Is Boris Johnson revealing who he really is?

I am a little puzzled in why you are interested in what New York thinks of Johnson! I did click on the link to see but it said to read it subscribe, which I wouldn’t do, as I read UK papers. Never thought to subscribe to an overseas one.

Does he even know?

I managed to read it without subscribing.

I'm a little puzzled in why people wouldn't be interested in what is happening in the UK. An outsider's view is often more objective.

"No man is an island entire of itself" - no country is entire of itself either.

The opinion piece is chillingly on the nail.

I’ve always known exactly what he is.
It’s not as if he hides it.
Not for the first time on here, I highly recommend ‘The Assault on Truth’ by Peter Oborne.

Always good to see things from all angles so I read newspapers from all over the world rather than the blinkered view you get by reading the news from one point of view.

It is possible to read the article but you have to be quick to block the popup asking you to subscribe.

I can't access it either without creating an account?

I had to create a free account and download The NYT app in order to read it.

Here it is

By Moya Lothian-McLean

Ms. Lothian-McLean is a British journalist who has reported widely on politics, policing and civil rights.

LONDON — Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, bruised by scandal and faced with an alarming rise in coronavirus cases, is refusing to change course. “We have a chance,” he bullishly proclaimed on Jan. 4, “to ride out this Omicron wave without shutting down our country once again.”

Public health experts may disagree. Yet Mr. Johnson is at least being consistent — not only with his conduct throughout the pandemic, where lockdowns were a last resort and restrictions were to be shelved as soon as possible, but also with the political platform that elevated him to the highest office. After all, this is the man who rose to power — bringing about Brexit in the process — on the promise to restore “freedom” and “take back control.”

Undeterred by the pandemic, Mr. Johnson has been quietly pursuing that agenda. But instead of reforming the country’s creaking democracy and shoring up Britons’ rights, he and his lieutenants are doing the opposite: seizing control for themselves and stripping away the freedoms of others. A raft of bills likely to pass this year will set Britain, self-professed beacon of democracy, on the road to autocracy. Once in place, the legislation will be very hard to shift. For Mr. Johnson, it amounts to a concerted power grab.

It’s also an answer. Mr. Johnson is a political chameleon, and his true ideological bent — liberal? one-nation Tory? English nationalist? — has long been a subject of speculation. Now he has, beyond any doubt, revealed who he really is: a brattish authoritarian who puts his personal whims above anything else. And whatever his future, Britain will be remade in his image.

Amid the chaos wrought by the pandemic, Brexit tumult and increasing questions about the stability of Mr. Johnson’s individual position, the full scale of the impending assault on civil liberties has — understandably — not yet come into focus for much of the British public. The list of legislation is long and deliberately overwhelming. But pieced together, the picture is bleakly repressive.

First, there’s the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, a draconian and broad piece of legislation that effectively bans protest in England and Wales. The police would be equipped to shut down demonstrations that create “serious disruption.” Those who break this condition, which could be done just by making noise, would face prison sentences or hefty fines. Combined with other measures, such as outlawing traditional direct-action tactics like “locking on,” the bill could eventually make it almost impossible to attend a demonstration without committing an offense.

Yet it goes beyond protest, putting minority groups in the cross hairs. New trespass provisions, which make “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle” a criminal offense, would essentially erase nomadic Gypsy, Roma and Traveler communities from public life. And the expansion of police powers would not only allow officers widespread access to private education and health care records, but also pave the way for suspicionless stop and search. Ethnic minority communities, disproportionately singled out for police attention, are likely to bear the brunt of such overreach.

Similarly punitive is the Nationality and Borders Bill. Stiffening Britain’s already hawkish immigration policy, it seeks to criminalize asylum seekers who take unsanctioned routes: Refugees who arrive by boat, for example, could face up to four years in prison, regardless of the validity of their claim for safe haven. And if claimants escape traditional jail, they would be kept in concentration camp-style housing and offshore processing centers, sites long denounced by human rights activists.

Not even British citizens are safe from the dragnet. A provision slipped into the bill in November by its architect, the home secretary, Priti Patel, would endow the government with the power to remove British citizenship from dual nationals without notice. Those singled out might not even have recourse to the law: Proposed reform of the Human Rights Act would make it easier for the government to deport foreign nationals and deny them claims of mistreatment.

Editors’ Picks

What Is ‘Love Bombing’?

How European Royals Once Shared Their Most Important Secrets

Cookies? Chips? Pizza? Here’s How to Own Your Cravings
Continue reading the main story
Such draconian measures, in time, are sure to be contested. But the government has a plan for that: draining the life blood from democracy. There’s the Elections Bill, which — alongside potentially disenfranchising millions through the introduction of mandatory voter ID — aims to furnish the government with new powers over the independent elections regulator, sealing up the political process. Unless substantially amended, the bill could have constitutionally far-reaching consequences.

The urge to centralize power also underlies the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which would enable Mr. Johnson and his ministers to overrule judicial review findings that challenge their agenda. The Online Safety Bill, ostensibly designed to regulate Big Tech, is yet to be introduced to Parliament. But many free-speech advocates fear that it could be used to silence critics on social media, censoring those reporting details Mr. Johnson’s government would rather keep from public view. No more pesky judges or overly inquisitive journalists interfering with government business.

