Simmering

In the post-election aftermath of accepting what a thumping Tory majority led by a man with no moral compass would mean, I had allowed my rage and despair to ebb away. Or perhaps I had simply stopped feeding the fires, and was able to ignore the glowing embers of my fury.

I thought that the days of rage-blogging about politics would ease into the past.

But honestly, I can't really be silent about the contempt I have for the Prime Minister, or his minions/puppetmasters*.

During the election campaign, Johnson hid in a fridge to avoid being questioned by ITV's Good Morning Britain, not renowned for its hard-hitting political edge. During the same campaign, Johnson took a journalist's phone and put it in his own pocket to avoid looking at a photograph of a child lying on a hospital floor, to avoid actually having to answer questions about the consequences of his own party's past nine years in power.

In December, the Prime Minister** banned his ministers from appearing on the BBCs flagship political radio show, the Today programme.

Two days ago, Johnson excluded two political sketch-writers from one of his speeches, on the grounds there "wasn't enough space". There were two empty rows of chairs.

On the same day, Number 10 attempted to hold a selective lobby briefing, refusing entry to representatives of those news organisations that didn't meet with their favour***. To their credit, the remaining lobby journalists refused to be part of this restriction and walked out. I can only hope they continue to show the same backbone if Number 10 tries that again.

Yesterday it came to light that Number 10 are issuing language guidance to the Foreign Office to ensure that they comply with the government's desire to manipulate public perception of Brexit. The memo to the FCO started with the following:

“Brexit is completed. So do not use the term ‘Brexit’, save as a historical event that took place on 31 January 2020”

Because we've all noticed how Brexit is "completed" haven't we? Furthermore, the FCO are not to refer to leaving with a deal or with "no deal"; instead they are to refer to leaving with a Canada-style deal or an Australia-style deal. That would be the Canada-EU trade deal that took 7 years to hammer out, when we have a mere ten months, or the Australia-EU trade deal that doesn't exist, so is in fact, erm, how shall I put this? No deal.

Other demands include not referring to having any kind of "partnership" with the EU, especially not one that is either "deep" or "special". If the Foreign Office must say anything positive about our future relationship, they are instructed to “Stick to the phrase ‘friendly cooperation between sovereign equals’.” Which I think tells you all you need to know about Johnson's intentions regarding any future relationship.

I have a deep, deep distrust of any politician or government that attempts to restrict access of a free press to said government, and an even deeper distrust of any politician or government that seeks to dictate the language that independent, politically-neutral civil servants are allowed to use. In my view, the only way to fight back against such arrogance is to deliberately, and repeatedly, draw attention to it. To deliberately, and repeatedly, refuse to comply with linguistic restrictions of this type.

I easily fall prey to hyperbole, to exaggerating any peril or ill, to seeing the worst in a situation, and particularly to assigning the most nefarious motives to politicians who I don't support. Even in light of knowing all that about myself, and recognising my own visceral reactions to the current political climate, I am going to point my finger at this despicable, arrogant, posturing, bullying, ignorant Prime Minister and his acolytes and accuse them of dragging us ever deeper into an Orwellian nightmare of Newspeak and Doublespeak. They are attempting to control the press, and to control the very language the government uses about Brexit. And I for one am not going to sit down and shut up about it.

I shall not stop referring to the ongoing machinations as Brexit, for that is what it is. I shall not refer to an "Australia-style deal", but instead call it what it is - no deal. I shall not refer to "Boris" as though he's some inoffensive, cuddly buffoon - he is Johnson or the Prime Minister. And he is contemptible.

* I am still unsure whether there is in fact a "power behind the throne" in the odious Dominic Cummings, or whether he is simply a symptom. Are the machinations, distortions and thuggery of Number 10 coming from Johnson, or from Cummings? In the end, it doesn't matter. Johnson is Prime Minister; the buck stops with him.

** As per my previous footnote, I hold Johnson responsible for decisions made in his name. If he is too lazy or too weak to control the actions of his staff on issues like this, then he needs to be responsible for that failing too.

*** Attempts were made to claim that this selective briefing was perfectly normal, and it was standard to have such briefings solely for expert journalists in a specific field. This was a general briefing and all the journalists were generalists, not specialists. Lies piled upon abuse of power.