I have posted this thread to Twitter this morning:
There is an old truism that suggests that the Leader of the Conservatives always enjoys the total support of their party until, that is, the day that they do not. So the question is, has that day arrived for Johnson? A thread….
Yesterday was a miserable day for Johnson. William Wragg laid into him from the Tory centre in the Commons. Steve Baker did so from the Tory right, with likely greater political consequence. Only Danny Kruger and Michael Ellis would defend him. The remaining Tories fled.
Labour won the day. Johnson has been referred to the Standards Committee. As Channel 4 pointed out, the allegation is that he lied about Covid parties when it is already the case that more Covid fixed penalty notices have been issued for activity at No. 10 than anywhere else.
There is not a single person who seriously believes Johnson did not lie. And if and when the Met Police ever choose to do the job required of them and conclude their enquiries into some of the simplest cases they might ever have been asked to investigate there will be more fines.
There could, in fact, be more than that. The only plausible explanation for police delay is that the Crown Prosecution Service is deciding whether there should be a court case brought against Johnson for serial Covid offences, and running the establishment where so many occurred.
Is such a court prosecution possible? We know the CPS is involved. We know that the intention within the Covid regulations was that more serious cases should result in a court trial. Serial offences must make the possibility of Johnson facing that trial a very real one.
Even if he avoids that outcome, and he might, multiple admitted offences will mean the case against Johnson will be overwhelming. Politically, I think yesterday was the day when the Tories admitted that.
The likelihood that the local elections will now be a massive opinion poll rather than an exercise in local democracy does appear to be high, which is to be regretted at one level, and is welcome for the likelihood that this will seal his fate, I suspect.
If 54 Tory MPs have not submitted no confidence letters to the 1922 Committee by May 5 (and after Steve Baker's intervention I think it likely they will have done) then by May 6 they will.
The likelihood that Johnson will be PM when the Standards Committee get to consider the lies he has told is low, in my opinion. That also happens to increase the likelihood of a serious penalty from them, probably involving exclusion from the House for more than ten days.
That in turn then leads to the possibility, and even likelihood, of a recall petition on Johnson in his constituency. If that happens I am certain the 7,000 or so signatures required to make it happen will be secured. I expect Johnson to be gone as an MP in that case, this year.
I am now so confident of this let's move on. What then? The only consequence is that the Tories will need a new leader. Raab will, presumably act in the interim. He should enjoy the moment but pray it does not last long. He must be aware he has none of the skills required.
Nor has anyone else now in Cabinet. They were either chosen for their incompetence, or have demonstrated it. Others, like Sunak, Javid and Zahawi have ruled themselves out through their financial dealings. And then there is Truss.
It is not by chance that there are so few clips of Truss available on YouTube. She is kept away from video cameras because she is so hopeless. The few clips there are include her classic speeches on cheese and pork.
No one wanting to caricature an incompetent politician could have come up with something like those appalling speeches. The Tories already know she would be an electoral disaster. I really cannot see her winning support from MPs.
So who might? The far-right can't take this. Steve Baker might be a kingmaker, but he cannot claim the Crown. I think he knows it. There is no one else there.
So, the Tories have to pick from outside the existing Cabinet, and not from the far right. That leaves Tom Tugendhat and Jeremy Hunt. The firmer is virtually unknown, having risen only to be a Commons Committee chair. Hunt lost to Johnson.
Hunt has to be front runner, but so too was Sunak recently. These things can change, but I happen to think the Tory instinct for power now comes into play. With Johnson ruined, and his policies with him, the MPs will want six things.
First, many of them will want preferment and much of Johnson's Cabinet is ripe to be culled, from Rees-Mogg onwards. Hunt may be willing to offer many the Right Honourable tag they crave as a Cabinet Minister.
Second, they have seen Hunt in front of cameras. I don't like him. But they know he can withstand the heat. That will count very strongly for him.
Third, he knows he can't reverse Brexit, but can try to make it work. That is all the Tories can hope to salvage from its wreckage now. He has more chance of doing that than anyone else now.
Fourth, he is the person Labour least want. As a seemingly reasonable person he can add the stability the Tories crave, at least electorally after Johnson.
Fifth, that I cannot be sure what Hunt stands for helps him. The Tories can project themselves onto him for long enough for him to become Leader.
