardon me for selecting that your ideology is largely hot air.
That all sounds a bit like the last century of the Irish Republic if I may say so!
So the 52% of those who voted to leave the EU – 17 million people – are “revolutionaries” ? Stop and thing about how ridiculous that statement is.
There is something in this ‘Leninist’ reading of what happened – a relatively small group of revolutionaries captured the zeitgeist at a crucial moment aided especially by the timeliness of Syrian refugee crisis. Then subsequently as the ideology repeatedly runs into reality and begins to unravel the list of Kulaks and counter revolutionary ‘blockers’ to concoct as conspiratorial excuses lengthens.
The revolution gradually moves away from it’s original public support but fights hard to find other scapegoats to weaponise in order to protect itself.
Hmm, as a historical rhythm repetition it certainly has something about it.
But I suspect even without the Syrian crisis and without Boris coming out for Brexit (and these two things made the difference), 15m+ would have still voted for it, which means the sense of frustration that drove it cannot be ignored. It’s just we’d differ on what needed to be done.
That all sounds a bit like the last century of the Irish Republic if I may say so!
So the 52% of those who voted to leave the EU – 17 million people – are “revolutionaries” ? Stop and thing about how ridiculous that statement is.
There is something in this ‘Leninist’ reading of what happened – a relatively small group of revolutionaries captured the zeitgeist at a crucial moment aided especially by the timeliness of Syrian refugee crisis. Then subsequently as the ideology repeatedly runs into reality and begins to unravel the list of Kulaks and counter revolutionary ‘blockers’ to concoct as conspiratorial excuses lengthens.
The revolution gradually moves away from it’s original public support but fights hard to find other scapegoats to weaponise in order to protect itself.
Hmm, as a historical rhythm repetition it certainly has something about it.
But I suspect even without the Syrian crisis and without Boris coming out for Brexit (and these two things made the difference), 15m+ would have still voted for it, which means the sense of frustration that drove it cannot be ignored. It’s just we’d differ on what needed to be done.
So, not content with vilifying Europe, the Brexiters are also driven by a hatred of, and contempt for, the UK itself:
“The Brexit vote afforded an extraordinary opportunity to reform Britain’s sclerotic institutions, and steer us out of the state’s ongoing death spiral.”
Death spiral? The UK? Is the man quite mad?
Very obvious through that such a crackpot call to revolutionary arms can never be carried by any party calling itself “conservative”.
The Brexiters are revolutionaries, and, like all revolutionaries, afflicted by certainty.
Like all deluded revolutionaries (most Communists), they never can admit to any failings in their plan.
Oh no, the only problem will always be that the implementers weren’t pure / extreme / committed enough.
The article is short on detail through – what – and in detail please, without the windy rhetoric and lofty posturing – does the writer propose?
Brexiters have had 6 years to think about this. Where’s the plan? Where’s the beef?
Unsubstantiated insults no longer cut it.
If you can’t produce a coherent set of proposals after all this time, pardon me for selecting that your ideology is largely hot air.