What they do have in common, of course, is that recently they’ve both publicly been called liars, Djokovic (I think I’ve learned how to spell that now) by some off-air Australian TV journalists who thought the mic was switched off, Johnson (by implication) by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons on 12 January. Both men also appear too have an alpine sense of entitlement and the conviction that their particular mission in life trumps everything else. 

After his legal reprieve a few days ago, Djokovic was forced to admit to breaking quarantine regulations by giving an interview to L’Equipe and that there were “mistakes” on his immigration form. The Australian government seems to have handled this badly, first by appearing to give assurances that he would admitted despite his non-vaccination, then by changing its mind, then by being dragged through the courts. If Djokovic wins the Australian Open, defeating an Aussie in the final, and the country then experiences a mutant and gluten-free Belgrade variant of Covid then it perhaps only has its rulers to blame.

BoJo, of course, is the ruler here; which is the problem. His excuse/apology in the Commons on 12 January was probably the best he could come up with given the corner he had painted himself into. It’s taken so long just to get him to admit that he was actually at the event. It’s worrying that he didn’t seem to know if he was there, but even more so that he could not, after 25 minutes, tell whether it was a meeting or a party. When a former Conservative Attorney General accuses him of being “effectively a serial liar” and previously loyal backbench MPs call him out (see below), you can tell that something’s not right.

As numerous articles have pointed out, our PM’s relationship with the truth could most politely be described as a marriage of his own convenience. This article in The Atlantic suggests that BoJo’s dealings with facts and veracity are utilitarian and dominated by a perhaps sincerely held sense of romantic patriotism which reduces any falsehood to irrelevance; also that we are all complicit in his lies and that in any case he has made no real attempt to portray himself as anything else – “his entire public life seems to have been one long nod and wink with the public.”

The same article cites BJ’s defeated rival for the Conservative leadership Rory Stewart – hardly for this reason an objective critic, one must admit – whose wonderfully fulminating piece of prose is worth quoting in full: “(Johnson) has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie – which may inadvertently be true.” This, or someone very like him, is the man we have elected to lead us.

• Oh, the happy life of a loyal Conservative party backbencher. First, they were herded into the lobbies to vote in the Owen Peterson debacle late last year only for the plan to be withdrawn the following day, providing a perhaps unique example of a Commander publicly ridiculing the obedience of his troops. Then they were forced to defend the increasingly indefensible “parties” in Whitehall which their Commander was still trying to justify or deny.

Our own Laura Farris was, as reported by Newbury Today, asked by BBC Politics what she would have done if she’d been invited. To reply “I would have gone” would have associated her with all the discredit currently descending on the PM; to reply “I would not have gone” would be to say that the PM was wrong in issuing the invitation at all. She chose the latter option. Hitherto one of the PM’s most loyal supporters, this perhaps represents a genuine realisation that anything other than a condemnation wasn’t going to wash in her constituency. She and her backbench colleagues may henceforth take a more sceptical view of the PM’s assurances and judgement. As they have all been elected to represent their constituents – however much this might become blurred in the strange alternative universe of Westminster – this seems to be, as 1066 and All That would say, A Good Thing.

• A person of much less importance in the world than either of these two men is Prince “no sweat” Andrew who, like Djokovic has recently been to the law to try to have his way. He was less successful, a New York court deciding that he must face a civil case for sexual assault allegedly committed in 2001. As the BBC’s royal correspondent commented, “trying to block the case using the deal between the dead paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre was already heavy with reputational risks.” All three of them, No-vax, No-party and No-sweat, may find there are more risks to contend with in the weeks ahead. Of the three, I’d rather be Djokovic. He’s only (probably) broken, or perverted, Australian immigration law. The other two seem to be in a far leakier boat involving public trust and institutional reputation.

• Meanwhile, back on Planet Covid, this BBC article suggests that the Omicron wave might already have peaked. The death figures are rising but tend to at this time of year anyway. The slightly crude measure of recording all deaths as down to Covid if the person had tested positive within the previous 28 days may be responsible, given how many people probably have it. The reduction in reported cases may be due to the shortage of test kits or the fact that, now the seasonal festivities are over, we’re less likely to bother to test ourselves anyway. If the number of people entering hospital with Covid is stabilising, as the stats suggest, then it probably doesn’t greatly matter how many people have it if it’s not causing serious problems. At no time have I ever seen stats relating to people who have a cold, or even flu, and charting that against death rates, howsoever calculated.

