The Tribune

BELOW is the text I drafted on Sunday in time to meet the usual press deadline of Monday afternoon for my weekly column. But over the weekend and yesterday events in London moved rapidly, with the situation changing by the hour.

On Sunday evening, Boris Johnson pulled out of the race to become the next Prime Minister after the resignation of Liz Truss on Thursday; and another contender, Penny Mordaunt, failed to obtain the minimum 100 supporters required to stay on the ballot that had been due to take place today.

As a result, on Monday she was forced to pull out of the contest. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, was therefore the only contender still standing and yesterday he was declared Britain’s new Prime Minister.

This outcome is nothing short of astonishing. Who would possibly have thought even a few weeks ago - including Sunak himself - that he would be replacing her as PM so soon after being beaten by her into second place in the Tory leadership contest during the summer? He will now face an array of towering problems for the country, and the watchwords for the Conservative Party will be stability, unity and efficiency. I hope to offer further comment in next week’s column.

For older Britons, in particular, who are accustomed to political and economic stability in their country with its reputation for tolerance, moderation and good order, the events of the past week have been disturbing and even shocking. Amidst the chaos at Westminster surrounding the deeply divided ruling Conservative government whose economic credibility has been shattered, there is reportedly now wide public concern that the UK is becoming an international laughing stock as other countries watch events there with a mixture of disbelief and bemusement.

It is now being said in the UK media that in the nation’s history there has never been a meltdown like it. That is probably an exaggeration, but commentators have been indulging in a range of descriptions of the current mess - from shambolic and shameful to extraordinary and unprecedented.

Another British Prime Minister has gone, and by the end of the month the nation will have its third holder of this office in just seven weeks.

In recent years, the country has been in a constant state of unease and uncertainty amounting, in the eyes of some, to a constant crisis with the present group of Tories in power – so much so that the leader of the Labour opposition has condemned the latest situation as a “ridiculous, chaotic circus in the Conservative Party”, and he has called for a General Election.

Despite signs that the embattled Prime Minister, Liz Truss, might have hung on at least until her new Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered his fiscal plan next week, she resigned last Thursday in the wake of the turmoil set off by the announcement on September 23 of unfunded tax cuts which rattled the financial markets and sent the pound sterling into free fall. This made her the shortest-serving PM in British history.

In her resignation statement, she said that she was unable to deliver on the mandate on which she had been elected as Tory leader and therefore prime minister. She lost the confidence of her own party in moving – as she herself put it - too far and too fast in trying to implement the economic policies on which she was elected.

It must have been a supremely lonely and poignant moment for Ms Truss. But - like Boris Johnson before her, though for different reasons – after consultation with the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbench MPs, she had bowed to pressure from her own parliamentary colleagues who wanted her to go.

For the public, the apparent absurdity of what has happened is all too real. In a nutshell, a political party (the Tories under Boris Johnson) wins power at Westminster with a thumping 80-seat majority in 2019. Less than three years later, that party gets rid of him – despite his deserved reputation for winning elections -- on what some say are the frivolous grounds of ‘Partygate’.

The party then conducts an overly long leadership contest, during which effective governance is stifled because ministers are hamstrung by the political uncertainty. But, within six weeks of the winner taking up office, the party mutinies and forces a reversal of the economic policy on which it has just elected the new leader and, in effect, compels her to step down. Put simply, the Tories are said to be imbued by a “culture of factionalism” and constant infighting.

By any standards, this has developed into nothing short of a shambles. What it shows is that the Conservative Party remains seriously split, torn apart by disagreement and discontent; and, if yet another new leader cannot unite the warring factions, it may collapse entirely as a political party, despite this being barely credible given the famous history of the Tories and the great political figures they have produced in the past – like Churchill, Gladstone, Disraeli and Baldwin, to name just a few. But, already, the polls are saying that, if an election were held now, Labour would win handsomely.

Britain has been a pioneer of parliamentary democracy, with the Westminster system being adopted by many other countries.

Over the years, the nation has enjoyed a fine reputation for being governed firmly and fairly in a disciplined manner, and this has contributed strongly to a steadfast and well-ordered society.

Under established rules and practices, successive governments have scrupulously adhered to tradition in a nation which has been a beacon of stability as a successful democracy that has been an example to others. Indeed, for many people Britain has been the envy of the world. But no longer, it seems, at least in the short-term - and some commentators are linking what is going on at the moment to the divisions precipitated by Britain’s departure from the European Union after the nation’s political, economic and foreign policy had been centred on its membership of the bloc for the past 40 years.

