Instability also slows investment as businesses literally hate it. Businesses thrive in a predictable context where they can have regulatory and financial foresight. If for example a country changes its tax policies with every change of leadership (like France for example) businesses will be very hesitant to invest.
Today’s British population is in need of stable leadership as so much uncertainty looms, prices are rising and people are worried about the future. Worry and fear affects morale, households’ mental health (e.g. divorce rates and depression have increased), consumerism and ultimately the nations health as a whole, stress and fear are scientifically proven to be a important factor in many diseases.
Who wants his head?
Secondly, the question of who wants Boris’ head and why has to be addressed. Let’s be frank, politics today seems more like showbusiness than about a dignified debate to determine what is best for the nation. Selfish ambition for many and a chance at the top job appears to come before the concerns about serving the nation well. I believe there are many politicians in Britain today that sincerely care for their country and its population, however we seldom hear about them and their achievements.
The overarching push is to wield power and have influence, other concerns seem secondary, in particular for the opposition (Tory or Labour) who’s role seems infinitely confined to denigrating the opposing party as opposed to working together on creative solution to advance the cause of the nation as a whole. In the context of Boris Johnson’s resignation would this really be beneficial for the nation, what were the consequences of the office parties for the nation? Where they sufficient to demand his head? In all acts of justice, proportionality is and important part of the sentencing, are the press just looking for likes on social media or is there a real national interest in Boris’ demise?
The Press
This brings me to my last point, the mainstream press. In light of the fact that most of these entities are owned by big business and clearly have a narrative to push. This narrative changes in accordance to the interests of said businesses. The mainstream press used to be a media to inform people, it has be become a medium for the forming and formatting of opinions as dictated by big business, it has clearly become a political power without the rules that govern other political powers, notably the accountability for it often reckless influence.
Take for example the 2008 banking crisis, when banks were demanding hundreds of billions in bailouts, effectively indebting the U.K. population for generations to come. The mainstream media decided that the most important issue of the day was the “expenses scandal” after which MPs had to return the grand total of £163,867.
The question of the MPs expenses literally eclipsed the ongoing banking scandal in the press for months, allowing the banks to pull the biggest “heist” on the taxpayer in history. Many of the banks that were bailed out own shares in media groups who in turn control media outlets. I fail to see how that was in the public interest. I believe a free press is important but that there should be regulations on ownership and the size as there are clearly conflicts of interest that have far reaching consequences on politics, policies and consequently for the population as a whole.
Conclusion
To conclude, freedom of enterprise is a good thing but it clearly needs boundaries to be held accountable and to not conflict with the interests of the population at large. The system of Civil Servanthood is also a great institution but there needs to be a reminder, possibly a legislative one, of the word “Servant” within the context of their accountability towards the British public. I do not think that replacing Boris Johnson at this time is beneficial to on the whole for the British public.
Expenses scandal links 2008
Boris Johnson wikipedia page