Boris Johnson

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares51 Views

    The final straw in Jacob Rees-Mogg interview | Brief Letters

    by

    I thought I would encounter a fair degree of cant and hypocrisy in the interview with Jacob Rees‑Mogg (Jacob Rees-Mogg on abortion, religion and reality TV: ‘I’ve been called worse than a Nazi’, 18 November), but was prepared to put my misgivings aside and read the whole article. I could cope with his twisting of scripture and the fact that he wants the tenets of the Catholic faith to apply to others and not to himself. However, I realised that he has indeed lost touch with reality when I got to the part where he believes that “Boris Johnson … is a truthful man”.Stan BroadwellRedfield, Bristol Jacob Rees-Mogg says: “I was actually called worse than a Nazi.” Was he called “working class”?Dave VergusonLindley, Huddersfield Many recent discoveries of Roman artefacts have been deemed by historians to be sex-related (Gladiator knife handle found in Tyne ‘reflects spread of Roman celebrity culture’, 15 November). I wonder if the Romans were sex-obsessed – or if the historians are.Cherry WestonWolverhampton I was surprised to see that the Met Office had issued a cold weather warning on X (UK weather: Met Office issues woolly jumpers alert as Arctic blast arrives, 17 November). Of all organisations, surely our iconic weather forecaster should be leading the transfer to Bluesky.Stephen ChickenSwinton, Scottish Borders Elon Musk spent $200m to help get Donald Trump elected (Elon Musk’s Super Pac spent $200m to help elect Donald Trump, 12 November). To keep matters fair, shouldn’t all the other president-elect picks go to the highest bidder?Patrick SheehyLondon More

    More stories

    • 250 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Here it is, the new right playbook: wreck and impoverish the country, enjoy the high life yourself | Owen Jones

      by

      Rightwing dogma has cost Britons dearly, but remains the ultimate meal ticket for the guilty men and women. While Tory rule saw workers face the most protracted squeeze in wages since the defeat of Napoleon, the politicians to blame have shamelessly monetised this failure of historic proportions.Boris Johnson – turfed out of No 10 in disgrace after little more than three years in charge – leads the pack, unsurprisingly. Within six months, he had raked in more than £5m thanks to speaker fees, hospitality and donations. A million of that was generously donated by Christopher Harborne, a tech entrepreneur based in Thailand who had mostly donated vast sums of money to Nigel Farage’s Brexit party. That means Johnson certainly had the means to settle the legal bill for his defence in Partygate: alas, you and I coughed up that £265,000, with the National Audit Office condemning the government’s decision to use public money.The Rwanda scheme to deport asylum seekers was not just cruel, it was costly: about £700m of taxpayers’ dosh was frittered on needlessly catering to the basest prejudices of the British electorate. Yet its most vociferous champion, the former home secretary Suella Braverman, clearly believes she has expertise deserving of a hefty price tag.She has already made nearly £60,000 on the global speaking circuit, more than any other sitting MP, with another £14,000 from the Telegraph for articles such as one titled “Islamists are in charge of Britain now”. Then there was the all-expenses “solidarity” trip to Israel worth £27,800, paid for by the National Jewish Assembly, who clearly believed it was an investment: its chairman declared that it had paid up because Braverman “has been very influential in politics and we hope that she will again be influential in the future”.Sure, Liz Truss may have crashed the economy with unhinged rightwing policies, sending mortgages and rents soaring, contributing to 320,000 British adults being driven below the poverty line. And yes, granted, in July she was booted out of her Norfolk seat – where she had won 69% of the vote in 2019 – with the biggest swing from Tory to Labour in any UK election ever. But her bank account balance is as healthy as her shame is absent: by last September, she had made £250,000 in speaker fees since leaving office.And while Farage was never a Tory minister, few politicians have done so much to reshape the Conservative party, or deliver a Brexit which, according to the polls, just 13% of Britons believe is a success. He’s the highest earning MP, making £1.2m a year from GB News, alongside lucrative trips to the US funded by wealthy friends.That 14 years of rightwing leadership gave us a Britain with wages lower than in 2008 in two-thirds of British local authorities, stagnant growth, crumbling public services, and chronic divisions and tensions is clearly no barrier to success. All of these figures champion capitalism as a system that rewards success and punishes failure, and yet all thrive precisely because they were architects of Britain’s most calamitous era of the peacetime democratic era.What is termed “rightwing populism” is, in short, an endless money spinner. Truss is a particularly instructive case. In her youth, she was a Liberal Democrat devotee, passionately denouncing the British monarchy. Despite swerving to the right in adulthood, she campaigned for remain in 2016. Since her premiership had its fatal appointment with reality, Truss has either shifted further right or felt liberated to be her true self, or both. A cheerleader for Donald Trump, she spoke at a far-right conference in the US alongside Farage to decry “the deep state” for taking her down, and said nothing while appearing in an interview where Steve Bannon hailed Tommy Robinson as a “hero”.Other attenders at this Conservative Political Action Conference included a US senator who has refused to condemn white nationalists, and allies of the authoritarian Hungarian leader, Viktor Orbán. While in the US, Truss accepted another trip worth £20,000 from a murky group called the Green Dragon Coalition, which says it is committed to “break down climate change policy” and “expose the woke mob”.What is going on here? Back in the 1970s, well funded thinktanks helped reshape the western right to embrace privatisation and regulation, slashing taxes on the rich and smashing trade unions. Today’s right is metamorphosing again, epitomised by the authoritarian demagoguery of Trump. Where there was once a cordon sanitaire between what was loosely described as the “centre right” and what lies beyond, that has long broken down.All this money is helping to reshape the international right, bringing together its leading lights to forge common bonds and a shared mission. Yes, it is nauseating to watch politicians make others pay for their failures while they are rewarded with endless pay cheques. But this is not a political project driven by results – and powerful tycoons with bottomless pockets are determined that these walking, talking disasters act as trailblazers for what comes next.

      Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans beware: weaponising pets is a political minefield | Stewart Lee

      by

      The Ohio senator JD Vance has attacked “childless cat ladies”, going so far as to suggest infertile cat owners, or cat owners choosing life without children, should enjoy reduced voting rights. Donald Trump has already alienated Elvis Presley fans (“Elvis didn’t have 50,000 people and he had a guitar… I don’t have a guitar”) and the wind (“I never understood wind … I’ve studied it better than anybody”). Now Vance is politicising pets. The MP for Clacton, Nigel Farage, has called Vance a “top man”. Farage fuels violence, as we saw in the moving cocaine-and-cider vigil in Southport last week. Should Clacton cats, and Clacton cat ladies, fear the fist of Farage?Rightwingers aiming to weaponise pets should remember the old showbiz adage: “Never work with animals and children.” Especially if, as the American alt-right theorist Jack Psobiec suggests they should, the Republicans sign up the Trumpanzee rock star Ted Nugent. The blood sports enthusiast, and author of the song Jailbait, already has demonstrably poor history with both wildlife and the young.In 2019, the then prime minister Boris Johnson acquired a jack russell cross called Dilyn to try to seem normal. But the dog savaged the stuffed lemur of an award-winning boy, spaffed up random visiting dignitaries’ trousers, and sexually assaulted a stool made from the foot of an elephant killed by Roosevelt, disrespecting the special relationship and endangered species simultaneously. The journalists outside Chequers looked from dog to man, and from man to dog, and from dog to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.The former prime minister David Cameron’s disputed student friendship with an accommodating pig has become legendary, largely because no one can prove it ever happened. The story was allegedly sourced by the Brexit idiot Isabel Oakeshott from the then Westminster Conservative MP Mark Field, but he denies everything. Piggate aside, Field is most famous for grappling a Greenpeace protester at a Mansion House banquet in 2019 while shouting: “This is what happens when people like you disturb our dinner.” If Field had been at the Oxford feast where Cameron befriended the pig, the Mansion House banquet wouldn’t have been the most disturbed dinner he ever attended, so he would definitely have remembered it.We all know that Alastair Campbell, when Tony Blair was on the verge of first admitting the sheer depth of his religious convictions, told him: “We don’t do God.” What’s less well known is that the spinmeister general also advised “We don’t do pets,” when Blair suggested winning back old Labour’s northern heartlands by releasing video of himself and his wife, Cherie, dressed as prize whippet and a racing pigeon respectively.But in choosing to denigrate cats and their owners, are the Republicans on to something? In 2021, researchers revealed that US voters with conservative beliefs tended to dislike cats. The former Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham summarised the findings: “Conservatives hold strong anti-cat biases, likely stemming from cats’ disregard for social hierarchies, their general lack of loyalty, and their refusal to submit to authority.” Are cats instinctively left of centre? Can it be mere coincidence that Rishi Sunak’s memorably soggy election date announcement was further sabotaged by the Downing Street cat, Larry, shuffling about on the No 10 steps, like Eric Morecambe in the background of an excruciating Ernie Wise song?I do not wish to make light of postal workers’ suffering, but can it also be mere coincidence that, during the decade in which the Conservatives’ dismantling of Royal Mail escalated, attacks on mail delivery people by presumably right-leaning dogs have also increased, with more than 1,000 post-persons losing a finger or part of one in the past five years? The Royal Mail’s Lizz Lloyd was rightly angry to see “postman-flavour” dog treats for sale at a stately home. It is as wrong as if the JoJo Maman Bébé line were to make costly leotards emblazoned with the face of Trump’s rock-star supporter Ted Nugent.I allow two cats to live with me: one rescued from a litter in a back garden where foxes slaughtered its siblings; the other found in a cardboard box outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Kingdom Hall on Stamford Hill. As an adoptee, I relate to them, and am fascinated as I watch their abandonment issues develop. Archie, at only a year old, drinks far too much cat milk, while Winged Ear Fingerling, a year older, I estimate, has retreated into a solipsistic world of narcissistic fantasy. And yes I, a cat man, didn’t vote for Reform.As if to prove the point, Adolf Hitler, arguably the most rightwing person who has ever lived, of course had a dog, which was given to him by his personal secretary, the Nazi Martin Bormann, another known rightwinger. Hitler named the German shepherd Blondi, which was rather on the nose given his passionate belief in Aryan supremacy. It’s as if Nigel Farage had instead named his two dogs, Pebble and Baxter, after what he believed in: Money and Nothing.But today Blondi seems a better pet name, politically, than that favoured by the Dambuster airman Wing Commander Guy Gibson, whose dog’s name cannot be mentioned now because of the wokeness gone mad, those wokies and that wokery. Indeed, the dog’s Scampton gravestone was replaced by the RAF in 2020, at a cost of £675. This was fortunate, as the former RAF base’s fences are now used to contain asylum seekers, and an actual grave bearing a racial slur would make them paranoid. The Conservative party leadership contender and Disney-mural desecrator Robert Jenrick would doubtless have had the original grave reinstated, a deterrent even more powerful than Rwanda. I think all politicians should play by 70s swimming pool rules. No petting! Stewart Lee’s Basic Lee is on Now TV. He will preview new material at Stewart Lee Introduces the Legends of Indie at the Lexington, London, in August with guests Connie Planque (12 August), Swansea Sound (13) and David Lance Callahan (14)Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Labour and Brexit: a subtle but important strategic pivot | Editorial

      by

      For most of the period since the decision was taken to leave the EU, British politicians have overestimated how much thought the continent gives to Brexit. Once shock at the referendum result receded, relations with the UK came to be seen as a technical problem to be solved by hard-headed negotiation.At critical moments, when deadlines neared, Brexit leapt up the agenda. After the treaties were signed, they dropped right down, overtaken by the other issues facing a large bloc with many borders and problems. That represents a perverse kind of victory for Boris Johnson and his chief negotiator, David Frost. The deal they signed was so skewed against British interests that Brussels has little incentive to reopen the settlement.This is a problem for those who think Brexit has gone badly – comfortably a majority opinion, according to polls. The road out was hard, but it was also a unilateral choice. The way back, even to a much looser association, means persuading EU governments and institutions that Britain has something unique to offer and, crucially, that it can be relied on to stay the course.The difficulty with that process is as much a limitation on Labour’s policy as the more commonly recognised domestic electoral taboos against upsetting leave voters. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, understands this, which is why he and Sir Keir Starmer are proposing a new UK-EU security pact as the main instrument for improving the cross-Channel relationship. This is a field where Britain, as one of Europe’s top two military powers (alongside France), has capabilities and expertise that open doors in Brussels. A security partnership could be wide-ranging, covering energy and climate cooperation, without relitigating the terms of trade and regulatory alignment that inhibit discussions of enhanced economic intimacy.The economic cost of Brexit will still one day need to be addressed. On that front, the options are limited for as long as Labour refuses to countenance talk of a customs union or meaningful reintegration into the single market. This may be overcautious, but general public negativity about the way Brexit has worked out isn’t the same as eagerness to go through the whole gruelling exit process in reverse. And the old terms – the opt-outs and budget rebate – would no longer be available. Mr Johnson’s unpalatable cake cannot simply be unbaked.Even the keenest pro-Europeans – and Sir Keir was once counted in their ranks – must see the many complex practical implications of recognising that Brexit is a fait accompli, for Brussels no less than Britain. The starting point for a new and mutually beneficial relationship is an acknowledgment of geopolitical forces compelling the two sides to work together. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine makes that point compellingly. The prospect that Donald Trump could return to the White House next year doubles the urgency. The former US president, if restored to the Oval Office, would be an unreliable ally to Europe’s democracies and a wilful saboteur of international institutions.The Eurosceptic vision of Britain thriving without its home continent was always a delusion. In the current international context it is unsustainably perilous. The Conservative party’s choice to ignore these facts is as predictable as it is dangerous. Labour’s Brexit policy is still marked by caution, but on the need for a strategic pivot back to Europe, thankfully the silence is breaking. More

    • 238 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the Tory right and Trump: a moral abyss and an electoral dead end | Editorial

