If the country avoids stagflation, it won’t be thanks to Boris

Everyone is asking what the local election results tell us about the next general election. Judging by the figures themselves, there is a one-word answer to that question. Nothing. Everything depends on the economics and the politics between now and then – and the link between them.

As for the economy, until Ukraine, there were reasons for holding back on pessimism. Britain seemed to be recovering well from the pandemic and not suffering too much from Brexit. Although there was obviously a risk that over-heating would lead to inflation, there were also grounds for hoping that this would be a spike, not a plateau. We had to grow our way out of the downturn and if we held our nerve, we were on course to do so. That crucial indicator, animal spirits, was giving encouraging readings.

Not anymore. Inflation is back and as for spike, it looks more like an imposing set of stag’s antlers. It is 40 years since we had to cope with stagflation and those who remember it will testify about the deeply depressing effect it had on animal spirits. 

One form of mitigation is available as it was back then: politics – and there is the problem. In the ’80s we had Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe, versus Michael Foot. Now, Sir Stumbler may have his problems but he is better than dear old Footie. Anyway, he is up against… Bojo.

It is easy to work out what needs to be said. A good leader would give a frank acknowledgement of the difficulties facing the country. Without sounding as if he was making excuses, he would draw attention to the world ramifications of the inflation problem. In all this, the leader would sound serious, arguing that anyone who believed in easy answers would also believe in Santa Claus. He would point out that the government had already spent an enormous sum of money to protect living standards from the pandemic. Like all good Tories, he wanted to cut taxes, but only when it was prudent to do so.

He would assure the country that he and his colleagues were unsparing in their dedication to the nation’s well-being. All their abilities, all their energies, would be devoted to that task, night and day.

Once the text had a sound foundation of solemnity, he could risk a gesture in the direction of sunlit uplands. We are going to succeed in all this, he would insist, but the credit for that will lie, as so often in the past, with the British people. Their determination will see the country through, as it always has. Ministers will have the honour of assisting in that process. But to use a Churchillian phrase, they will be the lion’s roar. The lion is the people of the United Kingdom.

It should not be impossible to deliver such a speech. But it would be for Boris. Serious? Solemn? To quote the man himself, donnez-moi un break. To be fair to the fellow, if he were to try to make such a speech, he would not be able to pretend to take himself seriously. 

In any economic downturn, the Tories have a handicap, but also an asset. The handicap is that they are seen as the party of the rich and indeed as the nasty party. How can these well-off unpleasant so-and-sos possibly understand ordinary people’s problems?

The asset is competence. Those affluent characters may not exude the milk of human kindness. But they do know how to run the economy. Many people would rather be governed by bankers than by polytechnic lecturers. Tories may often sound like the political wing of the Bank of England, never happier than lecturing hungry sheep about the price of grass. But when living standards are under threat, realists can defeat romantics. People will be aware that things could get worse.

But Boris is incapable of drawing on his party’s traditional economic assets. Competent? See above under donnez-moi un break. Nasty? A case could be made, drawing on his domestic record, but let us leave that charge on the file, merely convicting him of shallowness and hypocrisy. That is surely enough.

All ministers must now be aware that as long as Boris is in No. 10, they will have to spend part of every interview dealing with the leadership question: when are you going to get rid of him? On the doorstep in London, he was the grievance of grievances, and that was before the real inflationary pain has begun to bite. Tory MPs who are still inclined to give him the benefit of the vacillation should ask themselves two questions. First, how many of their constituents trust Boris to guide the country through the valley of the shadow of stagflation? Second, how could he ever regain his authority?

It seems likely that the Sue Gray report will make that even harder. Friends who have had dealings with Gray hold her in respect and also in affection. That latter response might give Boris grounds for hope: not so. Devoutly religious, she has three core values: duty, morality and truth. If Boris is confronted with those, one almost feels sorry for him. The PM could no doubt translate “magna est veritas et praevalebit.” He could not live by it. 

Could Sir Stumbler come to Boris’s rescue? After all, the Labour leader seems to have problems with his memory, and we have not yet got to the bottom of Angela Rayner’s legs. Without for one moment suggesting that this need apply to her, there is one note of caution which ought to be sounded. Any woman who is thinking of using her limbs to entice Boris Johnson should be careful what she wishes for.