Is all of Downing Street – not “No 10” nor the PM – pulling the strings?

 

It’s time to ask again ‘who governs Britain?’ No, it’s not about Parliament and Constitutional Monarchy. It’s not even about the Mandarins of Whitehall – it’s worse. More on that below. Meanwhile, we need to go on a little diversion because there’s this Labour AMG where a certain Sir Keith Starmer will finally appear.

We’re told that he’ll declare later this morning in his AGM closing speech that ‘victory is more important than unity’. He’s also going to try to suppress ‘the left’ in his party and refuse to allow Corbyn back in. He told the BBC that it’s about:

“Winning. Winning a general election. I didn’t come into politics to vote over and over again in Parliament and lose and then tweet about it. I came into politics to go into government to change millions of lives for the better.” (paywalled link)

Aww bless! He’ll also promise to ‘build links with business’ and be ‘responsible with taxpayers’ money’ – shades of a certain T.B.? Far more important is that Sir K.S. actually said a few words about the current petrol crisis – not to his conference but to the BBC:

“The Government has reduced the country to chaos as we track from crisis to crisis. The Government is not gripping this,” […]”This problem was predictable and predicted and the Government has absolutely failed to plan.” (paywalled link)

It was this, we are given to understand, which was the ‘signal for Downing Street to act’. The Times has produced a detailed ‘and revealing analysis’. It’s this analysis, meant to underline and emphasise Sir K.S.’s accusation which made me believe that the constitutional powers – the PM, Parliament or even the mandarins – are not governing this country. 

Well, we knew that these constitutional powers had abolished their duties when they handed over government to the unelected SAGEs last year. However, I was still too naive and assumed that, given all the ‘freedom days’, control had been taken back from SAGE.

Now I know better – and I have to thank The Times for enlightening me. At a first glance, their headline seems innocuous enough: “Downing Street feared an early intervention by PM would add fuel to the fire” (link, paywalled) – after all, it’s common usage to let ‘Downing Street’ stand for ‘the PM’. 

However, it turns out that this is actually a convenient screen behind which all sorts of unelected people hide. A pity for the MSM that their favourite bugbear, Cummings, has gone. He can’t be blamed now. But shouldn’t we be told who all is this “Downing Street”, who is doing the actual governing, taking the decisions? Decisions were indeed taken, had to be taken after Sir K.S. had said something (my emphases):

“With only a few signs of panic buying abating and Labour beginning to make political capital out of the government’s discomfort, Downing Street decided that the prime minister’s silence on the issue was beginning to become a problem. Yet it was always a finely balanced decision. Until yesterday the calculation in No 10 had been that images of Johnson talking directly about petrol shortages could simply exacerbate the situation.” (link, paywalled)

Note well that “Downing Street” was worried about the effect of ‘an image’ of Johnson talking to us plebs – who, they assumed, were going to be scared stiff and panicking even more should the PM speak. 

I have no idea what gave them that idea! Had they missed, had their precious polls and focus groups not told them that we’d become inured to the PM’s august presence, that we had stopped to give the proverbial when he spoke? Astoundingly, “Downing Street” thought that the PM calling for ‘calm’ might make matters worse! They thought it was better to alleviate “the problems rather than giving them greater prominence.” (link, paywalled). Really? 

So why didn’t they? Why did it take so long for “Downing Street” to produce Johnson getting that proverbial grip? Why did ‘ministers’ only yesterday bring in the Army? Didn’t we learn yesterday that Government did have an emergency plan? Ah – ‘twas because it was all so very difficult! After all, “Downing Street” had to give priority to make the PM look good on telly, deciding that a ‘video clip’ would be better than a covid-like PR performance. And there was also ‘a dilemma’ which had:

“[…] bedevilled the government’s response from the outset. Ministers knew that once details of potential shortages at the pumps became public, the potential for fuel shortages to become a self-fulfilling prophecy was all too obvious.The just-in-time supply chain used to restock garages is based on predicted demand — and if that demand radically changes there is little that the system can do to cope.” (link, paywalled)

Clearly, “Downing Street” assumed this was a far too complicated concept to tell us thick peasants. However – they surely would have leaked this to the MSM! Which then begs the question: did the MSM decide not to inform us plebs in order to keep the petrol panic going?  There’s more:

“Despite announcements about calling in the army to help with deliveries, ministers and officials always knew that this would make almost no difference to supplies.” (link, paywalled)

But weren’t we told by the Petrol ‘giants’ – those who leaked to the MSM that there was ‘a problem’ with deliveries because of a lack of HGV drivers – that there was enough fuel to go round? Why did “Downing Street” not recognise that this was the message the PM ought to have told the nation? Did “Downing Street” prefer not to interfere with the MSM fear campaign? Moreover, why did they not ‘go public’ when “it was quickly apparent that setting up a scheme to prioritise key workers would be impractical to implement.” (link, paywalled)?

Did “Downing Street” want to permit the usual suspects, e.g. the trade unions, to have their ‘wail in the sun’, as we saw yesterday? Today, some of them are doubling down, claiming that cancer patients will die if NHS staff isn’t given priority – even though a few paragraphs down we read that ‘only a few small appointments’ had to be missed in a London hospital and that there was ‘a problem’ with two consultants in Portsmouth (paywalled link)

I repeat my question: who governs this country? Is it faceless, nameless “Downing Street”, determining even what the PM can say and when? Is it the MSM which are driving government decisions because they run with leaks from their ‘highly placed’ anonymous government sources, creating the climate of fear and discord with which we’ve become so familiar now?

Worse – are we governed by those in “Downing Street” who aren’t simply concerned with the PM’s image, using spurious, questionable polls on which to decide, but are more interested in keeping their ‘connections’ to the MSM open, as escape hatch for future employment?

Are we therefore governed by MSM editors and publishers who are selecting the ‘sources’ which they quote with abandon, who are selecting the ‘leaks’ with which they sell their papers? I think the last sentence in The Times’ article gives the answer, even if somewhat veiled:

“Yet the crisis has proved something that Johnson is well aware of already from Covid — you may be prime minister but you’re not always in control of your own destiny.” (link, paywalled)

No, indeed not: the PM is ‘controlled’ by “Downing Street” – which is controlled by the MSM. This is how our country is being governed! If anyone has evidence to the contrary, namely that our elected PM and his elected cabinet are actually governing us – please give us chapter and verse in the comment section below! 

 

KBO!

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email