The Tribune

AFTER writing last week about the trials and tribulations of beleaguered Prime Minister Boris Johnson, I hesitate to return to the current political turmoil in Britain. But there have been two further blows in recent days that are said to have put him at his lowest point since becoming leader of the Conservative Party in 2019 - and what happens politically in the UK matters, given the country’s international standing and role in the world.

Last week, the ruling Conservatives were heavily defeated at a by-election in the rural constituency of North Shropshire, a parliamentary seat which had been a political stronghold for them for some 200 years - and this has come some two years since their landslide general election victory. The Liberal Democrats won comfortably in the third largest swing in more than half a century. Many saw it as a referendum on Mr Johnson’s leadership and performance. He was found wanting as the voters turned on him with a fury in reversing a massive Tory majority - and, it is being said, they wanted to send a message that they did not trust him.

Then, at the weekend, cabinet minister Lord Frost, who was the chief Brexit negotiator and a political ally of the PM, resigned on the grounds that he had become disillusioned with the direction of Tory policy and especially the new COVID restrictions and vaccine passports as well as environmental policies and the green agenda.

The two events together amount to a huge setback for the Tory government in what are already difficult times for the country. In addition to the political turbulence, the economy is stuttering as the pandemic is heading into its third year, with the Omicron variant causing havoc. At the time of writing, there is uncertainty and confusion as the Prime Minister has delayed a decision about the threatened imposition of new COVID curbs in the face of opposition from his own MPs.

I described last week the reasons for the predicament in which the Prime Minister has found himself as a result of what are considered to be self-inflicted wounds. These do not bear repeating today, but there is reported to be a good deal of anger in the country about what has been happening - not only about the government’s handling of the pandemic and the recent scandals but also a failure to stick to Conservative principles and policies and, for example, to deal with the current immigration crisis.

The conventional wisdom seems to be developing is that, without some radical improvement, Mr Johnson could be “one strike” away from being forced out of office through a leadership contest in the coming months; and the danger for him is many now appear to regard his reputation as an election winner as a declining asset.

Such considerations prompt reflection, more generally, on politics and on those who seek power and influence through public office. In Britain, the most recent evidence suggests the vast majority of the public do not believe their political leaders act in the country’s best interest since most of them are self-serving and more concerned with what they perceive as their own priorities, and that may include feathering their own nest - if the opportunity arises - by dipping in to the public purse with impunity.

Some regard such a harsh claim as a cynically wild generalisation applying only to a limited number of bad apples. Nonetheless, it is said trust in politicians has seriously diminished if not practically disappeared. The old gag, which goes back to the days of the Labour government led by Harold Wilson in the 1960s, is being recirculated: “How do you know when a politician is lying? When you see his lips moving.” So nothing has changed and most people assume that all too often politicians simply lie their way out of trouble - and, by so doing, they have collectively forfeited the nation’s trust in them.

This raises the question whether it was always like that. The Westminster system of government has traditionally been held up as an example to the rest of the world. But that does not mean its practitioners have necessarily been squeaky clean. On the contrary, political history contains many scandals, not least involving financial impropriety, and so much so that as far back as the 1950s Harold Macmillan, a renowned former British Prime Minister and world statesman, famously summed it up by saying “If it’s morality you want, go and ask the bishops”.

Trust in politicians may be at a low ebb in Britain but it is said there is no perfectly just form of government on earth. The checks and balances in a democracy may not always work, but it is surely a better system of governance than the alternatives of communism and dictatorship - or theocracy that can lead to despotism - as long as those politicians are held to account by the people.

A voice to be heard in the battle against wokeness

Legendary comedy superstar, John Cleese - of, in particular, “Monty Python” and the BBC comedy series “Fawlty Towers” fame - is back in the news again after abruptly walking out of a BBC interview In Singapore. He later said he intended to complain formally over the “deception, dishonesty and tone” of his exchange with a BBC presenter.

