Does anyone really doubt who will win the Tory leadership contest? Prime Minister Johnson here we come.
That awareness resulted in me re-reading Max Hasting's comments on Johnson. Hastings knows Johnson well. He was his editor on the Telegraph. And he is a Tory, of course. He said of Johnson:
Why should he not be prime minister? Why should Boris not be the man to leap forward and save party and country from the dark forces? My own answer is that if the mayor of London is the answer, there is something desperately wrong with the question.
It is hard to disagree. He added:
Most politicians are ambitious and ruthless, but Boris is a gold medal egomaniac. I would not trust him with my wife nor — from painful experience — my wallet. It is unnecessary to take any moral view about his almost crazed infidelities, but it is hard to believe that any man so conspicuously incapable of controlling his own libido is fit to be trusted with controlling the country.
And:
His chaotic public persona is not an act — he is, indeed, manically disorganised about everything except his own image management. He is also a far more ruthless, and frankly nastier, figure than the public appreciates.
He also suggests he is happy to resort to blackmail. And then continued:
I would not take Boris's word about whether it is Monday or Tuesday.
But the killer comment is more general, and could have applied to every candidate in the Tory leadership campaign, barring (maybe) Rory Stewart:
I knew quite a few of the generation of British politicians who started their careers in 1945 — the likes of Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Edward Heath, Enoch Powell and Iain Macleod. The common denominator among them all, whatever their party, was that they entered politics passionately believing they could change things. They were serious people. It does not matter whether they were wrong or right — almost all of them had real beliefs.
Today most aspirant politicians of every party have not a personal conviction between them. They merely want to sit at the top table, enjoy power, bask in the red boxes and chauffeur-driven cars, then quit to get as rich as Tony Blair.
I think that is true. And if we get the prime ministers we deserve and not those we would desire then maybe Johnson reflects what we deserve for having permitted all the excesses and moral failings of the neoliberal era.
There is only one bit of good news. And that is that Johnson will now have to take responsibility for his failure. And that will surely come. Almost without exception premierships end in failure, and this one surely more assuredly than most.
Which does leave a final question. Will we learn?
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Boy oh boy oh boy, what have ‘we’ done to deserve this utterly useless low life as a PM? Or, come to think of it, the nearly as awful Hunt?
By ‘we’, I mean those of us in the electorate who posess some degree of moral and intellectual integrity. Hasting’s comment on Johnson and his comparison of him with past politicians is depressing in the extreme.
I don’t think you Richard, the non-trolling commentators in here, myself, and a lot of other people I know deserve this wretch as a PM. Certainly, there are others who do; Tory party members and right wing idiots who choose to believe Johnson’s faux Churchillian drivel because they’re too lazy to do a bit of research into history, economics or politics.
We only get to choose from what the parties (or their backers pulling the strings) put in front of us. MPs are a reflection of the narrow strata of society which put themselves forward in the game, whatever their motives.
We will only learn as individuals when the pain we suffer from our nations electoral calamities is greater than the personal pain involved in actively engaging in electoral politics ourselves. Most of the electorate will hope that day will never come and from your previous comments on your blog I presume that includes you Richard!
I would rather not engage in politics directly
Even now I do not say never though
Boris Johnson looks increasingly like a shoo-in as the Tory party’s self-destruction candidate.
That the grassroots membership think his roguish charm has prime ministerial potential does not surprise me greatly, because I’m inclined to believe that the party membership is deeply irresponsible in terms of its social connection, but that the parliamentary party might support his candidacy falls somewhere between dismaying and frightening.
Boris has the ‘talent’ to make Nigel Farage look like a contender !!
That is as strong a case for electoral reform as I have read in a very long time.
I agree that personality matters, but constitutional arrangements and voters’ perceptions matter more.
The UK system invests too much power in a quasi-presidential prime minister (shades of Quintin Hogg’s (aka Lord Hailsham) “elective dictatorship” from 40 years ago) and there is an ineffective separation of powers, excessive centralisation of decision-making and an inadequate parliamentary representation of public opinion. (For example, the legacy of the Founding Fathers’ absolute resolve to prevent tyranny enshrined in the US Constitution has imposed considerable restraint on the dangerous Johnson-like buffoon in the White House.)
However, reforming constitutional arrangements is for another day. There’s an Irish saying: “Nà hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb” – a windy day is not the day for fixing the thatch. And Brexit is a big wind. The structural repairs will have to wait until this wind dies down.
But voters’ perceptions matter at all times; as the people have the ultimate authority. Within the total valid poll in the electorate (approx. 30-32 million out of 46 million) the allegiances of new or returning voters replacing those deceased or not voting and the change in allegiance of existing voters (numbering somewhere between 6-10 million in recent elections) generally determine the outcome.
