Politics: bang to rights

By Richard North - April 13, 2022

To no-one’s surprise at all, Boris “I have satisfied myself that guidelines were followed at all times” Johnson is refusing to resign. Despite having been fined by the Met Police for a “partygate” offence, he seems to think that an apology is sufficient to get him off the hook.

Even though he has broken the law and breaking the law is a resigning matter, apologists, such as Tory MP Roger Gale, support his stance. The situation in Ukraine, he says, means that now is not the time to try and topple the prime minister. Such a move would give Putin “comfort” as it would “destabilise the coalition” against Russia.

North Leicestershire Tory MP, Andrew Bridgen – one of Johnson’s sternest backbencher critics, and one who handed in a letter of no-confidence in the PM earlier this year – has ducked the issue, saying: “’This is not the time to remove the PM given the international situation”. He did, however, remark that this was “not the end of this matter”.

Former Tory leader, Ian Duncan Smith, rushes into print in the fanboy gazette in an attempt to widen the scope of the appeal. He declares that “Britain faces a series of national crises”, arguing that “this is the worst possible time to create a vacuum in Westminster”. He fails to mention, though, that Johnson is responsible for many of those crises.

Unsurprisingly, Jacob Rees-Mogg just offers his unconditional support, but also invokes the “war leader” trope. “There is a war on”, he says. “The prime minister, supported by the chancellor, provides the leadership the nation needs”.

The “nation”, of course, isn’t being given a say in the matter. Johnson has got his alibi sorted and nothing will move him short of a vote of no confidence from his own MPs. That, for the moment, seems unlikely, although things can change.

What might make the difference is the overall result of the local elections on 5 May. If, as expected, the Tory vote takes a dive, and the prospects for the general election start to look a bit dodgy, his own MPs could turn on him as they look to protect their own seats.

As for Sunak, he is very much in the frame, having also been fined by the plod. It remains to be seen, though, whether this multi-millionaire and his mega-rich non-dom wife believe it is still worth the hassle for him to stay in the political game.

Little Rishi, it seems, has a lot more to hide than at first appeared, like the small detail of his wife’s daddy’s firm successfully bidding for a £50 million government contract. It seems that the chancellor didn’t record the family link on his parliamentary declaration of interests, thereby lodging it in the public domain.

Given the rumours that he was dobbed-in by the prime minister in the first place, there is some speculation that Rishi will extract his revenge in a highly public manner and then depart rapidly to fresher fields in the United States, leaving Johnson surrounded by the wreckage of his career.

For the moment, therefore, Ukraine is about all Johnson has to keep him afloat. Every other aspect of his administration is a train wreck and it is only by exploiting the fortuitous distraction of Ukraine has he been able to head off what, only a few months ago, looked like certain political death.

What then he must surely be gambling on is the “halo effect” from his support of Zelensky. Effectively, he is trading on his reputation as a “war leader”, arguing – as his sycophants are already doing – that the international situation demands his special “skills”.

While that ploy might keep the parliamentary wolves at bay for a while, and subdue the worst of the media commentary, it does mean that Johnson’s fortunes for the immediate future depend on the progress of the war, and indeed on that war continuing.

Should the war suddenly be resolved, or a cease-fire negotiated, his USP (such that it is) will evaporate and he will no longer be able to use it as a political shield. Therefore, it could be argued that we have a prime minister who has a vested interest in a prolonged war.

That alone rather negates any claim that political continuity is vital. We have currently in Johnson a man who has taken a consistently bellicose stance, supporting Zelensky in his battles with the Russians, while showing hardly any interest in brokering a cease fire.

In fact, Johnson’s very bellicosity has excluded the UK from any role as peacemaker. We are now dependent on the good offices of other nations, such as Turkey and, in any peace process, we are almost cast as co-belligerent. That would consign us to the margins – spectators rather than active participants.

Without even this issue, it is already the case that most people think that Johnson (and Sunak) should resign. That much emerges from a YouGov snap poll which has 57 percent of those questioned wanting him to walk.

By contrast, only 30 percent want the prime minister to remain in office which, when the “don’t knows” are excluded, gives a split of 66-34 percent – nearly 2-1 in favour of his departure.

Typically of the self-centred Tories, though, only 25 percent think he should resign while 64 percent would have him stay, reversing by a wide margin the sentiment of the general electorate.

Interestingly, 55 percent of Conservatives accept that Johnson knowingly lied about breaking lockdown rules, as opposed to 24 percent who think otherwise. By far the majority of Tory voters, therefore, would appear to be content with having a liar for a prime minister, while a significant proportion are in denial about his mendacity.

For the record, 93 percent of Labour voters believe that Johnson lied (bringing the “general population” score to 75 percent). Thus, on the straightforward matter of whether the prime minister should resign over “partygate”, the nation is split down party lines.

On the far more complex issue of his performance a “war leader”, it would almost certainly be harder to get a clear message from the electorate, not only because of the complexity but also because of the emotive overlay and the long-ingrained antipathy towards Russia, reinforced by recent behaviour.

Nevertheless, as recently as 3 March, YouGov was reporting that Ukraine had not made any significant difference to Johnson’s popularity.

Then, the prime minister had a net favourability rating of -36, an increase of just three points from the survey on 17-18 February. Two-thirds of the public (64 percent) had an unfavourable opinion of the prime minister, with just 28 percent seeing him in a positive light.

Possibly though, there had been an effect in preventing his rating going into free fall, as the cost of living and energy crises began to bite, on top of all the other policy disasters. The war has conveniently dampened publicity on many other issues, keeping them off the front pages or limiting their exposure.

Yet, by the time we get to a general election – which could be as early as next year – the situation in Ukraine might be more stable. Even if that just amounts to the war having become bogged down in an attritional slogging match, it will probably have dropped off the front pages, and no longer dominate the political agenda.

And even with the war currently still at high intensity, as Russian troops pour into Donbass, this hasn’t kept “partygate” off today’s front pages. Such is the high level of coverage that it is hard to discern that media interest would have been any less had war not broken out. Ukraine has almost disappeared.

It is possible that media interest will abate more rapidly than it would otherwise have done, especially as parliament is deserted for the Easter break, starving the issue of political oxygen. But, even if the tempo of the Ukraine war does displace the publicity, people won’t be voting on that issue in the May elections – and there is still the final Sue Gray report to come.

Furthermore, by next year, the full impact of the various crises will have been felt more keenly, and there is another energy price hike waiting in the wings. Even if Johnson had taken out Putin single-handedly on the field of battle, and brought the war to a halt, voters would look to punishing him.

Thus, while in the next day or so, “Teflon Boris” may look to have got away with it once again, the net is gradually closing. When it comes to a point where Tory MPs sense that even Starmer looks more attractive (or less unattractive) than Johnson, they may act to save their own skins.

Even the fanboy gazette reckons that, regardless of whether Johnson or Sunak resign, the chances of either being in place by the time of the next general election have diminished.

Sadly, we may then find that we have been overtaken by a rule of politics which seems to have become a dominant theme. This states that, just as you think that the current leader is the worst prime minister ever, the next one along is even worse.

Whatever the future holds, it does not look to be brighter.