
Desperate times: is Boris about to make a comeback and could he save the Conservatives?
If Boris Johnson wasn't pondering a political return, he wouldn't have given an interview to GB News this week – in the aftermath of the Conservatives' worst-ever local elections. ' I'm not convinced I'm in a position to do that at the moment,' he said, when questioned about a potential comeback. The door was very deliberately left ajar.
First things first: the Tories have got through five leaders in roughly 10 years – of whom Johnson himself was one – and there's no reason to believe that the removal of Kemi Badenoch would solve the Conservatives' problems. The Tory ship is losing planks and leaking water. Another mutiny on deck would risk it going down altogether.
But it's hard to keep your head while those about you are losing theirs – and blaming it on the leader. This year saw 23 council areas in England go to the polls. Next year, 150 or more may vote. Scottish parliamentary and Welsh assembly elections will also take place. Badenoch thus faces a mini general-election. Her leadership may not survive it. Or even last until then.
And according to Luke Tryl, one of the most sober pollsters in the business, 'to a surprising degree across our focus groups in recent weeks the one Tory – particularly those leaning Reform – spoken of with any affection was Johnson… the difference between Boris and other Tories is, for whatever reason, he passes that connection/relatability/not a typical Tory test.'
This presumably explains the recent survey by More in Common, of which Tryl is executive director, which found that the Conservatives would overturn an eight-point Reform poll lead and take a three-point lead themselves were Johnson to lead them again. The replacement of Badenoch by Robert Jenrick would, according to this survey, make no difference to the Tory position.
Now polls tell many different tales, but Johnson's appeal may indeed not be exhausted – at least among the striving, provincial, just-about-managing voters who backed Brexit, voted Conservative in 2019, switched to Labour last year, and last week voted in substantial numbers for Reform. The Tories need to get voters to consider them again. If Johnson can't do it, can it be done at all?
His return would also mean unfinished business. Admittedly, he wasn't compelled to leave Parliament. He chose to quit himself, before a by-election was forced on him. A Commons committee was poised to recommend a 90-day suspension from the House, which would have exceeded the 10-day threshold for triggering a recall petition and potential by-election.
You may feel that this was no more than Johnson deserved – that the committee was right to find that he deliberately misled the Commons over Covid parties in Downing Street. But was it fair that the voters never had the chance to give their view at a general election? After all, they put Johnson in, and there's a case for saying that only they were entitled to turn him out.
Whatever your view, his successors in government, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, were haunted from the start by the claim that neither had democratic legitimacy, since neither had won – or even fought – a general election before becoming Prime Minister. There would be a kind of justice in Britain's voters once again giving their view of Johnson as Tory leader at the ballot box.
So much for the past. What of the future? The practical obstacles to a Johnson return are formidable. First, he would have to be re-admitted to the Conservative candidates' list. Second, he would need to find a local association to adopt him where a by-election was pending. Third, he would have to be returned to Parliament. And then, finally, win a leadership election.
It sounds fantastical – as indeed it is. Self-preservation would suggest that Badenoch, who effectively controls the Tory candidates' list, has every reason to keep Johnson off it. By-elections are hazardous at the best of times, and this is a sticky time for the Conservatives. Above all, most of Johnson's most fervent parliamentary supporters lost their seats last year.
Furthermore, a comeback wouldn't come pain-free. A slice of Toryworld sees Johnson as a joke in the worst possible taste. There would be resignations both outside Parliament and within it – and, perhaps, defections. But if the Conservatives are desperate enough, who knows what might happen? Johnson's zany story may have further twists in it yet.
When the Tories are three-nil down and the clock is ticking, they tend to turn to their star striker on the substitutes' bench. And one can imagine, just about, Johnson turning the game round for the Conservatives. But there is much more to the matter than the Tories' own interests. Johnson might be a tonic for his party. But would he really be one for the country?
Britain isn't paying its way in the world and must face up to some home truths. Voters know in their gut that the country faces unpalatable choices. They despise politicians for not offering a lead, but are fearful of what it might mean. It is very difficult to see Johnson, with his unquenchable boosterism, knuckling soberly down to the task.
The best of governments would have been knocked off course by Covid and the Ukraine war. But Johnson's enemies have a lengthy charge sheet: net zero excess, ending no fault evictions, the Football Regulator, Covid lockdowns, a record tax burden, mass ministerial resignations. Some of this is unfair. But the critics have a point, and then some, about what happened to immigration.
The 'Boriswave' saw net migration peak at 906,000 in 2023. It is thought his government simply threw open the doors. Does he think it was a mistake? Or would some future Johnson government do the same all over again? Whatever the answer, the strongest case against a Johnson return is the simplest one: been there, done that – time to move on.
