Do you know Carole Cadwalladr?

I ask because Pulitzer Prize nominee and Guardian journalist, Carole Cadwalladr, is going through a pretty strange time right now and it amazes me that the story isn’t more widespread. Especially considering just how intrinsically it ties into our modern political structure, and just where this little island of ours is heading.

But what makes me bring up Carole Cadlwalladr? Well, Cadwalladr’s house may very well be repossessed. And why? Because she is currently in court against Brexit-barking-bulldog cum “entrepreneur” of questionable (perhaps illegal) background – Aaron Banks.

The charge? Banks is claiming that Cadwalladr made libellous and defamatory remarks about Banks’s actions throughout as part of the Leave campaign during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The remarks claimed that Banks had been part of a conspiracy using questionable money to fund a Cambridge Analytica scheme which aimed to win votes for Brexit. They did this by plying people with tailor-made advertisements to Leave the European Union.

Cambridge Analytica has long since shut down but, in its prime, the company boasted that it could sway the average voter by using targeted advertisements. Do you want to sing God Save the Queen? Europe want to ban the UK’s national anthems. You like guns? The Democrats want to take your guns away. Vote Trump. It was that kind of targeted campaigning that made the difference in votes both within the Brexit referendum and within the US presidential election of the same year.

Cambridge Analytica gained access to social media user data through Facebook who, as we now know in large part thanks to Carole Cadwalladr’s reporting, sells data to third parties. (Interesting aside – the selling of data generated more income last year than the sale of fossil fuels. This is the first time that this has ever happened.) With the data provided by Facebook, Cambridge Analytica claimed that they could sway voters by studying the 5,000 data points that they had on each social media user.

Where does Aaron Banks fit into this? Well, Carole claimed that Banks was, in fact, breaking campaign spending rules in order to promote the Leave vote. The wider implications mean that the decision to leave the European Union was, in fact, illegal. This claim besmirched Aaron Banks’s reputation. Unlike the United States, where libel laws are far more relaxed, Cadwalladr is being taken to court and could potentially lose her house as a result of hefty litigation fines.

Libel lawyers are rife in London and it is the work of these firms that stop the publication the names of those people believed to be harbouring offshore bank accounts. Aaron Banks is utilising these services to make Cadwalladr suffer, despite that she was only doing her job and duty as a journalist in making sure that those people who work in shadowy ways are exposed and that the courts are able to properly administer justice.

A tweet from Carole Cadwalladr (22/10/2020)

Cadwalladr has made a world of difference when it comes to investigating Facebook and their profiteering from the selling of user data. As far as we can tell, Cambridge Analytica tried, and perhaps succeeded, in manipulating voters to sway them a certain way. With that in mind, are we seeing justice provided in the Banks V Cadwalladr (not the real name) case, or are we seeing a man’s wealth succeed in blurring the lines of the truth and potentially ruining a journalist’s life?

Lack of preparedness for Covid-19

Much of the UK breathed a sigh of relief when Rishi Sunak claimed payouts for business and that employees would be given 80% of their wage whilst on furlough. However, despite being the Chancellor of the party “for business”, they offered not much shy of a middle finger to the self-employed.

The problems are myriad and systemic and, despite Boris Johnson standing outside No.10 and clapping for the NHS, have been created by the very government now trying its best to make a show of appreciation to the public services and other key workers.

According to the latest Private Eye (1520), the UK came 2nd in the Global Health Security Index which ranked countries according to their ‘”capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.”‘ So what went wrong? Why is it that a country that came 2nd in such an index had such a sluggish response to the Covid-19 emergency?

For the most part, it was Boris Johnson attempting to keep the country open for business. Secondly, the NHS was ill-equipped to deal with such issues due to outsourcing. This was the process by which different sections of the NHS’s prime functions were disbanded between private companies. Thirdly, and this is still under debate, the government’s stance against the European Union may have stood in the way.

Communications regarding the government stance have also been slow in coming largely due to the fact that the Central Office for Information (the office responsible for communicating to the country at times of war and emergency, was slashed and eventually dissolved completely in 2011 as a result of austerity measures. It was an easy choice because it was seen as an invention and tool of the “nanny state”.

Instead, communications come through third party agencies and were therefore slow to be put together. Boris Johnson has also had to rely on the BBC coverage of daily briefings, that very same organisation that he is trying to break up and throw to the wolves.

As climate change alters our landscape, we are expected to suffer at the hands of new and old diseases. Malaria, new strains of Coronavirus, you name it. That raises the question of just what are we going to do the next time around if another pandemic were to happen?