So what happens next? Unlike the protracted exercise during the summer, the rules for a new leadership contest are that nominations are due to close on Monday at 2pm local time. Candidates require a minimum of 100 backers to enter the contest. There will then be a ballot of MPs followed by a vote online by Conservative Party members, with the winner to be declared on October 28.

IN FOR THE LONG HAUL IN UKRAINE

HAVING referred briefly last week to the interesting insights of Steve Rosenberg, the BBC’s Moscow-based correspondent, about the Ukraine war, I return to the subject today in order to examine new views that are emerging about Putin’s intentions and likely future actions following the recent successes of the Ukrainian armed forces on the battlefield.

At the beginning of the conflict following the Russian invasion in February, the Kremlin’s objective was clearly the rapid defeat of Ukraine in order to force Russia’s neighbour back into its orbit of influence without a prolonged war. But Putin underestimated the Ukrainians’ determination to defend their country while he also overestimated the capability and effectiveness of his own military forces. Ukrainian success in fighting back during the intervening eight months - with the help of weaponry and equipment supplied by the West - are well documented.

Some thought that, after having recently annexed several eastern provinces where he has now declared martial law, Putin might freeze the conflict in a tacit acceptance that the whole of the country could not be taken over by force. But this seems to have been ruled out in a statement by the former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, to the effect that Ukraine ‘as presently configured will be a constant, direct and clear threat to Russia’ and therefore its ‘political regime needs to be dismantled’. So a protracted conflict seems inevitable.

As has been well publicised, Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons. But Western nations judge that, while this remains under close scrutiny by NATO, a nuclear strategic attack is unlikely though the deployment of tactical such weapons on the battlefield cannot be ruled out. But Russian forces are now evacuating the Kherson region in the south in the face of a successful Ukrainian counter offensive – in the east as well - to liberate and take back control of communities that had been all but destroyed by Russian occupiers.

Meanwhile, following the appointment of a new uncompromising military leader - widely called ‘General Armageddon’ because of the atrocities he perpetrated in Syria - the Russians are now seeking to destroy infrastructure across the country, especially targeting power stations and the electricity supply in the lead-up to the winter in a bid to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people and their will to fight on. But, so far, it seems that attacks on infrastructure using cruise missiles and Iranian-made drones, which have deprived over a million households of power, have not intimidated Ukrainians and have only served to strengthen the people’s resolve and will to resist.

The BBC has reported that partial mobilisation in Russia has led to growing discontent there. But Rosenberg’s assessment is that Putin does not want to appear vulnerable himself and wants to show resolve and capability to continue to prosecute the war. It is not in his character to give up, and he is determined to stick to what he sees as the important task of taking back Ukraine which is historically and legitimately part of Russia. He is not the sort of leader to admit his mistakes or failures, although there can now be no doubt that his so-called special military operation has gone badly wrong for him and that Western sanctions have hit the Russian economy hard.

Nonetheless, Putin is likely to be determined to push ahead despite his own significant losses of troops and equipment together with loss of territory that Russia had previously occupied. But, as Rosenberg writes, no one should assume that he even thinks he got it all wrong, let alone admit that the invasion was a fundamental error. It is his own perception of events that drives Russia’s policy on the issue, and it is not possible to know how far he will go to win this conflict. That said, in the judgement of many who study the developing situation, his behaviour and decisions are constrained by his reluctance to engage in a direct major military confrontation with the West.

BAHAMAS SPARED A HURRICANE THIS YEAR

AT THE risk of creating a hostage to fortune as the hurricane season inches towards its end, is it too early to say definitively that we have been spared Nature’s wrath this year? Everyone knows we were incredibly fortunate not to have been hit by Hurricane Ian which inflicted terrible damage and destruction on western Florida on September 28. A friend there has emailed to describe the horror of what happened in places like Sanibel and Fort Myers. Said to have been the strongest storm ever to hit Florida, we can only breathe a sigh of relief that The Bahamas escaped it.

Visitors to this country are told the hurricane season runs from the beginning of June to the end of November. But the experts say that the peak period is August to October and the threat decreases considerably in November. Indeed, in the last 20 years or so, the only two major storms I can recall as late as November were Michelle, which hit New Providence on November 5, 2001, and Noel which moved through the archipelago as a tropical storm on November 1, 2007. Michelle was a Category 4 storm which did heavy damage though there were no fatalities.

So are we now safe for the rest of this year’s hurricane season? Let’s hope so. But I’ve been told firmly by a Bahamian friend “not to put mouth on it”!