      by

      The Tory party is carrying out a postmortem on Rishi Sunak’s leadership before it has expired. It is a gruesome spectacle. Simon Clarke, a former cabinet minister, has called on the prime minister to resign on the grounds that he is navigating the Conservatives towards electoral calamity and incapable of steering them to safety.MPs who might privately agree with Mr Clarke’s analysis have denounced the intervention as counterproductive. The majority of Conservatives recognise that defeat looms under their current leader and also that it would loom larger still if he were defenestrated. The succession would be chaotic; the government’s threadbare mandate would be void. Fourteen years in office would make any administration feel stale. The lack of tangible achievements, coupled with economic stagnation and decline in public services, gives Mr Sunak’s reign an unshakable aura of decay.But there are also ideological schisms and geographic faultlines running through the Conservative base that make recovery harder. The majority that Boris Johnson won in 2019 combined long-established Conservative supporters, concentrated in southern England, with former Labour voters in the north and the Midlands.It was a politically incoherent coalition, united only in support for Brexit (or at least impatience to end the bickering about it) and aversion to the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street. Labour is now under new leadership and Brexit is enacted without material benefits. What some Tory strategists identified as an epic realignment of the electorate has unravelled in the absence of either a positive prospectus for the future or charismatic leadership. Mr Johnson’s potency in that department was overrated but not inconsequential. The incineration of his popularity in the Partygate scandal also contaminated an already diminished Conservative brand.The realignment theory is not entirely without foundation. Sir Keir Starmer might be poised to reclaim many seats in Labour’s former heartlands, but that doesn’t mean that the old allegiance, rooted in working-class identity and local culture, is renewed. Brexit was the catalyst for abandonment of a loyalty that had degraded over the preceding generation. Much of the so-called red wall will remain marginal territory after the next election.That leads some Tory MPs to imagine a swift recovery under a more radical prospectus – fiercer in opposing immigration; more aggressive in “anti-woke” campaigns; and fanatical in cutting taxes.The Conservative ultras draw inspiration from Donald Trump’s seemingly unstoppable march towards nomination as the Republicans’ presidential candidate, and the plausible prospect of his return to the White House in November. The apparent lesson is that blood-curdling nationalism, culture wars on a nuclear scale, contempt for democratic norms and disregard for truth are a winning formula.As a model this is repellent on ethical grounds. On the amoral test of practicality, Trumpism has limited application in Britain. Fixating on potential gains from a more radical rightwing platform spares party ideologues the less comfortable task of accounting for lost support among moderate, liberal and former remain-voting Conservatives. They are now swinging to the Lib Democrats, Labour, or whichever of the two is better placed to oust the local Tory.The more in thrall the Conservatives become to the extreme wing of the US Republican movement, the more brutal will be the electoral punishment that is stirring them to panic – and the more deserved. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      How Winston Churchill became a mascot for anti-woke warriors | Zoe Williams

      by