Hopefully, we won’t have Boris Johnson or his supporting cabinet who seem to think that lying would make for good policy when it comes to talking about PPE, death tolls and testing kits. We should also reverse any privatisation of NHS services and we should look more at publicly-funded emergency systems whether it is a designated communications network or pre-fab buildings ready to be up and running in a few days time. What is for certain – we need to stop focusing on media spin and how politicians look as opposed to what they are actually doing.

Journalists aren’t the only ones to blame for our lack of faith in the media

There are some shoddy journalists out there. People sitting at desks rehashing actual stories but adding their own spin and coming up with click-bait headlines. We see it all the time on our social media feeds in random articles that pop up somewhere no matter what we’re looking at online.

But, there is also good journalism, and this needs to be recognized.

A recent poll by Sky showed that faith in journalists is at an all time low. “I don’t trust the media” is a common phrase I hear on the talk radio shows to which I’m addicted and this is reflected in the Sky poll. It’s also something I hear a lot in conversations at work and among friends.

If that was really the case, we wouldn’t buy newspapers, we wouldn’t share the articles with which we agree and we would be completely uninformed about the world around us if we didn’t at least take notice of the headlines. We do trust the media, we just don’t trust the media that disagrees with us and our worldviews. Knowing this, newspapers kindle that prejudicial flame.

Think of journalists that you don’t trust. It’s hard to bring up a list of names. Now think of a journalist you do trust. It’s also very hard. Now, think of a newspaper you like, and a newspaper you don’t like. It is much easier. It is much easier because we don’t like the institution. In America, it is much easier. Donald Trump repeatedly slams the New York Times and the Washington Post but frequently tweets about his satisfaction with Fox. People who distrust Trump would therefore likely side with the New York Times and the Washington Post and vice versa.

Many will struggle to do this. Now think of a newspaper or news station you don’t trust. That is much easier. Now, think of why you like one newspaper. And then think of why you hate another. Why?

Newspapers and news stations are bias. The Guardian’s coverage of antisemitism borders on negligence. The Telegraph’s pandering to Tory ideals is pure sycophancy. The Daily Mail’s previous owner, Paul Dacre, ran along the same lines and the paper pumped out who-knows how many hit pieces on anyone even remotely leaning toward Remain or Labour.

Yes, they lean and they pump their agenda. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t also uncover truths that the powers that be would rather remain in the dark. Buzzfeed is a prime example. The organisation started off as one of the most avid producers of click-bait pieces, but it also generated one of the most illuminating pieces of long-form journalism on Russia’s interference on in UK politics, and political assassinations on UK soil.

We are bias. Since Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, the western world has become polarized. You are a Leaver, or a Remainer. You are a “never-Trumper” or you are a MAGA maniac. Now is the time we need to stop listening to populist figures of leaders of the opposition, and start looking once again at the stories in the news. Go one step further and buy a paper or listen to a news station you don’t usually agree with. Buy a different paper every day.

If you don’t trust the establishment, don’t listen to the establishment. Listen and read everything else. Don’t just question what doesn’t agree with you. Instead, question everything and expand your horizons.

It is exactly because of Trump and Boris Johnson’s current veto of publications into his briefings that journalism, (the decent, scouring through information, digging through dirt and coming up with stories) has become so much richer. Trump waged war on the media. You can either roll over, or you can fight back with new and improved tactics. That is what much of the media has done. And that is what we should also do.

We need to be less distracted, and more attuned. We need to talk to people and read the opinions of people with whom we do not traditionally agree. Because somewhere between the two versions of events is some kind of truth, and sometimes, whether we like it or not, that truth might lean more one way than the other.

We need to trust more in the journalists, and less in the leaders. It is journalists that hold people to account. It is investigative journalism that has uncovered human trafficking rings, fraud, the MP expense scandal, the Panama Papers, Richard Branson’s tax evasions…the list is endless. Papers get it wrong, but they get so much more right. With the obvious exception of The Express. That paper is just pure trash.

The Lie of the “Northern Powerhouse”

The Northern Powerhouse brings to mind the coal burning days of old. Of industry and progression. Of manufacturing and textiles and everything in between. It was a concept developed by the coalition government (2010-2015) to try and boost entrepreneurial endeavours and transform the north into a hub of industrial and innovative excellence.

But was there ever any real determination to make sure that the plan became a reality, and that government would stick to its vision of a brighter and stronger future for the north?