UKIP polled almost 4 million in 2015. The referendum result and the triggering of Art. 50 reduced its vote to just less than 600,000 in 2017. The subsequent debacle had this total (combining the Brexit Party and UKIP) jumping to 5.8 million on a much lower turnout in the European election in May. Out of the 13.6 million votes the Tories received in 2017 more than 12 million voters either sat on their hands or voted for other parties – presumably mainly the Brexit party. It would be surprising if Boris Johnson is not calculating that if he were to deliver Brexit – irresespective of the implications – the vast majority of these voters would return to the Tories. And if there’s a risk they won’t, he’s perfectly capable of cobbling together a deal with Nigel Farage.
In a similar manner, 10.5 million of Labour voters in 2017 either sat on their hands or voted for other parties in 2019. My sense is that far, far fewer of these will return to Labour compared to the number of voters the Tories expect to return to them. In many areas Labour is under greater assault than the Tories from the Lib Dems and the Greens. Many Brexit-supporting former voters will not return. Even if the Brexit-induced chaos that can be pinned on the Tories does actually happen – and this is the favoured outcome of many of those close to Jeremy Corbyn, it is highly unlikely that a sufficient number of voters will view Labour as their saviour – particularly under the current leadership.
It’s a depressing prospect, but the odds appear to be stacking up this way.
It is depressing if you think Labour is the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives. Our first-past-the-post system drives us towards two dominant parties. But as one party seems to have been taken over by activists driving it off to the right, and the other to the left, what are people somewhere towards the middle meant to do? A large number of people are waiting for someone to present an appealing vision to them, something they can believe in and vote for. Perhaps the Greens, perhaps the Lib Dems, perhaps either of the two main parties if they get over themselves and get back to building a party with a broader base.
@Andrew
You say “But as one party seems to have been taken over by activists driving it off to the right, and the other to the left, what are people somewhere towards the middle meant to do? ”
Two points: first, and idea that the gallop to the Right of the Tory Party is the equivalent if the shift to the Left of the Labour Party is very wide of the mark, in my opinion: the Corbyn Labour Party would, set against the spectrum if Attlee’s 1945 Government, be seen to be very much middle of the road; by contrast, Enoch Powell – one of those referred to respectfully by Max Hastings (and what a delight it would be to hear him dissent Boris Johnson’s “unicorn” economics – would be judged to be on the rational left of the current Tory Party, so far has it moved to the extremes, as, for example, in its “hostile environment” and callous ignoring of the Grenfell Tower survivors, many of whom have still not been housed, all justifying the sobriquet of “the Nasty Party”.
Secondly, as to the “centre”, or “the middle”, since Thatcher this have moved increasingly to the Right, so that what was unimaginable before she came to power is now middle of the road. The inestimable Nick Hanauer, an American billionaire entrepreneur had this advice for the Democratic Party – advice applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the Labour Party – that Democrats must reclaim the center by moving hard-left (US “hard Left being UK soft, or even centre, Left”)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/08/14/democrats-must-reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354?__twitter_impression=true
This, of course, is basically what Corbyn’s Labour Party have been doing, shifting the Overton Window more towards the politics that gave us the post-War Attlee settlement, and I would argue that, for all its failings, Labour – beyond and behind the BREXIT racket, which has drowned everything else out – has been trying to do what you ask, and “present an appealing vision to them, something they can believe in and vote for”.
As I’ve said in an earlier post, Labour has sought to bring both Leave and Remain voters together, fashion policy offer to meet the real needs of the 99%.
I’m sure the Greens have too, though their offer is even further drowned out by the BREXIT racket and MSM condescension.
But if both sides are not brought together in a civilised encounter, we will be left with opposing camps – the BREXIT Party, with almost Stalinesque talk of “traitors” and “public enemies”, and the Lib-Dems with “bollocks to BREXIT”, each side effectively dehumanising and dismissing half the electorate.
Would to goodness Gordon Brown were in a position to implement his proposal to suspend Article 50 for a year, and then organise local People’s Assemblies, where both sides could come together and seek to thrash out as far as possible common ground, which could be hen be turned into – informed – proposals that could be put to the electorate in a referendum.
Thanks Andrew
I’d like to reply to the points made by both Andrews individually, but it appears I can only do so in this single comment.