Sixth, Tugendhat has none of these things going for him. And I cannot see anyone else winning, but I may be wrong of course.
Then what? Expect four things. One will be moderation with the EU. There will be a charm offensive and an offer of cooperation to make it look like Brexit can work without the logjams. That this will neuter the project does not matter. It will be called making Brexit work.
There will be full cooperation with Ireland as a result. For the sake of peace that will matter.
At the Treasury, Sunak will be long gone. The spending tap will be opened. Whether wisely or not I do not know, but spending will happen. The Tories will be intent on buying their way back to power.
That will be linked to green issues. The Tories have to buy the young, and they will try to do so.
And Hunt would be ruthless in holding his right-wing at bay. Johnson used expulsions to win power. Hunt could do the same. He will challenge them to bring him down, when they know many will lose their seats if they do.
In other words, he could be a nightmare for Labour. Don't rule the Tories out yet, in other words. There are 2.5 years to a general election as yet. A lot could happen. Including me being wrong and Sunak becoming Leader despite it all. In which case Labour could laugh their way to victory.
To summarise: Johnson is toast, but to think that means the Tories are necessarily down and out would be far too big an assumption to make. We still live in interesting, and potentially dangerous, times.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
That’s passionate twitter posting, for sure. I find myself unable to say that I don’t disagree with any of it today.
I would believe you more if I thought you were the person you claim to be
Plenty negatives in this statement …
“I find myself unable to say that I don’t disagree”
which when you remove the double negative translates to:
“I find myself unable to say that I agree”
Let me take a look….
I think Jordan B Peterson would manage to communicate a little better. Possibly the most laughably incomprehensible statement I have seen this year.
Looking at this mornings Guardian website, my immediate thought is that we need to look at the whole business of selecting a PM, I would suggest that the current situation where they are chosen by the largest party in the Commons is clearly inadequate.
I would suggest that there needs to be something involving the entire House. In particular rather than looking at their politics it needs to consider the candidates suitability for the role.
Passionate?
I thought it precise.
There is no telling what will happen is there? I mean Patel?!! She has popularity I think behind the core vote. The Tory party donors could still help her outspend and outfight Labour and the others all over again. They could go hard right? This is still the Nasty Party.
But Hunt as you say would enable everything to look calmer and more reasonable after such bad behaviour.
The thing is it’s the contrarians in the party – the Steve Bakers (whom I cannot stand to be honest because of his knowing smile when he is dipping his oar in) who may have more of a negative impact on what happens next than we would like.
This route is possible
But I don’t think it offers them continuing power, and they want that above all else
You don’t mention Priti Patel?
Oddly, no
They’re not that stupid….
Or are they?
Well, I for one do not know anymore.
All I know is that (1) the Tories can pull on money-power that Labour and the others don’t have as the world they are creating is aligned with that money and (2) they could sell ice cubes to the Eskimos if they wanted to just as they’ve sold the idea of being poorer to the ordinary poor.
The point being, no matter what ignoramus is in charge, the Tory Party as you say yourself is a power grabbing and retention machine with no moral compass except power.
What we might see is lots of punishment being dolled out to the naughty lot who went to parties, and who – like those who have been found for example to have porn on their Parliamentary lap tops – step down and keep a low profile for a bit until things calm down and are ‘reborn’ as Parliamentarians who can be ‘taken seriously’.
Female? Home secretary? Sounds vaguely familiar.
The only reason the Conservative Party turned yesterday, was because the back-benches suddenly realised the spotlight was about to fall on them; who were these people, the public were about to ask; who picked Johnson to lead, and then defended the indefensible. It all means nothing more.
I predicted Hunt as favourite a few months ago, on here. Only as he is a smooth operator and counter balance to the unhinged Tory front bench. Although a dark horse could emerge as they jostle for that sacred prize. Hunt is likely to restore a sober public face of Toryism. He will have awful economic problems to solve – is he up to it? And I hope he doesn’t have time or energy to open the floodgates to American NHS supply, we should be afraid change is coming.
Also will Johnson pull a constitutional stunt or call another GE on inter alia “Brexit2” blitzkrieg. The Tory Party has the cash, unlike opposition parties and has gerrymandered to make this an option for a cornered Johnson?