An article released in today’s Guardian claims that “almost half of new jobs in England in the last decade were in London and the south-east, despite only a third of the population living in that region”. In the last decade, 1.8 million jobs were created in London and the south-east whilst only 0.6 million jobs were created in Yorkshire and the north-west.

The north-east has fared worse than most regions with a mere 1% of the total number England’s job increases. The area also has the lowest average disposable income.

The north has been let down by the governing politicians of the last decade and the term rendering the phrase “northern powerhouse” little more than a term to throw about when doing the election rounds. It placates by offering a vision, but the reality is that there is very little substance in it.

It is not only ruling governments which have let down the north. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the party historically known for championing the working people of the northern territories, has often been hailed as more of a “metropolitan socialist”, focusing his energy in the capital.

Is it so surprising then to see the “red wall” of the north being dissolved by suspiciously highly-funded Conservatives?

But will the Tories boost the north as Boris Johnson seeks to “level up” the country, or will they fall short like the governments before them? The closure of multiple automotive manufacturing plants in the face of Brexit and the general downturn of trade expected as a result of leaving the European Union predict a slowing of the economy and therefore not much hope for drastic change.

Phrase dissection: “Politics of envy”

Anyone reading the news nowadays would be remiss not to have noticed the surge in populism over the past few years. 2016 especially saw a seismic shift that only few people with their ear to the ground were able to predict.

With the rise of populism came a rise in factionalism and tribalism.

Socialism, democracy, capitalism, republicanism and liberalism pulled out the stops, jumped online, onto the pages of opinion pieces and the pages of newspapers and started swinging.

With competing ideologies came a rise in word-warfare and phrase-flinging.

Politics of envy

This is actually a phrase that’s been used for years by high earners, Tories taking swipes at other parties, and people of a certain class who disagree with liberal, democratic or socialist thinking.

If workers and/or unions believe that employees should have better wages, a place in boardrooms or at least a stronger voice in the workplace, they are deemed to be suffering from envy. Even people who think that higher earners should pay more tax are also often thrown under the “politics of envy” banner.

So, anyone on a lower rung of the socio-economic ladder who wishes to get ahead or go further in life.

But the phrase itself needs some dissecting.

Those people who are very well off have a tendency to protect themselves, their companies, and their profit margins. Businesses progress by making sure that they repeatedly turn a profit. This is because they have a duty to give their shareholders a healthy return on their investment.

But companies are only as good as their employees. If a construction company such as Persimmon Homes generates a multimillion pound profit, is it because of the person who started the company or because of the crews who worked through all weathers to build homes?

Work is the biggest killer outside of natural death. Workplace accidents. Slips, trips and falls. Muscular-skeletal injuries. People breathe noxious and hazardous substances. Later in life people will experience back problems, breathing difficulties, cancer through exposure. A vast array of problems from a lifetime of arduous work.

There is a romanticism about “an honest day’s labour.” Earning an “honest living.” There is truth in this. Working laborious jobs and seeing a job completed comes with an immense amount of satisfaction. But that satisfaction of a job well done should come with a wage that mirrors the worker’s toils. But those toils have a heavy toll on the body and, often without financial security through sustainable wages, on the mind.

On the other hand, higher earners have a longer life expectancy and are far less likely to suffer from those physical detriments that are incurred through physical labour.

Is it therefore politics of envy to want more money for your efforts or to want a certain quality of life? Or is it just politics of what is fair? After all, people sacrifice themselves.


“Politics of envy” is a phrase used to dismiss any kind of socialist thought, even that kind of socialist thought to which most people adhere. Like wanting a free NHS. Like wanting the more wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes or perhaps wanting to redistribute wealth.


Is it fair to claim that ordinary people looking for true representation within the political system are suffering from politics of envy when modern day politics is controlled by the dispersion and directing of capital?


So is it really politics of envy? And even if it is, how does that compare against those who partake in the politics of greed?

Cut disc

I have suffered from Sciatica for a year and a bit now. In most cases, Sciatica disappears after a few months. In this case it kept on for 14 months, until yesterday.

I had an operation called a discectomy in which part of the disc pushing onto the nerve was cut back, allowing my Sciatic nerve some breathing space.

I am now sofa-bound. Every time I get up and walk around it feels like my midriff is going to just snap and I’ll end up doubled over, my eyes looking between my feet.

The anaesthetic was amazing. Some clear liquid and an oxygen mask before the white liquid, the main barbiturate solution, pumped in.

