Whither Boris?

Boris Johnson is nothing if not entertaining. A master prevaricator, he is never more adept, more charming, than when he lies about lying. Like many men of a certain age, he has not yet fully realized that nothing ever really disappears from the Internet. Or maybe, having survived so many so-called career ending scandals, he has come to believe the greatest lie of them all, that he is not only invincible but indispensable.

Every politician, every corporate executive or labour leader, every professor or pundit, every expert or, maybe even, every barista should have a sign somewhere in their house or place of work: The graveyards are full of indispensable people.

Just kidding about the barista—working stiffs know their labour is just a commodity, easily replaced and soon forgotten.

But has Partygate and the pork pie plot put an end to Johnson’s career? It’s much too early to say—check back in a week, because as they say, a week is a lifetime when it comes to politics.

There are certainly signs pointing to his demise—but there have been signs like this since he was a school boy at Eton where he was described by the masters as lazy and unreliable but was loved by his classmates who found him clever and entertaining. His time as a journalist was peppered with indiscretions—all forgiven.

When he first entered politics, then British PM, Conservative John Major had to be persuaded not to veto his candidacy before plunking him down in a riding in Wales where he was shellacked by the Labour party. But like a bad penny, Boris kept turning up, transforming his celebrity as an entertainer on English TV satires (he even won a British equivalent of an Emmy one year) into a successful run as Mayor of London. Returning to Parliament, he became a champion of Brexit, soon overshadowing the charmless Nigel Farage, and a thorn in side of PM Theresa May, whom he replaced after a caucus revolt forced her out. Boris, of course, had nothing to do with that; he was merely picking up the pieces and delivering Brexit.

When Parliament wouldn’t approve his deal and the Supreme Court said he had violated the law, he called a snap election in 2019 and delivered the biggest Conservative victory in more than 30 years, including winning seats Labour had held for nearly a century. Brexit was finalized shortly afterward.

Then came COVID. Like most Conservative leaders around the world, he first dismissed the danger, then imposed severe measures (while allowing plenty of room for cheating), then relaxed too soon only to have the virus come surging back. The economic disruption cause by Brexit was soon masked by the economic turmoil of COVID providing plenty of cover for Johnson to escape public blame.

Next came Omicron and the December crackdown that caused 90 Conservatives MPs to vote against the government, forcing Johnson to rely on Labour support to pass his legislation. As rumours began to swirl about lockdown parties at 10 Downing Street (the PMs official residence if you don’t know) not merely in 2020 but as recently as the night before Prince Phillip’s funeral, the public spoke and, in a by-election, defeated a Conservative candidate in a riding the party had held for 200 years. The only saving grace for Boris was that it was the Liberal Democrats rather than Labour that took the seat.

For the last month, Boris has been spinning and spinning. First, he said he wasn’t at the parties, then that he didn’t stay, then that he did stay but didn’t know it was against the rules and so on, you can see the pattern for yourself. Finally, he was forced to appoint an independent investigator into the business and is now asking (almost begging) his MPs to remain loyal until the report is in, hoping, perhaps against hope, that he will be exonerated.

Not everyone is willing to wait. This morning one Conservative MP, first elected in the 2019 sweep, crossed the floor to Labour. Another half dozen or more have filed letters of non-confidence in the PM. Only one person knows the total number of rebellious MPs but if it reaches 54 (15% of the Tory caucus), it will trigger a leadership review. Johnson may not necessarily lose a review vote but Theresa May didn’t lose either but was still ousted a few months later.

Will Johnson pull another escape act and maintain his Teflon reputation. Keep watching the headlines. If nothing else, it should prove entertaining. And the good news for the UK is that if Johnson does lose his job, he is unlikely to try to stage a coup.

Brought to you because truth is definitely stranger than fiction.

Knives at Gun Fights

It is often argued that, if people were denied possession of guns, they would simply resort to other means to commit murder or acts of terrorism. This is not untrue. Witness the recent attacks in London, and the stabbing in Michigan, which apparently occurred after the assailant couldn’t get a gun. The largest mass murders in China – where only soldiers and police have guns – was committed using a knife. The largest, of course, if you don’t count state sanctioned mass murders.

