So the Chief Exec and now the Chairman of Barclays have both resigned in the great 'rate fixing' scandal. It seems there's to be a Parliamentary Inquiry into the goings-on at all the major banks, and the murky world of inter-bank finance is going to be held open to the scrutiny of a public who will, largely, no doubt understand very little of what's revealed.
I'd certainly never heard of LIBOR before this all hit the news, but it seems it's a peculiarly important piece of financial data which apparently affects all of us. This is typical of the alarming lack of both transparency and clarity in banks' dealings with each other, and exemplifies the sort of labyrinthine complexity and secrecy they seem to have relied on to be allowed to continue doing things to suit themselves, unhindered by concerns of scrutiny. Or morality, apparently.
That's the problem with the 'market will see things right' dogma of Thatcherist economic theory, which dogs us to this day. The market does not run according to what's best for the economy. The market runs to make money for all its constituent parts – the banks, the brokers, the über-rich individuals like George Soros, who can, for example, affect exchange rates simply because of the vastness of their wealth.
I am very, very far from an economist, but one thing I do know about finance is that, while I suspect none of this nefarious conduct is done with deliberate mendacity, instead being undertaken purely in search of profit, that search means that all the cogs in the machine are little solipsists, turning in the direction which suits them best as an individual entity, rather than working as one to run the machine smoothly. The result, inevitably, is a broken machine.
Labour are not likely to engage fully with the Parliamentary Inquiry,
so exactly how 'cross party' it's going to be remains to be seen. They're calling for a wider-ranging Public Inquiry, with a judge reporting, as with the Leveson Inquiry into press standards. It
seems to me that they're looking to that, rather than
a Parliamentary Inquiry, because a PI could drag on for ages, beyond even
the next election. The quicker Parliamentary version may, for example, reveal (as well as other banks inevitably having done exactly the same thing as Barclays) a rather laissez faire attitude to the banks during Labour's administration, more befitting their ideological opponents than a supposedly left of centre party, and do them harm before the next election. Though I may just be being cynical.
So yes, there's a global economic crisis, the causes of which are far more complicated and wide-ranging than the simplistic evil bankers' misdeeds some of the tabloids have presented us. But I believe that, had the major financial institutions not been allowed to get away with so little outside scrutiny for so long, we may have been in a slightly better position to ride it out than has proved the case.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
The price of peace
So the Queen has begun a historic visit to Northern Ireland, the main talking point of which seems to be the fact that she'll shake the hand of deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. I can understand why so much focus has been on this upcoming moment - various journalists have alleged in the past that, not only was he active in the IRA, but he was a member of their seven-man Army Council. The IRA, of course, claimed responsibility for the bomb which killed the Duke of Edinburgh's uncle Louis Mountbatten, and two children, in 1979. So she may well understand all too well that there are plenty of people who have lost loved ones to terrorist actions who will be less than happy with this.
It's therefore a lot easier for me, as somebody who's never been in that position, to say this. But this is, I think, part of the price that has to be paid, and will continue to have to be, to bring about an end to the Troubles. If McGuinness, Gerry Adams and the like had not realised that the way to secure their ends was through the ballot box and not through terrorism, and if the governments on both sides of the Irish Sea had not been prepared to be particularly forgiving of what had been done in the name of 'freedom', there'd have been no Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps things would never have changed.
If Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley, for example, can put aside years of mutual hatred and suspicion, and work within a political framework that seemed impossible when I was growing up, then that price has been, for me, worth paying. Anybody who lost somebody in the bombings of Enniskillen, or my home city of Brighton, or anywhere else that suffered during the Troubles, may of course feel very differently, and I'm in absolutely no position to tell them they're wrong.
It's therefore a lot easier for me, as somebody who's never been in that position, to say this. But this is, I think, part of the price that has to be paid, and will continue to have to be, to bring about an end to the Troubles. If McGuinness, Gerry Adams and the like had not realised that the way to secure their ends was through the ballot box and not through terrorism, and if the governments on both sides of the Irish Sea had not been prepared to be particularly forgiving of what had been done in the name of 'freedom', there'd have been no Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps things would never have changed.
If Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley, for example, can put aside years of mutual hatred and suspicion, and work within a political framework that seemed impossible when I was growing up, then that price has been, for me, worth paying. Anybody who lost somebody in the bombings of Enniskillen, or my home city of Brighton, or anywhere else that suffered during the Troubles, may of course feel very differently, and I'm in absolutely no position to tell them they're wrong.
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Taking their ball away
The Church of England, with its response to proposals to legalise same-sex marriage, has shown once again that it is a very long way from modernising. They've behaved rather like a kid threatening to remove his football from the field if the game is not played in exactly the way he wants, by claiming that if they were 'forced' to conduct gay weddings, it would be "impossible for the Church of England to continue its role conducting marriages on behalf of the State".
Make us do it and we'll split from the State so we're no longer the 'official' wedding provider, this is saying. Well, not only is this a ludicrous overstatement of the 'dangers' facing the Church, of which more in a sec, but if I had my way their bluff would be called. Since they're already legally obliged to offer weddings to any UK resident regardless of their religious affiliation, but routinely refuse to conduct re-marriages, for example, how exactly would their role be any different from now, other than in being more inclusive? They don't worry about legal challenges from divorcees who want to marry again, but they do worry about legal challenges from gay people?
They talk about the erosion of the old values of marriage when they should be happy that there are people out there who still want to commit to such an institution at a time when divorce is on the rise and the number of weddings not far above its historic low. Obviously these are just not the right kind of people for them.
For me, they should be allowed to take their ball and told to sod off. Since three quarters of weddings in the UK do not take place in a church anyway, and I believe strongly that the Church should play no role in government in any form, what's to be lost by completely 'divorcing' Church and State in this case? There are plenty of modernist people within the Church who could conduct a ceremony with religious content for those who want it, and plenty of beautiful locations to hold those ceremonies which are not owned by the Church – it doesn't have to be within the four walls of a CofE building. Whether they'd be prepared to leave the CofE to protect the rights of gay people to marry is another matter, of course, but I'm quite sure society, and the concept of marriage, would survive without the Church.
If the law is changed, that only leaves one thing to be sorted out for genuine equality in this area in Britain, which is the right for heterosexual people to commit to a civil partnership rather than a marriage. Surely, in search of equality, this has to come eventually as well.
Make us do it and we'll split from the State so we're no longer the 'official' wedding provider, this is saying. Well, not only is this a ludicrous overstatement of the 'dangers' facing the Church, of which more in a sec, but if I had my way their bluff would be called. Since they're already legally obliged to offer weddings to any UK resident regardless of their religious affiliation, but routinely refuse to conduct re-marriages, for example, how exactly would their role be any different from now, other than in being more inclusive? They don't worry about legal challenges from divorcees who want to marry again, but they do worry about legal challenges from gay people?
They talk about the erosion of the old values of marriage when they should be happy that there are people out there who still want to commit to such an institution at a time when divorce is on the rise and the number of weddings not far above its historic low. Obviously these are just not the right kind of people for them.
For me, they should be allowed to take their ball and told to sod off. Since three quarters of weddings in the UK do not take place in a church anyway, and I believe strongly that the Church should play no role in government in any form, what's to be lost by completely 'divorcing' Church and State in this case? There are plenty of modernist people within the Church who could conduct a ceremony with religious content for those who want it, and plenty of beautiful locations to hold those ceremonies which are not owned by the Church – it doesn't have to be within the four walls of a CofE building. Whether they'd be prepared to leave the CofE to protect the rights of gay people to marry is another matter, of course, but I'm quite sure society, and the concept of marriage, would survive without the Church.
If the law is changed, that only leaves one thing to be sorted out for genuine equality in this area in Britain, which is the right for heterosexual people to commit to a civil partnership rather than a marriage. Surely, in search of equality, this has to come eventually as well.
Monday, 4 June 2012
Jubileave 'em to it
My feelings for this weekend's festivities are mixed, to say the least. I'm not, and never have been, remotely interested in what the royal family are up to. I am, though, very happy to take a couple of days off work. If I'm being less flippant, though, there is a serious question as to the monarchy's place in our culture these days behind all the bunting and flag waving.
I do not, of course, feel particularly comfortable with the idea of a family who, through simple accident of birth, enjoy wealth (or at least the trappings of wealth), privilege and the apparent servility of millions, none of which they've earned. It's an anachronism which in pretty much any other walk of life would have gone a long time ago. But I'm not a radical republican, ready to abolish the monarchy and all that goes with it.