‘Do you feel a bit light-headed?’

I nod and the next thing I know I’m waking up in another room. The surgeon tells me something that I think is meant to be important but I have no idea what it is. Why do they have to tell you how it went when you’re out of it? For all I know I could have been left paralysed but missed the memo.

I was given an egg sandwich and a cup of tea. I chilled and listened to the radio. It was a pretty easy recovery, until I got home and the pain meds wore off.

A new nuclear power struggle

On 8th August, the inhabitants of Moscow were surprised when their televisions flicked from their standard programmes to a blue screen with a single star. It was a weather warning telling the people to find shelter. It then disappeared leaving people wondering just what had happened. At the same time in Severodvinsk, a small town in the North-West not far from the Finnish border was exposed to gamma radiation 3x higher than is permissible for human health after an explosion at the nearby Nyonoksa top-secret testing facility.

The explosion at Nyonoksa facility killed several including nuclear scientists. Russian weather service, Rosgidromet, recorded levels of radiation 16x higher than normal levels within the vicinity of Nyonoksa. In true Cold War style, residents were quick to stockpile iodine, known to stop the Thyroid from absorbing radiation. The explosion killed several including nuclear scientists working on the project.

After more correspondence it was finally let on that the explosion was down to the failure of an “isotope” power source. Russia was testing the infamous Storm Petrel missile at the Nyonoksa site. The Storm Petrel missile – called Skyfall by NATO – was unveiled by Russian president Vladimir Putin at the State of the Union address in 2018 and boasts a propulsion system powered by a miniature nuclear reactor which gives a potential flight time that could be measured in days, weeks or even months.

Having extended range plus cruise-missile capabilities – meaning that it can change direction, move around objects and evade interception – would mean that the missile would be harder to detect and defend against.

Another new and chilling piece of kit that Russia are working on – Poseidon – is an autonomous drone submarine which is programmed to unleash nuclear warheads on key enemy locations on the US west coast should Russia “go dark.”

Due to a series of agreements, Russia and America have not tested nuclear devices for twenty years. However, Russia have breached the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Donald Trump responded by removing America from the pact. The New Start agreement which ensures Russia and the US have a limit on how many intercontinental nuclear missiles they can produce, runs out in 2021 and may not be renewed, thus giving America and Russia free reign to progress their arsenals and potentially make another power grab.

The US has been stepping up spending in nuclear warfare infrastructure with former President Barack Obama developing a $1.2tn plan to “maintain US air, sea and land-based nuclear weapons.” Donald Trump has gone much further putting an additional $500bn including $17bn for the production of a “low-yield” tactical nuclear weapon, essentially a mini-nuke that can be used on the battlefront.

It is rumoured that some factions within the Pentagon and within the defence contractor sector believe that Russia’s move away from agreements is a step in the right direction.

America’s nuclear defence capabilities are ageing and therefore, like many wars before, this will drive innovation and strengthen America’s standing.

Tensions are rising not only between the US and Russia (who between them hold little over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal) but with China, Iran and North Korea all flexing their muscles, we could be looking at the age of a new Cold War with new frontiers.

The point by point scaling up of nuclear armaments is not the only evidence of a new Cold War. Russia and China flexed their muscles during the Brexit and Presidential election campaigns with industrial scale levels of spreading disinformation. Seeing their success during these campaigns, Vladimir Putin is pushing further. At what cost?

Is the Queen going to be dragged into Brexit?

It is almost written in stone that Boris Johnson is set to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Boris has claimed to be dedicated to the Brexit cause countless times and his campaign to become the next PM rests solely on his ability to convince the people and the Conservatives that he is willing to keep a No Deal Brexit on the table.

The choice to keep a No Deal Brexit comes as a bid to secure support from the Euro-sceptic European Research Group (ERG) which is headed by Jacob Rees-Mogg – who has endorsed Boris Johnson – as well as support from other Conservative leave-leaning Conservative members. Boris Johnson has said that he would prorogue if negotiations were not secured which would provide the U.K with some kind of deal.

Proroguing is essentially the act of suspending parliament in order for the acting Prime Minister to pass a bill without contest.

By offering this result if negotiations are not successful, Boris Johnson is effectively appealing to both sides of the Conservative voters; those who want a soft Brexit and those who would prefer a No Deal scenario.

Proroguing is a means of circumnavigating parliament who are entitled to exercise their rights (and sovereignty) to vote on the outcomes of bills. This is no longer the case as Boris Johnson has claimed that he is not against proroguing. However, if this were to occur, the only way that Mr Johnson would be able to push through a No Deal, is if the Queen herself allowed it to happen.

