The Legacy of Empire

What a disastrous time for the UK! First, the down-grading of public services due to the Government’s austerity programme, then the tragedy of Brexit, and now the ongoing mismanagement of Covid-19. How have we got into such a state? A huge number of people live in poverty with insecure employment and housing, the justice system is creaking at the seams, school and hospital buildings are falling apart and local councils have been stripped of their powers. We have turned our backs on our European neighbours, cast adrift into the dangerous seas of cut-throat global trade and we languish at the bottom of the Covid deaths league table. What a state to enter a crucial stage of confronting probably the most dangerous threat of all – global warming.

These are complicated issues. It’s tempting to look for villains to blame, but it’s more important to find the underlying reasons why we find ourselves in such a horrible situation. Boris and Dominic would be near the top of the list of villains, with their uncaring, gung-ho politicking. But deeper, institutional factors, some the consequence of our national history, or at least the way we tell it to ourselves, are more significant. A proud and unrealistic sense of who we are and our place in the world is doing us untold harm.

Domestically, a corrosive inequality exists, not just in wealth, although that is an important part of it, but in terms of privilege. An outdated class system lies at the heart of it. Status and power still belong, predominantly, to far too small a section of society, mostly privately educated white men who assume their birthright is the right to rule. There is a sad lack of understanding about the reality of life for the many people who live and work outside the circle of the privileged. The elite cultivate the friendship of the rich and they make use of their considerable political instincts to maintain their position. A successful tactic has been the promotion of Britishness and British values, which they claim to embody, as better than anything anyone else has to offer.

Linked to this is the legacy of Empire. Boosted by resilience and victory in two world wars, the notion that we represent the pinnacle of civilization has been encouraged. After all, we possess the “Mother of Parliaments”, we were the cradle of the Industrial Revolution and we once ruled a quarter of the world’s population. No doubt this gives us British much to be proud of, but also much of which to be ashamed – wealth derived from the cruel use of superior military hardware and the use of slave labour among the worst examples. There is, and really never has been, any room for any feelings of superiority or self-satisfaction. If the response to Covid-19 has taught us anything, it is that we have a great deal to learn from others.

So what is to be done? Only radical measures are likely to overcome such fundamental problems, and that won’t happen in a hurry. Powerful vested interests are naturally resistant to change. Might Covid-19 be the kind of crisis that makes change possible? Anyway, my suggestions would include reforming the House of Lords (so it’s no longer full of lords), abolishing the honours system, reducing the scale and expense of the monarchy, taking privileges away from private schools, taxing wealth and strengthening local Government. If we were able to do at least some of these things, our political life would be healthier and we would be better able to avoid the failures that have dogged our national life in recent years.

Against Extremism

Spring smashed all previous records for its hours of sunshine. An unexpected blessing for lock-down! This followed a less welcome record-breaking February, when rain fell incessantly, in a few places as much as four times more than the average.

Extremes in weather are not the only extremes we face. The historian Eric Hobsbawn described the twentieth century as The Age of Extremes. He wasn’t talking about the weather, of course, but primarily about political extremism and its consequences: two world wars, Nazism, Soviet Communism and the Cold War. The 1900’s were not unique in exhibiting such extremism, but increased technological and economic powers made the damage it did that much greater. Men with the political ambition and cruelty of Hitler and Stalin have always existed, but have not had the machinery of a modern industrial state to help them.

How you think of extremism depends on your experience and your understanding of what is normal. Three months of almost unrelenting sunshine is not at all extreme in many parts of the world, and some behaviour we consider normal now would be regarded as extremely odd or offensive by previous generations. People who speak out from beyond the boundary of what most consider normal may at the time be condemned as extremists, but they often have important things to say. Subsequent observers may well regard what was then considered normal by the majority to be extreme – slavery comes to mind. Notions of what extremism is changes over time, and from place to place. We might do well to consider it not in terms of particular behaviours, but in terms of its attitude towards those who disagree. Real extremists are those who have no respect for other points of view, no time to listen to them and are committed to fostering a spirit of animosity and confrontation. They may therefore be in the majority.

