Would it do the Tories any favours to bring back Boris Johnson?
Why bring back Boris?
Aside from the desperate panic, many Tories still hold fond memories of his undoubted electoral prowess, albeit that it lies firmly in the past. A full listing would have to include his improbable election as mayor of London in 2008, and subsequent re-election; the 2016 Brexit referendum; and the 2019 general election, which yielded the best parliamentary result since 1987 and the highest Tory vote share since 1979.
So there are warm feelings about the glory days, and a probably vain hope that he and he alone can magically recreate that campaigning success. The strange resurrection of Donald Trump in the United States has also stimulated thoughts of a Johnson return. If he can do it, why not Boris?
Why not Boris?
Well, there's also the indelible memory of Partygate, assorted sleaze stories, chaos, Dominic Cummings, wallpapergate, broken promises on levelling up, the collapse of his government beneath him, the unlawful prorogation of parliament, misleading the late Queen, and being found to have lied to the House of Commons, for which he was sanctioned.
It's also true that by the time his position was becoming untenable in 2022, Johnson was losing local elections and parliamentary by-elections, and his poll ratings were slipping badly. If he couldn't win elections, he was of no further use and had to go. His most grievous disservice to the nation was in making sure that Liz Truss rather than Rishi Sunak succeeded him – she was calculated to make him look good by comparison.
Could be elected leader immediately?
No. He's not an MP, so not eligible.
Could be become an MP?
The classic method, used by Johnson twice before, is to find a safe Tory seat to fight at the next general election. Or somehow exploit or engineer such an opportunity sooner, in a by-election. The trouble is, there is no longer any such thing as a safe Tory seat that is impervious to challenge by Reform UK, even with the charismatic Johnson standing.
If he did get elected, there's also the unfinished business of the three-month suspension imposed on him in the last parliament. Expert opinion varies on whether Johnson's first act as a newly elected MP would be to go away again for three months.
Would he transform the party's fortunes?
Not if the polls are anything to go by. A recent opinion poll did show that Johnson was the only candidate out of himself, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick who as leader might beat Nigel Farage and Reform, but only by a small margin (26 per cent to 23 per cent). Whether it would be worth the upheaval is highly debatable. There are possibly better options – James Cleverly, for example.
Johnson is also closely associated with Brexit and his 'oven-ready deal', and that project isn't as popular as it was. Definitely a wasting asset. Meanwhile, ex-Labour voters, notably in the red-wall seats gained so spectacularly in 2019, still feel betrayed about the failure of levelling up, while pro-Europe moderates in the former blue wall who defected to the Liberal Democrats loathe him.
Would the Tories want Johnson?
In the party, Johnson has collected many enemies, all too willing to tell the world why this untrustworthy, unreliable, cynical and compromised individual would be entirely unsuited to being premier, and even less cut out for the hard slog of being leader of the opposition.
He's always been trouble, and only his ability to win elections overcame the severe doubts about his character. These remain, but it's fair to add that the membership, even as he was being deposed, still loved him – though the MPs might prevent him from getting as far as a members' poll.
Less remarked upon than his supposed campaigning skills are the policy positions that are now deeply disliked among the Tory grassroots, such as net zero; his fiscal incontinence; and the level of legal migration under his famous post-Brexit 'Australian-style points-based system', which reached a record high. Uncharitably, it's been called the 'Boris wave' by his enemies. In a scrap for the right-wing vote with Farage, these would count as weak points.
Could it happen?
If Johnson were brought back, it would be the end of the Conservative Party. Keir Starmer often got the better of him back in the day, and would do so again, while Farage is a formidable rival.
The Tory party is so weak now that it would take more than a Johnson revival to rescue it. Indeed, the very reason why the party did so calamitously in the 2024 general election was its overall record in government – including the many disappointments, scandals and failures during the Johnson administration. In other words, Johnson is part of the problem and not part of the answer.
