Some commentators hoped that Boris Johnson, having secured a five-year mandate in the General Election, would embrace a softer Brexit than his rhetoric implied. They were mistaken. Johnson seeks power for power’s sake, writes Phil Syrpis (University of Bristol), and rejects scrutiny and constraint.
Last July, I argued that Boris Johnson’s aim was not to deliver Brexit by October 31, but rather ‘to establish a narrative to enable him to win a pre-Brexit general election’. Were he to win an overall majority ‘he would be able, in the new political context, to reconsider his Brexit options’. The argument was that his decision making then was motivated not so much by conviction (for example in relation to Brexit), but rather by the pursuit of power and the intoxicating possibilities of a five-year term in office.
In the intervening months he has confounded the predictions of many (myself included) by agreeing a new Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. But he did not make any serious attempt to pass the necessary domestic legislation through the last Parliament. Instead, he ‘reluctantly’ sought a General Election, and went on to win a comprehensive majority, and to pass the legislation. Brexit is done. He keeps reminding us of that. But the rather more significant task of building a new relationship with the EU and the wider world – on trade and beyond – remains.
Johnson now has a free hand to fashion that new relationship. The big decisions are his, and those of the advisors and Cabinet he has selected. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are unable to provide opposition worthy of the name. They are looking inwards, struggling to come to terms with the scale of their defeat. For now, Johnson enjoys huge support within his own party, though there are signs (witness the departure of Sajid Javid, and some rumblings from the ERG wing) that he might find it hard to maintain discipline.
In the aftermath of the general election, many commentators predicted that Johnson would soften his Brexit stance and seek to develop a ‘deep and special’ partnership with the EU. A range of factors seemed to lend credence to such a view. With Brexit done, and the referendum mandate (at least arguably) exhausted, would he not choose the least economically disruptive path, ensuring that he would have the ability to deliver on his pre-election spending promises? Does he not have to appeal to ‘red wall’ voters, and the new tranche of Conservative MPs who represent them in Parliament? Wasn’t he, and I’m not quite sure what people are reading into this one, rather more liberal than expected during his time as London mayor?
It now seems clear that he has no intention of softening his Brexit stance. His actions as Prime Minister can best be understood through the lens – again – of power.
He has sought, in a range of ways, to minimise Parliamentary scrutiny of his actions. He has plans for the judiciary, both in terms of its composition, and its ability to hold the government to account via judicial review. He attacks the BBC and the civil service. He treats the devolved governments with barely disguised contempt. Institutions which serve as ‘checks and balances’ against executive power are systematically undermined, because they might object to things he might want to do. It seems that we are dealing with a Prime Minister who is interested in power for power’s sake.
His impulse is to reject constraint. We see that in his repeated attempts to insist, in the face of the clear wording of the Withdrawal Agreement, that there will be no checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea (‘they’ can’t force ‘us’ to do what we don’t want to do). We see it also in the rejection of ‘level playing field’ conditions in any free trade agreement with the EU. He wants to be able to do things his way – and expects others to bow to his will. The simple fact that a deal with the EU will not be attainable, unless it is also perceived by the EU to be in the EU’s best interests, seems to escape him. As he knows, the EU is concerned about the integrity of its single market. It is not clear to me why it would accede to the UK’s request for its goods to have access to the EU markets, given the UK’s determination to have the freedom to diverge from EU standards, and its refusal to embrace institutional and governance arrangements to enforce any agreement (and here, of course, the refusal to abide by the commitments he has made in the Withdrawal Agreement sets a terrible precedent).
These trends are profoundly alarming. We have a Prime Minister who rejects scrutiny and constraint. He is showing himself to be reckless about the consequences of his actions, and uninterested in the people and business groups most affected by his policies. All the while, he is constructing a narrative that he is delivering ‘the will of the people’, standing up for ‘our’ interests in the face of the threats created by others. It appears to be working. He reacts opportunistically, seizing on missteps by the EU, immigrants, the BBC and the police to further his agenda. If his policies don’t work, he will ensure that failure is blamed not on him, but on ‘others’. Fringe ideas (for example in relation to eugenics and criminal justice reform) which seem calculated to deepen divisions between his base and his opponents, emerge with almost dizzying regularity. Some catch on, others do not – either way, the Overton window shifts. It is, as Fintan O’Toole reminds us, not an unfamiliar strategy.