To Andrew (absent a surname), I agree with your main point. Both main parties conspired to scuttle the Lib Dem-promoted AV referendum (which, while far from perfect, would have increased the proportionality of voting outcomes in the Commons) and succeeded. But their success in retaining FPTP meant that they had a responsibility to offer “broad church” policies on both sides of the political and economic divide that still retains its relevance in most countries. It was a responsibility that both shirked.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn by a selectorate of more than half a million members is frequently hailed as a great demonstration of democracy and, recently, is compared unfavourably to the Tories selecting a prime minister from a membership less than one-third of Labour’s membership. But these selectorates are vanishingly small percentages of the total electorate of more than 45 million of whom, by whom and for whon governance should be provided. Governance emanating from a selectorate is not democracy.
To Andrew Dickie, I also accept some of the points you make, but many of those closest to Jeremy Corbyn appear to take the view that America is the evil empire, the EU is its handmaiden, we should ally with those countries who oppose both and by breaking away from America and the EU we can achieve a socialist nirvana.
There now appears to be a clear divide with John McDonnell relying on a small corps of loyal helpers trying to spell out realistic policies along the lines you describe. But he is caught between deep-seated ideological urges and the so-called Consensus Assignment that advances the dominance of monetary policy as the means of guiding and stabilising the economy with fiscal policy used only in extremis for this purpose. However, long term interest rates are in secular decline, globalisation and technological advances have contributed to suppressing the general level of inflation and conventional monetary policy is both ineffective and unnecessary. Yet the supporters of the Consensus Assignment are determined to maintain the dominance of monetary policy which will always trade employment for lower inflation as they resort to QE, negative interests rates, partial abolition of notes and coins and other wheezes to to do so.
This is the key insight of the unfortunately named MMT. During the post-war period up to the ’70s, fiscal policy dominated. Then the pendulum swung towards monetary policy dominance. It’s long past time for the pendulum to swing back.
And I fear it is too late to hope for novel constitutional iniatives such as citizens assembles (depite the fact they have worked quite well in Ireland) to rescue us from the Brexit folly.
Paul writes ‘..But these selectorates are vanishingly small percentages of the total electorate of more than 45 million of whom, by whom and for whon governance should be provided. Governance emanating from a selectorate is not democracy.’
So far so logical – but you don’t follow it to the logical conclusion.
Which is a General Election. When the selectorate has made its mind up of who should Govern, then the electorate of 45 million must be given their democratic choice to?
Our next PM.
Boris Johnson representing the nation in Japan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzqe5z1Jy_M
Boris Johnson representing the nation v Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOivzoRc0I8
…..”He is also a far more ruthless, and frankly nastier, figure than the public appreciates”.
I see Mark Carney is the latest to correct his exuberant belief in his own infallibility: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/brexit-mark-carney-dismisses-boris-johnson-trade-claim-on-no-deal
Indeed
Well said re Labour, Andrew Dickie. As for the intentions and values of the current generation of MPs, a cursory glance at Rory Stewart’s voting record shows his full-throated support for austerity. There is a theory that his leadership bid was really a pitch to become the next Ken Clark as the latter steps down at the next GE i.e. a more liberal centrist potential Tory leader. Which shows how very far to the right the Tories have travelled since 1945.
I fear that a chaotic, fiscally heedless Johnson might revive the economy by running a large deficit and go on to win a general election.
The counter-question I would put to you is, do we ‘learn’ anything these days?
There is fake news, fake facts – populist and fascist – all designed I feel to nip our sub-conscious fears and reinforce our prejudices and opinions.
Many of us don’t learn: we seem to be just manipulated. Why else would an odious lot like the Tories and Farage be in power or doing so well?
‘Learn’ you say? It’s more like ‘react’.
@ PSR – ” … we seem to be just manipulated.”
Of course we are … and have been for a long time.
“The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” – Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist and inspiration for Edwards S Herman and Noam Chomsky’s seminal work ‘Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media’.
The current media phenomena of fake news & the cult of identity politics are simply the next steps along the propaganda primrose path to …. 21st century fascism? Very difficult to combat without the ginormous financial resources available to the perps. Both Chomsky and Chris Hedges advocate peaceful public demonstrations (viz. Hong Kong, Gilets Jaunes, et al.), which I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of in future.
I hope so
John D
I’m not stating the obvious because it is not obvious to enough people that being manipulated is the case!
If it were, I would not need to mention it!
Also, remember that Chomsky’s work was written before the advent of the internet as we know it. I think that the manipulation out there is now on an industrial scale – wall to wall – way beyond anything Chomsky was talking about in his original book which I have read. It’s got worse John D.
I am not even convinced that protesting will solve anything either. Governments learnt all about dealing with protestors in the Vietnam War. There was actually a very effective pro-Vietnam War movement supported by the U.S. Government which often gets overlooked that would not seem out of place in Trump’s administration today. We think BREXIT is bad; Vietnam tore America apart and is still felt today.
