The Tribune

AFTER all the superlatives about The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee last week and the lifting of people’s spirits throughout the country, the politicians and the trade unionists in Britain have managed to bring the nation back to earth with a bump.

Not only has there been the high drama of a vote of confidence in the sitting Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, but militant unions are threatening widespread industrial disruption during the summer. The contrast could not be starker - on the one hand, a display of public unity in the glorious celebration of a beloved Queen’s record 70 years on the throne while, on the other, serious division at the heart of the ruling Conservative government in an attempt to remove its leader, and politically motivated trade unionists also seeking to depose him by causing economic chaos.

The confidence vote was triggered by what has been described as a rudderless bunch of Conservative MPs with a wide range of gripes and grievances against Mr Johnson. Discontent with his style and performance grew after a critical report into lockdown parties during the COVID pandemic and he has also been criticised for not following a true Conservative agenda. There are also, of course, numbers of Tory MPs who are “Remainers” and have never forgiven him for taking the UK out of the European Union. Under the party rules, if 15 percent of his MPs write to the influential 1922 Committee saying they have no confidence in their leader, a vote can be called. All 359 Tory MPs voted in a secret ballot, with 211 supporting him and 148 voting against. That means four out of ten of his own MPs consider their party would be better off without him.

Despite what appears to have been a significant rebellion, the PM declared the result was a decisive victory and he claims he now has a fresh mandate to put the friction within the party in the past and a chance to focus on issues of concern to the public while getting on with governing the country. But others regard it as an uncomfortably narrow margin. They say his authority has been seriously weakened, if not irreparably damaged, so that his ability to lead has been compromised – and that he seems to be losing his allure as a proven winner and is therefore no longer an electoral asset.

What is more, he is not yet in the clear as there are other challenges confronting him. He still has to face a parliamentary privileges committee inquiry in to whether he lied to the House of Commons about “Partygate” and there are two critical by-elections later this month which will put more pressure on him if the Tories lose.

A confidence vote for a Prime Minister who won a thumping majority as recently as December, 2019, is a big deal. His removal would be undemocratic since huge numbers voted for him only two and half years ago. There is also no clear-cut successor waiting in the wings so his departure would bring considerable political uncertainty. It could usher in a new coalition government of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and even the Scottish National Party. It could also herald the end of Brexit, and this poses the question whether people really want an unwilling nation dragged back under the undemocratic yoke of the EU against the wishes of the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum – a decision to leave the EU by a small though clear majority which was reaffirmed in the 2019 General Election.

So, the survival of Mr Johnson as PM is about more than the career of an ambitious politician who in the past has always managed to pull off a comeback in the face of failure or setback. Arguing that he has been given an endorsement by his MPs, he shows no sign of quitting. Unlike the circumstances of Margaret Thatcher’s downfall in 1990, members of his Cabinet seem to be behind him and there have been no resignations. Moreover, having won the confidence vote, he cannot be challenged again for a year. Despite his well-known flaws like being disorganised and having a capacity for self-destruction, he has major achievements to his credit; for example, delivering Brexit, presiding over a successful COVID vaccination programme and showing global leadership over Ukraine.

In spite of past victories, the allure of electoral success can be ephemeral. But, love him or hate him, Boris Johnson has a certain charisma thanks to a vivid personality even though for some people he does not inspire trust. Overall, his authority must surely have been weakened in the short term, but he is clearly soldiering on regardless with the support of his closest colleagues and a majority of his party. Events in the coming months will doubtless determine his future. But, yet again, he has defied expectations – at least for the time being.

Live for the moment

The words of a famous song -- “yesterday is history, today is still a mystery but what a day it’s going to be tomorrow” - speak of optimism, expectation and confidence in the future. But it seems more and more people of a philosophical bent are stressing the need in modern times for seizing the moment and living in the present – known as carpe diem.

With this in mind, I found it interesting to read recently in the UK press an article by, Oliver Burkeman, a columnist in The Guardian newspaper who has a number of books to his name. His piece carried an intriguing title “In your own time: how to live for today the philosophical way”.

He begins with the advice that what is gone is gone but people should not waste time worrying about that or dwell on what comes next because there is no way of knowing what lies ahead.