After the London Bridge incident, Donald Trump seemed to tweet (one can never be too sure about his meaning: Covfefe!) that it proves that America’s lack of gun control was completely justified by the stabbings. I don’t know if this is another version of the absurdist ‘good guy with guns’ joke the NRA keeps trying to tell (Well, I laugh!) or a suggestion that knifes are just as dangerous as guns. I’d invite Mr. Trump to bring a knife to a gun fight and see how that works out.

And, of course, those who oppose control over guns always suggest that the next thing we might do is make people register their kitchen knives. Which maybe is not as far-fetched as all that.

I’m currently in England and when you use the self-checkout lines to buy wine the computer demands that someone come over to authorize the purchase. We don’t want 12 year olds buying bourbon after all (it would really be wasted on them, don’t you think?). The other day I had to buy a replacement paring knife for the cottage we’re staying in – and guess what? Someone had to come over and determine I was a responsible adult before I could complete the purchase. Obviously the standards are low because they approved it and the two bottles of wine without question but it does seem to suggest they could refuse to sell me a knife if I looked like a gangbanger eager to take a knife to school or had crazy psychopathic eyes or something.

And why not? Shouldn’t we at least question people who want to buy swords or other weapons lethal from more than, say, two feet away? I know that most sword owners are sensible law-abiding people but it only takes one (or three) to wreak havoc in a crowded bar. Of course, not as much havoc as one guy with a revolver or a semi-automatic rifle.

Now, I know some of my friends are members of the SCA or like to collect blades from around the world but most of them, I’m sure, keep their weapons out of the hands of kids and their drunk or otherwise unstable friends. So that’s it. The next time a gun nut argues that registering or controlling guns is as stupid as registering kitchen knives, I’m going to stare at him with my best crazy eyes and snarl: Seems like a reasonable idea to me.

And that’s ten minutes.

Referenda

The recent British election highlights the core problems with referenda. Some voters who voted to leave Europe either resented their choices or did not see Brexit as a ‘conservative’ issue. Instead of supporting Theresa May and the Tories, they chose someone else. Referenda are never more that simplistic snapshots of how someone mostly feels on a particular day.

Mostly is the key factor here – and it is easy to see how even winning a referendum on a simple either/or question does not necessarily reflect the popular will. It has to do with how strongly you feel.

Some people of course are 100% for something or 100% against. These are the same people who constantly use ‘always’ and ‘never’ in arguments. “You always spend too much money or you never do the dishes” is usually a replacement for “You often spend too much money and you seldom do the dishes.” Indeed, even if the splits are more like 60/40, the words always and never get bandied about.

And that is how most people are about most things. They are mostly for them or mostly against and sometimes that mostly is just 51/49.

Take a person who voted to leave Europe – they might know that their kids are doing okay in the city and they might enjoy a bit of low cost French cheese or Spanish wine but hate the idea of large number of foreign workers or the tax cost of supporting Greece. They may feel 47% for Europe and 53% against it but by voting Leave, they become 100% for going. The same analysis works on the other side.

But now imagine that the 48% of Brits who voted to stay in Europe are actually more committed to the idea – say on average 60-40 – while the 52% who voted to go are more ambivalent – say 45-55 – and, if you do the math, the popular sentiment (adding up all those splits) would be to stay in Europe.

Of course, there is no way to measure that with the simplistic way we currently run referendum – but why should we be stuck with something designed 100 years ago? This is 2017 and we do have the technology. Suppose you could register your ambivalence?

There might be a two part question. Are you for or against proposition Z? How much are you for or against it? A person might, if they are at all reflective and capable of seeing in colours other than black and white, decide that they are 51% in favour and 42% against and 7% undecided.

Then our clever machines could tally it all up and say that the average voter is 48% in favour, 45% against and 8% undecided. And we all get to embrace Proposition Z and most of us would be at least partly satisfied.

There are plenty of other things wrong with referenda (and difficulties with true democracy, despite its superiority to other forms of governance) but at least this version could provide you with some certainty about how the people feel – if not why they feel that way.

And that’s ten minutes.