This scenario does raise some concerns.

Proroguing would pull the Queen into matters of state which is against the notion of impartiality that the British monarchy is demanded to uphold by government.
If the Queen is asked by government to speak for the country and she denies the right to a No Deal Brexit, we are not only back to square one, but there will also be resentment from staunch Leavers and Euro-sceptics toward the Queen and the monarchist system.

The right to exercise one’s own power, to uphold sovereignty and to run with the empirical history of Britain’s past were crux issues of the 2016 referendum. If the Queen exercises her power and moves against No Deal, will the people decide that they no longer want the monarchy or will they accept the Queen’s decision to exercise her power, a cause for which the Leave vote was cast?

If, on the other-hand, the Queen moves in favour of No Deal, the U.K will be looking at a (already proven) decline in trade, transport and services as major service providers have already sought sanctuary on mainland Europe to continue to offer their trades to the rest of the trading bloc. Staunch Remainers would also be dismayed and morale and national spirit would undoubtedly hit rock bottom.

Abortion in the U.S

Criminalising abortion is evidence of Americans moving against their own Constitution.

Article IV of the Constitution:

‘N(o) religions Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’

1ST Amendment:

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’

The Constitution is America’s guiding document. A revelled piece of history that is constantly used to link the American people with the foundation of their great country. The Constitution is quoted time and again when protecting the people’s right to “bear arms” but there has been a mass looking of the other way when it comes to upholding the 1st Amendment when it comes to religion having a place in matters of state.

Governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, recently signed off on the law and followed it by stating that the bill was “a powerful testament to Alabamian’s deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

As highlighted in the 1st Amendment, whilst the practice of religion is a personal liberty, it has no place as a governing force within the United States and yet this is being ignored. Donald Trump tweeted a response to the motion in Alabama to criminalise abortion by claiming it as a victory for “pro-life” groups. He also tweeted against Doug Jones in Alabama by using the argument that Jones was Pro-Abortion as a smear tactic.

86% of Alabamians identify as Christians.

Why are proud Americans going against the decisions as outlined by their very constitution? Might it have something to do with the Pledge of Allegiance?

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which is stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The often used phrase; “one Nation under God” was not part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

The State is flexible and, though sometimes wavering (nothing is perfect), it is the closest thing that we have to a true representation of the people. The State considers many factors such as protecting the rights of victims of rape and incest and the impact on children born into unsuitable and perhaps unloving environments. It also takes into consideration the stages of foetal development and the safe (and unsafe) periods of termination.

The economic benefits cannot be overlooked either.

The abortion law is going to hit low-income families the hardest. This is because a lack of funds meaning that they cannot afford to go across state lines to undergo the procedure elsewhere, unaffordable contraceptive methods and because people in low income areas are more likely to be subject to attacks such as rape.

Raising a child when finances are tight will also be extremely tricky which could result in myriad problems including depression in parents and children, resentment or malnourishment. School lives could be dramatically affected and quality of life for parents, children or families in general could diminish greatly.

The welfare system would then have to intervene, at great cost. Social care would soar as children face difficult upbringings and inhospitable living conditions. Parents, especially mothers, would have to be given extensive counselling to help come to terms with rape and its repercussions or to simply help manage a stressful life brought around by an overabundance of children.

Hospitals would have to increase staff numbers in order to be able to manage anything from kids coming in with scraped knees to vaccinations and that is before we even consider what physical issues children born through incest might have. And then there is of course the problem that women will lose any anonymity that abortion could have provided. Now, with abortion illegal, women will have to continue within their communities with their children as any evidence of past trauma.

Pro-life groups are overwhelmingly religious and use religious doctrine to dictate their actions in choosing to fight abortion, or end it altogether. When religious beliefs start to infringe upon the liberties of others, it is no longer the practice of religious freedom but the imposition of one’s own belief on others. It becomes what the late Christopher Hitchens called; “theocratic bullying.”

As of the date of release, the following states recognise abortion as illegal (in varying degrees):

Utah

Montana

Alabama

Kentucky

Missouri

Ohio

Arkansaw

Arkansas

Georgia

Indiana

Mississippi

Louisiana

North Dakota

Boris Johnson, the next PM?

Theresa May has been a stalwart lynchpin keeping certain dangers at bay. She has managed to perform a variety of duties in the national interest; slowing down the progress of the European Research Group (ERG) and keeping Boris Johnson out of office.