There's a strong argument that many of the tourists to London in particular come to see the Royal palaces, the changing of the guard etc. And what would happen to Windsor's economy if the monarchy went south, for example? Or the area around Balmoral? Whether they're a net benefit financially is very difficult to tell, but they're certainly much less of a drain than some people seem to think.
More importantly, though, for me, is that we would not throw any of the other British constants, the things that help make us what we are as a culture, so readily. It's a source of great pride to me that British people are regarded as tolerant, open-minded, modernist, living in a genuinely multi-cultural society. I believe that the maturity in a society necessary to develop such tendencies comes, in part, from the things that don't change giving us a background of stability. An old Parliament with a long-standing democratic process. A long tradition of immigration and the assimilation of those immigrants into the British way of life. And the monarchy.
This is one of the things that make us what we are. Just as people come from all over the country to stand in the rain for eight hours, waving a tiny flag at a Queen who nips by in a few moments on a boat hundreds of feet away, so are we free to ignore it completely if we so choose. Ditch the thing, and those of us who ignore it will barely notice, but all those poor sods to whom it does still mean something will miss it. We will all, though, have lost a small something of ourselves.
I do not, of course, feel particularly comfortable with the idea of a family who, through simple accident of birth, enjoy wealth (or at least the trappings of wealth), privilege and the apparent servility of millions, none of which they've earned. It's an anachronism which in pretty much any other walk of life would have gone a long time ago. But I'm not a radical republican, ready to abolish the monarchy and all that goes with it.
There's a strong argument that many of the tourists to London in particular come to see the Royal palaces, the changing of the guard etc. And what would happen to Windsor's economy if the monarchy went south, for example? Or the area around Balmoral? Whether they're a net benefit financially is very difficult to tell, but they're certainly much less of a drain than some people seem to think.
More importantly, though, for me, is that we would not throw any of the other British constants, the things that help make us what we are as a culture, so readily. It's a source of great pride to me that British people are regarded as tolerant, open-minded, modernist, living in a genuinely multi-cultural society. I believe that the maturity in a society necessary to develop such tendencies comes, in part, from the things that don't change giving us a background of stability. An old Parliament with a long-standing democratic process. A long tradition of immigration and the assimilation of those immigrants into the British way of life. And the monarchy.
This is one of the things that make us what we are. Just as people come from all over the country to stand in the rain for eight hours, waving a tiny flag at a Queen who nips by in a few moments on a boat hundreds of feet away, so are we free to ignore it completely if we so choose. Ditch the thing, and those of us who ignore it will barely notice, but all those poor sods to whom it does still mean something will miss it. We will all, though, have lost a small something of ourselves.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
The sins of our fathers
In the news in the States at the moment, the horrible, if not entirely unpredictable demise of one Mark Wolford, a preacher who took the word of the Bible rather more literally than proved good for him. Full story here, but the short version is that he handled extremely dangerous snakes as part of his services, in an effort I suppose to test both his own faith and the veracity of Mark 16: 17-18, which is quoted in the article I've linked to.
I don't even really know where to begin with the folly of this, with the inevitability of it. I realise that this is, of course, not the fault of religion per se, and entirely down to the stupidity and hubris of the individual involved, but what the fuck? Watching his own father die in exactly the same circumstances didn't teach this man anything? And who took their moral and spiritual guidance from such an individual? If they saw his ongoing preaching as evidence of his divine protection, what do they think caused his death?
The late Mr Wolford did not seem unduly troubled by doubt, notwithstanding his father's fate. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real," he is reported as having said. Well, needless to say, I don't see it like that. The only thing he was denying is the plain fact that, if you're to accept his world view as a truth, either his father's faith was insufficient to save him, or there is no such God-given protection. Such post-rationalisation is typical of blind faith, though, if understandable in a preacher. You'd have to find some reason for seeing your father die in a test of faith which was neither of those realities, or you'd chuck it all in.
