The Observer
09.01.22 41Practically everyone has a view on
Boris Johnson. Far fewer have much clue what binds
Johnsonism together or even if this is a meaningful
taxonomy at all. Whether a leader has an “ism” to their
name does not always matter very much in the scheme of
political success. Blair’s “traditional values in a modern
setting” could just as easily be described the other
way round, but the blend was the point. Among Tory
progressives, the Cameron era is lauded by rose-tinted
memories as a much clearer ideological prospectus than
the pragmatic pick-and-mix it was.
And yet the quest to understand what Johnsonism
means looms larger at the start of 2022 as the prime
minister faces resistance to Covid-era restrictions in
his ranks. The introduction of the vaccine passport
limiting access to big events to the jabbed has infuriated
traditional allies, leaving the PM’s loyalists crossing
fi ngers that the calculation of modest restrictions pays
off if the Omicron variant declines in the next few weeks.
If, as one of his oldest friends and backers put it to me,
his present curse is that “Tories think he is doing unTory
things ”, he can change those things. Or alternatively, he
can explain his narrative more persuasively to keep his
internal coalition intact and avoid more uprisings of the
kind that left him relying on Labour votes to get his latest
Covid measures through the Commons before Christmas.
Covid management dominated the end of the year, but
the twin squeezes of infl ation and soaring energy bills
have moved higher up the worry list as the Commons
returned last week. That provided the political box-offi ce
highlight of the week : a t prime minister’s questions,
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, stood in for Keir
Starmer. The result was a zesty Beatrice-versus-Benedict
encounter Shakespeare might have applauded: “Disdain
and scorn ride sparkling in her eyes.” Rayner hit a nerve
with a question that might well be on Tory MPs’ minds
too. The 2016 version of Johnsonism had highlighted
potential “Brexit dividends”, including the ability to vary
or remove VAT rates, currently at 5% on fuel bills. So
why not do so? That was the subject of a long debate in
cabinet too and the result remains in the balance.
Surging global energy price rises are bedevilling
leaders across Europe and while the energy price cap
has given consumers some protection this winter, many
household fuel bills will double by April – the time
when national insurance rises will also kick in and May
elections will look like a punishing mid term test.
This impending “Krakatoa moment”, as one minister
put it, means that priorities (cutting NHS waiting lists)
collide with a pledge the PM gave his colleagues after
the budget to avoid further tax rises to pay for more
spending. These choices are also consolidat ing fresh
alignments in the Conservative party. The north-west
MP Jake Berry has just accused the chancellor, Rishi
Sunak, of introducing “stealth tax” – his rises will affect
well over one million taxpayers on the basic rate.
The demand MPs are fi nding in their inboxes,
replacing pre-Christmas outpourings of anger about
No 10 social gatherings, is for a swift announcement on
some form of help to offset the domestic hit of oil energy
prices. Unusually, Johnson and Sunak share the same
caution on the “simple” solution of removing VAT on
energy bills. The PM is wary of a cut that would be both
small and poorly targeted, benefi ting consumers with
bigger homes; he would rather means-test any relief.
Sunak, too, wonders whether removing a relatively
small VAT component from household bills would not
get the government much thanks. But more targeted
relief for poorer households inevitably leaves those
just above thresholds aggrieved. While the government
equivocates about options, Labour can wield pressure
on a subject it knows gets the electorate’s attention.
More than any other present-day politician in Britain,
Johnson understood a shift in relations between the
public and politicians, namely that swing voters were
unbothered by inconsistencies so long as they liked the
bearer of the message and his eclectic mix of attitudes.
The Johnson I have known since his university days
has repeatedly applied a vigorous cocktail shaker of
aspects of various political philosophies to his purpose.
His stump speeches condemned footling bureaucracy
whether in Whitehall, local councils or Brussels as
constraining innovation and prosperity. In practice,
during his exercise of power in two terms as London
mayor , very often his quest was for more money from
government for grands projets.
The objection to criticism of Johnson as a
caricature of Tory stinginess is that he has, in
fact, turned out to be rather fond of spending
other people’s money. And that is the pain point
now, as the emergency period of Covid abates
and decisions about wider spending priorities
cannot be fudged or delegated. The “conversion
to (higher-tax) Brownism” is now a frequent jibe
from disappointed fi scal hawks, which must be an
enjoyable moment for the former Labour chancellor
to savour.
It is true that Johnsonism remains an edifi ce built on
a complex construction of paradoxes. A free wheeling
UK that has shaken off EU constraints via the Brexit he
championed ends up raising the minimum wage and
the signs are that levelling up will endorse the European
habit of guiding industrial policy towards investment in
stressed regions. A plan to “rouse Britain in the world” as
a mercantilist revival has so far not offset a sharp fall of
imports and exports relative to comparable countries.
A burst of spring infl ation plus an energy squeeze
sounds like the most miserable bits of the 1970s in
one inglorious go. Any leader would struggle with that
prospect and the challenge is of allocating resources
between an NHS in need of funds or help directed tovoters via tax relief or offsets to fuel bills. With a party
divided between those who see looser spending as
inevitable and those who see it as a betrayal of fi scal
discipline, Johnson fi nds himself riding two unruly horses
pulling in opposite directions. These differences can be
managed, but to do so the tousled helmsman will need to
explain which recipe for “cake-ism” he has plumped for.
If there is a philosophical core to the Johnsonian creed
in power it is “unite and level up” the country. It was the
centrepiece pledge of the PM’s conference speech – “ the
magic sauce – the ketchup of catch-up”.He might propose in the
poetry of Edward Lear, but levelling up in practice means
governing in the prose of local devolution, including to
parts of the country controlled by rivals. Michael Gove
has been entrusted with the detail, working with Neil
O’Brien, a shrewd import to the No 10 policy unit with a
solid track record in exploring ways to address regional
imbalances. Of the everlasting Johnson-Gove frenemy
relationship, one veteran who has worked for both notes
that “Boris treats Michael like the swotty boy whose
essays he borrows in a hurry for exam time”.
That exam deadline is getting closer if the
resulting legislation is to have real impact before
the next elections in stressed parts of the country
and boost the Tories’ hopes of retaining the
trophy seats they won from Labour at the last
election. Winners and losers will soon become
apparent, personal affi nities and aversions
too. Ministers like working with Dan Jarvis ,
the affable Labour mayor in South Yorkshire,
but fi nd Andy Burnham in Manchester “trying
because he’s on a permanent war footing”. The
reality is that “re balancing” the country will demand
that ministers and mayors of different politics fi nd
ways to pursue common interests.
Most likely, the delayed launch of the draft legislation
in December was driven by a desire to avoid a keystone
policy colliding with headlines about rule-breaking
parties and probes into Johnson’s foolish handling of an
expensive domestic refurbishment. Much more delay
though will make levelling up look like a metaphor in
search of a meaning. The redistribution of opportunity,
education and affl uence can help fi ll out the hollowness
at the heart of the Johnsonism. Tick tock.Anne McElvoy is senior editor at the EconomistOnly levelling up can save Johnsonism
from being little but a hollow creed
Anne
McElvoy
Boris Johnson
has repeatedly
applied a
cocktail shaker
of aspects of
various political
philosophies to
his purpose.Andrew Rawnsley returns next week