Although this applies to younger and older people alike, he goes on to suggest the ideal way to age is to concentrate on the moment rather than focusing too much on the future. Old age has been described as reaching the crest of the hill and there stretching ahead is the downward slope with the end of the road in sight.

With the awareness that things are finite, the right approach for adults is not to view existence as a sort of dress rehearsal for a future of perceived contentment in some nirvana. Instead, one should concentrate on the moment and show gratitude for existing blessings and appreciation of them. One can regret the past and learn from it but not allow it to overwhelm enjoyment and fulfilment of the present.

It struck me that this reflects the guidance given by Sir William Osler, the Canadian physician and co-founder of Johns Hopkins Hospital, in his famous address on “A Way of Life” to Yale students in 1913 when he said : “Live neither in the past nor in the future, but let each day’s work absorb all your interest, energy and enthusiasm. The best preparation for tomorrow is to do today’s work superbly well”, and “the chief worries of life arise from the foolish habit of looking before and after”.

“A Way of Life” was judged to be one of the most inspiring addresses ever heard at Yale and, of course, it has been widely quoted over the years. In today’s troubled world, the advice surely remains as sound as ever.

Keeping the pressure on Putin

In writing yet again about Ukraine, there is an obvious danger of repetition. But it is such an important issue and the situation changes all the time. So I hope readers might welcome insights into international opinion as reflected in the world’s media, and I should like today to follow up my short piece last week about possible weakening of the West’s resolve in relation to the crisis.

There is a school of thought that Western countries have been wrong to condemn Russia so strongly for its invasion of Ukraine and to impose such severe sanctions. Critics point to the large number of abstentions on the UN Security Council resolution condemning the invasion and on the separate resolution excluding Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. These included countries like India, Brazil, Egypt and South Africa, to name just a few. They will have had their own reasons for doing so. But I, for one, find it hard to understand why so many appear heartlessly to discount the sheer horror, brutality and evil unleashed by Putin against the people of Ukraine, including the indiscriminate shelling and cluster bombing of civilians and destruction of buildings and infrastructure which may amount to war crimes. This unprovoked terrible action is indefensible and unforgivable.

Claims that the West has become somehow isolated now seem wide of the mark and it was interesting to read recent remarks by commentators that the entire international community including the developing world is now beginning to turn on Putin because he is alleged to be stopping grain exports from Ukraine, which is known as the breadbasket of Europe, by blocking its Black Sea ports. If this is true, reports that it is creating enemies among developing countries sound credible given the global dependence on Ukraine for wheat, particularly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa where there is apparently already a prolonged drought as well as a shortage of food.

More generally, a significant development over the weekend was that, following the surprise visit to Kyiv by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Ukraine is poised to be let in to the EU process of becoming a member of the bloc.

With Brussels said to be set to decide next week whether to recommend the nation for admission as a candidate for EU membership, the danger of Western countries taking their eyes off the war while becoming preoccupied with their own economic problems appears to have receded. The Russians may regard this as a provocation, but President Zelensky has expressed fears that “all of Europe is a target for Russia”, and he continues to plead for more weapons and other military equipment and supplies, especially long range rocket launchers, in order to fight what has become a bloody war of attrition. So the quantity and speed of delivery of these is crucial.

Another nasty development has been the death sentences handed out to two former British soldiers who were found guilty - by a kangaroo court calling itself “the Supreme Court” of the separatist-held Donetsk region - of fighting as mercenaries. Both men had lived in Ukraine since 2017 and were firmly settled there, including becoming citizens, and were serving in the Ukrainian army. The British government has slammed what it has termed the sham judgment with absolutely no legitimacy or legal authority as not being in accordance with the rules of war. It has called it an egregious breach of the Geneva Convention covering prisoners of war. It appears at the moment that the hope – if not the presumption – is that the Russians will use the two men for a prisoner exchange.

As the war of attrition continues mainly in the east of the country, it looks as though any chance of Ukraine ceding territory to Russia in a negotiated settlement is a long way off. A battlefield stalemate is likely to persist unless Ukraine receives new supplies of weaponry. If the EU decides that Ukraine can become a candidate for membership, this will only be a preliminary step because lengthy negotiations will have to follow. But it will be a step in the right direction and a significant boost for this beleaguered country which will know it can continue to count on Western support.