Section:GDN 1J PaGe:2 Edition Date:190815 Edition:01 Zone: Sent at 14/8/2019 18:51 cYanmaGentaYellowbla
- The Guardian Thursday 15 Aug ust 2019
2
It seems certain that he will do the latter,
even though he will give the impression
he is open to the former. He will meet
Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel
Macron during the G7 summit on 24-26 August. He is
also expected to meet the Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar,
in early September. But Johnson is in this too deep to
get out. He has set the bar very high by demanding the
scrapping of the Irish backstop. That is not going to
happen. It is therefore unlikely that Johnson would risk
striking a compromise deal, even if one was on off er,
and even if he could claim it as a victory, because he
might not get it through the Commons. A leader who
nonchalantly accuses his critics of “collaborating” with
the EU, as Johnson did yesterday , does not sound like a
leader looking for compromise.
This is the nation-defi ning battle for which
Hammond has now raised his standard. It was surely
not pure coincidence that the Financial Times chimed
in with an editorial that it is parliament’s duty “to
prevent the British government from visiting a calamity
on its own country on 31 October”. The Speaker, John
Bercow, said on Tuesday in Edinburgh that he will fi ght
any attempt to suspend or bypass parliament “with
every breath in my body”. When asked if he believed
MPs could stop no deal, he replied simply: “Yes.”
Britain now faces a high-stakes confrontation,
as important as almost any in its political history,
between the government and parliament over no deal.
Few observers put the number of Tories who would
defi nitely vote against the government at more than 40.
Even so, it would be the most politically consequential
Tory revolt since the fall of Neville Chamberlain in- Defeat for the government would certainly force
Johnson to try to call a general election. But victory is
soon likely to tempt him down that same path, too.
I
f Brexit is the most important question in British
politics, the most fascinating one is: what is the
political ground on which Johnson will fi ght the
election? If Johnson’s government is thrown out
by MPs this autumn, he will fi ght the “ people
versus parliament ” campaign that his adviser
Dominic Cummings is preparing. If he gets his
way on Brexit, he will fi ght as the man who
delivered what the nation voted for back in 2016.
Either of these contexts poses immense challenges
for the Tories, however. Brexit is reshaping their party
in ways unmatched since the tariff reform splits more
than a century ago. But it is also recasting voter loyalties
in ways that threaten the Tory reputation as the most
successful electoral force in the country’s history. A t the
next election Johnson’s Tory party will be the leavers’
party, whether Brexit has been delivered or not.
This is good news for unambiguously pro-remain
parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the SNP.
Maybe for the Greens, too. But it off ers mixed fortunes
for the Tories themselves. Johnson’s choice of political
ground is so fascinating because he is targeting Labour
leave voters at the same time as Brexit is causing Labour
remain voters to embrace pro-remain opposition parties.
Johnson’s domestic political priorities should be
taken more seriously. To dismiss him as an extreme
right winger is lazy and complacent. His emphasis on
law and order engages with real concerns. So did his
extra spending on the NHS. His focus on northern
infrastructure speaks to neglected parts of England.
Johnson’s instincts chime with the central message
of a new report by the centre-right Onward think tank,
which argues that there has been a sea change in public
attitudes away from possessive individualism towards
security and a “politics of belonging”.
If true, it is not just a challenge to Labour. Johnson’s
domestic priorities, with their activism and big
spending, are a world away from the anti-government
libertarianism and economic liberalism that defi ned the
Tory party from Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron.
Johnson’s active government approach on domestic
issues is anathema to cabinet ministers such as Dominic
Raab , Priti Patel , Liz Truss and even Sajid Javid. Events
are forcing Johnson to remake the Tory party. Whether
it or he will survive the experience is on the line this
autumn.Former chancellors often criticise serving prime
ministers but usually when they represent diff erent
parties. The case of Philip Hammond is all the more
remarkable : only a month has elapsed since he sat in
the Treasury and already he is savaging Boris Johnson
for pursuing a no-deal Brexit.
On that point, the two men might as well be in
diff erent parties. Mr Hammond is conservative in an
old-fashioned sense of the word – inclined to preserve
things; suspicious of ideology; fi scally hawkish. Mr
Johnson represents the new style of conservative
radicalism – contemptuous of governing conventions,
profl igate and prone to nationalistic bombast. Both
would describe themselves as Eurosceptic, but for
the former chancellor that means wariness of the
federalising side of the European project. For the prime
minister it extends to aggressive severance of Britain’s
ties to the continent, with out alternative arrangements.
Mr Hammond knows that would be an act of national
self-harm. He also claims to have had private assurance
from Mr Johnson that every eff ort would be made to
avoid a no-deal Brexit. He accuses the prime minister of
reneging on that commitment by taking dictation from
“unelected advis ers” who are sabotaging any prospect
of constructive talks with the EU. It is a serious charge- weakness, recklessness and duplicity. Mr Johnson’s
allies counter attack by accusing the former chancellor
of having undermined the UK’s negotiating position
when he was in the Treasury by failing to make adequate
preparation for the no -deal scenario. That is like accusing
someone of failing to put an armoured boot on their own
foot in case they might one day want to shoot at it.
