YouThis jury is out, to use a slogan, but boris johnson’s position in a fantastic Prime Minister ranking – and almost literally, as the House of Commons Committee on Privileges has yet to rule on the matter. whether Johnson deliberately cheated Parliament on Partygate.
If they find out that he did – and the decision will be a bit vague – and, in practice, that he was indeed guilty of lying to lawmakers, it is traditionally a humiliation. resigned. Of course, he would no longer be Prime Minister, but it would be moral, if not political, pressure to leave the Commons, even if one of his distinguishing characteristics, as we have learned, is his ability to ignore such influences.
I think the best Johnson could probably hope for is a vague and defensive criticism of him, but it would also be unprecedented among prime ministers and would see him drop to the bottom of the league. After all, he is also the first prime minister in office to receive a penalty notice for a criminal offense. The way he manages his relations with party donors is far from the first to face controversy (Tony Blair was cautiously interviewed in Downing Street on ‘Cash for Honors’ and David Lloyd was known for running out of George Baronet and his colleagues), but “Wallpapergate” did nothing to elevate Johnson’s reputation.
Given the numerous violations of the lockdown laws under his watch, the illegal extension of Parliament, the condemnation of his own moral advisers, the Dominic Cummings, Owen Patterson and Christopher Pincher scandals and other scum, it is clear that the office and the Personal conduct ethics are not Johnson’s strong. Hardly any 10 resemble the medieval court.
Yes, you can argue, but the public never paid attention to it. They knew they couldn’t find a saint. Johnson’s personal life was an open book, not particularly uplifting. His ministers and some of his MPs have been infuriated by such speeches, which is why his prime ministerial post was so small – but he didn’t welcome big calls? What about Brexit,
This will always be Johnson’s strongest case for being at the top of the roster. Brexit truly defines his place in history, with the 2016 referendum and the 2019 general election marking the double peak of his career. But then there is … the context.
Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and Clement Attlee are usually placed at the top of prime ministerial charts by historians because their previews were not only relatively long and eventful, but also ones where much was achieved and changed the face of the nation. . . It was the way we still live together (for better or for worse). They are, for the most part, spared major personal scandals or erroneous judgments.
Just below the general titans are those who have been in power for many years and achieved a lot, but whose flaws were major: Lloyd George (scandal), Blair (Iraq) and HH Asquith (poor wartime leadership). Others have been in power for a staggering amount of time, won elections against overwhelming odds and done little real damage, but they also left a surprisingly rare legacy: John Major, Harold Wilson, Harold Macmillan, Stanley Baldwin, James Ramsay McDonalds . Even David Cameron’s six-year term could fall into that mid-range were it not for his overconfidence in his ability to win the 2016 Brexit referendum. It was his plan and he would have to suffer the consequences.
Then there are those whose premierships have been both brief and disastrous, who regularly find themselves at the bottom of the pile due to personal destructive policies: Anthony Eden (Suez) and Neville Chamberlain (Appeasement).
Johnson with the bust of Churchill, but politically he was not in the same class
(Getty)
Johnson would rank higher than either of them, however liberal he may be, it’s still not clear that Brexit is a national disgrace on a fairly equal scale. Johnson’s premiership should probably be classified as a mirror image of Edward Heath (1970-1974). Heath also found his time in Downing Street short, and his tenure was marred by inflation, economic stagnation and growing industrial turmoil, and he was eventually rejected by his party. But for decades no one has been able to take away its historic milestone: the accession of Great Britain to the European Community on January 1, 1973. Well, until the arrival of Boris Johnson.
There was more to Johnson’s premiership than Brexit, Sledge and Scandal, but nothing could push him to first or second place in the highest elected office. The response to COVID-19 has certainly been or should have been more chaotic and feeble, but the public investigation that followed will determine how strongly it was wanted and how (if any) Johnson can be held personally accountable. There may be lives to lose. As far as justice may be served now, they delayed the imposition of a blockade and NHS Test and Trace has been a constant disaster; But it took the bold step of funding a British (not the European Union) vaccination program at top speed and, unusually, hired highly capable people to carry it out.
The pandemic, to be fair, because of its impact on public finances, destroyed any chance for Johnson to succeed with the expensive programs he launched, such as “flatten out” and “recover better.” The housing crisis is worse than ever and public services are weak compared to when they started in 2019.
Other supporters of Johnson’s “big call” say he was providing arms and financial and moral support to Ukraine. If Johnson has any claim on Churchill’s vision, this is it. Conversely, any other party leader than him or Keir Starmer would have done the same, but with fewer visits to Kiev. However, Johnson deserves credit for this role, despite the resettlement program of Ukrainian refugees, like that of Afghanistan, not working well. He could also legitimately say that he did his best at the COP26 summit to make Net Zero a viable proposition; But he failed on migration, by his own standards.
This would then leave Johnson at the top of the third class of prime ministers.
So Johnson’s premiership was lesser, but undeniably more consequential, than Theresa May and James Callaghan, who also spent nearly three years at the No. Throwing Gordon Brown’s name into that dish for the ordinary is tempting but wrong. The main reason is that he saved the global financial system with his much-imitated 2008 plan to nationalize failing banks rather than trying to lend or give them money. Brown, like most prime ministers, had a bad reputation after leaving office (and Gillian Duffy didn’t help), but is now entitled to a pardon. He probably he was better than Johnson.
Unlike Brown, May, Callaghan, Heath, Alec Douglas-Home, Bonner Law, and others in the short term, Johnson was a proven winner of the election and best known for his unexpected victory by an 80-seat parliamentary majority in 2019. The result has been his party since at least 1987. Overall, a prime minister who is good at winning elections is better than one who isn’t. Yet Johnson quickly turned into an electoral defeat with local elections and a dramatic after-election defeat that played a major role in his downfall. One of Johnson’s few consolations of being kicked off the pitch for his opening shower is that he can still claim to have been kicked out of his own party, not the people. His record for unbroken victories is maintained even after Ken Livingstone took on Ken Livingstone for Mayor of London in 2008.
Thereafter, Johnson would remain at the top of the third class of prime ministers. He is clearly not Churchill or Thatcher in the First Division, and his personal flaws and his fall from power mean that he is below Blair and Wilson in the Second Division. Brexit and his electoral success secured him above May and Cameroon in the next group, but, given the as yet untapped opportunities of Brexit, below Brown. Even the harshest critics of him would surely admit that Johnson did not harm the national interest as much as Eden and Chamberlain.
In many ways, Johnson is lucky to be in the middle of the historical group, but that jury, the Committee on Privileges led by Harriet Herman, could bring him closer to the bottom of the rankings, especially if he finds himself ousted. During the by-election in Uxbridge. He would make a rumored return, already hypothetical, but rather difficult to conceive.
Another payoff for Johnson is that his successor looks worse than him. It’s almost as if Liz Truss was promoted by Johnson as someone who, in the worst case of her expulsion, would be forced to make her look beautiful. Her place in her history awaits him.