The twenty-first century has so far been no stranger to extremists, political or religious. They thrive on external threats of one kind or another, real or invented. Promising simple answers to complex problems, they widen divisions between groups of people, creating anger and resentment and sowing the seeds of conflict.

As threats to our safety and prosperity multiply in today’s world, a longing for heroes to slay the dragons causing our confusion and anxiety, and to return us to the world we once knew, is natural. The cry is for strong, charismatic leaders, proclaiming simple and inspiring battle cries. At times there is a need for such leadership, but real dangers lurk in the background. One such danger is the tendency to search for someone to blame, and to portray them as an enemy who to be silenced or defeated. In the UK, minority groups, immigrants or Muslims for example, are good candidates, or foreigners, represented by the European Union. Another danger is to over-simplify the issues involved. Slogans (“Get Brexit Done”, “Protect the NHS”) might have some role to play in inspiring and motivating support, but the idea that they are meaningful, or a reliable basis for action, is an illusion. A further danger is to polarise debate and demonise critics. All these are signs of extremism.

Even, and perhaps especially in the face of an urgent crisis like Covid-19, the willingness to listen to opposing points of view, to consult widely, to accept the need for compromise and, where possible, to achieve consensus is vital. Such principles in our national life, and in today’s global political culture, are in short supply.

The ingredients are present for the current century to be as much an age of extremism as the last. Co-operation and respect, both globally and nationally, are needed more than ever. Sadly, the signs are not hopeful. What is needed is an acceptance that other people, who have a different point of view from our own, may have something to say worth listening to, and might even be able to change our minds. We need to find the kind of leaders who will steer us away from extremism and towards a more inclusive, co-operative way of living.

After Covid

We won’t return to the way things were. New patterns of living, working and learning are becoming familiar. New skills are being learned, and obstacles overcome. Some businesses are prospering, but many are struggling to survive, and a lot won’t make it. In future it will be impossible to plan holidays and leisure activities as we used to. The profound economic and social changes we are facing are bound to have political and psychological consequences, and we will not be able to avoid the thought that it could all happen again. A theoretical threat has become a practical reality.

Individually, locally, nationally and globally, we face an unpredictable and challenging situation. At every level, choices are being made that will shape our future. It may seem to be largely a question of damage limitation, but in reality it is far more than that. New opportunities are presenting themselves that would never have arisen but for the virus. Already, some people are actively finding ways of making money or increasing influence at the expense of others, but fraudsters and opportunists should not be the only ones looking for ways to take advantage of the situation. We all have a responsibility to think about the kind of future we want beyond Covid-19.

The wider context needs to be taken into account. Globally, we were already facing the prospect of catastrophic climate change, and nationally, the economic consequences of Brexit. A vast amount is already being written about how to cope with all this. Here are a few preliminary thoughts about what our objectives should be and how they might be implemented.

First, “big government” is clearly here to stay. The challenges are too great and too profound to be left to market forces or voluntary effort to sort out. The resources of society as a whole must be marshaled to meet the need, and that requires strong government leadership and direction, particularly in achieving carbon neutrality, with all the changes in energy use that will entail.

We cannot afford to leave politics, which is, in the end, the way government functions, in the hands of a rich and powerful elite. They will inevitably want to protect their own interests, while the poor will suffer most as a result of the changes that have to be made. Broad political engagement and greater respect for our politicians should be encouraged as widely as possible, through the revitalisation of politics at the local level, Parliamentary and electoral reform at the national level and the maintenance of high standards of integrity in public life.

We are all in this together, globally and nationally. Sacrifices and adjustments will have to be made by everyone, and the burden should not fall disproportionately on already vulnerable people, whether they live in our own country and abroad. The scandal of inequality must be addressed by reducing the privileges of the already advantaged, sharing the world’s resources more fairly and helping the marginalised believe they have genuine stake in society. More determined efforts must be made to build justice and freedom where they are lacking, and organisations that promote these aims should receive the funding they need to do their job.

