Miles Bennington
Operations Director, Chamber UKIn his seminal The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot identified the dignified and the efficient parts of the UK’s Government. This week’s excruciating drama of the Conservative Party trying to extricate Boris Johnson from Number 10 has shown precious little efficiency and not a shred of dignity.
In contrast to his predecessors Johnson has shown no deference to the nation, the state or his party. He has clung on tenaciously to his own power. Parallels have rightly been drawn to Donald Trump and these go far deeper than unusual hair styles.
Unlike most other leaders, each of these men have drawn on narrow and ephemeral power bases to launch themselves to the premiership. For Trump it was a large enough slice of the Republican party, angry and resentful but enough to beat a divided field of more mainstream candidates. For Boris it has been a paranoid section of Brexiteer backbenchers ever watchful of a Remainer plot to undo his signature policy.
In both cases they came to power with the promise of wrecking the establishment and if necessary the constitution with it. Trump would “drain the swamp” and Boris to “get Brexit done”. They have both lost power as reality has carved into their simplism and the promises it birthed. Brexit is not done, the wall is not built.
Talent Wasted
Unlike Trump who’s ascent was clearly a sign of the times, Boris is a real political talent who would have risen to the top irrespective of political circumstance. Capable of uniting people with the same skill he has divided them. In his unreflective resignation speech he defended his poll rating, his performance and overall his majority. He did win the healthy majority that has eluded every other PM since Blair. It is also worth remembering that he was the Tory who comfortably won two terms as Mayor of Labour-voting London. He is an extraordinary political talent.
It is not hard to imagine a world where a magnanimous Boris won the leadership election triggered by Brexit and David Cameron’s resignation. Where he appointed a Government of all the talents from across the Conservative Party. Where he settled on a soft-Brexit and used his clout as Brexit leader to get it past the right of the Conservative Party. Where he used his undeniable charisma to sell it to the British public and finally moved the Conservatives past the Europe issue.
Sadly, but all too predictably, as Michael Gove clearly saw in 2016, his weaknesses have overpowered his strengths. With the exception of his time as Mayor, he has been brought down over and over again due his lack of grip, his poor judgement and his belief that the rules do not apply to him. In many ways they haven’t, but now he has tested them too far.
This political giant has sadly wasted his time in office leaving his country, Government and party bitterly divided and headed into rough waters.
After Boris?
On the face of it the Conservative Party is now in an ideal position to recover. The party has significant talent on the bench, a solid majority, a cause to fight in Eastern Europe and an anaemic opposition facing numerous structural disadvantages.
In truth, the next leader and PM will face a huge challenge. The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years now. Even with the summary ejection of 21 of their MPs the party is still bitterly divided over Brexit. Wrangling over the Northern Ireland Protocol will test a new PM and whatever the outcome it will be bound to alienate half the party, similarly the Rwanda solution to migrant boats is ripe to be jettisoned but has now been defended by much of the parliamentary party publicly.
The party will need unity as the economic indicators all turn red and there is little financial leeway to alleviate a drop in living standards even if spending money would not stoke inflation. It is a daunting prospect for any PM, let alone one serving out someone else’s mandate.
Final Thought
Could the fall of Boris signal the end of strongmen and the rebirth of institutions? British politicians are now facing large, complex problems that will require years or decades of careful institutional husbandry to fix.
Climate change, inflation, the global struggle for democracy, migration and even levelling up. These are challenges more suited to leaders who will quietly and diligently build up institutions we can put our faith in. Men who will take responsibility when those institutions fall short. Women who will trudge on for years in dull meetings, dragging the country towards the required solution.
These are not problems that will reward the charismatic, witty and combative leaders, who enjoy the scrum and spar across the dispatch box with a twinkle in their eye. British politics is good at producing these sorts of leaders but perhaps it is time for it to produce the opposite.