And Labour will suffer a sober Tory PM as they haven’t contested and explained so many Conservative policies – notably austerity. Being “nice neoliberals” is not a policy. Where are Labour on constitutional reform, now is an opportune time to advance policies for a written constitution and House of Lords reform.
The problem of our politics, and the politics of the West has always been staring us in the face: the problem is ‘Party’ itself. Party, as David Hume wisely identified two hundred and fifty years ago, offers nothing more to public life than perennial factionalism of the worst kind. That is simply the statement of the fundamental problem.
The problem, however has never been fixed. Hume did not find the answer to it (he was profoundly pessimistic), and there we remain. You cannot trust ‘Party’ because the nature of ‘Party’ is untrustworthy. It does not work, and it is dangerous; ‘Party’ is the perfect instrument to promote increasingly effective techniques of public propaganda, much of it easily hidden in the digital age (requiring only money to unleash). At the same time ‘Party’ is relatively easily taken over by entryists: endlessly. It falls to determined cliques within or without (like the ERG, or Militant – choose your Party), or most dangerously of all, to the power of money in a commercial society.
The Labour Party has fallen to entryists, but the Conservatives over and over again, largely because they are more often in power than other Parties (notably to the Thatcher clique of Hayekian neoliberals, or ERG but it is a rolling feast – even Oligarchs can now at least have a quiet ‘pop’ at it). All Party is subject to entryism. I merely state the basic problem.
You state the problem correctly
… and the solution is PR. Well, it won’t solve all problems but it will allow parties to fragment without annihilation at the ballot box. So, as the hard right hi-jack the Conservatives then the centre-right just forms “The One Nation Conservative Party”. Voters can then pick one or t’other without fear of a Labour Government. (Of course, the same applies on the left but right now it is the left that might splinter from the centrist leadership).
John, thanks for articulating this. I don’t think I’ve ever considered this as the route cause of our political problems before now – I think I need to search out some of Hume’s work.
As an open question: what would the political/governmental landscape look like without a party system? Are you thinking along the lines of a participatory democracy with decisions being made by citizen assemblies?
I think citizen assemblies could be invaluable to develop our rather undeveloped sense of participation in democracy. ‘Participation in’, rather than direct participative democracy, which is problematic for many reasons.
Teaching of constitutional issues and history should be stronger in schools. I am less convinced by direct participatory democracy, because one of our problems is the use of a (so-called) ‘majority’ in Parliament as the gateway to an elective dictatorship. The essence of democracy for me is not majoritarianism, but the protection of the political rights of the minority/minorities, while allowing a majority to govern. This was why the Americans adopted the ‘electoral college’; because the intital post-colonial US seemed to be turning toward elective dictatorship. Of course the American solution currently looks somewhat problematic. The point is we stopped thinking about the intellectual challenges when the vote became (more or less) universal. We have allowed our democracy to rot on the vine. I do not have a ‘pat’ answer.
We do need proportional representation. But here is the problem. Westminster established Scottish devolution with the de Hondt system. Why choose that system? Because while it achieves benefits of proportional representation, it allows the selection of list candidates by the political parties, rather than passing that power to the electorate. The single transferable vote system (STV) passes that power over the list of candidates to the electors. The Westminster Party system thus still exercises considerable influence over elections through de Hondt. They can’t help themselves. It is in their DNA. You always need to look at the small-print. Parties fix systems in their interests; not in yours, or Scotland’s, or Britain’s. They will even collude to protect a preferred ‘status quo’, as in Scotland.
One of the most interesting things about yesterday in parliament was the huge gap it revealed between Johnson’s actual support amongst Tory MPs/Voters and the impression that had been created by the British media ever since Johnson’s fine was announced.
What we saw was a broad range of Tories stand up to say that Johnson is a liar and should resign. In complete contrast the impression created by the Media was that the fine announcement had not mattered too much to Tory MPs/voters, the moment had passed for any attempt to hold Johnson to account and the accusations of lying were not important, just party politics.
It turns out that not for the first time the British media was being just as dishonest as Johnson. Hopefully, Johnson will be sacked, but if you value Free Speech, what the hell do you do about the British media?