      ‘Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts,” Ron DeSantis said, as he pulled out of the race to lead the Republican party. It was a strange way to announce that what counts – the continuing bit – is the thing you don’t have. Also, it is quite contestable, for such a short statement; failure isn’t necessarily fatal, but it does depend on what you have failed at. Still, what set most pedants afire wasn’t the substance but the attribution: DeSantis said it was Winston Churchill; the International Churchill Society disagreed. Meh, let’s not split hairs. It is a sort of obvious notion, made of words, so it is surely the kind of thing Churchill would have said, had he said it.This is my favourite kind of Churchill-eering, where politicians summon his ghost simply by adopting similar rhetoric. Penny Mordaunt’s fabulous “Stand up and fight! Stand up and fight!” before going on to add, “Never forget those who went before us and remember that without a Churchill, you can’t have a Zelenskiy” during her speech to last year’s Tory conference was a classic of the genre: a pitch-perfect throwback to “We shall fight on the beaches”, having first removed the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields, the streets, the hills, any obvious enemy, any clear sense of what was being defended and any endgame. Churchill here stands in as an all-purpose fighty-man, and as such wouldn’t make much of a cultural export, since everyone’s history has those.It took Boris Johnson to repackage Churchill for an international audience, not so much with his book, The Churchill Factor, as in his strategically idiotic attack on Barack Obama in 2016. He was mayor of London then, when the most he could screw up was planning on the Vauxhall gyratory which, to be fair, quickly cohered as a literal and figurative shrine to the emptiness of late capitalism, and is probably the most coherent thing he ever did. But in his downtime, he wrote a column for the Sun, enraged that Obama had moved a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office (a full seven years previously), contending that the “part-Kenyan president” was motivated by anti-colonialism, “ancestral dislike” of the British empire. To follow the logic, Johnson, having German heritage, would also have reason to dislike Churchill, but he is not doing logic, he is focusing on Obama’s race, which I feel Obama should have met with unending hellfire, rather than a mild: “No, we just moved Churchill to a different corridor.”Too late to worry about that now: Churchill, in Johnson’s new frame, stood not only for nostalgia, a comforting world order with the posh at the top, but also for white supremacy and colonial brutality as an essential part of that past. Winston was now a mascot for the anti-woke warriors, the embodiment of their core principles: the past is better than the present; the world makes more sense with the posh at the top, just listen to their lovely cadence; the dicey bits – racist exploitation and carnage – are expiated by nostalgia (it was all a long time ago) and implicitly celebrated by it (weren’t things better then?), and anyone who disagrees hates their country.It makes no sense as an export, least of all to the US, which had made its feelings plain about the yoke of the British empire 99 years before Churchill was born. It doesn’t even make much sense as a British narrative, which had previously been happy to dial down Churchill’s imperialism, concentrating on its more nuanced expressions, and use him mainly as the totem of Britain’s successful fight against fascism. In Johnson’s revision, Churchill the Coloniser is as valorised as Churchill the anti-Nazi. Its nonsensical nature is why it’s the perfect cultural export: stripped of all meaning, just some loud, posh vibes, caricatured to the point where you can’t remember what the original looks like, political rhetoric’s answer to Saltburn.Loth as I am to get into combat about who knows Churchill the best, between me, Johnson and DeSantis, we all know this, right? He was a lot of things, but he wasn’t stupid; he would have hated this. He would be turning in his grave. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Boris Johnson claims he ‘reminded’ Trump about key role in Ukraine aid

