The first leader's debate on Channel 4 yesterday was a slightly bizarre affair. Michael Gove came across as Frank Spencer doing Superman impressions having forgotten to remove his Clarke Kent spectacles. At times he made himself red-faced with fake anger while staring down the camera lens. Was Jeremy Corbyn really terrified of him? Terrified? It was pretend machismo at its worst. Dominic Raab was so wooden he could have starred in a Ronseal advert as the object about to get a weatherproof finish.
Hunt was an affable lummox on LSD who had just been goosed. Sajid Javid looked as he always does, like a character out of Star Trek. Where did he get those ears from? The lead candidate was in hiding somewhere apparently too frit to debate with his erstwhile cabinet colleagues. All we got from Johnson was an empty lectern.
The only leader on the stage was Rory Stewart in my opinion. He was the one with an uncompromising message at odds with the average Tory member's thinking. This is what leaders do. The others were telling those whose votes they need exactly what they wanted to hear. This is following, not leading. He was also the only one who didn't look as if he had been coached to within an inch of his life.
Stewart did himself no harm but gauging reaction this morning he isn't going to do it - this time.
Hunt was an affable lummox on LSD who had just been goosed. Sajid Javid looked as he always does, like a character out of Star Trek. Where did he get those ears from? The lead candidate was in hiding somewhere apparently too frit to debate with his erstwhile cabinet colleagues. All we got from Johnson was an empty lectern.
The only leader on the stage was Rory Stewart in my opinion. He was the one with an uncompromising message at odds with the average Tory member's thinking. This is what leaders do. The others were telling those whose votes they need exactly what they wanted to hear. This is following, not leading. He was also the only one who didn't look as if he had been coached to within an inch of his life.
Stewart did himself no harm but gauging reaction this morning he isn't going to do it - this time.
Radio 4 carried reports from a Tory constituency association in Leicestershire somewhere as they watched the debate live and Johnson was still the odds-on favourite even though he wasn't actually taking part. Gove was openly ridiculed, rightly in my opinion. Matt Hancock, who quit the race last week saying he could not contemplate leaving with no deal, has endorsed BoJo who has this as his central policy. Cynical or what? I assume he was offered a prime job in Johnson's cabinet - probably a job that has already been offered to several other people. The Treasury and the Home Office might seem a tad overcrowded after his expected victory.
So we wait now for tomorrow's second round of voting.
Now, on another issue. Last Monday I published a post (HERE) about Johnson's claim the day before that he would withhold the £39 billion divorce bill until we had 'greater clarity about the way forward' and I pointed out this was against the explicit legal advice of the nation's most senior law officer who said it would be illegal under public international law. This week The Telegraph (HERE) has caught up. An article by Peter Foster, their Europe editor says precisely the same thing. I don't see anything similar in the rest of the British press. Foster says:
"However several Whitehall sources have confirmed that on-record internal legal advice from Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, has warned that linking Brexit bill payments to the progress of any trade talks would be illegal"
Will this bother any of the Brexiteers or their cheering supporters? Almost certainly not. Brexit was supposed to set us free but surely not to flout international law? What has become of us?
This is all quite troubling to me but it's typical of the whole Brexit thing. Our leaders don't understand the issues but can't be held to account by MPs because most of them are just as oblivious to the details and the press is complicit in the ignorance.
So we wait now for tomorrow's second round of voting.
Now, on another issue. Last Monday I published a post (HERE) about Johnson's claim the day before that he would withhold the £39 billion divorce bill until we had 'greater clarity about the way forward' and I pointed out this was against the explicit legal advice of the nation's most senior law officer who said it would be illegal under public international law. This week The Telegraph (HERE) has caught up. An article by Peter Foster, their Europe editor says precisely the same thing. I don't see anything similar in the rest of the British press. Foster says:
"However several Whitehall sources have confirmed that on-record internal legal advice from Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, has warned that linking Brexit bill payments to the progress of any trade talks would be illegal"
Will this bother any of the Brexiteers or their cheering supporters? Almost certainly not. Brexit was supposed to set us free but surely not to flout international law? What has become of us?
This is all quite troubling to me but it's typical of the whole Brexit thing. Our leaders don't understand the issues but can't be held to account by MPs because most of them are just as oblivious to the details and the press is complicit in the ignorance.
We are in a mess make no mistake. But Johnson's election to the office of prime minister by a small number of Tory members will only make matters worse. For he is the most ignorant of them all.