Good question…
To be frank, in a system where social & environmental metrics are still largely divorced from economics, capitalism is failing catastrophically. Unless we are to introduce such metrics and base taxation upon them, e.g. tax credits for newspapers that report factually & quite the reverse for those that don’t (or repeat offenders will have their assets seized and taken into public ownership). Then our systems do not have the teeth to deal with the scourge of wealth accumulation and billionaires’ various & often nefarious agendas.
I would say it’s more likely almost exactly 2 years to a general election. I can’t see them pursuing a winter poll again.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he forces a general election on his way down. I’m sure his contempt for everyone extends to his own party.
If not now, he certainly would have after they threw him out.
I noted that Baker went to the 1922 Committee and and changed his mind about supporting Johnson because Boris was not contrite as he was in the House but bombastic. I have a theory that the nature of sin or evil, has a self destruct mechanism. Almost all sin involves selfishness; putting the little personal ego above the consideration of others. Theft, lying, adultery, fraud are all about gain at the expense of others. In WW2 the Germans developed some amazing new weapons but there was no co-ordination of effort and they sought to do each other down to get the ear of the Fuhrer -who was incompetent. Most of their research was implemented too late, or not at all. The Allied leaders often had ‘robust’ discussions but evolved a workable joint strategy. The Americans were given all our research in radar and jet engines in return for Lend-Lease.
Johnson, like Trump, judges most policy as to how it would make him look and how it would further his career. Not like Keynes ( despite his prima donna personality) or William Beveridge , or perhaps Atlee, who promoted policies they genuinely thought were for the common good. This is not to say good always wins, it is a ‘fallen world’ but the selfish won’t continue to support people like Johnson when there is no gain for themselves. His own faults have brought him down.
I agree, Johnson appears to be toast, but it remains to be seen when he realises that. Will he give up and resign, perhaps after a hard conversation with men in grey suits, or will he drag it out for as long as possible, to be sacked a third time for lying?
When he goes (not if) I expect he will also resign as an MP. I doubt he has any interest in continuing to serve his constituents from the back bench, like to her credit Theresa May is. Like Cameron, he will run away to write, but I expect Johnson will be more of a nuisance than either. Ted Heath on steroids.
On most measures, Johnson’s premiership has been an unmitigated disaster. He won the leadership and then the 2019 general election on the basis of “get Brexit done” – which he did – although his “oven ready deal” was always half baked. In typical Johnson style, it was always a quick and dirty short term measure to defuse the immediate problem without thinking through the consequences. Brexit was always going to be more of a process than an event, but there is no realistic way back for decades, and we are going to live with the fallout for years to come.
Johnson beat Hunt 2:1 in the Conservative membership vote in 2019, and won over 50% of the MPs in the fifth round, when Hunt only barely beat Gove (it was 160-77-75). Gove has been keeping very quiet of late, and I am sure he is politicking away in private, but it is hard to see him as a party leader. Also probably not one of the other 2019 leadership candidates – Sajid Javid, Rory Stewart, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Andrea Leadsom, Mark Harper, Esther McVey.
I expect most of the current cabinet will struggle – Sunak and Javid and Patel and Truss might have a go, but it is time for a change of direction, away from empty charisma and the right wing, and towards quiet competence and the middle ground. There is certainly the possibility that another credible candidate may emerge, but Hunt seems most likely to me. Whoever wins is going to struggle with the absence of MPs like Dominic Grieve and David Gauke to add some experience, gravitas and intellectual heft. But there must be some people among the 359 Conservative MPs who can step up.
With respect to the “which imbecilic Tory will be the next PM” – this makes for interesting reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg
The problem is not so much the “who” as “where do they come from”. If it is Oxford Uni then there will be yet another moron that focuses on style/form rather than content. The article get’s to the heart of the matter – graduates of Oxford Uni who have “moved on to politics” have brought this country low – not over the last decade or 4 but over 170 years. Time for a change. perhaps a 50 year ban on Oxford graduates (all of them) from holding any politcial position whatsoever might be a step in the right direction. Abolition of the Oxford Union etc etc.
The current problem is not “a person” e.g. mendacious fatberg, but the whole system. & ‘unt will be no better than M-F (the lying count will decline) – the tory-s will still be as viscious as ever, with no end in sight. Liebore will remain silent on important issues: e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/18/childcare-costs-rishi-sunak-spring-statement (£14k per year for a nursery place? really?)