They need a fresher start, and a rethink on Brexit. The next Tory leader may not even be in parliament yet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
10 minutes ago
- New Statesman
In defence of Lord Hermer
Photo byIn a competitive field the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is the biggest ministerial villain for the right-wing newspapers. Rarely a day passes without the Telegraph, Mail and others screaming about what they see as Hermer's hyper-active interventions within government. Hermer dares to warn ministers that they must act within domestic and international law and his critics fume. 'The least patriotic man EVER to hold high office?' asked former professor turned Reform mouthpiece Matt Goodwin in the Mail over the weekend. None of the media noise would matter that much but for two additional factors. Some anonymous government insiders are quoted regularly echoing the views of the newspapers in their political pages. How can we be insurgent incumbents, they ask with apparently defiant machismo, when Hermer is forever warning us that we cannot do what we need to do to beat Nigel Farage? Inevitably the rise of Reform is the other factor triggering insider briefings. Farage has never been a great upholder of international law if it gets in the way of 'Britain's interests'. A big part of his pitch is his conviction that Britain must leave the ECHR. Like Keir Starmer, Hermer is a world expert on international law, including the ECHR. Apparently No 10's self-described 'insurgent incumbents' are deeply frustrated. Whenever there is speculation about a cabinet reshuffle Hermer's name is cited as one who could or should be sacked. Such an outcome would be calamitous for Starmer and his government, not least because Hermer is an 'insurgent incumbent' as far as that latest, fashionably imprecise term has any meaning at all. He has the confidence and authority to challenge current orthodoxies that have dominated the British media and political culture since Brexit, including an assumption that breaking international law is to be celebrated because it is in Britain's self interest to do so. This is now a mainstream view in parts of the Conservative Party, Reform, as well as the newspapers. The new orthodoxies shaped Boris Johnson's Rwanda policy, a scheme that the courts found violated both international and domestic law. A recent message from Hermer to the government's law officers triggered another outrage in some newspapers partly because he declared: 'You have a key role in helping ministers meet their overarching [legal] obligation while delivering their policy objectives.' What did they expect the Attorney General to state, that they should urge ministers to ignore the legal obligations? It remains staggering that to assert the centrality of the law stirs raging controversy: 'An Attorney General warns ministers of legal obligations… He should be sacked!' Revealingly, those forces touched in some form or other by Hermer's interventions do not share the angry disdain. Senior Tory and Reform figures predicted that all hell would break loose in the Trump administration over the Chagos Islands deal that partly arose from Hermer's reading of Britain's legal obligations. The opposite happened. Trump praised the arrangements. Back in the UK, the Home Office has nothing but praise for Hermer. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, actively seeks his advice and willingly involves him in sensitive decisions. They do not complain that he is actively or naively obstructing policies they wish to pursue. On some highly charged issues, he shows flexibility. He supports the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in her current efforts to reform the ECHR. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some Labour MPs complain that Hermer is hopeless at politics – a failing that becomes more apparent when the Prime Minister struggles with the political demands of high office and the Chancellor realises she is not as skilled as she believed at the near-impossible art of blending politics and economics. But even that common observation doesn't tell the whole story. I am told that Hermer spends more time in the Westminster tea rooms engaging with backbenchers than most Cabinet ministers. Although he is rarely allowed out to do broadcast interviews he did give one recently to the BBC's Henry Zeffman in which he navigated tricky themes with skill, countering the populist onslaughts with the accessible case for his faith in the law. 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'We may comply with it, we may not'… We do. We succeed… Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' That answer from Hermer forms the substantial case for keeping him in position. The willingness to break laws displayed by previous Tory administrations did not lead to boats being stopped or flights to Rwanda taking off. There was no evidence anywhere that lawbreaking helped the UK. Starmer is ruthless enough to sack an old friend like Hermer. But doing so would raise significant questions about his own public identity and sense of self, far more than with other high-profile dismissals under his leadership. As power edged closer before last summer's election, Starmer showed only limited interest in ministerial appointments. He was preoccupied with campaigning, well before Rishi Sunak announced the election date. Sue Gray played a larger role in many junior appointments, consulting with shadow cabinet members and their advisers on who should form the ministerial teams. But Hermer's appointment was Starmer's alone. He wanted him in that role. Those within government who brief against Hermer are, in effect, challenging Starmer's judgment and worldview. The Prime Minister's public voice is often unclear. Is he the leader who warned that Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers,' or the one who later regretted saying so? Removing Hermer would suggest that Starmer had once again ceded power and key decisions to advisers who want him to be someone he is not. The symbolism would be stark. But more than that, his government needs the incumbent insurgents to flourish. Ironically, some of the most distinctive change-makers – Hermer, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson – are being briefed against by those who see themselves as the real insurgents. Yet their version of insurgency amounts to continuity with the recent past: support for Michael Gove's secondary school reforms, alignment with Rishi Sunak's caution on net zero, and a desire to emulate Johnson or Farage on international law. Labour's manifesto was titled 'Change'. It is time to move on from that past. Hermer is among those doing just that. Whatever happens in the reshuffle, the genuine incumbent insurgents should remain in place. [See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce?] Related
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Starmer's punishment beating won't bring Labour MPs to heel