He may even draw that conclusion himself, especially if Reform continues to advance. Get ready for more Johnson interviews – more coat-trailing, more exploratory probing – if he thinks he has a crack at returning to Downing Street. But if that looks unlikely, the hard yards of leading a party to election defeat is surely not for him. For the moment, he will watch and wait.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Cooper still in last-minute talks with Treasury over spending review
The Home Office remains locked in negotiations with the Treasury over its budget with time running out before the spending review. Rachel Reeves is expected to announce above-inflation increases in the policing budget when she sets out her spending plans for the next three years on Wednesday. But Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is yet to agree a final settlement with the Chancellor, with reports suggesting greater police spending will mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Downing Street is now understood to be involved in the talks, with Ms Cooper the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury. The spending review is expected to see funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects as the Chancellor shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, technology minister Sir Chris Bryant insisted that the spending review would not see a return to austerity, telling Times Radio that period was 'over'. But he acknowledged that some parts of the budget would be 'much more stretched' and 'difficult'. One of those areas could be London, where Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned the spending review will include no new projects or funding for the capital. The mayor had been seeking extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo Underground line, along with powers to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police, but his office now expects none of these will be approved. A source close to the Mayor said ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.' Last week, Ms Reeves acknowledged she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services. Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5 billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement. Elsewhere, the Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote down ‘deeply flawed' assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill when it returns to the Commons, claiming it is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would allow terminally ill patients with six months left to live to end their lives, is due to be voted on for a final time on 20 June. Ahead of the vote, in a letter to MPs, doctors from the NHS expressed 'serious concerns', arguing that 'this bill is not the answer". While they acknowledged that there must be a debate on end of life care, they argued too little evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. "This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe,' they wrote, saying the bill is 'deeply flawed'. The letter has been signed by geneticist Sir John Burn, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who received a knighthood for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. In its current form the bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out, but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. The letter, seen by Sky News, goes on to say: "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk. People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Meanwhile, Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said the legislation will 'have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession". "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce,' he added. But Kim Leadbeater, the bill's sponsor, said assisted dying must be legalised to avoid terminally ill people acting out of desperation or making 'traumatic' trips to Switzerland. Last month, she told the Commons she has heard 'hundreds of stories from people who have lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances', adding: 'If we do not vote to change the law, we are essentially saying that the status quo is acceptable.' The warning from the doctors came after TV medic Hilary Jones warned that medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if the proposed legislation is voted down. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said he would help a terminally ill patient to end their life if the law was changed, describing the practice as 'kind and compassionate'. Dr Jones said medics are currently 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the potential significance if the law changes, Dr Jones said: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. 'There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have.'


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The thin blue line? Yvette Cooper STILL holding out over funding for 'broken' police with barely 48 hours until Rachel Reeves unveils spending plans up to next election
Haggling over Labour 's spending plans is still raging with barely 48 hours until Rachel Reeves unveils the package. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is yet to settle with the Treasury amid bitter squabbling over police and borders funding. The Chancellor is due to lay out departmental allocations running up to 2029 - the likely timetable for the next general election - on Wednesday. But the generous fiscal envelope set at the Budget last Autumn has been put under massive pressure by the economic slowdown, calls for more defence cash, and Labour revolts on benefits. Ms Reeves has been signalled she will announce real-terms increases to budgets for police as she tries to quell Home Office resistance. However, that is likely to be offset by cuts to other areas, with the NHS and defence sucking up funding. The political backdrop to the proposals this week is the Reform surge, with Labour panicking about the challenge from Nigel Farage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is yet to settle with the Treasury amid bitter squabbling over police and borders funding Touring broadcast studios this morning, Technology minister Chris Bryant denied the review will mark a return to austerity. But he acknowledged some parts of the budget will be 'more stretched'. He told Times Radio: 'That period of austerity where I think previous governments simply cut all public service budgets just because they believed that was what you had to do is over. 'But, secondly, we are investing, but it's not just about spending money, you have to get return, and that means we have to have change and we have to have a plan for change in every single one of our public services.' He pointed to increased investment in defence and health, but added: 'There are going to be other parts of the budget that are going to be much more stretched and be difficult.' Ms Reeves will have some £113billion to distribute that has been freed up by looser borrowing rules on capital investment. But she has acknowledged that she has been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. Economists have warned the Chancellor faces unavoidably tough choices in allocating funding for the next three years. She will need to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, as well as her strict fiscal rules which include a promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. The expected increase to police budgets comes after two senior policing figures publicly warned that the service is 'broken' and forces are left with no choice but to cut staff to save money. Nick Smart, the president of the Police Superintendents' Association, and Tiff Lynch, acting national chairman for the Police Federation of England and Wales, said policing was in 'crisis'. In a joint article for the Telegraph, they said: 'Police forces across the country are being forced to shed officers and staff to deliver savings. These are not administrative cuts. 'They go to the core of policing's ability to deliver a quality service: fewer officers on the beat, longer wait times for victims, and less available officers when crisis hits.' The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner in Ms Reeves' spending review on Wednesday, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30billion at the expense of other public services. Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement. Elsewhere, the Government has committed to spend 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3 per cent over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86billion package for science and technology research and development.