So, of course, this is his fault, not religion's. But take away the blind, stupid certainty of his faith, and he might at least have sought medical treatment, had he been messing with venomous serpents in the bloody first place. If there were any such entity, I'd be asking God to ensure that nobody else died in such a fashion in His name, and that Mr Wolford's children, if he had any, learn the lesson which eluded their father.
I don't even really know where to begin with the folly of this, with the inevitability of it. I realise that this is, of course, not the fault of religion per se, and entirely down to the stupidity and hubris of the individual involved, but what the fuck? Watching his own father die in exactly the same circumstances didn't teach this man anything? And who took their moral and spiritual guidance from such an individual? If they saw his ongoing preaching as evidence of his divine protection, what do they think caused his death?
The late Mr Wolford did not seem unduly troubled by doubt, notwithstanding his father's fate. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real," he is reported as having said. Well, needless to say, I don't see it like that. The only thing he was denying is the plain fact that, if you're to accept his world view as a truth, either his father's faith was insufficient to save him, or there is no such God-given protection. Such post-rationalisation is typical of blind faith, though, if understandable in a preacher. You'd have to find some reason for seeing your father die in a test of faith which was neither of those realities, or you'd chuck it all in.
So, of course, this is his fault, not religion's. But take away the blind, stupid certainty of his faith, and he might at least have sought medical treatment, had he been messing with venomous serpents in the bloody first place. If there were any such entity, I'd be asking God to ensure that nobody else died in such a fashion in His name, and that Mr Wolford's children, if he had any, learn the lesson which eluded their father.
Industrial action by doctors shows just how many the government is pissing off
The last time doctors took industrial action was during the mid-seventies. Well paid, well respected generally, they're not exactly the most militant group, but have voted overwhelmingly to strike for all but emergency activity on June 21st, with possible further action to follow.
Given how well paid they are, and the comfort in which most of them can expect to retire, and given the people who are likely to suffer as a result of their action, they can expect little sympathy from Joe Public. On that, my personal feeling is that they work hard, carry a heavy burden not to make mistakes because of the possible consequences of them, and are merely paid what all members of our health services are actually worth. I'd far rather bump the pay of nurses, junior doctors etc up at the expense of hugely paid businessmen, but that's another story.
Anyway, this is mainly noteworthy because, as white collar, middle-class, high-earning people, these are the last sort of voters the Tories should be looking to piss off. Lately, when there's been a Conservative government (which is how I view this one, regardless of the fact it's supposed to be a coalition), there have been more strikes among those sectors of work which are run by the more left-wing unions than there are when Labour are in power. What you might call traditionally working-class sectors are those who usually come into conflict with Tory ideology.
But here we have a disaffected group who come from what may reasonably be expected to be drawn from the Tory vote. In attacking pensions so broadly, and so deeply, they're infuriating people well outside the usual gamut of the disaffected. So we can now, to a list which already includes public sector workers, miners, nurses, fire fighters, transport workers and even the police (who, let's not forget, openly booed Theresa May at their conference), add doctors to this growing list of those they've angered.
At this rate, you've got to wonder who's going to be left supporting them when the next election comes round. There will, of course, be the usual tax cuts in the last pre-election budget, but is that going to be enough this time round to carry their sorry arses back in? In cutting everything so dogmatically, are they busy cutting their own electoral throats at the same time?
Given how well paid they are, and the comfort in which most of them can expect to retire, and given the people who are likely to suffer as a result of their action, they can expect little sympathy from Joe Public. On that, my personal feeling is that they work hard, carry a heavy burden not to make mistakes because of the possible consequences of them, and are merely paid what all members of our health services are actually worth. I'd far rather bump the pay of nurses, junior doctors etc up at the expense of hugely paid businessmen, but that's another story.
Anyway, this is mainly noteworthy because, as white collar, middle-class, high-earning people, these are the last sort of voters the Tories should be looking to piss off. Lately, when there's been a Conservative government (which is how I view this one, regardless of the fact it's supposed to be a coalition), there have been more strikes among those sectors of work which are run by the more left-wing unions than there are when Labour are in power. What you might call traditionally working-class sectors are those who usually come into conflict with Tory ideology.
But here we have a disaffected group who come from what may reasonably be expected to be drawn from the Tory vote. In attacking pensions so broadly, and so deeply, they're infuriating people well outside the usual gamut of the disaffected. So we can now, to a list which already includes public sector workers, miners, nurses, fire fighters, transport workers and even the police (who, let's not forget, openly booed Theresa May at their conference), add doctors to this growing list of those they've angered.
