logo
Bring back Boris? Are you having a laugh?

Bring back Boris? Are you having a laugh?

Photo by Chris J. Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Conservative Party is edging ever closer to a full-scale panic. The local elections were expected to be bad, but were worse than expected. Labour is struggling but its voters are turning to every party except the Tories, who have now slipped to fourth in some opinion polls. There is growing concern about the strategy and performance of Kemi Badenoch.
One can make strong arguments against any course of action. Remove Badenoch and the party looks like it has not escaped the psychodrama of the last decade. Keep her, and it looks as if the party is stuck with a dud. Move further to the right and give up on one part of its electoral coalition; move to the left and give up on the other. Merge with Reform? There is no reason to think that Nigel Farage would be up for that.
In cricketing terms, the Conservative Party is 105 for 5, still requiring 122 to avoid an innings defeat. The temptation, especially for those old enough to recall the 1981 Headingley Test (which, in the Tory party, is practically everyone), is to summon a new batsman to the crease to give it a bit of welly. The search is on for a political version of Ian 'Beefy' Botham, a charismatic and carefree competitor who will repeatedly smite the ball into the stands and deliver a famous, and unlikely, victory.
There is, of course, an obvious candidate for this role, not least in the eyes of the said candidate. Wherever Tories converse, the talk is increasingly of the return of Boris Johnson. After all, the last time the Conservatives were fourth in the polls with Farage triumphant, Johnson replaced the party leader, made Farage an irrelevance and led the Tories to a landslide victory. Now, it is argued, is the time to repeat the trick.
But would Johnson be up for it again? Of course he would, if the odds favoured him. This was not someone who lost the premiership when he felt that his time was up or is content with being yesterday's man.
He has always wanted to be seen as a great man which requires a great legacy. He has Brexit but no one seems terribly impressed by that and, in any event, he claims that it is under threat. As for his record as Prime Minister, he considers that he never really had a fair crack of the whip because of the pandemic. If he comes back, this time he will show them.
The motivation for his return is not the issue, but what about the method? This is where it gets difficult, and the speculation is wilder. There is talk of plots ('Gavin Williamson is on manoeuvres', I am told but, then again, he always is) and a by-election in which Johnson will stand and win. But Badenoch might as well hand in her resignation and let Johnson stand as the Conservative candidate in a by-election. His arrival in the Commons would almost immediately result in her fall.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Nor is it clear if there is currently a constituency in the country where the Conservatives could be confident of victory. A by-election in which Johnson was a candidate would become a referendum on him, with the anti-Johnson vote consolidating behind one of the other parties. In seats where the Liberal Democrats are challengers, it would be Johnson's record on Brexit that would be highlighted; where Reform is the main opponent, it would be his record on immigration.
This latter record is a particular vulnerability. The people to whom Johnson most appealed in 2019 are those most angry at the levels of net migration that resulted from his immigration policies. Defending his record here would surely be hopeless. He could accept responsibility, apologise and hope to move on – but Reform will be determined to prevent that from happening. It would be a great test of Johnson's considerable communication skills to hear him come up with an argument as to why the man who substantially liberalised our immigration system is the right man to take on an anti-immigration party.
But even if Johnson can find a seat to fight and Badenoch lets him do so, and even if he wins that seat, and even if he can neutralise the attacks on him from Reform (and, for that matter, Labour) on his record on immigration, is he the right person to take the Conservative Party forward?
The case for is the one set out above. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and now is the time for a big hitter. But such moves rarely work, which is partly why we remember when they do.
In this case, the chances of success are remote. If the Conservatives want to be for the voters who are fed up with the political class and want a party promising change (albeit undefined and largely unrealistic), Johnson has had his chance. This was part of his appeal in 2019 but three years later he left office unpopular and distrusted by many of those very voters. Farage, uncontaminated by experience in office, has the advantage.
If, in contrast, the Conservatives finally recognise that they should once again aspire to be the party of the responsible, pragmatic, and competent, Johnson is the person (alongside Liz Truss) they should define themselves against, not elect as leader. Given the party's recent record, appealing to those voters will not be easy for the Tories but choosing to back Johnson would make that task impossible. Bringing back Johnson would make a bad situation worse.
Related