Mr Hammond rightly did not see infl icting wanton
fi nancial damage on the UK as a policy worth developing.
Mr Johnson disagrees and is undeterred by signs that the
economic climate is turning inclement. Data released
This week has seen a heartening triumph of medical
science: Ebola is now curable, doctors say. The
announcement is also a timely one. The outbreak
in the war-ravaged territories of the north-eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo, which began
over a year ago, has defi ed the sustained eff orts to
halt it. Last month, with the death toll above 1,600
people, the World Health Organi zation declared it an
emergency of international concern. The even deadlier
West African epidemic of 2014 killed more than 11,000
people before it was extinguished , having prompted fear
around the world. The high death rate and agonising
nature of the deaths all add to the virus’s terrors.
So the news that two really eff ective treatments have
been discovered and tested, and that they are being
rolled out, could hardly be more welcome. International
institutions and Congolese researchers and medics
have performed a remarkable, almost impossible feat
in trialling these drugs in epidemic conditions.
Just as important as the existence of these medicines,
though, is the question of their use and eff ectiveness.
Getting the science right is only the beginning.
Ensuring that the drugs are delivered where they are
needed and used by those who need them most is ayesterday showed Germany’s economy shrank
by 0.1% in the second quarter of the year. The UK
last week posted negative growth for the same
period. Both countries are on the brink of recession.
Bond markets yesterday projected doubt about
growth prospects on both sides of the Atlantic.
The evidence is not defi nitive but, with China also
tangled in a trade war with Washington, conditions
are potentially in place for a worldwide slump.
Further darkening the picture for Britain yesterday
was news that infl ation has ticked above the
Bank of England’s 2% target. That creates a dilemma
for interest rate setters. The whiff of a downturn
invites a stimulating cut, while spiking prices are
conventionally tamed with a rise.
Brexit plays a complicated role in this picture
because it has not yet happened. A partial economic
downgrade is manifest in sterling’s depreciation
(which can stoke prices by making imports costlier).
But in other areas – employment, for example – the
UK has proved resilient amid great uncertainty.
That has bred complacency among hardline Brexiters.
The 2016 referendum did not precipitate a
crash, partly thanks to a central bank intervention
and partly because markets expected an orderly
transition. ( Some Europeans doubted Brexit would
happen at all. ) The remain campaign’s direst warnings- “project fear” – were not realised. Emboldened
leavers have denigrated their pro-European rivals for
crying wolf ever since. That jibe resonates with voters
who want to believe that Brexit can be a success,
although it is worth remembering that in the original
fable there was, in the end, a real wolf.
The economic risks of Brexit might have been
crassly mobilised for campaigning purposes but that
does not make them imaginary. And every credible
analysis makes it abundantly clear that the no-deal
scenario is the riskiest of all – too reckless to entertain
even in economic conditions more benign than the
ones that Mr Johnson is now facing this autumn. In a
serious administration, well-staff ed with fi nancially
literate people, that would not be a controversial
view. But it falls to Mr Hammond to spell it out
from the back benches because the prime minister
heeds only those who willingly turn their backs on
responsible government and economic reality.
task at least as diffi cult and now more urgent. The
vaccine used in this outbreak came out of the 2014
epidemic – yet its limited success in containing the
virus refl ects the complexity of this crisis.
The scene of the latest outbreak is a province that
has been fought over for the last 25 years by more
than 120 armed groups and has seen grotesque
human rights violations. Inhabitants have a deep and
very understandable fear of outsiders. Those infected
often hesitate to seek help from medics until they have
been ill for several days – so relatives see someone
go into a treatment centre and come out dead. These
related factors help to explain the shocking attacks
that have killed more than 170 health workers and
burned down two treatment centres. The hope is that
a virtuous cycle can now be created: when families
see so many patients being cured, they will gain
confi dence in the centres, and spread the word.
Ebola attracts so much more attention than
the other scourges of the north-eastern DRC not
because it is lethal – violence , measles , cholera
and malnutrition all kill more people today –
but because it was regarded as incurable, and it
potentially threatens outsiders too. In the case of
the West African outbreak, this risk prompted huge
fi nancial and institutional support to fl ow into the
region. The DRC still needs that kind of backing
from outside. But local communities must lead the
eff orts to build trust in medics , because only they are
trusted by the people who are falling sick. Eff ective
drugs are a necessary condition for the epidemic
to be beaten, but unless people are willing to go to
the treatment centres when they are sick, the hope
they raise will be once more extinguished. Continued from frontDrugs alone can’t stop an
epidemic. Can they foster
the trust that is needed too?
Ebola
Brexit
Economic storm clouds are
gathering but Johnson has
turned his back on reality
Founded 1821 Independently owned by the Scott Trust No 53 ,800
‘Comment is free... but facts are sacred’ CP Scott
Britain faces a nation-defi ning
battle that will split the Tories
Martin Kettle
РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS