The Times - UK (2022-06-08)

Who can lead us out of

this age of anxiety?

Alice Thomson

Page 27

Why we shouldn’t write off Johnson just yet

The cabinet backs him and the rebels are a disparate, rudderless faction — meaning the PM is stronger than you think

Comment

doubters. But the immediate cause

of this rebellion — the disastrous

and unethical parties — will have

receded somewhat. Voters will have

integrated them into their opinions

of the government, but they may no

longer be front of mind. MPs may

not have it in the front of their minds

either.

In its place might have come a new

cause of discontent, but it might split

the party differently, reuniting the

prime minister with some of the

rebels even as he loses others. The

issue of lockdown parties united

Jeremy Hunt and Steve Baker. The

next issue may not.

And there will be an election

coming. In a year’s time Downing

Street might plausibly start to argue

it is too late to change. MPs may

conclude it is too late in the cycle to

start making trouble.

Any leader with so many internal

opponents is in trouble. So, of

course, Johnson is in trouble. He’s

been in trouble for ages. And in

the end the trouble might get

him. But for now Boris Johnson

isn’t toast, or over, or a dead man

walking. He’s prime minister. Just

as he was last week and just as he

will be next week.

[email protected]

upon it defeat after defeat until it

collapses, exhausted. This was done

to Theresa May, but she did not

have a majority. And the rebels

shared a cause and an outlook.

Johnson’s opponents do not. This

has been portrayed as a strength

of the rebellion — that the loss of

faith is so widespread. But it could

also be seen as the weakness of the

rebellion: it is too diverse, it lacks

an ideological centre.

None of this matters, of course, if

opposition to the prime minister

turns out to be cumulative.

Observers yesterday were noting

that only 32 more MPs need desert

the prime minister and he is out. But

this depends on those who opposed

him on Monday continuing to oppose

him. And I am not sure they will.

In a year’s time, the prime minister

will indeed have added some further

Jeremy Hunt took a risk but his appeal

to Tories and beyond is not universal

because you just “ought” to, for

everyone else’s sake or because of

some code of honour. That’s one

of the reasons they stuck with him.

So they aren’t likely to change their

mind about it now.

If there had been a cabinet revolt

on Monday, Johnson would probably

have lost. But there wasn’t. Why

would there be one now?

There is, as I have argued before,

a market failure in political coups.

Each individual who rebels takes a

risk, but they aren’t able to guarantee

they will receive the reward for that

risk. So they show loyalty not to the

prime minister but to themselves.

That logic held on Monday and

there is every reason to believe it

will keep holding.

Lots of cabinet ministers want the

prime minister’s job and do not

have much time for the incumbent.

But they are hoping that somehow

the job will come to them, rather

than them having to go for it. And it

will not.

Penny Mordaunt clearly weighed

this all up on Monday. She seems to

have concluded she couldn’t act by

herself and that even the act of

trying to concert opposition would

fail. That is more true now than it

was then, isn’t it? Anyone who

wants it has to risk it, and the risk

calculation doesn’t seem a good one.

The only person who took a risk

on Monday was Jeremy Hunt. And

he, of course, had less to lose

(although not nothing to lose; he

showed courage). As a result the

rebels have gained a leader, which is

important. But Boris Johnson has

gained the fact that the leader is

Jeremy Hunt. Because for all his

considerable capabilities, Hunt’s

appeal to Tories, and indeed to the

country, is not universal.

A skilfully led rebel army could

weaken the government, inflicting

W

hat happens now?
Nothing. Nothing
happens now.
Weren’t you
following? It
happened and now it has stopped
happening. Boris Johnson was prime
minister yesterday and the day
before yesterday, and will now be
prime minister tomorrow and the
day after tomorrow.
I do not share the view that
Johnson is weaker now than he was
last week. What we gained was
knowledge of the size of the
opposition to him, which turned
out to be substantial but not large
enough to depose him. What he
gained in return was a large measure
of protection against forthcoming
difficulties. I think the latter gain
was greater than the former. In
many ways, Johnson is now more
secure in office than he was.
In December I pointed out how
rare it was for prime ministers to be
removed by their party while in
office. It had never happened to
someone who had recently won their
first majority. I argued that removing
a prime minister is harder than it
sounds. This remains the case.
Just as there was last week, there
are two big political problems
ahead for the prime minister. There
are by-elections he seems bound to
lose badly, and there is a report
from the Commons privileges
committee, which could conclude
that he lied to the House and
suspend him from it. Either could,

in normal circumstances, lead to

his resignation. As a result of

Monday’s vote, the by-elections are

substantially less likely to result in

him being ousted. And even the

privileges committee is mildly less

likely to prompt that than it was.

There are consequences to trying

to push out the prime minister and

failing. His allies are right to say that

a win is a win.

The rules now allow him a period

of grace of a year before another

ballot can be held. It is true that the

backbench 1922 Committee can

change its rules. But it should not

be assumed that it will. And at the

very least Johnson has added that

obstacle to those that his opponents

need to overcome.

There has been quite a lot of

comment to the effect that, never

mind the rules, he has to go. And,

yes, I believe he should go. I wish

he would go. I would have voted for

him to go. But he doesn’t have to go.

That was the whole question MPs

were being asked to determine on

Monday. Did he have to go? And

they decided that no, he did not.

I think the chances of him

deciding that, to be a good chap, he

really ought to go are minimal, don’t

you? That’s not who he is, or how

he thinks, or what he has built his

political success upon. If he was that

sort of person, Monday’s vote

wouldn’t have been necessary since

he would already have resigned.

And his support comes largely

from those people who take a

similarly tough view. They, on the

whole, think it weak to resign

In many ways, he is

now more secure in

office than he was

In a year’s time, No 10

might plausibly argue

it is too late to change

Daniel

Finkelstein

red box

For the best analysis

and commentary on

the political landscape

thetimes.co.uk/redbox

@dannythefink

the times | Wednesday June 8 2022 25