In Cummings fire: what does Boris actually want to achieve in office?
It all comes down to Boris. On the face of it, he is master of the political battlefield. A weak opposition, his own party more or less united, or at least quiescent: a huge lead in the opinion polls and an apparently endless supply of good luck: with all those assets, what could possibly go wrong? Yet that is not enough. There is a more basic question. What will go right? The PM has the power. How does he propose to use it?
It has been said of him, with justice, that he was desperate to become Prime Minister. He is looking forward to being a former PM. There is only one problem: the intervening phase. Admittedly, he did not have much chance to shape his own programme during the first year of his premiership. Brexit and Covid dominated the agenda. But over the past few months, he ought to have had time for a simple task: working out what he wanted to do. On that not unimportant topic, we have been waiting to hear from him, expectantly, and in vain. This invites the obvious conclusion. He cannot tell us, because he does not know.
The Queen’s Speech was full of detail. There will be lots of bills. Yet the overall content was disappointing. Churchill famously complained about a pudding with no theme. This was not even a pudding – merely an array of uninspiring ingredients and endless managerialism. In one of the Lords’ debates, the man who ought to be the Leader of that House, George Bridges, gently complained that the government had missed a golden opportunity to use its political power to convince everyone that it was ready to meet the challenges which the nation is facing. Lord Bridges said that when the Speech ended, his first thought was: “Is that it?” A Prime Minister cannot meet challenges merely by reacting to events. He has to have a vision, which will enable him to fuse rhetoric and policies. That should help him to inspire audiences, and to win intellectual arguments. But in order to do that, he has to have intellectual self-confidence. This one does not.
That might seem a hard point to justify. Boris appears to exude confidence, indeed entitlement. To be acquitted on that charge, he uses charm. That works, except in Scotland. But the confidence is superficial. Here, there is a parallel with Tony Blair. Early in their careers, both men realised that they had the gift of popularity. In Blair’s case, that was a gift which kept on giving, except among a large section of the Labour party, plus Gordon Brown. They also discovered that they were formidable campaigners, especially against weak opponents. But in secret, I suspect that Blair was – as Boris Johnson is – both delighted and surprised by the public’s willingness to buy his act. He paid too much attention to mid-term poll ratings.
Margaret Thatcher’s approach was healthier. For her, popularity was something you used to win elections, which then gave you the power to implement controversial and indeed unpopular measures. If she had been popular in mid-term, she would have wondered what she was doing wrong. Within a year of an election victory, she expected that she would have to negotiate an overdraft with the bank of political popularity, which she would pay off – after she won the next election. Tony Blair hoarded and polished his popularity like an old miser constantly counting his gold pieces, fretting lest any should escape.
Thatcher also knew that, as a transformative politician, she had to win the intellectual debate. She enjoyed doing so. For her, there was no Blairite or Clintonite nonsense about triangulation. In an intellectual battle, her tactic was Nelsonian. She went straight at ’em, insisting, as she so often did, that there was no alternative. Can one imagine Messrs Blair and Johnson saying that?Although Boris is reluctant to fight intellectual battles, he is going to have to learn to do so, for we are not only dealing with abstract ideas. Demography and politics are crucially involved, especially with Red Wall voters. How can he persuade the public that he is on their side?
Persuasion is especially necessary, as many of the changes which he ought to be advocating will take time to implement. By the next election, there could be green shoots, but not yet tall trees. There are two crucial policy areas: housing and education. In each case, the government’s opponents have been making the political running. The Liberal Democrats are claiming that the Tories and their sleazy friends want to concrete over the countryside: a useful phrase. On education, the Lefties are virtually arguing for quotas and pursuing equality of outcome. Yet in both cases, refutation should not be impossible.
On housing, there is a historical problem. In the post-war years, policy was driven by a malign coalition between brutalist sub-Corbusian architects and the urgent need to produce lots of dwellings at a low cost. The result was match-boxes and tower-blocks: ugly buildings and social problems, leading to a widespread belief that anything new is bad.
But small-c Conservatism is not always the right answer. We need new housing in the south-east, and there are lots of examples of developments which work, aesthetically and socially. The Prince of Wales has been a pioneer. He has not received anything like enough credit – he never does – but his example should be followed. Boris needs a strong housing minister to make the case and win the argument.
The same is true in education. The government will not be able to make its case until there is a minister who can talk about raising standards without making people say “speak for yourself.” Poor Gavin Williamson. Yet the Gove-ite revolution is still gaining momentum. Lots of schools are improving. Sink schools are no longer seen as inevitable. Although more still needs to be done in order to drain the sink, there have been successes which a credible minister could broadcast. There ought to be two key words in his lexicon, “merit” and “opportunity.” The Left are keen to claim that the only relevant goal is Mao-ist egalitarianism. A good minister could take that head on.
Gove-ism brings us to another battle which Boris now faces, with Michael Gove’s former Spad. What is the difference between Dominic Cummings and a suicide bomber? The suicide bomber can only take part in one mission. Mr Cummings is relentless. This may not endear him to the public. What is the last language that Cummings would ever use? More in sorrow than in anger.
That said, it is surprising that he has not written a book, with the working title “Where the bodies are buried.” The serialisation rights and initial orders would have been lucrative. We shall just have to see how damaging this week’s revelations will be: missing Cobra meetings to write his way to alimony payments, et al. Apropos Cobra, this revengeful advisor will try to be sharper than a serpent’s tooth. Even so, few people will be shocked that Boris was not always conscientious. I will be foolish enough to make a prediction: there will be nothing fatal in the Cummings testimony.
The PM may have more to worry about from Lord Geidt, looking at wallpaper and related matters. No-one could ever accuse Christopher Geidt of insensate malice. But in an understated way, he is as relentless as Dominic Cummings. He will pursue truth wherever it leads him. As it seems inconceivable that Boris has not broken or breached some rules and regulations, he would have been wise to make a preemptive apology. Of course, he has already seen off Sir Alex Allan, as honourable a fellow as anyone in public life. Yet he would be foolish to think that he could pull off a similar stunt with Lord Geidt.
Once these lesser questions are out of the way, the PM can return to the real challenge: creating an intellectual framework for his government, and a line of march. Both should draw on a simple point. Covid necessitated a large increase in government expenditure and state power. In the long run, as we return to normal, that should all be halted and reversed. The state can have a creative role, but only as a junior partner. Private enterprise must take the lead. When it comes to the fixtures and fittings in Number 10, regulations may be necessary. When it comes to the prosperity of the nation, they must be kept in check. To be fair to Boris, and no irony intended, he believes in freedom. The government needs to act in that spirit.