UNINSPRIING LEADERSHIP IS ALARMING.

 Has there ever been a less inspiring bunch of MPs in our parliament ?

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a 'larger than life' personality and clearly has a degree of charisma, there are increasing question marks over his leadership of the country at this most difficult of times. A successor to Winston Churchill he most certainly is not. However, in a parliament full of mostly grey non-entities, he still stands out.

Indeed, I find myself having trouble trying to name many of our other representatives on either side of the house. Apart from the few who've been seen on our screens in recent news conferences, who on earth is in the Cabinet ? Rishi Sunak has undoubtedly none himself no harm and has stood out as a confident chancellor of the exchequer, even if his actual competence has yet to be proven; Matt Hancock, Robert Jenrick and Oliver Dowden have appeared on occasion and none has exactly set the world alight with their charisma; in fact they could all 'bore for Britain' given the chance. I've just recalled that Dominic Raab is Foreign Secretary but who are the 15 or so who make up the most powerful body in the country ?

Worse is the situation on the other side of the parliamentary divide. Keir Starmer as leader of the Opposition is as grey as grey can be, a man utterly lacking any charisma or inspiration. As a lawyer, he seems to believe that presenting every argument as a court room speech, resulting in the dullest of dull deliveries. It's notable that even the new incarnation of "Spitting Image" has found him so dull as to be almost impossible to lampoon.

Astonishingly, Starmer's front bench colleagues are even more dull than he is, and are mostly anonymous. Who can name the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary or home secretary ? The only opposition figure I've seen much of in recent times is the egregious John Ashworth, shadow secretary of state for health, whose capacity for saying nothing of note at great length is amazing.

In these most difficult of times, only one politician seems to have enhanced their status and that is Nicola Sturgeon, who doesn't even have a seat at Westminster. However, as leader of the Scottish Nationalists, and someone whose political views I am wholly opposed to, she has been a stand-out performer. She has kept her people informed, has not been afraid to be be controversial when needed and, above all, has given a clear impression of being in control. In comparison, neither Johnson nor Starmer has seemed to be doing anything but thrashing around in the dark or looking for political advantage.

Of course, we are in unprecedented times and government has different factors to consider when making decisions. To some extent, Nicola Sturgeon has an easier task in that she does not have total economic control over her region and so can concentrate more on the health issues, while looking to Westminster for financial support. Keir Starmer also has an easier task in that it is always far easier to criticise than it is to lead; while attempting to locate holes in the government's strategy or even suggesting alternatives, he knows that his words will never be tested in reality. Boris Johnson, as the man in the hot seat, not only has to weigh the options but also has to make decisions that have real effect.

What is most worrying is that there seem to be so few people of note or standing involved in any of the decision making and it all seems very haphazard. One can only hope that out of this quagmire will eventually emerge a solution that works, has the support of all parties and does not attract the usual volley of pointless and mindless political rhetoric.

STARMER et al SHOULD BE SUPPORTIVE, NOT CARPING.

 As the government grapples with one of the most challenging situations to hit the world, let alone, this country, in decades, its political opponents continue to carp, whinge and complain. Whatever the government does, it isn't enough, it's too late or it's just plain wrong.

Do the likes of Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, John Ashworth, Sadiq Khan and the rest not have anything in mind but gaining political advantage ? Would they really have done things so differently, or is it just about having the benefit of hindsight ? 

Despite the rising numbers of cases in the United Kingdom, we are still a long way behind the situation in France, for instance, where newly diagnosed cases are running at THREE times the level we are currently experiencing, and France has a similar size of population; the UK is also carrying out at least as many, if not more, tests than in most other countries. In truth, the approach adopted by our government is proving more successful than that in many other countries. Why do Starmer and his merry band not recognize this  and support the government ?

Of course, it's because that would not be to their benefit. Thankfully, despite the media being full of bad luck stories and tales of woe, most people seem to understand and back the government's strategy. If that leads to stricter rules and harsher penalties, they will understand and back that too. Most people see an advantage in getting this virus beaten and are far less concerned about who might win the next election.

GOD SAVE US FROM SIR KEIR.

The non-story of the weekend must be the election of the oily Keir Starmer, sorry SIR Keir Starmer, as the new leader of the Labour Party. Starmer is one of those greasy characters who seems to have risen to the top of his chosen profession almost without being noticed. Does anyone actually know what his true beliefs are ?

A lawyer by profession, Starmer has been active in local politics for many years and obviously had enough connections to get himself appointed as Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008 when Gordon Brown was performing as the countries then worst Prime Minister on record. For such an appointment to be given to a man of clear and heavily biased political views was itself questionable, but for him to emerge after 5 years and be a Member of Parliament in an ultra-safe seat within less than 2 more is astonishing. For him now to be leading his party leaves me speechless.

That said, his opponents in the leadership election were not exactly top drawer and his election was almost a foregone conclusion. His approach of talking a lot while saying very little and committing himself to even less, is that adopted by most of those who reach high public office; his comments about the government's approach to the COVID-19 crisis are a typical mixture of criticism and apparent support, but it's clear that he will use the current emergency for his own party political advantage as much as he can.

Starmer is not a fanatic like Jeremy Corbyn, nor is he a loser like Ed Miliband; he is probably more adept than Gordon Brown. He seems to me to be most like Tony Blair, a man who will ride roughshod over all opposition while climbing the greasy pole as fast as he can, using whatever he can grab hold of on the way.

A few weeks ago, the prospect of a Labour victory in the next general election was a distant possibility, but COVID-19 has changed all that. If the government doesn't succeed in dealing with the epidemic quickly and with minimal disruption, Starmer could well be Prime Minister in 2024, leading a party obsessed with equality, human rights and getting the UK back into the European Union. 

God help us if he is.

BREXIT : REMAINERS STILL KEEP PLUGGING AWAY.

There is much feigned amazement amongst some in the anti-Brexit community today after David Davis, the 'Brexit Secretary' told a House of Commons committee, chaired by Labour's Hilary Benn, that the government had not carried out any specific assessments of the impacts associated with the UK's exit from the European Union. While this has been made to sound calamitous, the truth is surely rather different.

The fact of the UK's departure from the EU is not in dispute. That exit automatically means that the UK will leave the EU's Customs' Union and Single Market; the trading and other arrangements that will be put in place after Brexit have yet to be agreed. What possible benefit could there be from committing resources to assessing impacts that are as yet utterly unquantifiable and are, in any case, irrelevant ?

Given this situation, carrying out many highly detailed impact assessments would be a pointless exercise, wasting valuable time and expertise that could be utilised far more profitably elsewhere or on other issues. Those who are so keen on assessments being carried out are die-hard 'Remainers', people who seem to think that they can still prevent any real Brexit from happening by keeping the UK inside of the Customs' Union and Single Market; their pseudo-horrified reaction to David Davis' comments is aimed wholly at this. They are simply trying to put the Government in a bad light and to raise issues that sound of huge importance but are, in reality, entirely specious. Others, such as Labour's Keir Starmer, use every opportunity to denigrate the UK and its negotiators while saying nothing about the intransigence and sheer bloody-mindedness of those in the EU.

Instead of getting behind the clearly expressed will of the people, these individuals are continuing to put as many obstacles in the way of the government as they can and to, effectively, 'talk Britain down'. They should be ashamed of themselves.