ALast month the elderly Torahs were delighted: “Boris is a man for an hour! He supplied Brexit, vaccinations, and now weapons for Ukraine. He achieves everything! ” Having voted for the Conservatives only once since 1992, in 2010, it was difficult for me to accept this proposal.
However, it is useful to recall how many Tory infantry still support Johnson, even hotly. Instead of the morally degraded figure that many of us acknowledge, they see simply a prime minister whom they still believe can stay away Workthe only result they care about.
Moreover, they can cause in people like me, longtime residents of the wet center, considerable embarrassment, demanding, or honestly, honestly we believe that Keir Starmer or Ed Davy is better suited than Johnson to rule the UK.
Wet convictions cast our votes for Labor or the Liberal Democrats in last week’s local election to protest the shocking inadequacy of those responsible. Yet Tory members are on a good cause if they insist that it is not enough to simply rely on the current government. Instead, we need to state who we want.
Conservatives are drawing attention to the poverty of thinking on the left, noticeable even among media commentators. Starmer deserved a modest resurgence of respect promising to resign if fined for Beergate. Yet this weak vessel remains in danger of being remembered by posterity as a man who has given up to identify a woman understood, and has not yet developed a memorable new policy.
Meanwhile Davy of the Liberal Demo is an acceptable MP on the back bench but can’t fill big boots. Once again, if we, the centrists, strive for honesty, we must recognize the doubts that this or that person would better clench his fist in the fight against the pandemic or in policy-making towards Ukraine than the current Prime Minister.
Our dilemmas are exacerbated when we consider the prospect of Johnson being replaced by another Conservative. Rishi Sunak remains the most impressive alternative, but it is unlikely that he will be able to overcome the deserved embarrassment due to his wife’s tax status, imposed on the residual racial prejudices of his party. Recently, one of the northern Tories told me, “Given the choice of two candidates for leadership, members of our local constituency will never vote for a knee-jerk man.” It’s shameful, but his opinion may be correct.
The winner of the competition for leadership may well be either Ben Wallace or Liz Trass. Both have reduced themselves almost to the point of disappearing by their savage rhetoric towards Ukraine. They are talk about their military goals as football fans swearing from the guest stands, not as our defense and foreign ministers respectively.
Wallace’s remarks this week, comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, reminds us of the unchanging truth that only the most arrogant politicians compare themselves to Churchill or their enemies to the Nazis. With his choice of language, the defense minister has reduced the discourse to Putin’s level. Britain is doing the right thing on the part of Ukraine, but we must never forget that it is not our people who are fighting and dying.
More than we like in Johnson, he’s not a stupid person. It seems that neither Wallace nor Trass will be able to offer more competent management, nor to start an adult dialogue with the rest of the world, which the UK has lacked for years, especially with Europe and Ireland.
Jeremy Hunt is by far the most qualified alternate leader, so Johnson never allowed the former health minister into his grotesque cabinet. Hunt lacks stardust, but he would rule wisely and tell as much truth as any politician can. In the less feverish period, they must make decisive claims to the top post. Unfortunately, however, the Conservative Party, which is in slavery to its right wing, is unlikely to indulge in Hunt’s virtues.
And yes, back to Johnson. Thanks to Starmer’s ambiguity about his own stupid beer during the blockade, the Prime Minister may even survive the publication Report by Sue Gray on party culture on Downing Street is a much more serious problem than anything allegedly done by the opposition, because the main instruments of power have repeatedly violated the law, which they themselves did.
In the eyes of c Conservatives, there is still a pragmatic case for saving Johnson. However, if the future of Britain and the public faith in our politicians matter, alternative principled arguments for its rejection should be recognized as imperative.
If he had remained prime minister before the general election, in the world and, more importantly, his future successors would have received a message: no longer a cause for shame and resignation if they were exposed as a serial liar in the House of Representatives . communities and beyond; that the bar for any man or woman seeking to rule Britain has been lowered to a moral level that can be overcome even by the lowest candidate.
I have suggested that those of Johnson’s conservative rivals who are likely to succeed him are less intelligent people than he is, and no more possessing new ideas for Britain. But if he retains his post, what are the prospects for our country to regain the respect in the eyes of the world, which it has certainly lost, and which can not be restored only by the disgusting struggle of the Tories over the corpses and wreckage of Ukraine?
In future harsh economic times, Johnson’s inability to even simulate compassion will amplify the government’s unpopularity. An important quality of any man or woman who seeks to bring Britain into the worst crisis of life today will be that they need to be seen as caring people. Our policies need to be given the opportunity to do better, no matter how much uncertainty there may be about what will happen after the Downing Street change.
For the Tories to refuse to remove Johnson is to invite their destruction in the next general election. Starmer may not impress, but by 2024 the popular fury against the Tory government may well surpass all. For millions of people who are engaged in the middle, looking for hope, this can only be seen in change. The only moral answer to the question “Who else?” is: “Anyone but Johnson.”