Over the next few weeks, a terrifying political game will unfold. A group of MPs who want to be Tory leaders and prime ministers – some comically overconfident, others downright absurd – will introduce themselves to Conservative MPs, party members and the general public. They will all claim to be able to clean up the mess left by Boris Johnson. Amid what is already beginning to look like a frenzied civil war, some of the loudest noises will be made by candidates offering a thoroughgoing return to the Tory credo of small states and free markets.
Meanwhile, another ritual will continue – one that is, in its own way, just as essential to the political conduct of business as usual. Whatever the polls taken amid such a massive Tory collapse suggest, Labor still faces an uphill battle to win a parliamentary majority. There is still no compelling or even coherent narrative about what Britain has been through or where it is going, and a new fear may soon grip its senior figures: when Johnson finally leaves, what if the new Tory leader enjoys a honeymoon period and the edge ahead ? But whenever any Labor frustrations begin to surface, the electoral system ensures that it has an almost brutal approach to voters: if millions of people want to try to get rid of the Conservatives, that remains the only option available to them.
Until now, Johnson’s downfall has been understood almost entirely as a matter of his character flaws and administrative incompetence, and the politicians who now present themselves as an alternative are generally seen in the same superficial terms. At the same time, awareness is slowly emerging of a much deeper aspect of what is happening: the tangle of crises that made Johnson’s time in power more vivid than ever and that his fall perfectly symbolizes. Frankly, this country is in a terrible, increasingly terrible mess, as its politics and power system remain stuck in the past. The Conservatives don’t have the answers – but neither does Labour, in any meaningful sense. So what are we going to do?
One of our crises goes back centuries. The UK’s government structures are based on an antiquated and centralized state, most of which was built in the distant days of empire, and which now barely functions. The bloated departments of Whitehall cannot possibly do what ministers and civil servants claim. The Houses of Parliament are a tattered symbol of institutional decay. Thanks to the permanent existence of the House of Lords, our legislators include Russian-British newspaper owner Ian Botham and 92 hereditary peers. And the way we elect the Commons is a stingy joke: the “personal mandate” Johnson recently stated to try to stay in office amounted to the support of less than 30% of the electorate.
Worse, there is a deep, symbiotic relationship between the institutions of Westminster and Whitehall and the structures of privilege centered on a few private schools and universities in Oxford and Cambridge. Together, they cast out men trained in the arcane ways of the establishment and how to network their way to power, but who usually turn out to be dangerous cronies and players. Johnson, obviously, was all of this incarnate: when he got to the top of a system that gives prime ministers staggering levels of power, he could trample on constitutional conventions, push through laws that abrogate basic civil rights, and advocate violations of international law (not to mention dole out honors to whoever wants – a habit that seems to return).
Our other two crises are closely related. For 40 years, the Conservative Party has been committed to the economic ideas instilled in its soul by Margaret Thatcher, and has overseen a mess of inequality, insecurity and economic fragility. After the 2008 crash, this approach was patched up on the grounds that stagnant wages were accompanied by flat prices and unprecedentedly low interest rates meant that enough people could get access to cheap credit. But thanks to Brexit, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, it all started to implode. The scale of Britain’s predicament sets it apart from almost every other advanced economy. No one seems to have any plausible idea of how to deal with the return of inflation; there is gloomy talk in some circles that the only effective option is a return to mass unemployment.
Again, Johnson symbolizes much of this story. The clearest evidence so far that the post-Thatcher order could no longer be maintained was the overwhelming vote to leave the EU in places that were victims. After riding the resulting political wave to become prime minister, he offered the people at the heart of Brexit a winning deal: that in return for their support, he would benefit from a “level rise”. It is clear that he had no intention of keeping that promise: apart from anything else, his party’s enduring commitment to Thatcherism runs too deep. But even if his successor tries to somehow make the leveling meaningful, he will run into one of the paradoxes of modern Britain: the fact that the dire economic consequences of Brexit make the chances of helping many places that voted for him almost non-existent.