For now, everything seems to be in his favour. The transition period, which ensures that EU law rights and obligations remain in place til the end of 2020, and which is insulating the UK from many of the effects of Brexit, is used as a pretext to pour scorn on ‘project fear’. But the transition period will soon end. And then we will begin to see how the policies which he has chosen, free from the strictures of the EU, perform. The early signs are not encouraging. He has to create new trade relationships with the EU and the wider world, a new migration policy, and much, much more – essentially, to find a productive use for the UK’s ‘newly rediscovered sovereignty’.
There is a temptation for the opposition to watch and wait for the Johnson project to implode. It may be that the opposition (and we need to think carefully about who that is, and how the various opposition voices can make common cause) is simply not capable of doing more. But it must. It must work to establish the connections between Johnson’s bad choices and the bad outcomes which those choices are creating. It must work to create a different narrative for the UK, in which the values of community, diversity, inclusivity and internationalism are celebrated. And it must work tirelessly to seek to change people’s minds, seeking to shift the focus to the things which unite us (rather than as Johnson does, to stoke division).
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor LSE.
Very insightful article. I think Boris Johnson is about to discover that his brand of politics is like the boy’s butterfly – it is a pretty sport to chase it; but bruise its wings by an over-earnest grasp, and it is nothing but a disappointment.
That disappointment may manifest itself a lot sooner than many think. It is the reason I agree with you when you write that the opposition “must work to create a different narrative for the UK, in which the values of community, diversity, inclusivity and internationalism are celebrated.” For what it’s worth, Johnson’s stonking majority at the just concluded general election might be a blessing in disguise; for his majority win may serve as the impetus needed for the opposition parties to unite and work together, speaking with one voice in order to bring out change that is so desperately need. For as much as the sway of the pendulum of British politics throws one way, so much it will throw the other way; it therefore behoves the opposition to nudge the pendulum back in the embrace of social democratic values.
Yes. An excellent article. Hope Philip Syrpis would give a Dissertation re. “What the SNP should do to (a) Rejoin the EU and/or (b) achieve more sovereignty from England; or break-up the so-called “Union”.
Thoughtful and observant article. I also appreciated the rather brilliant comment by Stephen Kamugasa (above). The opposition parties must move forward, overcome their sense of failure, focus on what is required by opposition and work together on this. Mr Johnson, for all his huge majority, is still accountable to the British people, and must be held accountable in Parliament. Without effective opposition Johnson will get away with tyranny. That cannot and must not be allowed to happen.
Thanks. And yes: managing to create an effective opposition will be key. A lot will depend on what the next Labour leader is able to do.
“The Opposition” is no more fit for purpose than the majority in Parliament. Even if the various opposition parties were united (which they clearly are not) neither side has much to say that is useful. The entire parliamentary system has gone beyond usefulness. It has demonstrated time and again an inability to recognise the most basic of inequalities in society, and the most destructive and time critical issue of our day — climate change — is beyond its intellectual grasp. Instead, it’s “same old same old”. Fintan’s article is excellent in its analysis of Johnson’s New Kremlin, but the notion of a functioning Opposition in the context of a functioning Parliament is laughable. More often than not, the government has been checked by our unelected House of Lords who, for all their conservative (with a small ‘c’) bias, at least have a conventional sense of ethics. Of course, amongst all the institutions Vladimir Johnson wants to crush or mould to his own ends, the House of Lords will be the easiest. In a society that lionises faux equality (while simultaneously being blind to the oligarchs in government) it will be simple to identify the House of Lords as another “other”, and schedule it for dismemberment. Meanwhile, Johnson can tweak the balance of power by promoting his friends, as with Zac Goldsmith. The only hope for the correction of this slide into populism is to wrest control *away* from politicians, *away* from the media barons, and place it firmly in the hands of a representative organisation that has the country’s and people’s wellbeing at heart. Such an organisation does not exist in Westminster, nor is Westminster ever likely to create one — there are too many vested interests — but that is the only way forward. Will it happen? No. Why? Because the British electorate are not politically mature enough to see the problem and do something about it. But one thing’s for sure, with the arrival of the People’s Republic Of Little England (PROLE) democracy — such as it was — has died and the cure is not our broken electoral system.
