MEDIA, TRUTH AND POLITICS

Our wonderful media seems to have no interest in truth, only an interest in looking for ways it can criticise and undermine the government in the midst of the current coronavirus crisis. At the forefront of this assault are the BBC (what a surprise) and the other televisual broadcasters, although I've generally found Sky to be a little less biased than others. Indeed, Sky's political editor, Beth Rigby, has risen very much in my estimation by her very measured and reasoned commentary on events.

Rather than look for positives in the daily figures and from the daily news conferences, most have only looked for points to take issue with. Rather than be constructive, they've looked for news stories, which means finding everyone with a complaint and then making a stories out of thir situations. Positive stories are of no benefit unless they can be turned to reflect good on the NHS, ignoring that the NHS is an arm of government.

I truly believe, having spoken at length with a number of friends and family in differnt parts of the country, that the picture as painted by the media bares almost no relation to the reality of life as being experienced by the vast majority of the population. Most people, of all ages, are probably frustrated but accept the need for restrictions on their activities; while the media emphasises the moans of a few, the vast majority just get on with it. The media does us no favours by its continual sniping at authority, disguised as journalistic freedom and in all manner of other nonsensical ways.

It is highly selective and even destructive. The media should be objective, not subjectively biased against one political viewpoint, which it mostly is. The message being given to those who accept the vitriol that spews from the mostly left orientated press is entirely political in nature; it's anti-government. It is undemocratic and unhealthy to our nation. This is unacceptable.

What is needed is to put aside poitical dogma, interests, ambitions and all the rest. We are in the midst of a national crisis and, right or wrong, the government needs to be supported. The time for arguments about strategy, ppe and all the rest of the rubbish, are for later. We are where we are, and that is where we'd have been regardless of who had been in power over the last 80 years, let alone the last 6 months; politics has nothing to do with it. Maybe the current government has made mistakes, maybe not, but they are the ones who've been handed a once in a century problem to solve. What matters is the end result, not the bumps along the road. 

For me, which do I trust more, the apparently bumbling but transparent Boris, or the oily charm of Starmer ? One is real and one is a clone of all other recent political aspirants. I know which one I prefer to lead us in crisis, or at any other time, come to think of it.

JOHNSON MINOR STIRS IT UP !

The resignation of Boris' little brother, Jo Johnson, from Theresa May's government looks to be another step in the ever-evolving campaign to stop Brexit. 

Johnson says that he can't accept Mrs May's proposals for Brexit and has resigned in order to be able to vote against them; this is before any proposals have actually been put forward. Perhaps quite rightly, he also says that what Mrs May is likely to put forward is not what the people actually voted for back in 2016 though his solution, another referendum, is nothing more nor less than part of the Remain campaign of which he was, and remains, a member.

Johnson dissembles in the way that all politicians do, that is, he distorts facts for his own purposes and muddies the water so as to make it virtually impossible to tell fact from fiction. He talks about Brexit as if it has different 'types' or is something tangible; it is not. Leaving the European Union is an intangible and non-negotiable act, decided by a vote of the British people and agreed to by Parliament. There are no 'types' of Brexit, there is simply Brexit.

Johnson says that the current situation and what is currently 'on the table' is a far cry from what was promised during the referendum campaign; on this point he is correct, but a second referendum will not put things right. A second referendum is simply an attempt by the Remain campaign to reverse the result of the first, hence the tidal wave of horror stories about shortages of food and drugs, motorways used as lorry parks, queues at ports, visas for European travel and all the rest. 

There is no doubt that Mrs May has made a terrible hash of negotiating with the European Union though whether this has been deliberate or a result of incompetence is an open question. Might she, and her fellow Europhiles, have deliberately messed things up precisely so as to arrive at today's debacle ? Or was she just not up to the job of negotiating with the miserable bureaucrats of the EU ? It matters not which is the case as the outcome is the same. The European Union has dominated proceedings while Mrs May has been servile.

It seems probable that Mrs May's proposals, almost whatever they are, will be rejected by Parliament, resulting in yet more demands for a second referendum. Thus far, the Prime Minister, from her bunker at 10 Downing Street, has resolutely rejected all such calls, but time is running out, both for any Brexit deal to be agreed and for her personally. Might she find herself in such a tight corner that another referendum becomes her way out ?

David Cameron offered a referendum and said that the government would stand by its outcome. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both stood on platforms of carrying through this promise in the 2017 general election and Parliament has voted, several times, to do so. For there to be a reversal of this policy, in any way, would be such a betrayal of the democratic process that democracy in our country would be, effectively, destroyed. I voted to leave the European Union as did more than 17 million others; we didn't vote for any particular 'type' of Brexit, we just voted to leave. We weren't bothered about the detail, we just wanted out of a moribund, hidebound, bureaucratic, unaccountable and corrupt organisation that is stifling its members. That's still what I want, irrespective of the scare-mongering of those who still refuse to accept the result of the referendum. 

If there is no deal, so what ? The UK will leave the EU with no obligations and with its £39 billion still in the bank; there will be consequences but so there will be for the EU, probably greater ones as it tries to plug the gap in its finances and deal with an open border in Ireland. Why should the UK be worried about such an outcome ? Why on earth should we have a second referendum ?

Should the government eventually renege on its promises, reverse its position and hold a second referendum, the betrayal of trust in politics and politicians would be such as to make all future voting pointless. The people would know that it matters not what they vote for, the political elite will find a way to obtain their own desired outcome, come what may. 

If there is a second referendum, I shall not vote, for what would be the point ? In fact, I would never vote in any election or referendum for the rest of my life as to do so would be utterly futile.