These are broad, wide-ranging objectives. If we are to move towards achieving them, institutions and practices of every kind need to be involved, and a change of attitude towards what it means to live well in the the world of tomorrow is required. I am not sure that even Covid-19 has been enough to make that move a substantial one, but it has, I hope, given us a nudge in the right direction. We all need to do our bit to try and make sure that this does not end up being a series of superficial economic measures trying and get us back to where we were. We must not waste the opportunity Covid-19 has given us to take a radical look at ourselves and our future on earth.

Peter Shepherd (May 2020)

The war against Covid-19

War is a dreadful thing. As well as its destructive power, however, it is also one of the driving forces behind technological advance and social change. Much of what we take for granted as part of our normal daily life is its direct or indirect result. When we turn on the radio, use the internet, boil a kettle (using electricity partly created by nuclear power), fly abroad, use satnav or take antibiotics, we are benefiting from technology created and developed, at least in part, for military reasons. War changes society in other ways too, transforming the way individuals, groups and nations relate to each other.

Mobilising for war has led to unexpected peace-time spin-offs, accelerating change, or making change possible, that would otherwise have taken much longer. Some of these changes have clearly been beneficial. Quite apart from technological advances, would votes for women, the establishment of the National Health Service or the formation of the United Nations have occurred when they did, were it not for the First and Second World Wars?

Today the country, and indeed the world, is at war against Covid-19, and it is likely that we will see similar significant social and technological change as a result. Working life has been disrupted for many, and is unlikely to return unaffected to pre-Covid-19 routines. Some jobs will be permanently lost as businesses fail, and working from home will probably become more common. Attitudes towards the medical and caring professions, and the role of Government, both national and local, are changing quite profoundly. As the resources of industry are enlisted to help the fight, new products and processes will emerge. Leisure and education have been radically affected, and while much may return to pre-Covid-19 practices, not everything will. International relations are also bound to change. On the one hand, the global nature of the threat forces us all to face our common humanity. On the other, national borders are closing, devastating international travel and trade, and hindering co-operation. All this will require fresh thinking and new priorities at every level of society, from Government to individual.

In church life, churches with the necessary skills are developing new ways of holding congregations together using social media. Services are being streamed on-line as never before. Most churches, however, with fewer and older members, struggle. If the need for social isolation continues for long, as seems likely, the habit of meeting regularly will be eroded. Many are discovering for the first time resources and opportunities for worship and fellowship without leaving home. The return to meeting together will be welcomed, but it is nonetheless hard to predict the consequences when restrictions are eased or lifted. As far as the witness of the Church is concerned, there are clearly new opportunities as people seek for answers in a world that seems far less secure and predictable.

We are in the early stage of the campaign against Covid-19, and it is impossible to tell what its long term impact will be. But it is already clear that the consequences will be considerable. In church life, as in other areas of society, those who are able to embrace the new opportunities that arise will prosper, and those who want to return to the way things were are likely to find it more difficult. We will all be glad to see the back of the virus – although the fear of another pandemic will surely remain with us for a long time – and most will probably be keen to return to “normality”, but it is very likely that a new normality will emerge. As with the long term consequences of more conventional wars, there will be important potential benefits. We need to hope and pray that we will be able to turn that potential into reality, in church life as everywhere else.

Democracy and Covid-19

Democratic government in the UK can only prosper when the country’s institutions are strong and functioning well. A healthy institutional life prevents ambitious individuals from gaining excessive personal power. Many of our most important institutions are closely connected to the Government itself – Parliament, the Civil Service, the Judiciary, the Police, Local Councils. It is vital, in the interests of democracy, that they have independent identities and clearly understood and defined responsibilities. Other institutions are more detached from Government. Some have a national role, like the BBC, the NHS, leading charities and Trades Unions, but most are more limited in scope. They are nonetheless important in maintaining a social structure within which democracy can operate.