      by

      On his recent visit to the US, Boris Johnson “reminded” Donald Trump he “actually played an important role” in supporting and arming Ukraine against its Russian invaders, the former British prime minister said, adding that British aid to Kyiv was “enabled” by Trump’s example.Johnson made the claim about the notoriously pro-Russian former president – and brushed off mention of Trump’s impeachment for blocking military aid to Ukraine – in an interview on One Decision, a podcast hosted by Sir Richard Dearlove, a former chief of the British intelligence service MI6, and the journalist Julia Macfarlane. The episode was released on Thursday.Johnson resigned as Conservative leader and prime minister in July last year, amid scandals including Partygate, over lockdown breaches in Downing Street during the Covid pandemic. Last month, found to have misled parliament, he resigned as an MP. He has since become a columnist for the Daily Mail, a move found to have breached parliamentary rules.Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, a defeat he refuses to accept, advancing the lie that it was the result of electoral fraud.Having survived a second impeachment, for inciting the deadly January 6 assault on Congress, and despite facing 71 criminal charges and the prospect of more, Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination next year.The two oft-disgraced ex-leaders met at an undisclosed US location in May. Johnson’s attempt to persuade Trump to back Ukraine was widely reported then.Speaking to One Decision, Johnson said: “One of my reasons for going to the United States [was] because clearly, American politics is getting into that pre-election period of ferment and I’m very concerned just to get over the message that whatever you people may be hearing, what other people may be thinking, the war in Ukraine is immensely important, and Ukrainian victory is essential, and it’s the only way out.”Republican presidential hopefuls including Trump’s nearest challenger, Ron DeSantis, have stoked controversy by appearing to question US support for Ukraine.During his own time in power, Trump was widely held to be too close to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Since leaving the White House, Trump has refused to commit to continuing US support for Kyiv in its efforts to expel Russian invaders, should he return to office.At a CNN town hall in May, Trump said: “Russians and Ukrainians, I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”On One Decision, Johnson said: “I just think it’s very important if you have a chance to talk to people like Donald Trump, just to get … over [that] I know in my heart that Ukrainians are going to win. I know they deserve to win.“And I know that America has played a crucial role in making sure that is the right outcome. I think it’s important to remind somebody like Donald Trump, you know, he actually played an important role.”Asked by Dearlove if Trump was a threat to Ukrainian chances of winning the war, Johnson said: “Don’t forget who sent the first Javelins [missiles] out. It was Donald Trump.”The US approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kyiv in 2018. It was later revealed that Trump blocked further military aid as part of a scheme to seek dirt on his enemies, including Biden, that resulted in his first impeachment.Macfarlane said: “It was also Donald Trump who withheld military aid to Ukraine.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJohnson said Trump’s military aid “actually enabl[ed] us in the UK in a way” to send arms to Kyiv.His recent meeting with Trump, Johnson said, produced “a very free-flowing energetic conversation, as you’d expect. And what I find, actually, with the Republican party in in the United States, is that, of course, they’re anxious about the expense, and that’s the role of Congress. [But] they strongly support the Ukrainians.”Saying his hosts should question Trump themselves, Johnson added: “My view is that whatever happens in the race for the White House I think America will be steadfast. And I think that the big geopolitical reasons for continued American support for Ukraine will be overwhelming for whoever’s there.”Asked about DeSantis’s controversial characterisation of the war in Ukraine as a “territorial dispute”, a statement the Florida governor was forced to swiftly walk back, Johnson said there was an “isolationist” element in Republican ranks but it was “ever thus”.As prime minister and after leaving office, Johnson has enjoyed warm welcomes in Ukraine. On the One Decision podcast, he was also asked about his claim that Putin threatened an attack on the UK.Putin was “creepily playful”, Johnson said, adding that the Russian president was really trying to “reframe what he’s done, which was a barbaric invasion of an innocent neighbor, as a confrontation between a nuclear-armed Nato and Russia”.Calling Biden’s stewardship of aid to Kyiv “outstanding” and “amazing”, the former prime minister also said allies of Ukraine “all need to speed up” nonetheless. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Can Boris Johnson emulate Donald Trump and make a comeback? No chance