At this rate, you've got to wonder who's going to be left supporting them when the next election comes round. There will, of course, be the usual tax cuts in the last pre-election budget, but is that going to be enough this time round to carry their sorry arses back in? In cutting everything so dogmatically, are they busy cutting their own electoral throats at the same time?
Friday, 25 May 2012
The importance of reading what you've written
Many of you know what I do for a living, and also know that I get irritated when I see mistakes in printed material, on telly or wherever they may occur. Just occasionally, though, you see one which fills you with joy. This has, I promise, not been retouched - it's a photocopy of the front of a real menu, which I've scanned. I've annotated one mistake which is pretty obvious, but there's another on there that they really, really should have watched out for. See if you can see it.
Let's just say that I'd insist upon this fabulous offer, were I ever to visit this no doubt fine establishment.
Let's just say that I'd insist upon this fabulous offer, were I ever to visit this no doubt fine establishment.
Friday, 18 May 2012
Remembering Jim Henson
I'd have written this two days ago, if I'd had time. Wednesday 16th was the anniversary of the death of one of my absolute favourite entertainment figures, the great Jim Henson.
To anybody my age, The Muppet Show was essential viewing on a Sunday evening during their childhood, my one regret being that I wasn't actually old enough to really appreciate the thing for the quality of the writing, puppetry and set building.
It was, by a country mile, better than any entertainment programme on at the moment, and I'd have it back on TV in a heartbeat if it could be done as well as it was then. Henson's real genius, as well as his ability to handle a 'peace 'n'love' message without being heavy-handed, was in engaging absolutely all ages in producing a show that was consistently funny and inventive.
The Muppets form an essential part of my grown-up Christmas experience too – their version of A Christmas Carol somehow managing to remain faithful to the book while at the same time incorporating singing vegetables. You don't get that on Britain's Got Talent. (I realise that some people would argue that this is exactly what you get on BGT, but you take my point.)
Another one of those people taken too young at 53, he refused hospital treatment when he fell ill, some have said because of his religious beliefs (yet another reason to hate it if that's true, but that's well-trodden ground), and Kermit's voice and soul was gone. Though they continue to make films, the most recent of which being very well received, I rather fear my hope of a Sunday evening Muppet Show resurrection will never happen.
Cheers, Jim.
(I do not know who owns the copyright to this image and will very happily credit them should they get in touch. I hope, given the nature of my post, they would approve of me using it here.)
To anybody my age, The Muppet Show was essential viewing on a Sunday evening during their childhood, my one regret being that I wasn't actually old enough to really appreciate the thing for the quality of the writing, puppetry and set building.
It was, by a country mile, better than any entertainment programme on at the moment, and I'd have it back on TV in a heartbeat if it could be done as well as it was then. Henson's real genius, as well as his ability to handle a 'peace 'n'love' message without being heavy-handed, was in engaging absolutely all ages in producing a show that was consistently funny and inventive.
The Muppets form an essential part of my grown-up Christmas experience too – their version of A Christmas Carol somehow managing to remain faithful to the book while at the same time incorporating singing vegetables. You don't get that on Britain's Got Talent. (I realise that some people would argue that this is exactly what you get on BGT, but you take my point.)
Another one of those people taken too young at 53, he refused hospital treatment when he fell ill, some have said because of his religious beliefs (yet another reason to hate it if that's true, but that's well-trodden ground), and Kermit's voice and soul was gone. Though they continue to make films, the most recent of which being very well received, I rather fear my hope of a Sunday evening Muppet Show resurrection will never happen.
Cheers, Jim.
(I do not know who owns the copyright to this image and will very happily credit them should they get in touch. I hope, given the nature of my post, they would approve of me using it here.)
Monday, 14 May 2012
Romney shows true Republican colours
Mitt Romney's comments (here) on marriage, addressing a congregation of the converted (to say the least) as part of what is evidently a pitch to the Christian right voters in the States, shows both him and his party up for what they are.
It's a worrying sign that the same sort of people who want creationism taught in schools as fact, and who distrust atheists more vehemently than any other minority group in the US, according to an oft-quoted University of Minnesota study, still carry this much sway in the thinking of the patrician class of such a world power.