Two processes are undermining these institutions. One is globalism, which has resulted in the creation of world-wide corporations beyond the political control of the UK, or any national government, other, perhaps, than China and the USA. Their financial muscle and their ability to shape opinion are huge and expanding. The other process is political opposition, which has the effect of a steady decline in respect and trust for these institutions. They are often depicted as wasteful, enemies of the interests of ordinary people and bastions of a minority’s self-interests.  Financial penalties follow.

There may be truth in some of these accusations, and reforms may need to be made. The overall effect of such “populist” attacks, however, is a fragmentation of society, which means that those who seek power can appeal unhindered directly to the people. This endangers true democracy. Sometimes a measure of delay and inefficiency is a price that has to be paid to avoid an unhealthy centralisation of power.

One effect of Covid-19 has been a sudden and unprecedented centralisation of power, at least in peace time. This has been necessary, for a while, in order to save lives. But the disease has also highlighted the vital importance of public institutions. The NHS, the BBC, the Police, the Civil Service and Local Authorities are all absolutely vital to tackling it.

Hopefully, when it has all calmed down, the country’s debt to these organisations, and to a multitude of others, including religious and charitable ones, will result in a greater respect for their social role and an increased willingness to provide them with the money they need to do their job well. In view of the global nature of the threat, like others we face, there will hopefully also be a increased desire for more international co-operation among the world’s democracies. Part of the benefit of this could be to achieve some measure of political control over ever-more powerful international business.

There is a danger, of course, that once Government has taken increased power, it will be reluctant to give it up. It is not hard to imagine the plea being made that today’s challenges need strong leadership, action not debate, and that losing personal and institutional freedoms are sacrifices worth making if they get in the way of decisive and effective action. That way lies autocracy, and must be resisted. Another danger is a continued retreat into a narrow nationalism, in which problems are blamed on outsiders and barriers are thrown up in order to protect ourselves from the alien other.

We need to hope and pray that we learn the right lessons from Covid-19, that democratic Government survives in good health and that the world unites in confronting whatever challenges lie in the years and generations to come.


It feels like someone has just pressed the world’s reset button. One minute life jogs along pretty much as usual. The next, we have to start thinking in new ways about everything. The repercussions reverberate in every direction – work, health, politics, family, finance, leisure, etc. etc.. On a personal front, last week we visited a museum, went out for a family meal, did our regular volunteering with a charity and walked with our walking group; I sang at my choir’s weekly rehearsal, led a Bible study at church, attended my art group and led a funeral service. Now, none of it would be possible. In every area of life – politics, economics, business, sport – both within the UK and internationally, the same radical disruption has occurred.  Crisis deliberations are taking place, and far-reaching decisions are being made, at every level of society.

The practicalities of working out how to cope with Covid-19 are huge, but it also highlights other underlying issues. As a global pandemic, it reminds us of the unity of humanity, respecting neither national boundaries or other ethnic, cultural or religious differences that divide us. It was already becoming clear that we need to work together globally to meet the environmental and other challenges humanity faces, and this virus powerfully forces us to face up to this reality. Organizations that facilitate international co-operation, such as the United Nations, should receive the support and resources they need to do their job, and every country, even the wealthiest ones, need to recognize they cannot stand alone.

The virus is no respecter of persons in terms of who it infects, but as with many other threats to people’s welfare, it will be the poor and vulnerable who stand to suffer most. Those in insecure employment or accommodation, or on benefits, let alone any caught up in the epidemic in refugee camps or war zones, will find coping with it – even surviving it – most difficult. It shows up the damaging inequalities that divide us, and the duty of care on the part of the most privileged, both between and within nations.