What appears to have irked him was the latter’s insistence on quizzing him - in a somewhat querulous manner - about his views on “wokeness and cancel culture” instead of focusing on the programmes and comedy shows he had come to Singapore to do and which were supposed to be the purpose of the interview.

I wonder whether others, like me, rather enjoyed his exchange about this controversial issue with the interviewer in so far as he, as an acknowledged master of the art of comedy, explained lucidly and persuasively why he was sceptical about “wokeness” which he called a relatively new phenomenon that had a damaging effect on comedy and was destructive of creativity.

He acknowledged the importance of respect for other people’s feelings but he questioned, for example, the wisdom of over-protecting young people. He suggested, rather than mollycoddling them by encouraging too great a degree of sensitivity in dealing with daily life, they needed to be prepared as adults to face an increasingly tough and unfriendly world.

He went on to point out that nowadays everyone wanted to be right about everything to the extent they will not listen to differing views and are unwilling to compromise; and, by so doing, they themselves were not respecting the sensitivities of others. If they did not like what you had to say, they would unashamedly “cancel” you so that your views could not be heard and he said that because of this he had already blacklisted himself from his alma mater Cambridge University. But, in protecting people from the extremes of criticism, and what could be perceived as a form of psychological assault, it was important to seek the right degree of protection - not too much and not too little because there were different levels of sensitivity.

There is a risk of such arguments becoming convoluted. It is important that people should be alert to the dangers of racial prejudice and discrimination which should surely never be underestimated - and, with that in mind, it is clear that, in order for a society or community to function, there have to be certain norms of behaviour and constraints on how people interact in accordance with established customs and the law.

As regards the spoken or written word, protections are already built in to the system in the form of slander, libel and defamation laws; for example, in relation to hate speech, incitement of violence, offending public decency, disturbing the peace and infringing the rights of others in a variety of ways. But looking for something to be offended about at the slightest provocation brings in a level of subjectivity which in the view of many is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Cleese cites the admiration people used to feel for those who managed to control their feelings and were tolerant and accepting of others even if they disagreed with them. But now, if people are unable or unwilling to control their own emotions, they try to complain about the attitudes or actions of others in a bid to control those people’s behaviour towards them.

Alongside all this, it was interesting to read a report that Oxford University has recently stressed the importance of embedding equality, diversity and inclusion in making academic appointments. At first sight that may seem reasonable enough, but some might regard it as a form of mandatory “wokeness”.

Academics invariably say they encourage tolerance and freedom of speech. But the evidence suggests otherwise since they tend to be left-leaning and do not like their views challenged. There is no space today to examine this further but, from what I have read, some people claim even questioning left-wing ideology in UK universities and colleges is nowadays often dismissed as right-wing babble - and this happens in places of learning where ideas ought to be discussed and debated in an open, non-judgmental way that can lead to rational conclusions.

Cleese’s interviewer suggested his views might be old-fashioned. Others will say that, on the contrary, they simply reflect good, sound common sense which is everlasting. But could this be the beginning of a fightback against “wokeness” by people of stature in their own field to whom others will listen?

Churchill’s greatest shock

Following my piece two weeks ago about Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, a reader has chided me for failing to write about a separate Japanese attack only days later, this time against the British.

In fact, I did mention last year that, soon after Britain’s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, had expressed what he called his “greatest Joy” at the forced entry of the US into the Second World War as a result of Pearl Harbour, he was in for a terrible shock.

I now repeat what I wrote then; namely, that on December 10 the British battleships HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were spotted off Singapore and attacked by Japanese fighter-bombers. Without their own fighter cover, both were sunk and two months later Singapore fell to the invading Japanese army.

Churchill wrote that, after being given the news of these terrible losses by telephone, he was thankful to be alone at that moment because in all the war “I never received a more direct shock”.  That was his low point. But, thereafter, with the Americans alongside them, the fortunes of the Allies started to improve. Less than a year later - after winning the Second Battle of El Alamein against the Germans in the North African desert - Churchill was able to utter his famous words about the war: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning” - for everyone was confident that with US involvement an Allied victory was the only possible conclusion to the most destructive global conflict in history.