• Vaccination still seems to be the most likely reason for any success against this bastard virus: coupled, perhaps, with the fact that its mutation towards a condition that can most easily lead to co-existence with us was always a likely outcome. We’re by no means out of the woods but getting jabbed seems a good way forward. If the massive mortality, sterility, insanity and molecular disintegration predicted by the anti-vaxers were true then, 13 months and over nine billion doses on from the first vaccination in Coventry on 8 December 2020, there seems little sign of it. Sir Dr Jab-Jab still has my vote.

• Much worse than any of these local dramas might be the fate of Ukraine, a country which, like so many others, is fated to be in the shadow of a larger neighbour which will use any bargaining chip without any compunction. Putin’s immediate aim seems to have been to get the US to the negotiating table over the heads of the EU, NATO and Ukraine itself. Part of his frighteningly agile, opportunistic and alarming mind seems to be locked in the 1970s when the USA and Russia (aka Soviet Union) were the only shows in town. Russia’s recent demands amount to NATO reducing its ambitions to pre-1989 levels, something that is never going to happen. The Guardian quotes the UN’s Secretary General as saying that there is “a real risk for a new armed conflict in Europe,” something which no one other than those in the former Yugoslavia will have experienced since 1945. Hyperbole perhaps: but no story involving an unscrupulous, manipulative and heavily armed man locked in an obsessional attempt to turn back the clock is likely to have a happy ending.

• Speaking of obsessions, we are in danger of becoming obsessed with statues. On 12 January, a man vandalised the Eric Gill statue at Broadcasting House. Last week, four people were recently cleared of charges of criminal damage for pulling down the Edward Colston statue in Bristol, a verdict which prompted a furious outcry from some Conservative MPs. Jacob Rees-Mogg’s assertion that this demonstrated the value of the jury system did not, for instance, prevent cabinet minister Grant Shapps from claiming, as reported in The Guardian, that this “potential loophole” should be closed. There seems to be a real danger that Pritti Patel’s police, crime and sentencing bill will confer harsher penalties on those who knock over statues than on those who knock over living people.

I must declare a non-interest in this because I’m almost completely oblivious of and indifferent to any form of visual or representative art. Words and music move me; art does not. I also have a history degree (much good it’s done me professionally) which has told me that no view of any one person is immutable. In so far as I notice them, statues at best provide an ossified view of the past. They normally depict a middle-aged man, often in some kind of ceremonial dress, staring blindly into a future he cannot hope to understand and which will probably find him increasingly irrelevant or inconvenient.

The solution is simple. Pull them all down, every one of them, and put them in museums or turn them into building materials for homes. If in perhaps no other respects, Islam is right on this: to make a physical likeness of someone is to imply a permanence of the ideals they convey that touches on (should you believe in the concept) the divine. When Eric Gill’s and Edward Colston’s statues were erected their subjects must have seemed like obvious public benefactors. Later generations have decided otherwise, with all the discord this causes. Why take the risk? Why assume that our view of what constitutes greatness is imperishable? If we have to have public memorials, let’s make them intentionally temporary, like the fourth one in Parliament Square. It’s also specious to say, as Boris Johnson has done, that to remove statues is to lie about our history. The real lie is to to say that it is, literally, set in stone. So, down with the lot of them and let’s try to understand these complex figures through their actions rather than by what their adoring contemporaries or supplicants chose to erect in our public squares.

• There seems to be some rule in the African Cup of Nations that virtually all matches must end 1-0 or 0-0. I hope that, unlike Ukraine, it’s going to explode into life soon. Ah, I see it just has, Cameroon beating Ethiopia 4-1. The power of the press, eh? I hadn’t even published this and still the message got through.

• Last week, I said that all I wanted to see from the Ashes was at least one England century and at least one of the two remaining games being taken into the last session of the fifth day. These wishes were granted in the fourth test in Sydney (though the draw only transpired because most of one day’s play was lost to rain). There’s still one more test to endure, followed by all manner of increasingly short-format matches against the Aussies, culminating perhaps in a a best-of-three game of French cricket on Bondi Beach: all of which we’ll probably lose…

• West Berkshire Council has launched a new grant scheme to support businesses in the district. The Additional Restrictions Grant Challenge Fund is an opportunity for local businesses to apply for grants of up to £25,000 to fund projects which will stimulate growth and recovery, under the categories of either Green Growth or Digital Improvements. The deadline for applications is 13 February 2022 and successful businesses will receive their grant in early March. More details can be found here.

• The successful holiday activities and food programmes run by West Berkshire Council last year will continue in 2022, funding having recently been secured from the government. Those who are entitled to participate will be contacted by their schools in good time.