Drugs bring power and
cash to failed states
Roger Boyes
Page 34
Staging a coup against Johnson is not so easy
Even now the PM holds the upper hand, not least because a no-confidence vote would prompt ministers to stand by him
Comment
ministers to announce they have
abandoned a prime minister without
knowing if the coup will work. So,
immediately upon a confidence vote
being announced, ministers generally
rush to offer their support. The
incumbent enjoys this big advantage.
Even Theresa May won the vote of
confidence against her.
Setting out the strengths of
Johnson’s position like this, certain
things are obvious. One is that hisstrengths remain substantial but they
are hardly overwhelming. He doesn’t
have the ideological soulmates that
Thatcher had, nor the fear of
Johnson that May could rely on, and
they were both still pushed out.
Another is that it is easy to see
what the prime minister will do next.
In order to remain leader he will
move towards the politics of those
who supported him in the first place.
This will increase their sense that in
being loyal to him, they are
confirming their own rightness. He
will try to increase the feeling among
cabinet ministers they have a lot to
lose if they move against him and get
their timing wrong. Heaping tasks
and power on Liz Truss is a classic
manoeuvre.
And it is clear that the thing
Johnson is most vulnerable to is
scandal big enough and undeniable
enough that it releases everyone else
from their obligations to him.
On the other hand, that’s never
happened to a prime minister either.
But you have to say, he’s working at
it pretty hard.[email protected]there is a market failure in political
coups. Even when an entire party is
certain that it is going to lose the
next election, and that changing the
leader would improve its chances, it
often doesn’t act. The last year of
Gordon Brown is a good example.
Why? Because while the benefits
of a coup are spread among all
of a party’s MPs, the costs are
concentrated on those who mount it.
The Conservative Party leadership
system doesn’t require a challenger.
The leader can be pushed out by a
vote of no confidence prompted by
the requests of 55 anonymous MPs.
And this makes it easier to have
a challenge.
Yet commentary on Johnson’s
prospects often confuse the likelihood
of a challenge being mounted with
the likelihood of a confidence vote
succeeding. It is highly risky forEven Theresa May won the vote of
confidence that was called against herleader, supporting his Brexit policy,
celebrating his election win and
accepting office from him. When she
now sticks up for him, she is being
admirably loyal to Nadine Dorries.
This is the sort of loyalty that can be
relied upon.
Second, there is a sense that a
prime minister who has won an
election has a connection with voters
that other, untried candidates may
not have. In Johnson’s case his
personal popularity was never that
great and his figures now are dire.
Yet the fact that he won a landslide,
having previously won a tricky re-
election campaign as London mayor,
can’t be denied.
There is a sort of nervous feeling
among Conservative MPs that the
very ideological flexibility of Johnson
they most complain about may in fact
be his electoral secret ingredient.
Another leader might bring clarity,
smaller government and an emphasis
on liberty, all the things his
Conservative critics say they want. But
this very clarity might be a loser. Who
knows? It is speculation. Whereas
Johnson’s 2019 victory is a fact.
Third, a prime minister always has
timing in their favour. It is never
quite the right time for a coup.
There’s Covid now, then there will be
Brexit again, then whatever. When
things are at their worst, there is a
national crisis. It is self-indulgent to
have a leadership election when
there is a national crisis. Yet, when
things aren’t at their worst, who
wants to disrupt things then?
In any case, we have only just
come through the period when it was
too close to the last election to start
changing the prime minister who
won it. And very soon MPs will start
worrying that we are too close to
the next election. Timing coups is
a nightmare.
Fourth, and most importantly,B
efore considering whether
Boris Johnson is about to
fall from office, first try
solving this: “Tom W is a
graduate student. Here is a
list of nine fields of graduate
specialisation. Rank in order the
likelihood of Tom W being a student
in these areas.”
Most of us would find this problem
fairly easy to crack. We would work
out which was the most popular
specialisation and mark that top. And
carry on through all nine subjects.
But a funny thing happens when we
learn a bit more about Tom W. Our
ranking often becomes less accurate.
In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow
Daniel Kahneman explains that
when we are given a story about
Tom W’s personality we tend to
forget the big numbers, the courses
people normally choose, and that
can lead us astray.
Something similar is happening
now with predictions of the demise
of Johnson. A compelling narrative
about the imminence of his exit can
lead us to get carried away. It can
lead us to ignore the big number, to
forget how rare and difficult it is for
prime ministers to be removed by
their own parties.
Before I start I want to emphasise a
couple of things. This article is not
saying that Johnson will survive all
his troubles. There is a substantial
chance he will be deposed. And it
does not discuss whether he should
be deposed. I didn’t want him to be
Conservative leader in the first place.
But you can’t make an objective
assessment of what will happen
based on a subjective view of what
should happen.
Having said that, let’s consider
what is known by forecasters as “the
base rate” — the proportion of prime
ministers who have been deposed by
their parties. Since 1900 there have
been 24 prime ministers. Only two of
them, Margaret Thatcher and
Theresa May, have been pushed out
by their parties while in office. It
hasn’t happened to anyone who has
just won their first majority.
In other words, one way of looking
at Johnson being deposed in a party
coup is that it would be rare, another
that it would be unique. As I said,
this doesn’t mean it won’t happen,
but it does mean it is worth
considering the strengths that prime
ministers retain because of their
office. Strengths that are usually
enough to prevent their downfall.
First, there is loyalty. People arefamously ungrateful in politics, and if
loyalty depended upon gratitude, it
wouldn’t be particularly helpful. But
that is assuming that when people
show loyalty, it is to the leader. In
fact the loyalty they show is to
themselves and that loyalty can be
very strong.
By the time a leader is challenged,
many MPs have committed
themselves publicly many times,
praising the sagacity of the leader,
the leader’s great qualities, the
leader’s beliefs. Who wants to say:
“Actually, I’ve been a fool”?
Nadine Dorries has spent years
advancing the case for Johnson to beIn Johnson’s case his
personal popularity
was never that great
Heaping tasks and
power on Liz Truss is
a classic manoeuvre
Daniel
Finkelstein@dannythefink
the times | Wednesday December 22 2021 33