By spinning it out so long, has Johnson done the Tories a favour?

The long drawn out, slow motion train wreck of Boris Johnson's resignation has been a farce beyond parody. Like Monty Python's Black Knight, Johnson suffered from unchecked confidence and a staunch refusal to ever give up. The Black Night declared "tis but a scratch" as his limbs were progressively severed by King Arthur, just as Johnson appeared to try to carry on after so many slings and arrows, a vote of confidence so narrow that previous Tory leaders would all have resigned and then an unprecedented flood of ministerial resignations which made it seem impossible for there to be enough supportive Tory MPs for him to form a functioning government. Perhaps he thought he could do it all himself.

There have been many bizarre twists but newly appointed chancellor Nadhim Zahawi telling Johnson within 48 hours that he should resign and there being three education secretaries in three days were perhaps the strangest. Not that different from the end of the Python sketch where King Arthur tells the limbless but still aggressively screaming knight "you're a loony".

Since Partygate unfolded it's not been clear how this would end, other than badly. I could sympathise with the arguments on both sides of the Partygate issue. It was egregious and a total failure of leadership for there to be parties in number 10, even if some of them didn't really merit being called a party, while people were forbidden to visit dying relatives. On the other hand the most serious events involved civil servants who didn't report to the PM and he isn't their keeper. Of course he should have set an example by turfing people out of his office, or telling them to disperse, rather than toasting them with a rather pathetic can of coke while standing in front of some miserable pre-wrapped sandwiches. But no, he's not a criminal: a fixed penalty doesn't attract a criminal record and very few people would expect a PM to resign for "breaking the law" by getting a parking ticket. Some of you would say that's not the same, even though strictly speaking it is. A lot of people felt very strongly about Partygate one way or the other. I didn't, though I felt it was crass and, had I been a Tory backbencher, I'd have voted to eject Johnson once there was a ballot.

What was more significant for me was the drip, drip, drip of evasion and, at best, half-truths. I agree with Matthew Syed that this was corrosive to our faith in standards in public life in the UK and his argument that, as has been shown by studying the case history of southern Italy, once that is lacking in society there is a permanent hit on economic performance, as no-one trusts anyone about pretty much anything. Together with the government's increasingly miserable performance in competent delivery I had felt that, while Labour seem bereft of much in the way of ideas, simple decency might be enough for them to win the the next election. It felt to me like the 1990s, when the electorate decided in late 1992, only 6 months after they had won a general election, that the Tories had lost their reputation for economic confidence and then, when they become embroiled in sleaze, that they would take the next chance to turf them out. With the hindsight of decades the sleaze of David Mellor purportedly making love to his mistress wearing a Chelsea shirt seems faintly ridiculous (he says he wasn't but really, who cares?) and the corruption of cash in brown envelopes to ask a question in parliament seems small beer compared with billions for PPE contracts. But the public had decided, so even though Major's government rediscovered its economic mojo they were out, handing over a burgeoning economy to Blair and Brown. 

Partygate and then steady flow of further problems felt much like the 90s and so the electorate would surely, in due course, turf the Tories out. But the saga of Johnson's departure may yet give them an opportunity to regroup. 

"Nothing in his life became him, like the leaving it," Malcolm says after death of the Thane of Cawdor in Macbeth. What he meant was the Thane died with great dignity. He had lived badly, but he bravely confessed to his crimes. He confessed his treason, repented, and asked for King Duncan's pardon right before he is executed. The only good thing Cawdor did in his whole evil life was to repent for his villainous behavior and die with a clear, forthright, and honest conscience.

Johnson's exit was the opposite of great dignity. His refusal to see that his own behaviour had caused and was continuing to cause so much disruption means the Tories could run an argument on the following lines:

Boris did well on delivering Brexit when it looked as if there was no way through even though people had voted for it. The pandemic was well handled overall in comparison to similar countries and the vaccine development and deployment saved thousands of lives and jobs. Partygate wasn't great but he had credit in the bank; we're a loyal party and don't give up on good people because they make a mistake. However, his behaviour became increasingly erratic and he completely lost the plot: he went full tonto*, threatening to stay on even though confidence in him had been lost. The party can now get back to what it stands for rather than being run by a maverick, etc etc.

This wouldn't have worked against an opposition as competent and fresh as Blair and Brown looked in 1997. Against Starmer who can readily be portrayed as Mr Boring and Dull it might. I see no chance that the Tories will win the next election by anything like their current 80 seat majority. But I could imagine it being close.

Further twists could yet be to come, especially if Durham police serve Keir Starmer with a fixed penalty notice and he falls on his sword, as he has said he would. From what we know I can see very little difference indeed between Starmer's beer and curry event in Durham and the 'ambushed by birthday cake' do for which Johnson got his fixed penalty. Starmer has done well to rehabilitate Labour quickly after Corbyn, anti-semitism etc. But he is rather colourless and appears to be a sanctimonious prig. I wasn't impressed by a former DPP seeming to attempt to pressurise the police by his dare to quit if given a ticket. Even if he's not given a ticket some mud will stick; the episode will be brought up repeatedly whether or not he is penalised.

The Tories will have a lot of candidates for leader; I'm not sure if any seem terribly convincing at this stage. Liz Truss is the favourite of the Tory membership but her colleagues may conspire/vote tactically to keep her off the ballot. I have some concern that she could be as crazy as Johnson, though my bigger concern is that I don't know what her views on, or understanding of, the economy are. 

Labour may or may not have many candidates if they suddenly need to elect another leader; I can't think of a single convincing candidate. If it's still Starmer, or if both parties play safe in their choice of new leader, at the next general election we could find a situation where it's more about the policies than the personalities, in a kind of charisma free zone inhabitated by leaders who make Ed Davey and Mark Drakeford look interesting. Wouldn't that be weird? 

The Tories will feel they have two years to pick a leader, hope for an easing of headwinds in the world economy and produce some worthwhile achievements to show for their term in office besides getting Brexit done - sort of, but maybe not really in Ireland.

P.S. I expect we'll hear the usual nonsense from people saying there should be a general election and why should members of the Tory party pick the next prime minister. Er, who else should pick the leader of the Tory party? That would be as bizarre as Everton fans having a say in picking Liverpool's next manager (hmm, maybe a good idea....)  Since I've been old enough to pay attention more PMs have come to office between rather than at general elections (Home, Callaghan, Major, Brown, May and Johnson v Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Blair and Cameron).

* Tonto in this context isn't a reference to the Lone Ranger's sidekick and has nothing to do with Native Americans. In Spanish it means stupid or foolish, though it's widely used to mean someone has gone crazy