How would another unelected prime minister benefit britain? | thearticle

The humbling of the powerful is always an enjoyable spectator sport. This is so even if the only reason why the person in question is in a position to wield power is that the spectators put

him there. And yet an assembly indulging in _Schadenfreude _is itself an unedifying spectacle. There is no more exposed place on earth than the despatch box of the House of Commons. It takes

guts for a proud man to stand in that place and to say: “I want to apologise.”    Watching Boris Johnson grovel abjectly before the House and then be baited, first by a newly emboldened

Keir Starmer, then the reliably pompous Ian Blackford, followed by assorted Opposition backbenchers, while the Prime Minister’s own party looked on in sepulchral silence, was at once

riveting yet also revolting.   How many of these men — for some reason there were no women among them — demanding that the PM fall on his own sword would have dared assail him in such high

moral tones had the warrior not been wounded? No doubt they felt they were speaking for their constituents, but there was still something of the mob about this collective assault by the

parliamentary picadors. The only riposte came after Sir Keir had hurled yet another clunking cliché by claiming that the whole country thought the PM was “lying through his teeth” — a resort

to unparliamentary language which the Speaker hastily glossed, explaining that Starmer had attributed the accusation to others rather than making it himself. The victim was heard to murmur

that the Leader of the Opposition was after all “paid to try to remove me from office” — true enough, but little consolation to the glum footsoldiers behind him.   The verdict of the

watching journalists was, of course, even more predictable, clichéd and unanimous. Johnson was “a dead man walking”. Matthew Parris savoured the “panic in his watery eyes”. Even his old

paper, the _Daily Telegraph, _was lukewarm in support, with Juliet Samuel incredulous that a leader could expect indulgence in return for admitting that he had been an idiot. Many were

struck by the patent disloyalty of the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, who had arranged to be elsewhere and later issued the least supportive statement of the entire Cabinet. Whatever happens now,

there will be no love lost between Rishi Sunak and the man to whom he owes everything. Liz Truss, the other likely successor, also owes her elevation to the Foreign Office to Boris and was

conspicuous at his side. That was a wise as well as loyal thing to do. Tories tend to be “staunch” and they like their leaders to be so, too.   The next fortnight promises to be among the

most extraordinary periods in recent British politics. It is clear that Boris Johnson won’t consider resigning until Sue Gray publishes her report, probably by the end of next week. By then

the balance of opinion in Parliament and the country will have become more apparent. The Conservative whips will have taken soundings, though the mood is volatile and secret ballots are

always unpredictable. Many people may feel uncomfortable at the prospect of the incumbency of the highest office in the British state being in effect decided by an unelected civil servant.

Even before the present imbroglio, Sir Oliver Letwin was quoted as saying, not entirely in jest, that Sue Gray is “the person who really runs the country”. Boris Johnson can expect no

quarter from her. His only hope is that she spreads the blame for partying in Number 10 so widely that his own responsibility is blurred. As for the question of whether he breached the

ministerial code by misleading Parliament: the key distinction is between the spirit and the letter of this crucial constitutional convention. He never lied to the House about his presence

at the party on May 20th, which is why Starmer referred more generally to “parties” or “partying”. Yet Ms Gray may conclude that the PM nevertheless gave a misleading impression about his

attitude to such staff events under lockdown. She will be conscious of the fact that many of those involved are career civil servants and will not wish to cast unfair aspersions on fellow

officials. She will also consider that they had all been working together for months in close proximity during the pandemic — in effect, belonging to a “Downing Street bubble”. That garden

was, paradoxically, the safest place for any staff to meet. Hence the importance of the consumption of alcohol and the invitation from Martin Reynolds to “Bring Your Own Booze”. Should those

who did not bring bottles or even imbibe be treated the same as those who did? Or was it all simply illegal? The Metropolitan Police seem unsure about whether the Prime Minister, at least,

could be charged with any offence against lockdown rules when he greeted people in the garden of his own official residence. Throughout this sorry affair, one question, unasked and

unanswered, has hovered over proceedings. How precisely will any of this help the country to get back on its feet? To cashier a charismatic commander during the battle is seldom conducive to

victory. This Government is barely halfway through its term of office and its leader has yet to show whether, if given the tools, he can finish the job. After the disastrous Norway campaign

in April 1940, a more ruthless Prime Minister than Neville Chamberlain might have sacked Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty, for which the latter had direct political

responsibility, rather than taking the blame himself, thereby making way for Churchill to succeed him instead.   Other nations must be watching us with bemusement, for none of their leaders

in such a plight would have been contemplating resignation. None of them, certainly, will respect us more for ejecting yet another PM in mid-term — the third in a row. Macaulay thought “no

spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”. He was writing at a time when our Prime Ministers included such figures as Palmerston and Disraeli —

neither of whom was any more a model of propriety than Johnson. Do we seriously believe that the national recovery will be speeded up, the cost of living held down, or global threats

rendered harmless by prime ministerial defenestration over an issue that has precisely nothing to do with the national interest? Is it wise to replace Boris Johnson by one of those who have

ridden on his coat-tails? Does even his most competent rival possess the democratic legitimacy of an elected, experienced leader? To put it another way: would installing yet another

unelected Prime Minister benefit Britain? If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, then perhaps we should all think again. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication

that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the

pandemic. So please, make a donation._