Tories’ continued loyalty to Boris is baffling – Freud would have a field day
Most friends of mine who are far better qualified to opine on the subject are sceptical about the value of Freud’s therapeutic methods. Then again, they did inspire Portnoy’s Complaint. But perhaps Freudianism has something to tell us about the current state of the Tory party. The discontented who assembled in Bournemouth on Saturday obviously brought plenty of id and a fair few massive egos. But what about the superego and its role as a moral regulator? That was clearly having no effect on an audience who were longing for Boris Johnson, a man who wallows in id.
Apropos morality, let us consider Jacob Rees-Mogg. Underneath the irony, the elegant manners and the badinage, he is deeply religious and profoundly moral. He would be incapable of disloyalty to his friends, his principles and his faith. Yet he has chosen to give his loyalty to Johnson, a man most unworthy of that gift, who would have no interest in reciprocating and whose relations with others are entirely governed by the needs of his own gratification. Yet Rees-Mogg seems determined to overlook those obvious truths, and to give Rishi Sunak the doubt of every benefit.
Sunak is a moral man. Ah! say his determined detractors – but what about the commitment on EU deregulation? That is a valid criticism, but not the one which the egotists and idders of Bournemouth would have us accept.
Sunak never seemed comfortable in the various Tory leadership contests. A lot of Tory members were ready to be swayed by unrealistic promises. On the economy, Sunak might have been wiser to find a Churchillian echo: a bit of blood, sweat, toil and tears. But he had to deal with Johnson, who was promising everyone that they could have cake and still eat it. Sunak also had to cope with the Thatcherite legend, a version of events which ignores the Lady’s tough-minded realism. Those who want – or need – to remind themselves of all that should re-read the section in her memoirs dealing with the 1981 Budget. The government increased taxes, and she herself came close to agreeing to put up income-tax rates. Those who believe that she was a prototype of Liz Truss ought to study what actually happened.
Apropos EU regulations, there are no easy answers. The UK was part of the EU for almost 50 years, so it was inevitable that there would be a great deal of regulatory enmeshment. There would be no harm in a thorough review of the entire regulatory system. which would almost certainly conclude that successive British governments had been responsible for some of the more irksome procedures. Our civil servants can be inclined to take risk-aversion too far.
Yet there is another obvious problem. Any British firm wishing to export to Europe will have to comply with EU regulations. There might be scope for negotiations but as for the idea that large numbers of EU officials would be keen to help British exporters: “have cake, eat cake” is not how they do things.
So the thought that any wise government could simply announce a bonfire of regulations is nonsense on stilts. Any thorough review would take time. Ideally, it should have started the day after Johnson won the General Election. He did say “Get Brexit done” and by then he meant it. But as usual, he showed no interest in the harder aspects of administration and was solely interested in cake-shop government.
As for Sunak’s critics, they ought to remember that he was always a committed Brexiteer, unlike Johnson. They should also accept that they have won. Yet some of them are determined to be bad winners. They are also determined to grumble about Sunak’s demeanour. So what do they want from a prime minister: a clown? It is time for Tory dissidents to realise that governing a country is not a circus act.
This does not mean that there is no scope for a bit more of the “vision thing”. Sunak himself is no thespian, and should never be persuaded to try to become one. In public presentation, he should stick to his comfort zone. But this gives him plenty of scope for finding the right words to interest the voters. He is a serious and thoughtful man, in serious times. That should enable him to win a hearing. The Labour Party’s pollsters have clearly decided that he could be a threat: hence their personal attacks. But there is no sign that these are working. It is a lot harder to taint Rishi Sunak than it is to make Sir Keir Starmer seem interesting.
Equally, the PM should recruit adjutants who can provide a bit of thespianism. The public are still not hearing enough of Kemi Badenoch, while Gillian Keegan and Alex Chalk deserve a lot more exposure.
There may be further help at hand. It could be that Sir Stumbler is upset at the accusation that he has no policies. Anyway, he may have chosen some interesting ones. His party wants to make it easier for employees to work at home, while also helping trade unions to incite strikes. On the subject of strikes, there is a call to hold an enquiry into the battles around Orgreave, where the police defended working miners and kept Scargillite thugs at bay. Would Starmer have preferred it if Scargill had won? Then there are the suggestions that over three million EU citizens should be able to vote in the UK, plus all 16- and 17-year-olds.
It could be that some of these ideas will be dumped. Starmer is easily realigned by focus groups’ verdicts. Even so, any disgruntled Tory who claims that there is no difference between the parties should look at the evidence as to what Starmer actually believes.
There is other relevant evidence. Before 1997, as electoral disaster approached, John Major found it impossible to get a hearing, because his own party prevented it. Some sensible people found consolation. The country was not in bad shape and Tony Blair could be trusted not to wreck the economy – to which there was an obvious retort: “What about the constitution?” Today, Britain and the West are facing grave problems. Sir Stumbler is nowhere near the level of events. Sunak and his team could be.
It would help if the egos and the ids were to pipe down. There is of course no chance that the largest ego, the most self-indulgent id of them all, will take any notice. Johnson will continue to give selfishness a bad name. But that man of high seriousness, Rees-Mogg, ought to ask himself what on earth he finds meritorious in his former boss. There is a PM worthy of Rees-Mogg’s support: the one who currently resides in No. 10.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life