The current situation dramatically demonstrates the folly of putting our whole confidence in our own achievements and abilities. An organism too small to be seen and one of the simplest forms of life explodes the myth of humanity’s self-sufficiency and our capacity to find technological solutions to all life’s problems. Science is an immensely powerful tool to improve human life, but today we have to humbly acknowledge that we are not the masters of our destiny that we might have thought. On a personal level, the virus reveals our mortality, something we accept intellectually, but are slow to acknowledge in practice. Politically, it demonstrates the limitations of those in power.

The imposed inactivity and resulting financial crisis is a huge worry to many individuals and businesses. A few will inevitably seek to take advantage of it for personal gain. But also, for those not in immediate and critical need, it provides an opportunity for reflection. As the routines of work and leisure have been removed, many of us face what is in effect a forced sabbatical or retreat, providing time for a reassessment of our priorities. What difference this will make in the long run, both personally and politically, remains to be seen, but there is a possibility, once the pandemic is over, of lessons to be learned and changes made for the better.

Life’s Instability

Sometimes sorrows seem to gang up against you. For me, recent events have made life feel more precarious then usual. It can’t all be shared in a public post like this, but the following illustrates what I am talking about.

Our volunteering with ASSIST, the Sheffield charity supporting destitute asylum seekers, has been disrupted over the last few months by the angry resignation of several experienced volunteers, provoked by disciplinary measures taken against one of them, action which most of us found difficult to comprehend. The person involved was a highly respected and valued member of our team, to whom many of us owed a lot. The inevitable results of the resignations has been disruption of the work we do and extra pressure on those who are left.

A few weeks ago the minister of our church suddenly and without warning resigned, not only from the church itself, but from ministry altogether, leaving us all bewildered. This has caused much sadness and thrown future plans and expectations into disarray, and for me, possible extra responsibilities.

Last week, one of our friends here in Chapeltown deliberately walked in front of a vehicle on the motorway and killed himself. We had got to know Ron well, having been introduced to them by our daughter shortly after we arrived here more than three years ago. We had been with them less than a week earlier. He leaves a wife, children and young grandchildren.

Events like this give rise to feelings of sadness, confusion and regret, sometimes also of anger and guilt. When they come together over a relatively short period of time they cause a general unease and insecurity. Circumstances and people that seemed stable have proved unreliable – the world has changed and I am not sure I feel at home in it any more. Of course, there are all sorts of things that cause people even greater feelings of dislocation.

On top of personal disruption, national and global instability is one of the features of our time. At the end of this week the UK is due to leave the European Union, a baffling and destabilizing event whose repercussions will be felt for years to come. In the USA, the world’s most influential democracy, rancorous division and accusations are having a deeply damaging affect on political life. Technological innovation is profoundly and rapidly revolutionizing economic and social relations. Perhaps most significant of all, global warming threatens the survival of human civilization itself.

Growing economic prosperity and political stability have for a long time provided a foundation for confidence about the future. It is becoming clear that we can no longer take these things for granted. Events that bring disorder to our personal lives, some of which are partly the consequence of these broader trends, are more difficult to cope with in such an environment.

One of the consequences of all this can be paralysis. When the normal framework for living seems to be disintegrating, it is hard to find a secure basis for doing anything. I need to remind myself of moral values that do not change, and to hold on to those. Sometimes what is needed is just courage and endurance to see things through, and not be overwhelmed by feelings of lostness and threat. We may need help from others to do that. Sometimes we can offer a steady hand of friendship to others.

The words of Jesus are apt: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid”.

Peter Shepherd (January 2020)

A Prophetic Message for a Time of Crisis

I have been looking at the Old Testament book of Ezekiel.  For all its strange language and imagery, its message is strikingly pertinent.  Ezekiel was a priest forced into exile with many of Israel’s élite shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the early 6th century BC.  His message is aimed at the people back in Jerusalem, and especially their leaders.  Its predominant theme is the disaster they face because they have abandoned God’s way.  The book starts with the precise day when the prophet’s visions began, and other dates are given when new visions occurred.  They seem to emphasize the passage of time, each day that passes bringing Jerusalem closer to judgement day.

