To the Bulk of Tory MPs Regarding Boris Johnson

 

Boris Johnson giving his Statement on the Sue Gray report in the HoC, 25.5.22

On Wednesday 25th May 2022, the Sue Gray report was finally published. Boris Johnson's defence in the House of Commons that afternoon amounted to -

When I said repeatedly to the House at the despatch box that there were no parties and no covid rules were broken, I did not mislead the House because the parties it has now been proved beyond dispute I attended were not parties during the time I attended them, but only became parties - each and every one - after I had left.

This is preposterous, at once labyrinthine and flimsy. That Johnson has misled the House repeatedly is a fact for anyone who wants to see it. This is attested to by the brave Tory MPs who have publicly called for the Prime Minister to resign and/or submitted letters of no confidence to Sir Graham Brady. At the time of writing I think there are 23 of them, including Tobias Ellwood, David Davis, Sir Roger Gale, Nick Gibb, Steve Baker, John Baron, Sir Bob Neill - all highly experienced parliamentarians. These 23 are courageous souls who can see that lying to the House is an absolute red line, and that the House must enforce its rules to stop our democracy being debased. In our system - whether it is a good or a bad thing - it is not the job of the Met Police to remove the Prime Minister, it is not the job of a civil servant such as Sue Gray, it is the responsibility of Tory MPs and the bulk of them are avoiding their duty in this matter.

This bulk of Tory MPs are postponing their point of final judgement again and again. Before, it was after the Council elections, then after the Sue Gray report is published: now, it is after the upcoming by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton on 23rd of June, after the Committee of Privileges reports . . . There is probably a psychological term for what they are doing, but I don't know it: however, what they are doing is because they don't want to take the action that the fact requires, they are refusing to admit the fact i.e. that Johnson misled the House, and therefore has to resign, and if he won't resign he has to be voted out, and they have to do the voting. All other considerations, such as the claim that there is no obvious alternative, are irrelevant and are rationalisations for inaction.

In his review of Hallam's Constitutional History, Macaulay wrote the following about Henry VIII:

"A King, whose character may be best described by saying that he was despotism itself personified ..."

I often think of that quote in relation to Boris Johnson, except for 'despotism' I substitute 'effrontery'.

To illustrate that, here is Johnson's press conference in full from the 25th May, if you can stand it:

The First Reference to Jung

 

Carl Jung (1875-1961)

Readers of this blog will know that there are various references to the work and thought of Carl Jung in it. I am an admirer of his, but a critical one. The above photo shows the famous Swiss psychiatrist late in life, and I think it is a good one because a lot of photos of the elder Jung are rather staged, depicting him as either sage or genial old buffer. Here you see his geniality and his intelligence, but also the dominating quality that he had.

I always thought that the first reference to Jung I ever came across was in a book that belonged to my Mum. It was a Penguin book called 'The Tarot: The Origins, Meaning and Uses of the Cards' by Alfred Douglas, first published in that edition in 1973, originally published in 1972. My Mum was not interested in the Tarot, except in a glancing way if even that. I however was and am very interested in the Tarot, I read the book with avidity and I remember distinctly encountering the name of C. G. Jung in it, and noting it mentally for further investigation. How old I was when the happened I don't know. My guess is about 9, but that is a guess.

Given this firmly lodged origin myth of my acquaintance with Jung, imagine my surprise therefore when I sat down to watch 'The Eagle Has Landed' not so long ago and encountered the following scene, which leapt out at me:

That film came out in 1976, so I would have seen it possibly in 1977, when I was 7. As to whether this has priority as my first encounter with the name Jung, I simply do not know. 

But the exact sequence of discovery does not matter. The point is, your source doesn't have to be single or esoteric, ideas and influences come at you from all directions, whether from popular culture or the most recondite reading.

History is written by the winners ?

 'History is written by the winners' is an observation so old that it has no known origin and is simply proverbial; though it feels like one of those precise, intensely quotable sayings by a Roman historian such as Tacitus.

One thinks of Alexander setting off to conquer Persia with a tame historian on his staff, Callisthenes: because what is the point of doing epochal deeds if no one knows about them ? Particularly when you are a hero in the mould of Achilles. One thinks likewise of Julius Caesar being his own historian for the same reason, in 'De Bello Gallico' and elsewhere: but surely very few people take Caesar at his own estimation or uncritically today. Napoleon did not have a director of propaganda, characteristically he was his own: though perhaps we could see the savants he took with him to Egypt as so many Callistheneses. One thinks of Churchill's often repeated joke "History will be kind to me - for I am going to write it." 

But is history really kind to Churchill nowadays ? What about Gallipoli, as one instance among several ?

Chinua Achebe

Last February on Twitter, William Dalrymple tweeted a marvellous quote by Chinua Achebe:

"Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter."

It stuck with me because it's just so true. Also, because it reminds me of one of my favourite fables by Aesop, 'The Man and the Lion.'  Aesop - let's say it is him - puts his finger on something profound and fundamental. I would retell it like this:

The Man and the Lion

A man and a lion were walking together. They were arguing about which is better and stronger, men or lions. It so happened that they came upon a statue of a man killing a lion.

"You see ?" said the man, indicating the statue.

"Yeah" said the lion, "but if lions could make statues . . ."

Here is another version of that story, from the Library of Congress' Aesop for Children: 

The Man & the Lion

A Lion and a Man chanced to travel in company through the forest. They soon began to quarrel, for each of them boasted that he and his kind were far superior to the other both in strength and mind.

Now they reached a clearing in the forest and there stood a statue. It was a representation of Heracles in the act of tearing the jaws of the Nemean Lion.

"See," said the man, "that's how strong we are! The King of Beasts is like wax in our hands!"

"Ho!" laughed the Lion, "a Man made that statue. It would have been quite a different scene had a Lion made it!"

It all depends on the point of view, and who tells the story.

(You can find that version here: Library of Congress Aesop Fables (read.gov) )

 

Aesop's insight I think is that history is not so much written by the winners as by those who have the ability and the power to represent; a broader group which can include the winners. This fable always makes me think of the marginalisation and exclusion of women from history, which we are slowly beginning to correct, because those with the power to represent were almost always men. Hence the persistent ugly misogynistic streak in our culture, from the Garden of Eden story onwards.

I don't know why the lion is looking frightened in this version. Illustrations of this story are however surprisingly rare.