While I agree Hunt is probably the only Conservative MP with both enough recognition by the public as a possible leader and not being associated with Johnson’s failures, will the public have forgotten the damage he wrought on the NHS? OK the “reforms” were introduced by Lansley but it was Hunt who forced them through.
Some of us remember the days before the Conservatives took over when hospitals were castigated for falling a couple of points short of the target of seeing 95% in 4 hours. It would be interesting to see the Conservatives’ NHS measured by the same standards as under Labour.
I hope that will not be forgotten when or if he ever goes to the polls
With Hunt as my MP I follow his activities quite closely, as well as dropping him an email every month or so. Its been hard to restrain myself recently…
There is little doubt that he is trying to position himself as the ‘reasonable’ candidate and he was a genuine Remainer. He has made a few noises on issues such as aid and refugees but otherwise he pretty much trots through the lobbies along with the rest (TheyWorkForYou). He was recently interviewed by Roy Lilley on the NHS (Roy is excellent for those who have not come across him) and was making noises to suggest that his views on the NHS have changed and that he might have made a few mistakes. That said his name is all over the shortage of NHS resources and failure to prepare for the pandemic. He also co-authored a paper promoting an insurance based health system.
He was out recently with local people protesting against fracking though I suspect that was more about appealing to the local Tory nimbies than any deep beliefs about climate change. He has a big majority and I suspect a very conservative local party.
From the Tory perspective he is probably their best bet unless they go for an outsider like Wallace or Tugenhat. He could not possibly be any worse than Johnson. However, he would have to clear out pretty much the entire cabinet who are only there because of their undying loyalty to Johnson and Brexit. I can’t see much talent on the Tory back benches. Meanwhile Starmer and his team feel like they have the bit between their teeth. The open goals that Johnson has created will still be there. NHS, cost of living, refugees, energy, collapsing trade…
Surely cleaning out the cabinet would be a net positive for Hunt? He has one great selling point which none of them has, and that is that he’s not tainted by Brexit.
Thanks Robin, interesting to get the local view of Hunt.
To be honest “no worse than Johnson” is not exactly a ringing endorsement. I think you are right that Wallace has some name recognition as a competent minister (unlike Tugendhat) but I suspect he is positioning himself to run NATO, it isn’t clear he has domestic ambitions.
And as you say, where is anyone going to find 20 or so competent cabinet ministers? There is no sign of that level of ability on the back benches (nor on the current front bench).
Yes we have a corrupt prime minister. But these people don’t arise in a vacuum. They come to the fore when the society itself is corrupt. Everyone knew what manner of “man” he was. He hasn’t deceived anyone in that sense. But this is what our country apparently wanted. Unfortunately, Johnson’s departure doesn’t really fill me with hope. The fundamentals are unchanged.
Andrew Mitchell could be one to watch
That’s a curve ball, but I don’t see it
I am old enough to remember Thatcher being forced from office only a few years after winning a big majority – and to remember her replacement John Major securing the Tories a slender overall majority at the next GE when Labour had been expected to win. So Johnson’s downfall may as you say not be terminal for the Tories.
I wonder if there’s a possibility the Tories might do a volte face on a Scottish referendum? If the Yes side were to be successful that would remove 56 MPs – almost all of whom would be from opposition parties – at a stroke and thus improve the chances of the Tories being returned in England.
Re; D’Hondt and Scotland….the version used for Holyrood does not provide PR really, it provides what the Act calls ‘an element of proportionality’. It was not chosen to prevent outright majorities either – it was chosen to prevent the SNP ever becoming the largest party on the assumption that Labour would always win the overwhelming majority of FPTP seats and then get a share of the list seats. They would get a tiny share of list seats in central Scotland, but a worthwhile share of them in areas where Labour would not do well in the FPTP contests. Interesting times and all that.
Yes, de Hondt was chosen on the assumption Labour was impregnable, and that an overall majority would never arise; both were, of course proved totally wrong. Nevertheless, the Westminster back-stop was however alrady built-in; ensuring that the Parties still controlled the list, and not the electorate. That would never do, that might lead anywehere. The importance of this should not be underestimated; it is the electoral equivalent of the corporate ‘poison-pill’; it checks electoral chain-reactions over which the Parties have no control. It protects first the Westminster Party system; and crucially the Party system status quo.