We protested about the Iraq war here but we still went, still defend our involvement and still have not made Tony Blair accountable for his obsequiousness to the U.S. and lying to Parliament and the British people.
This is what modern warfare within a country looks like. And we all know the old refrain ‘The first casualty of war is the truth’.
The truth about the Mansion House incident is that it was about genuine concerns about the environment; already it is now about a thuggish male Minister of State versus a defenceless female and is already turning into a ‘you can never be sure if you are dealing with terrorists so it is always best to over react and ask questions later’ sort of argument which chimes nicely with the ideas we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan such as preemptive strikes before the other side has fired a shot, ‘civilian combatants’ and other ways and means of getting past international law attempting to govern conflicts.
These are really dark times we are entering.
The logic I now hear is that a fascist killed Joe Cox
So we must assume everyone is a fascist and stop all protest
The fascists will win in that case
In response to your question… I very much doubt it as far as the UK is concerned. In Scotland, however, we have a different situation where we have a Scottish Govt. which is doing its best – nobody’s perfect… The SNP have been in control for a good number of years now &, in general, are doing a very good job with the support of the Greens but hampered mainly by lack of the necessary powers to fully control the finances…. I’m not going to get into GERS or owt like that but we need the full powers which only Independence will bring to get us out of the mess which has been created by Westminster’s ‘management’
I agree…
Unfortunately there are signs that the Tories are actively trying to undermine the Scottish Parliament. The other day Mundell (the Secretary of State for Scotland – which is his job title but doesn’t describe how he acts) announced the opening of new offices for the UK in Scotland, with the proposal to hire 2900 civil servants. With a staff that size it’s obviously not just a PR exercise, and where’s he going to get them, other than denuding Holyrood of its civil service support? There are reports that the new organisation will channel UK Gov investment in Scotland and, given the Scottish Gov’s restricted budgets and borrowing powers, it implies that Holyrood will be squeezed out of its role in the governance of Scotland.
The majority of Scots believe Scottish governance has improved since devolution, so quite how the Scottish public will react to an undermining of the devolution they fought so hard to get and have supported ever since is an interesting question. Civil disobedience on a grand scale is not unlikely.
It’s odd that it is not just youth thinking civil disobedience is likely – I am aware that you and I are of a certain age Ken
In response to Richard’s post at 8:30pm to my earlier post: the Scots had a long and hard battle to establish devolution and won’t give it up easily if the Tories marginalise and undermine the Scottish Parliament. If faced with that possibility and, given that the movement towards independence has been characterised by peaceful behaviour on the pro-independence side, I think it unlikely that violent unrest might occur. However, I suspect that does not preclude widespread and organised civil disobedience if that’s what it takes to stop our fledgling democracy being wiped out.
As a postscript to my posts above, here are some further thoughts on the proposals by the UK Gov to increase its presence and to start developing its own investment proposals in Scotland:
1. The mere presence of a significant UK Gov presence is likely to interfere with the governance by the elected Gov of Scotland.
2. The UK Gov will make its policy and investment decisions for political reasons and not necessarily in the best interests of Scotland or its people.
3. This could easily lead to UK Gov acting contrary to Scottish Gov policies (for instance nuclear power generation, immigration policy etc).
4. The value of UK Gov investments and the costs of running their Scottish operation will almost certainly be deducted from the block grant allocation which funds the Scottish Gov’s spending.
5 This would inevitably result in an undermining of the Scottish Gov’s policies and governance, leading to confrontations.
6. It’s a racing certainty that these costs will be “charged” to Scotland in GERS and form part of the supposed “Scottish Fiscal Deficit”.
7. It could also lead to the cessation of the Barnett Formula processes by which Scotland’s supposed share of UK investment spending is calculated (this is regularly mooted by the Tories).
8. Mundell talks of having 2,900 civil servants to support this new venture, but where will he find them other than by transferring them from civil servant support for the Scottish Parliament?
9. The Tories loathe the idea of devolution and it seems likely that they are planning to choke the Scottish Parliament to death and revert to direct rule from Westminster.
It’s pretty obvious that any of these outcomes will raise the ire of the majority of Scots. Polls show that a substantial majority of Scots consider their governance by Holyrood as being markedly better than that of Westminster. It’s also pretty obvious that any diminution of funding to the Scottish Government will imperil its budget and its policies of mitigating (from its own funds) the worst excesses of the Tories’ austerity and welfare policies.
Ken
This is heading to be a blog post now
Richard
Shame Max Hastings could not bring himself to include Tony Benn in his list of those who “entered politics passionately believing they could change things. They were serious people. It does not matter whether they were wrong or right — almost all of them had real beliefs.”. Or concede that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell belong in this group as well.