Ezekiel is fierce in his condemnation of false prophets.  They are liars, he says, falsely claiming that all is well in Jerusalem.  The truth is that the city is profoundly and institutionally corrupt.  Its pride in its past and its presumption of God’s protection are dangerous mistakes.  In reality it has betrayed its God, despising his guidance and prostituting itself before the nations around it, committing worse sins than they have.  Ezekiel has a burning sense of obligation to speak out and expose the injustices and corruption he sees for what they are.

The book’s message, however, is not only negative.  Ezekiel describes what a good society should be like, where people respect each other and each other’s property, where oppression and injustice are absent and where the poor are provided for.  He is also hopeful for Israel’s long-term future.  His most famous image of hope is in chapter 37, where a valley full of dead bones is transformed into a “vast multitude” of living people.

Naturally, the context of the book is entirely different from our own, perhaps most noticeably in his overwhelming sense of the glory of God.  His language and imagery retain much of their original power, but they are sometimes incomprehensible to us.  The themes, however, are relevant for the times we are living through.

For a start, the political dislocation caused by Trump, Brexit, climate change, the rise of nationalistic and religious extremism, etc. draws us into significant parallels with the situation confronting Ezekiel.  The global nature of today’s crises is on a very different scale, but the threat to Israel’s survival and the apparent failure of trusted ideologies led to similar anxieties and confusion as our own.  Like today, simplistic promises and false hopes were given by those in leadership.  In the face of severe external threats the fabric of society began to crumble.  Violence increased; unscrupulous profit seekers sought opportunities to take advantage of the situation; the fate of the poor deteriorated.

Ezekiel’s response was similar to some of the prophets who had come before him.  He was passionate in his condemnation of those who had led the people astray, and were doing so still.  Having abandoned the worship and ways of the Lord, the Israelites were now facing the consequences.  But forgiveness and a future restoration would occur.  The closing chapters of the book describe a detailed, and highly symbolic vision of a new temple in Jerusalem, where true worship would be offered.

Facing up to past and present wrongs which are inevitably leading to disastrous consequences, and at the same time being hopeful about the future is not easy, but they are both necessary, especially in times of crisis.  The threats facing Western societies today – for many of which we are responsible – seem overwhelming, and can easily lead to despair.  They must be honestly acknowledged.  Repentance and a serious commitment to change are necessary, but without hope, they will never happen.

Hope in the book of Ezekiel, that priest and prophet of Israel, is centred around the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem.  That may not seem particularly relevant to us, but our vision for the future, like his, involves a society and a world where security is restored and people can live in freedom and peace.  Unless we have such a hope to inform and direct us, darkness is bound to overwhelm us in the end.

Peter Shepherd (October 2019)

Brexit and Irish Unity

The prospect of Brexit is making the logic of Irish union increasingly compelling.

Between 1886 and 1920 four attempts were made in Parliament (then governing the whole of Britain and Ireland) to grant Ireland Home Rule. The idea was to keep Ireland constitutionally part of the United Kingdom, as it had been from the start of the nineteenth century, while at the same time allowing it independence in internal affairs. The first attempt failed because the House of Commons voted against it, the second because it was rejected by the House of Lords, the third because of the intervention of the First World War, and the fourth because by that stage (1920) the momentum for complete independence in the South had grown too powerful.

For much of the time, most Irish MPs supported Home Rule, although the Unionists in the north opposed it.  If only Gladstone had been successful in driving it through in 1886 or 1893, how different things might have been. Today, devolution has given a considerable measure of independence to the north, but for Ireland as a whole Home Rule died with the 1916 Easter Rising. The only realistic constitutional choices are continued separation between North and South or Irish unity.