Join the dots and it is not hard to work out what is going on with the punishment announced on Wednesday for seven Labour MPs who voted against the welfare bill. Sir Keir Starmer's personal authority took a major hit a fortnight ago when 127 Labour MPs – one in four – put their names to an amendment blocking his welfare cuts package. A year into power, a Prime Minister who won a House of Commons majority of a similar scale to Sir Tony Blair's was struggling to pass a proposed law he dubbed morally right and fiscally essential. The episode revealed deep failings in Downing Street's political intelligence operation, hubris among the Starmer inner circle and the dangers of rushing through sensitive reforms to save money. Most of it all lit up, in bright technicolour, a newfound willingness of an otherwise pliant Parliamentary Labour Party to speak back to the boss. Something, as they say, had to be done. The 'suspended four' And so we have the first step: four Labour MPs stripped of the whip – meaning they are now forced to sit as independents until further notice – and another three losing trade envoy appointments. Why not action against all 127 Labour MPs who put their name to the rebel amendment? Or all 49 ones who, even after the welfare bill was gutted of almost all savings, still voted against it? The explanation is in the numbers. The former would have wiped out the Government's majority, the latter taken a huge chunk from it. Action on that scale was unthinkable. So a more measured approach was needed, an attempt to show that defying the Prime Minister was not without consequence while also minimising the backlash. And so the four persistent critics of the Government have been singled out and scalped. They had committed 'repeated breaches of party discipline', to use the formal explanation briefed out by the Labour Party. This was true. Rachael Maskell has become one of the most vocal critics of Sir Keir on the Labour backbenches, penning articles about how to rebel and giving interviews about her newfound role as a thorn in the side of No 10. Chris Hinchliff was dubbed 'Nimby-in-Chief' by colleagues, recently leading an amendment to the Government's planning bill – one of Sir Keir's flagship pieces of legislation – to avoid the watering down of environmental protections. He is now tipped to join the Greens. Brian Leishman has hammered ministers over the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery. Neil Duncan-Jordan challenged many cuts, including pushing to postpone the Winter Fuel Payment reduction. But the argument also gave No 10 cover for why many more rebels have not been reprimanded. Only those who crossed over some unspecified extra threshold got slapped down. We have seen this play before. In fact, just a year ago, when seven Labour MPs were stripped of the whip after voting to end the two-child benefit cap, defying the Government whip. It was a divide and conquer tactic. Four eventually returned to being Labour MPs, two remain on the naughty step as independents and the seventh – Zarah Sultana – has quit the party, vowing to start her own Left-wing movement. The message being sent is not subtle. 'Shoot one to educate thousands', as a former member of Team Starmer put it on Wednesday. But will it really work? PM under threat from Reform The Starmer of July 2024 is not the Starmer of July 2025. The former was at the height of his political power, having swept into office weeks earlier on a wave of anti-Tory sentiment, ending the party's 14 years all at sea in opposition. Now, Downing Street is struggling to show it has a plan for stopping Reform's poll-topping support surge which has got scores of Labour MPs in narrowly won seats jittery. Indeed, the real bite of the welfare rebellion came not from it being the 'usual suspects' but that concerns about the cuts package were so widespread they could be found across Labour's many factions. Will Dame Meg Hillier, the widely respected chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee who led the negotiating delegation to discuss the terms of the Government's climbdown, hesitate from rebelling again after this disciplinary action? There is no evidence to suggest the answer is yes – especially given she has escaped any telling off herself. Will Vicky Foxcroft, who was so opposed to the hastily put together welfare plan that she resigned as a Government whip, bite her lip in a repeat scenario because of this whips action on Wednesday? Unlikely. Cabinet overhaul Indeed, there was an immediate backlash from the Left – vows of 'solidarity with the suspended four' and howls of 'outrage' – that suggests in the short-term things will be more, not less, turbulent. More changes to right what went wrong with the welfare package are coming. No 10 is seeking advice and mulling over a summer 'reset'. An overhaul of Downing Street personnel, reforms to the machinery of Government and a ministerial reshuffle are all now widely expected ahead of the September party conference. The breadth, speed and scale of a shake-up – and whose Government careers are left in the bin – is all to be determined. But if the Prime Minister thinks a punishment beating of just seven of the 127 Labour MPs who defied him over welfare will bring this rebellious backbench to heel, he may be in for a nasty surprise.
BBC News
10 minutes ago
- BBC News
Newcastle City Council bullying investigation costs reach £74k
An unfinished investigation into a bullying complaint made against a former council leader has so far cost more than £74,000.A senior local authority director made the allegation last September against Nick Kemp, who was leader of Newcastle City Council at the investigation into the complaint, which was commissioned by the council last November and is being carried out by an external law firm, is yet to were told on Tuesday its findings were now expected to be delivered in August, following concerns about the length of time it was taking to complete, and that the probe had already resulted in a bill totalling tens of thousands of pounds. Mr Kemp, who resigned as leader in September and later quit the Labour Party, has denied any complaint against the Byker councillor was made by Michelle Percy, the council's director of investment and growth. 'Far too long' Council solicitor Helen Wilson confirmed the current running cost of the investigation was £74,632.50, plus said the inquiry into the bullying complaint had been a "significant undertaking" requiring interviews with multiple individuals and a "large amount of information" being gathered, and said she hoped a final report would be issued to the council's monitoring officer in a breach of the council's code of conduct was found, then the matter would be referred to a special hearing in front of the audit and standards committee to decide what action to take, she added. The committee's independent chair, Les Watson, said the situation had "gone on far too long" and that he wanted to move quickly once the final report is Kemp, who was replaced by Karen Kilgour in the leader role, said at the time of his resignation that he "strenuously" refuted any allegations of long-serving councillor and five colleagues all quit Labour in November 2024, in doing so wiping out the party's majority in the council chamber, and now sit as members of an East End and Associates Independents group. Follow BBC Newcastle on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