Since the moment she laid down her Chequers Deal, the people understood that there was no deal that could be made which would appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. Despite this she has slugged on, her ideas appealing to no majority.
Because of her inability to lead the people through Brexit, Theresa May has been forced to stand down. When she does, Boris Johnson is the most likely to succeed the position of Prime Minister.

Since a recent scandal emerged regarding Boris Johnson’s adultery, the former mayor of London has blended into the background, no doubt letting the sting of said scandal blow over before he decides to run for the top job. With a new haircut and a new posture (those sad old tactics still used by politicians) Boris Johnson kick-started his new Back Boris campaign this Monday amidst the turmoil of another scandal. This one regarding his spreading of disinformation during the referendum to leave the European Union.

The court order was raised by Marcus Ball who took to crowd-funding to get the case put through legal proceedings. Boris Johnson’s lawyer has argued that the summons was “unlawful” and wants the case to be suspended for a judicial review. One might guess that it will be once again for review once Boris Johnson is Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson sees himself as the next Winston Churchill. A great leader in waiting who will steer the U.K to greatness. Whilst this might appeal to many people who believe that the U.K will become a vast superpower after separating from the European Union, we must not forget that Boris is still a career politician whose primary goal is to become Prime Minister and be remembered for greatness.

Before the referendum of 2016 started, Boris Johnson wrote two papers. One paper championed the benefits of being inside the European Union whilst the other championed leaving the European Union. On the eve of the campaign, Boris Johnson made the decision to publish the latter paper in a bid to appeal to the more nationalist leaning voters. He pushed for Brexit thinking that the leave side would not win, but he would come out the other side and say that he fought for the people. A ragged fighter for a lost cause.

Boris Johnson’s decision to support Leave was not one that would benefit the country but, as a career politician, would instead benefit himself and his standing in the country’s hearts and minds.

Speaking to Robert Peston, Johnny Mercer said that Boris Johnson “is one of the most self-serving politicians our country has ever seen” and that he “panders to prejudice knowing it wins votes.”

When the vote came through and the U.K found out that we would be leaving the European Union, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were filmed on stage. Neither were celebrating.

Boris Johnson does not want Brexit, but he does want to be seen as a staunch leader. He wants to be seen as a man standing up for the so-called “will of the people.” Theresa May, for her ills, made sure that Boris Johnson was put in a position where he could live up to his words and forge new relationships throughout the world by making him Foreign Secretary.
Boris Johnson was met warmly by many who regarded him as the fuzzy, personable man who they had seen on television. However, that was the only thing that they got. Boris had a habit of turning up, shaking hands, posing for selfies and making jokes.

There was a widespread disappointment by officials within the countries that Boris visited who commented that Boris had provided nothing of substance.
This was feeble attempt of international relations by the man who had championed Brexit. But, keeping in mind, what could Britain offer the rest of the world that it could not have offered while being part of the E.U? The answer; far less. The world wanted to know that they could get access to us and, through us, access to Europe.

Boris Johnson’s one and only role was to make the best out of Brexit by becoming a face of the nation and telling the rest of the world that all was well and thriving and that Britain was still open for business. James Lansdale commented that “it is a task that few historians will conclude Mr Johnson achieved.”

This profile does not match that of a Brexiteer. And if it does, then he is startlingly incompetent. Either way, the man made a mockery of the U.K when he visited other countries and could offer nothing of substance. What was he going to tell them anyway? He could not secure any trade deals or organise anything substantial whilst the process of unfolding ourselves from the E.U was going on.

Author of politics.co.uk, Ian Dunt, wrote a piece today titled “This prime minister was destroyed by Brexit. And the next one will be too.” In this stark and worryingly bleak piece, Ian Dunt highlights the only two reasonable options which must be considered by the next prime minister in order to sort out the Brexit mess:
“Either cancel Brexit, which they will not do, or be honest with the people what it entails, which they will not do either.”

Boris Johnson will not be the person to do this (neither will anyone else) but the primary concern is that Boris is self-serving and lacking any real substance. When he doed show substance or make concrete decisions, his choices are somewhat questionable. For instance; the Garden Bridge, purchasing water cannons in response to the London riots, multiple counts of sexual promiscuity, claiming Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was teaching journalism in Iran instead of being on holiday which would result in spending more time in an Iranian prison instead of coming back to the U.K, calling black people “piccaninnies”, backing Brexit and using a thirty year-old argument about bananas – which was false – tojustify it. The list is extensive.