It’s a truism that nations sleepwalk into tyranny, and England — the most politically powerful of the nations that make up Britain — is no exception. For decades it has possessed all the necessary ingredients: ever more spiteful nationalism, press fealty sold to the highest bidder and a fervent, misplaced belief that authoritarianism could never set up shop here, because we simply wouldn’t let it.

In this event, though, concerted opposition to Mr. Johnson’s plans has not materialized. Establishment politics have been no match for the determination of Mr. Johnson and his allies: A hefty and largely supportive Conservative majority means that even when the Labour Party has decided to oppose legislation, its votes have barely counted. And despite valiant efforts by a coalition of grass-roots groups and the initial groundswell of the “Kill the Bill” protests, a mass movement opposing these bills has failed to come together. Instead, a miasma of grim inevitability has settled in.

That’s dangerous, not least because this authoritarian assault is so comprehensive that once settled as law, it will prove very tricky to unpick. Like many leaders who seek to transcend the constraints of democracy, Mr. Johnson may not foresee a future where he isn’t the one calling the shots. But the miserable shadow his power grab will cast over Britain is likely to last far longer than the tenure of the would-be “world king” himself.

His place in the history books, however, is secured. He will forever be the libertine whose pursuit of personal freedom and “control” saw his countrymen robbed of theirs.

Interesting article that goes someway to explaining why the Tories are still running with Johnson. No waves until controversial legislation is in place. His large majority is his saviour, it would seem.

Goodness me, that makes for powerful and scary reading. Trouble is, I don't see how this can be stopped with the current huge majority that the government has. Seems having to wait for the next election will be far too late.

Sigh. Bring on PR.

Kim19

Goodness me, that makes for powerful and scary reading. Trouble is, I don't see how this can be stopped with the current huge majority that the government has. Seems having to wait for the next election will be far too late.

Agree- but it is the ERG behind him which are the most dangerous- he is just a prop/tool.

Be good if the Labour Party splits from the Momentum group supported by the unions and if the Tory group would also split from the ERG faction. Then we’d have 4 parties to choose from, plus the Lib Democrats and Greens. That way we’d all have proper choices at the ballot box! Won’t happen though. MP’s want to remain in their posts. They won’t break away unless seriously disillusioned.

She’s a british journalist, based in the uk who wrote a guest article. Nothing to see folks.

It would be brilliant indeed umg.

But 'proper choices' at the ballot box is a fantasy under the First Past the Post system. Alliances will have to be formed.

My choice at the ballot box has always gone straight in the bin- every single time- because of the FPTP system.

Why are some posters surprised? She has written anything that hasn’t been known for some months.

I like to read a variety of media to get an idea of differing views. My paper of choice is the Guardian but I also read the Mail online together with CNN, Fox News and the Sydney Morning Herald. It seems to me that the UK is not as admired as it once was. Johnson and Brexit have rendered us a laughing stock.

It's not exactly news, is it?

We were discussing this article on October last year:

Weakening the courts, limiting protest, hobbling the elections regulator. If another country did this, what would we call it?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/01/boris-johnson-rigging-the-system-power-courts-protest-elections

The problem as I see it is that most people have never protested about anything in their entire lives and many are actively hostile towards those who do protest about anything. There is no value placed on the right to protest so the loss of that right means nothing at all to them.

Will they get upset about draconian fines and or prison sentences? No, they won't; they'll say it serves them right for upsetting other people, etc. etc. Just look at the horror about the Colston 4 being acquitted... Not only were they associated with an inherently unpopular cause, BLM, but they toppled a much hated statue into the sea. From the reactions you'd think they'd killed their grannies or an innocent toddler...

Try to point out how we are rapidly becoming an authoritarian fascist state, as Freedland does in his article, and it's rubbished because we're not actually killing anyone (yet). It's just hysterical exaggeration...

I despair, and I'm not the only one...

MerylStreep

Why are some posters surprised? She has written anything that hasn’t been known for some months.

I know.
It’s hopeless isn’t it.
We’re just going to let it all happen to us again, just like B*** all over again.
We are going to be in such a pickle

MerylStreep

She’s a british journalist, based in the uk who wrote a guest article. Nothing to see folks.

Why is there nothing to see? Unless you can't face critical posts?

If you disagree, you have right to give an opinion, but ignoring it seems silly.

It seems to have become the norm recently on GN. Nothing to see, hysteria, etc... to shut people up. Without debate or any attempt to discuss, or give reasons, facts.

Growstuff
Your intention was to lead us to believe that she is an American journalist ( living in New York? ) when she’s not. She’s a British journalist selling her article.
And once again: there is nothing new in this article.
We have several members on GN who could just as easily have written that piece, she has written nothing new or informative.

I can’t believe what I’m reading in the Press this morning. 100 people invited by a senior civil servant (I thought they had more sense?) to a BYOB garden party which Boris & Carrie attended in May last year.

When I think of him standing at the podium with the Two Ronnies spouting his guff to the rest of us just beggars belief. Why can’t our politicians be squeaky clean once in power? Where is their moral compass? Mind you, look at other countries too. Politics is indeed a dirty business.

If the police establish that this party took place, everybody who attended should resign immediately