      by

      There are two very big differences between the situation confronting Boris Johnson and that facing the man with whom he is frequently compared, Donald Trump – namely, popularity and context.Johnson is weaker than Trump. First, because he is less popular with Conservative voters than Trump is with his Republican supporters. About half of 2019 Conservative voters disapprove of Johnson’s performance in office. And at the time he left office, 40% or more rated him as untrustworthy, dishonest and/or incompetent.Things haven’t improved since. In polls conducted in recent weeks, about half of current Conservative voters have said they think Johnson misled parliament over lockdown parties, while a similar share consider the 90-day suspension he received either “about right” or “not harsh enough”.A majority of Conservative voters believe it is right that Johnson has resigned from the Commons, and less than half of them say they would like to see Johnson return as an MP.In short, about half of both 2019 Conservative voters and the party’s smaller base of current supporters take a low view of Johnson in various respects. The contrast with Trump is stark – between 70% and 80% of Republican voters approve of Trump, and more than half say they will vote for him as their candidate in the coming Republican primary contest.That brings me to the second big difference – Trump’s ability to disrupt politics is enhanced because America’s system is candidate centred, while Johnson’s ability to do the same is diminished because Britain’s system is party centred.Trump won direct personal mandates from Republican voters in 2016 and 2020, and most of them seem eager to do the same again next year. If Trump prevails in the Republican primary contest, there is little other Republicans can do to prevent him running for a third time as their candidate for the White House.The British system is very different. Johnson never received a direct personal mandate as prime minister from voters at large – there is no direct election of the executive in our system. Removing a directly elected president is very difficult. Removing a prime minister is considerably easier. If Conservative MPs had had enough of Johnson, they could – and did – remove him. The Conservative party – and Rishi Sunak, its current leader – have a lot more control over who gets to stand in Conservative colours, so it is much easier for them to keep Johnson out, particularly now he is no longer even an MP.The two factors also interact. If Johnson had Trump-style popularity with Conservatives, it would be harder and riskier to exclude him. But he doesn’t, so it isn’t.There’s also the question of whether local Conservative associations might be keener on Johnson than Conservative voters overall – perhaps keen enough to back him as a candidate, or to punish (or even deselect) their local Conservative MP if they vote for sanctions against the former PM.It is possible that Johnson has a stronger following among activists, but it is also plausible that he doesn’t. After all, these are the people who will have borne the brunt of the anger at Johnson’s antics when campaigning on the doorstep, and paid the heavy electoral price for his unpopularity in recent local election rounds.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionConservative associations have also traditionally been fairly deferential to the party leadership. They have not gone in for local deselection campaigns. While trouble on this front cannot be entirely ruled out, it seems unlikely.So some sort of Trump-style hostile takeover is unlikely. The Conservative party has higher barriers to entry than American parties, and Johnson isn’t popular enough with current or 2019 Conservative voters to fuel an uprising capable of overcoming these barriers.Johnson will no doubt retain a lot of capacity for mischief, but this is more likely to play out on the front pages of Conservative-aligned newspapers rather than in the halls and bars of local Conservative associations.Robert Ford is professor of political science at Manchester University and co-author of The British General Election of 2019 More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Boris Johnson tried to persuade Donald Trump to back Ukraine on US tour