The new Conservative leader is nowhere near starting to untie these knots. The official opposition hardly suggests that it will be able to do so. But in the anxious noise some Tories are now making, you can imagine how a new policy might begin to take shape. The political right has a great fear of non-Tory party co-operation which would – in the words of a Johnson ally recently quoted by the Times – “change the rules of the vote and force the Tories out of power for decades”. This reflects the growing support among Labor for a change to the electoral system that matches the long-standing policies of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, and a plan now championed by, among others, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. His starting point would be something opposed or rejected by every Labor leader from Tony Blair to Keir Starmer (including Jeremy Corbyn): Labor is working with other progressive parties to bring in proportional representation, abolish the Lords and push for unprecedented devolution. When I interviewed Burnham 10 days ago, his position was clear enough: “Business as usual is not going to get us where we need to go. Not only from a political point of view, but also in terms of where the country is.”
Drastically changing our systems of power – and, through radical thinking about private education and Oxbridge, breaking down ancient networks of privilege and influence – would pave the way for changes that would begin to lift us out of our endless malaise: a massive housing drive, a basic income, security both within and without business, the kind of movement towards a closer relationship with Europe that the nonsense of current politics precludes. It would also kill the chances of another would-be Tory autocrat clawing his way into power. This is surely the lesson of the past three tumultuous years – that if Johnson’s time in power has made one thing clear, it is that British politics must finally leave the 20th century.
John Harris is a columnist for the Guardian
Join John Harris, John Crace and Jessica Elgot at the Guardian Live online event on Tuesday 12 July for their thoughts on Boris Johnson’s resignation and the Conservative leadership crisis. More information here
What means Whig?
Whig Definition 1: a member or supporter of a major British political group of the late 17th to early 19th centuries that sought to limit royal power and increase parliamentary power – compare. 2: An American who advocated independence from Great Britain during the American Revolution.
What is the origin of the term Vig? Whig – whatever its origin in Scottish Gaelic – was a term applied to horse thieves and later to Scots Presbyterians; it denoted nonconformity and rebellion and applied to those who claimed the power to exclude the heir to the throne. On the same subject : Battle over sex and gender in books divides a Texas town.
What did Whig stand for?
American political party founded in the 1830s to oppose President Andrew Jackson and the Democrats. The Whigs advocated protective tariffs, national banking, and federal aid for internal improvements.
Who were the Whigs in America?
Led by Henry Clay, the name “Whigs” was derived from the English anti-monarchist party and was an attempt to portray Jackson as “King Andrew”. The Whigs were one of the two major political parties in the United States from the late 1830s to the early 1850s. On the same subject : 12 books on U.S. divisive policy and implications for climate action.
What political view is Boris Johnson?
When did Boris become prime minister? To see also : American Politics, Small Town Style | News, Sports, Jobs.
What are Tories in the UK?
A Tory (/ˈtÉ”Ë ri/) is a person who holds a political philosophy known as Toryism, based on the British version of traditionalism and conservatism, which upholds the supremacy of the social order as it evolved in English culture. throughout history.
What are Boris Johnsons political beliefs?
Johnson is a supporter of trade unionism. He has sometimes been described as a Eurosceptic, and advocated a referendum on membership of the European Union some time before the 2016 vote, during which he supported a vote to leave.
What does the Tory Party stand for?
The Conservative Party (unofficially known as the Tory Party) is the main centre-right political party in the United Kingdom. Their politics tend to promote conservatism. They are the largest party in the House of Commons after the 2019 UK general election, with 365 of a possible 650 seats.
What do the Tories stand for? A Tory (/ˈtÉ”Ë ri/) is a person who holds a political philosophy known as Toryism, based on the British version of traditionalism and conservatism, which upholds the supremacy of the social order as it evolved in English culture. throughout history.
