I Was Boris Johnson’s Boss: He Is Utterly Unfit to Be Prime Minister

THE GUARDIAN: The Tory party is about to foist a tasteless joke upon the British people. He cares for nothing but his own fame and gratification

Six years ago, the Cambridge historian Christopher Clark published a study of the outbreak of the first world war, titled The Sleepwalkers. Though Clark is a fine scholar, I was unconvinced by his title, which suggested that the great powers stumbled mindlessly to disaster. On the contrary, the maddest aspect of 1914 was that each belligerent government convinced itself that it was acting rationally.

It would be fanciful to liken the ascent of Boris Johnson to the outbreak of global war, but similar forces are in play. There is room for debate about whether he is a scoundrel or mere rogue, but not much about his moral bankruptcy, rooted in a contempt for truth. Nonetheless, even before the Conservative national membership cheers him in as our prime minister – denied the option of Nigel Farage, whom some polls suggest they would prefer – Tory MPs have thronged to do just that.

I have known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit for national office, because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification. » | Max Hastings | Monday, June 24, 2019

One of the Nastiest and Most Immoral Political Acts in Modern Times
MAIL ONLINE: People who rob old ladies in the street, or hold up security vans, are branded as thieves. Yet when Germany presides over a heist of billions of pounds from private savers’ Cyprus bank accounts, to ‘save the euro’ for the hundredth time, this is claimed as high statesmanship.

It is nothing of the sort. The deal to secure a €10 billion German bailout of the bankrupt Mediterranean island is one of the nastiest and most immoral political acts of modern times.

It has struck fear into the hearts of hundreds of millions of European citizens, because it establishes a dire precedent.

If democratically elected governments are willing to impose outright confiscation of up to 40 per cent of balances over €100,000 upon depositors in Cyprus, then why not another such hit tomorrow — in Spain, Italy or, most plausibly, Greece?

This is the most brutal display since 2008 of how far the euro-committed nations are willing to go to save the tottering single currency. It shows that the zone’s crisis will run and run, to the grievous disadvantage of almost everyone except the Germans. » | Max Hastings | Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Why Prince Charles Is Too Dangerous to Be King…
Charles and Camilla: Obsessively convinced of his own rightness, Charles views his ­critics with the weary ­resignation of an early Christian martyr. Photograph: Mail Online
MAIL ONLINE: The engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton has given the British people a welcome fillip in a chilly season. Next April’s wedding will be a big success — even if we make a mess of some things, we’re ­jolly good at royal ceremonies.

The hard part comes afterwards: as the Queen gets older, growing ­attention and speculation is focusing on the ­monarchy’s future. Opinion polls show that most British people would like William to become heir to the throne, bypassing his father, the Prince of Wales.

But courtiers vigorously declare that’s not going to happen. When the Queen dies — as, like all of us, she eventually must — her son is ­determined to succeed her.

The Prince and his wife Camilla earned warm public sympathy last week when their car was assaulted by rioting student demonstrators in London. But many thoughtful people are alarmed by the prospect of a ­figure of such assertive eccentricity acceding to the British throne.

I heard one of the cleverest men in Britain, master of an Oxbridge ­college, quite calmly say the other night: ‘The best hope for the ­monarchy is that Prince Charles dies before the Queen.’

This seemed a brutal observation from a kindly and temperate man, but he went on to justify it: ‘We spend our lives here educating a new ­generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make ­decisions by examining evidence.

‘Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a ­throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing.’ Why Prince Charles is too dangerous to be king: In a landmark essay MAX HASTINGS tells why this increasingly eccentric royal could imperil the monarchy >>> Max Hastings | Saturday, December 18, 2010

HRH, The Prince of Wales 'Harmony': A New Way of Looking at Our World

With All Due Respect, Your Highness, If You Become King - Please Put a Royal Sock in It!
MAIL Online: The Prince of Wales's 60th birthday has been greeted with polite applause. Most of the country seems to have forgiven him for the tragedy of Diana, recognising that it is no more sensible to apportion blame for the failure of a royal marriage than for any other.

But one headline sounded alarm bells: 'Charles will speak out as king.'

Beneath those words Jonathan Dimbleby, the Prince's friend and biographer, wrote: 'There are discreet moves afoot to redefine the future role of the sovereign so that it would allow King Charles III to speak out on matters of national and international importance.'

Dimbleby went on to suggest that Charles seeks to fill a role not dissimilar to that of recent Irish or German presidents, politically non-partisan, but still activist.

It is unlikely the author and broadcaster would have floated such an idea without authorisation, indeed encouragement, from the heir to the throne. Yet if this is so, and if the Prince persists with such ambitions, his reign is likely to be one of the shortest on record.

Hereditary monarchy is a bizarre survival. Most nations disposed of their kings and queens, often amid bloody revolutions, during the great international upheavals of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In Britain, most hereditary peers have been expelled from the House of Lords, meaning that the Crown stands isolated as the only constitutional institution in which possession passes from generation to generation, simply in accordance with who happens to be born the son of whom.

In our quirky British way, the arrangement suits us pretty well. Only a small minority of republicans seriously wants to change the system, to risk finding ourselves instead with a president Thatcher or Blair - or for that matter David Beckham or Jamie Oliver.

Yet it seems mistaken thus to assume that our monarchy is so secure that a new incumbent could take liberties at the controls with the erratic enthusiasm which has characterised the Prince of Wales's career.

The Queen's huge success - and such her reign has surely been - is based upon the exercise of lifelong, steely self-discipline. Never once has she allowed herself to express an opinion about any aspect of her people's governance or affairs.

We can guess what she thinks about all sorts of things. She is almost certainly a conservative with a small 'c'. But we do not know this. And how grateful we should be that it is so.

Never has she provided any political or social faction with evidence to claim her as its own. She is Queen of all the British people, because she has given no one cause to think of her as a critic or foe. >>> Max Hastings | November 18, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>