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Grooming gangs national inquiry demands grow as Tories force vote on new probe into ‘disgusting' crimes
Grooming gangs national inquiry demands grow as Tories force vote on new probe into ‘disgusting' crimes

The Sun

time20 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Grooming gangs national inquiry demands grow as Tories force vote on new probe into ‘disgusting' crimes

LABOUR MPs will be put under pressure as Tories force a vote on holding a national grooming gangs inquiry. The Conservatives are tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which calls for a statutory inquiry into the scandal later this month. 3 3 They say Labour's plan for five local inquiries is inadequate because the scale of abuse was much wider. And they do not have the power to summon witnesses and requisition evidence. It will put Labour MPs in a tricky position as some have gone against the party to call for a national inquiry. And it could trigger a Red Wall rebellion. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'We now know that these disgusting crimes were deliberately covered up by the police and local authorities simply because the majority of the perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage. 3 "The young girls - some as young as 12 - had their lives ruined. 'The cover-up has to end and those who hid these crimes held to account. 'It is disgraceful that not a single person has been punished for the cover-up. 'Every decent Labour MP who cares about this should vote for our amendment in Parliament.'

Trade unions join forces to demand end to ban on 'sympathy strikes'
Trade unions join forces to demand end to ban on 'sympathy strikes'

Daily Mirror

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Trade unions join forces to demand end to ban on 'sympathy strikes'

Secondary industrial action - where a trade union asks its members to take action against their employer in solidarity with workers elsewhere who are in dispute - has been banned since the early 1990s Trade unions have joined together to call for laws banning 'sympathy strikes' to be scrapped. Secondary industrial action - where a trade union asks its members to take action against their employer in solidarity with workers elsewhere who are in dispute - has been banned since the early 1990s. ‌ Now the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), the British Medical Association (BMA) and other unions have signed a joint statement in support of a proposed change to the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords. ‌ The statement reads: "For too long, the current legal restrictions have served to isolate disputes, weaken solidarity and limit workers' ability to collectively challenge unfair conditions - particularly in an increasingly fragmented and outsourced employment landscape.' Fire Brigades Union general secretary Steve Wright said: 'It's time for the government to finally overturn anti-worker laws brought in by the Conservatives to attack pay and conditions. 'The ban on workers supporting strikes across sectors is a Tory relic from the nineties. 'The aim has always been to isolate and limit workers' ability to stand up against employers threatening pay cuts and worsening conditions. 'These undemocratic restrictions are part of the UK being one of the worst countries for workers' rights in Europe. We urge all members of the House of Lords to support this amendment and restore this basic democratic right.'

Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers
Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers

The government is struggling to cut the amount of money from the foreign aid budget it spends on asylum seekers in the UK, new figures show. Home Office figures show the department expects to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year, of which £2.1bn is expected to be spent on asylum support. The predictions for this year are only slightly less than the £2.4bn spent in 2024/25. Official development assistance (ODA) – which was slashed earlier this year to 0.3 per cent of GDP to pay for a boost to defence spending - is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. A portion of this money is handed to the home office to support asylum seekers after they arrive in the UK, most of which goes towards their accommodation. But the government's failure to cut back on this spending has led aid organisations to accuse ministers of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', claiming they are in danger of a 'reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' Figures published in March revealed that the number of asylum seekers housed in costly hotels has increased by more than 8,000 since the general election, with 38,079 migrants being housed in hotels at the end of December. It comes despite Sir Keir Starmer previously saying a Labour government wouldn't use the foreign aid budget to pay for asylum seekers' hotel costs – but admitted that the government would not be able to stop doing so immediately. 'I'm not going to pretend to you we can do that in the first 24 hours', he said in May 2024. Meanwhile, Labour's election manifesto vowed to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, warned that 'cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul', he told the BBC. Meanwhile, Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK. The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." The Home Office told the BBC it is committed to ending asylum hotels and is speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The department also said it had reduced overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds in the last financial year, saving £200m in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. In April, The Independent revealed that the government had awarded a contract which allows for hotels and barges to house asylum seekers up until September 2027, despite Labour vowing to end the practice. The contract, advertised ahead of the election, was awarded by the Cabinet Office in October 2024 – just months after Labour won a historic landslide election victory - and runs up until September 2027. In June, the home secretary admitted she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation, adding: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store