Hey guys,
We are already in week 7 of our blogs and I must say that time has gone by super quickly. This week it will be me, Minou, who is going to present to you another text analysis and, for this matter, I have chosen an article from the “Financial Times”.
The Financial Times is an international daily newspaper with its focus on economic, business and finance news and it is regarded as a credible and ethically acceptable newspaper with only minimal biases.
For those of you who do not want to read the article I will present a short summary in the following.
The article, written by the author and correspondent of the newspaper, Tony Barber, compares the former British prime minister Winston Churchill and the current UK prime minister Boris Johnson.
Both of them have to deal with difficult situations that have great impacts on the future of the country.
The former prime minister Churchill took over the position of prime minister at 1940 during World War two against Nazi-Germany. The country suffered under damage from the war consequences. The author here refers to the 20th century and the consequences of both the world wars on further global development.
On the other hand, Boris Johnson runs the country in the middle of two issues. For one thing, Brexit is a consistent point of discussion for British government since the referendum in 2016, on the other hand, the UK is facing the worst Coronavirus outbreak in Europe. This virus furthermore changes the whole economic and political dynamic in the world. There are three possible results listed in the article for how the Coronavirus is going to change the world economy as well as the United Kingdom.
Firstly, the author talks about a shift of economic power from the west towards the Asia-pacific region. Secondly, the UK will be mired in a severe financial crisis.
Lastly, the author suggests a change in political priorities. The government under Boris Johnson has to treat the pandemic as their main concern, resulting in a change of politics which will mainly affect the on-going Brexit negotiations. Also, he is hinting that the situation will cause aversion in the British public which could change the public opinion about the current government dramatically.
I will take a closer look at the comparison of the two Prime ministers.
At first, it seems completely odd to compare such different characters as Johnsons and Churchill. However, there are intersections that make a direct comparison reasonable. Both brawny prime ministers meet major challenges during their term of office. Churchill had to deal with the war, whereas Johnson meets a combination of two vehement challenges, Brexit and the Pandemic.
Further, both prime ministers rule a country during a huge historic turning point.
However, we can say that the similarities end here.
In contrast to Boris Johnson, Churchill was highly admired, a statesman who introduced social changes in Britain that millions benefited from. He conceived the idea of a united Europa and strength and peace. Johnson on the other hand is not taken seriously by the public. He made severe mistakes handling the corona crisis and as well as Brexit.
Consequently, a comparison of these two characters in my opinion is not really necessary.
But it is likely that in making this nearly absurd comparison, the author Tony Barber wanted to prove exactly that. This can be referred to the conclusion of the article in which he describes the government as “incoherent” and the British civil service as “stupid”.
"Finally, there are unmistakable signs that the British public, mystified and alarmed by the government’s incoherent handling of the pandemic’s early phase, craves the advice of specialists — and even politicians — who know what they are talking about.
Now the UK finds itself in a national emergency, the appeal that Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson’s chief policy adviser, made in January for “weirdos and misfits” to join the British civil service looks unconvincing, not to say downright stupid
So although Tony Barber shows similarities the two have, displaying “Boris Johnson’s Churchill moment” is too vague and far-fetched.
In my opinion, there is consequently no sense in comparing two prime ministers that had different ideologies and mindsets.