This man could be President, if the strength of feeling that this group evidently harbour against him can be used by the Republicans and translated into votes. Obama's support for free health care, and his modernist views on what marriage is, clearly strike a deep chord of discontent with these people. To parts of the outside world, and certainly to me, his attitudes merely seem human and contemporary, but this evidently marks him out as a socialist; sees him regarded as the worst kind of anti-American scum in some eyes in the country over which he presides.
It already looks absolutely imperative that Obama wins the Presidential election because, if Romney is to be the one standing against him and comes through to win, we could have another George W Bush on our hands. Remember him? The creationist loon who said, and I quote, at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 1987, "...I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
So he dismissed some of his own countryment, regardless of their feelings for the US. We must all hope we never have another of his kind in the Oval Office, but Romney makes me fear it could be all too soon that we have exactly that.
It's a worrying sign that the same sort of people who want creationism taught in schools as fact, and who distrust atheists more vehemently than any other minority group in the US, according to an oft-quoted University of Minnesota study, still carry this much sway in the thinking of the patrician class of such a world power.
This man could be President, if the strength of feeling that this group evidently harbour against him can be used by the Republicans and translated into votes. Obama's support for free health care, and his modernist views on what marriage is, clearly strike a deep chord of discontent with these people. To parts of the outside world, and certainly to me, his attitudes merely seem human and contemporary, but this evidently marks him out as a socialist; sees him regarded as the worst kind of anti-American scum in some eyes in the country over which he presides.
It already looks absolutely imperative that Obama wins the Presidential election because, if Romney is to be the one standing against him and comes through to win, we could have another George W Bush on our hands. Remember him? The creationist loon who said, and I quote, at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 1987, "...I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
So he dismissed some of his own countryment, regardless of their feelings for the US. We must all hope we never have another of his kind in the Oval Office, but Romney makes me fear it could be all too soon that we have exactly that.
Sunday, 6 May 2012
And the political wheel turns
So Boris Johnson seems to have won a second term on the basis that he's slightly less unpopular than Ken Livingstone. It was a close run thing with the big two miles clear of everybody else. From the point of view of the mayoral elections, probably more interesting was the fact that in the rest of the country, where major cities were voting on the principal of actually having an elected mayor, all but one rejected the idea. You have to wonder if the experience of Londoners, and the unedifying sight of the major players yelling at each other, had anything to do with how those votes went.
On local councils, the usual mid-governmental term took effect, with whoever's in opposition kicking the governing party's arse, as is often the case. (Or arses in this case, as it's the Lib Dems, beginning to reap what they sowed, whose rear end has been most comprehensively reddened this time round.) It's difficult to know if this represents a genuine rejection of the policy of cuts that are biting so deeply or is merely the standard response to an unpopular government. As all governments seem to be unpopular mid-term, we'll probably have to wait for a general election to see this play itself out to a conclusion. Or at least, the conclusion of a single rotation of this political wheel.
In the meantime, the best we London residents can hope for is that Boris continues to not do too much damage. Livingstone suggested that, in winning the mayoral election, Johnson has also settled the next Tory leadership battle. But with his four-year term certain to run beyond the next general election, I'm not sure how that's possible. Livingstone, just as he did with the tone of his campaign, got that one wrong I think.
On local councils, the usual mid-governmental term took effect, with whoever's in opposition kicking the governing party's arse, as is often the case. (Or arses in this case, as it's the Lib Dems, beginning to reap what they sowed, whose rear end has been most comprehensively reddened this time round.) It's difficult to know if this represents a genuine rejection of the policy of cuts that are biting so deeply or is merely the standard response to an unpopular government. As all governments seem to be unpopular mid-term, we'll probably have to wait for a general election to see this play itself out to a conclusion. Or at least, the conclusion of a single rotation of this political wheel.
In the meantime, the best we London residents can hope for is that Boris continues to not do too much damage. Livingstone suggested that, in winning the mayoral election, Johnson has also settled the next Tory leadership battle. But with his four-year term certain to run beyond the next general election, I'm not sure how that's possible. Livingstone, just as he did with the tone of his campaign, got that one wrong I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)