We need a serious PM with no easy answers

“Incredible” is a favourite word of David Cameron’s and his Tory party advisors were always trying to discourage him from over-using it in speeches. Now, however: incredible – what an understatement.

In Dublin in the early ‘80s, a fugitive murderer was found in a house belonging to the Attorney-General. Trying to distance the government from the affair, a spokesman described it as “grotesque, unprecedented, bizarre and unbelievable.” Conor Cruise O’Brien spotted that this could be shortened to Gubu. For a time, that entered the Irish political lexicon. It should now – damn the Protocol – be imported here. Boris was the Gubu prime minister.

Although it is time to look to the future, there is one point to note about the final fall. It was precipitated by Boris Johnson at his characteristic worst. Suppose that last Monday morning he had said the following. “It is true [!] that while I was Foreign Secretary, I was briefed about some allegations referring to Christopher Pincher. Chris is a friend of mine. I did not want to believe that all this was true so was too ready to brush the matter aside. I should not have done that, for which I apologise.” If he had made that statement, Boris might still now be PM. Instead, he lied and was unmasked by Simon McDonald. In response, trying to extricate himself from the mess, he threw Chris Pincher under a bus. Even many Tories who did not approve of Pincher’s conduct found that sickening.

From Gubu, it was time to move on to an old cliché: the straw and the camel’s back. There is an irony. In 1922, a prime minister was defenestrated at the Carlton Club. In 2022, wholly different actions in that Club led to a similar consequence. In each case, by disposing of a wrong ‘un, many decent Tories felt that their party had recovered its soul.

What will it now do with that regained possession? The first essential is a proper grown-up leadership debate, especially on tax. It is not the only issue on the agenda. But it is the most important.

We can surely take it that every Tory wants to cut tax. But we can also hope that the party has not abandoned fiscal conservatism, nor the willingness to think everything through with rigour and tough-mindedness.

Not all of Rishi Sunak’s critics are displaying those qualities. Before evaluating his record, we should remember the circumstances in which he was taking his decisions. When the pandemic broke out, there were fears that the British economy was on the point of collapse. Millions of jobs were at risk. Hundreds of thousands of SMEs faced insolvency. With a huge fiscal stimulus, Sunak saved the situation. Was this boldness to the point of genius? Or was it a reckless gamble? Could he have achieved the same outcome with a smaller deficit? One suspects that historians will be arguing about that for years – decades – to come.

But it is crucial to keep one point in mind. In early 2020, everything looked desperate. It did not seem impossible that a young Chancellor, serene in the face of adversity, intellectually confident when confronted by complexity, was implementing the radical measures necessary to steady the ship.

Sunak himself knew that there would be consequences. The government could not go on spending indefinitely. Recovery would depend on growth, so that the monetary creation resulting from quantitative easing could be absorbed by jobs and output. But the Chancellor also announced some tax rises, aiming for a degree of fiscal tightening with minimal discouragement of animal spirits. Yet there would inevitably be some inflationary spike. We were in for a difficult couple of years.

Then came Ukraine. Suddenly “a couple of years” seemed very optimistic. So how should the Treasury respond? There are those who just call endlessly for tax cuts paid for by spending cuts. Many of the latter are desirable in the interests of better government. But they take time to implement. “Wages are sticky downwards,” wrote Keynes. The same is true of public spending. There will almost certainly have to be some fiscal relaxation, if only to prevent intolerable pressure on energy bills. But a careful balance will have to be struck. Inflation is close to being out of control. It is no use expecting people to be cheered up by tax cuts if their interest payments are about to rise substantially.

For some reason Rishi Sunak seems to have become the focal point for Boris’s self-pitying resentments. Yet any sane Tory must prefer Rishi-nomics to cake-stall economics. On tax, there ought to be an intellectually impressive debate between the serious candidates. Anyone who comes out with supposedly-easy answers should no longer be regarded as a serious candidate. 

Apart from Sunak, there are several of those. Jeremy Hunt ought to be a standing reproach to many Tories. An able man, an honourable man, a good man: panicked by Corbyn, the party rejected merit for meretriciousness. Nadhim Zahawi can also offer proven ability. Although questions have been raised about some business activities, his friends are confident that he can answer them all. Tom Tugendhat is also papabile.

All four of those men can claim to have judgment as well as brains. So can a fifth fellow, whose name is rarely mentioned. Robert Buckland is calm and wise. He is not a stellar politician. We are talking about Daedalus, not Icarus. But a Buckland government would not crash and burn.

So we have five figures who would offer decency and competence to the Tory party. The country could calm down, knowing that it was in safe hands, with a set of ministers all of whom possessed an uncommon quality: common sense. With one in charge and the other four serving loyally, plus other talented figures excluded by Boris Johnson, we would have a strong government. In the course of the leadership debates, we could also see which of them could offer a final quality: vision. With luck, there would be several contenders for that accolade.

There is one problem: a figure who is taken seriously in some quarters. God knows why. Liz Truss has limited brain power and less judgment. She is also a poor speaker. People approve of her, until they observe her closely. As a leader, she would be perfect in one role: to take over the cake stall. She could be a worse prime minister than Boris Johnson.

Leaving aside Penny Mordaunt – good, but not good enough – there is an interesting female candidate. Kemi Badenoch has only recently turned 42. But she is a politician of immense promise. No-one in Parliament is more eloquent on the subjects of patriotism and Britishness, one reason why the Labour party hates her.

In 1963, James Callaghan stood against Harold Wilson and George Brown for the Labour leadership. He was the best man of the three. Tony Crosland said that the other two offered a choice between a crook and a drunk. Even so, Callaghan came third. Against much better Tory party opponents, Kemi Badenoch is unlikely to do that well. But less than 13 years later, Callaghan became PM.

It is not incredible – as Cameron would say – that Badenoch could do likewise.

Meanwhile, the Tory party has to test the candidates in a civilised debate, concentrating on issues and rising above personalities. There is a lot wrong with the UK at the moment and the Conservative party has been failing in its duty to offer sound remedies and strong leadership. There is plenty of time to put that right. That said, it is also time to get on with it.