I have heard this analysis quite a few times but this is best summary I have read so far. It is compelling and based on observations, entirely believable.
I would dearly like to hear informed opinion on the likely political implications that stem from this.
Thanks for that; and it is all very well put. I thought that at the last GE, the opposition parties would unite and work together, to protect the UK from an unconstrained Johnson government, but that clearly wasn’t the right time. I’d like to think that they might see it now.
This Prime Minister has been in power for two months, way too early to make any judgement on his performance.
His stance on the eu is a negotiating position, nothing more, and a far more intelligent, worldly-wise, negotiating position , style, it is when compared to that of his predecessor.
The electorate passed their judgement on ‘Blair’s Britain’ and, finally, have declared it, resoundingly, not to their liking.
We must now wait and see what replaces it….but the omens, a constitution, civil service and judiciary reviewed and reformed, the bbc and the rest of the public sector directed to concentrate on value for money, performance, instead of agenda, lower taxes, infrastructure investment, enterprise encouraged and rewarded, seem propitious.
Will this latest incumbent of No 10 be a thoroughly good egg or simply the curate’s version….how can we possibly say, even before his government’s first budget?
I have been posting blogs/tweets for 3 years now on the Uk’s lurch towards the far right, and the adoption of the same nationalism that trundled my paternal grandparents off to Auschwitz. Initially, I was subject to vast Twitter pile-ons. Funnily enough, they are not happening. I do not see how this replication can be stopped. There is NO effective opposition, and all the *new*MPs have signed a prenup. What I find frustrating is that Johnson’s mendacity and duplicity has been hiding in plain sight since before he even became Mayor of London. The UTTER stupidity of those who believed his tawdry promises to ‘get Brexit done’ proves that many in this country are so dumb they couldn’t probably find their own feet without a map. I am a dual national. I shall not be here for much longer.
An excellent article with only one failing that I can see: the concept of a meaningful Opposition voice in Parliament, one that will hold Vladimir Johnson’s New Kremlin to account, is a romantic fantasy. The concepts of “British democracy” have been milked by the new far right in government to exhaustion. We have no representative democracy. The idea that voters will bring about much needed change through our degraded ballot boxes is rooted in a rose-tinted view of our political history. This golden age never really existed and now it’s just an imaginary theme park. Political change is no longer happening through conventional political channels, and opposition to the demagogues who currently pull the levers of power must likewise take place outside Parliament. Representative democracy — if Britain ever had it — is a thing of the past. The system as we think it was is now being reconstructed by Johnson and his clique, without recourse to convention or restraint by law. Opposition must likewise take place without recourse to convention or restraint by law. Knowing the British public, however, I predict (1) we’re likely to see public unrest and violence before political maturity and useful organisation; (2) the government, with its increasing controls over public perception, will erode opposition before it happens and so marginalise rebels; and (3) the violence of the government is, as it always has been, more organised and thereby more coercive than anything a popular uprising could deliver. Only in Hollywood fantasies, from Star Wars to Gladiator, do we see empires significantly threatened by small groups of rebels. In Britain we don’t do rebellion. We keep calm and carry on with being exploited. A united Opposition in Parliament to rescue Britain? Dream on. Best to practice your conformity before the Thought Police read your expression of dissatisfaction in the street. Long live our Glorious Leader! Long live the People’s Republic Of Little England! (PROLE)