      by

      Boris Johnson has held discussions with Donald Trump about Ukraine during his tour of the US, in an apparent attempt to make the Ukrainian case to the sceptical former US president.Johnson met Trump “to discuss the situation in Ukraine and the vital importance of Ukrainian victory”, his spokesperson said. It is understood that they held the talks on Thursday.The former prime minister – who faces continued questions at home over allegations about lockdown-breaking parties at Chequers and No 10 – has been in Dallas, where he met Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, and Las Vegas, where he made the latest in his recent sequence of highly lucrative corporate speeches.The discussions with Trump, the location of which has not been divulged, probably centred on Johnson, a vehement international cheerleader for the Ukrainian cause, trying to impress his ideas on the former president.Trump, who is the favourite to win the Republican nomination and take on Joe Biden in next year’s presidential election, has repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and appears agnostic on the issue of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.During a question-and-answer session aired on CNN earlier this month, Trump declined to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war. “Russians and Ukrainians, I want them to stop dying,” he said. “And I’ll have that done. I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”Speaking earlier, Keir Starmer said Johnson has questions to answer about the Chequers allegations, despite the public being “fed up to the back teeth” with stories about his lawbreaking.The Labour leader said there were people who were feeling hurt and fed up about the continuing saga, but there were “questions now about why these allegations have not come out before”.Starmer weighed in on the controversy after the Cabinet Office passed fresh allegations of wrongdoing to the police this week. They did so after seeing diary entries about guests who visited Chequers during the pandemic, which Johnson handed to lawyers representing him as part of the Covid inquiry.Police fined Johnson more than a year ago in relation to an event in June 2020 to mark his birthday. More than 100 fines were handed out to others over events held in and around Downing Street.The Partygate saga contributed to the demise of Johnson’s premiership, but he has since been mulling whether a comeback is possible. Johnson is still facing an inquiry by the privileges committee of MPs into whether he misled the House of Commons by saying all Covid rules were followed in Downing Street.On Friday, Starmer told broadcasters: “I think people are fed up to the back teeth with stories about Boris Johnson. The heart of this is a simple truth that, across the country, people made massive sacrifices during Covid.“Some people not going to the birth of their baby, not going to the funeral of one of their close family members. These are deeply personal things, and increasing revelations about Boris Johnson, I think, just add to that sense of hurt, and people are fed up with it.“I do think there are questions now about why have these allegations not come out before … Obviously, there will be investigations, I understand that. The core of this is a very human feeling of one rule for us, which we obey, another rule for Boris Johnson and those at the top of the Tory party.”The diaries, showing about a dozen events at both the prime minister’s grace-and-favour mansion, Chequers, and No 10, between June 2020 and May 2021, were provided to Johnson’s government-appointed lawyers.However, the Cabinet Office, which paid for the lawyers, also received the diaries, and officials then decided that under the civil service code, they should refer the matter to the police.Downing Street denied that Johnson was the victim of a politically motivated “stitch-up” after his allies reacted with fury to the news of the latest police involvement.No 10 stressed that Rishi Sunak had no involvement in the decision to hand over Johnson’s pandemic diaries, saying he had “not seen the information or material in question” and that ministers had “no involvement in this process and were only made aware after the police had been contacted”. More