I have no personal connection with Ireland and no right to say what should be done. Only the Irish themselves can decide. That is not as straightforward as it sounds, however, given the division of opinion between North and South. If majority opinion in the North moved clearly in favour of Irish unity, that would solve the issue, and personally, I hope that day will come sooner rather than later.

In the event of Brexit, the dividing line between North and South will be the boundary between two entirely separate economic and political jurisdictions, each with its own rules affecting trade and travel. As long as both countries remain in the EU and accept its principles of freedom of movement, tariff free trade, etc., this is not a problem, but without that, major adjustments, with all the damaging implications for co-operation and peace in the island of Ireland, are inevitable.

If it were simply a matter of economics, the elimination of the border would be the obvious solution, but of course it isn’t. Politics, history and contrasting notions of national identity all stand in the way. But they are not as decisive as they once were. The current political deadlock in Northern Ireland is depressing, but the acceptance in principle of devolution and the sharing of political power between the two communities has loosened the ties between Belfast and London, and strengthened those between Belfast and Dublin.

Opinion on the value of remaining in the EU differed from that in Britain as a whole, the majority voting against leaving in the 2016 Referendum.

The power of the Roman Catholic Church in the Republic – one of the main reasons Unionists in the North argued against Irish unity – is not as strong as it used to be. The religious divide generally is not as powerful a factor as it once was, especially among the young.

There has always been strong cultural, economic and political ties between Ireland and Britain, and that will doubtless continue whatever happens to the Irish border.

Opposition to Irish unity will continue to be held passionately by many, but Brexit means that the dream held by most of the people of Ireland is moving closer.

Peter Shepherd (August 2019)

The Boris Factor

Boris has launched his Brexit campaign running. His leadership style, with its articulate bluster and confidence have left most of the opposition wilting. A dose of optimism does wonders, even when it is unjustified, at least for a while.

A key factor in Boris’s impact and appeal is his skill with words, written and spoken. As a journalist, his Telegraph columns were read and enjoyed by many, even, I suspect, by some who found them irritating. His speeches attract crowds and are frequently greeted with enthusiasm and amusement. Their striking phrases and metaphors make compelling headlines.

Boris’s opponents accuse him of being shallow and untrustworthy, but are still anxious about the attention he grabs, and wonder how long it can last.

The astonishing thing, given the confidence with which he speaks of it, is that Boris’s policy on Brexit is unachievable. It amounts to an attempt to so frighten the EU at the prospect of the UK leaving without a deal that they abandon the Irish border “backstop”, along with other elements of the “dead” Theresa May deal. In reality, this threat is an empty one, as Parliament will not permit a no-deal exit. It is also an insult to our European friends, like the associated threat not to meet our financial obligations.  It unwisely assumes that while Britain is prepared to cope with the damage no-deal will cause, other European countries are not.

To be fair, the situation we find ourselves in is not all of Boris and his fellow Brexiteers’ making. Most MP’s, with the possible exception of those who consistently backed Theresa May’s deal, share responsibility for the impasse.

Boris’s campaigning instinct alongside Parliament’s failure is probably driving us towards a General Election. What the outcome of that might be is anyone’s bet, and it is likely we have a long way to go before we are out of the political wood.

Once Boris’s charismatic bombast has run its course and shown to be inadequate for the task, as it inevitably will, others will be needed to take on the role of leadership. There is always a risk that someone with determination and popular appeal, like Boris himself, will be appointed to lead us out of one mess, only to drag us into a bigger one. What we must do is look for men and women who demonstrate the true qualities of character that are needed in times of crisis. Not so much self-confidence and an ability with words, important as they may be, as integrity, wisdom, resolve, a willingness to work with others and a concern for the vulnerable. Someone who can attract loyalty and respect even from political opponents.

The adversarial style of today’s political climate and the widespread cynicism towards everyone in public office may make it hard to believe such people can ever succeed, but let us hope and pray that before too long the right kind of leadership will be recognized and rise above the partisan scheming and media distortions that are so damaging to our public life today.

Peter Shepherd (July 2019)