This is not a Conservative cabinet. It's a Vote Leave cabinet.
Boris Johnson spent the last few weeks telling Conservative
Party members that he was ideally placed to unite the country. He didn't offer
any evidence of why that was the case, but he was pretty unequivocal - unity
was his priority.
He made much the same point during
his speech yesterday: he was the man who will unite Britain. While the
excruciating language in which he expressed it was reminiscent of David Brent,
the sentiment was clear. Again, no explanation as to how this unity was to be
achieved was forthcoming - it should just be accepted as true because Mr
Johnson has asserted it.
Actions inevitably speak louder than words. Hours after taking office and all talk of unity already seems like either a distant memory or another Johnson lie.
Actions inevitably speak louder than words. Hours after taking office and all talk of unity already seems like either a distant memory or another Johnson lie.
When Theresa May entered number 10
she was determined to have a mixed cabinet, with people from both sides of the
EU debate around the table. This was unwise in some respects, as at allowed the
likes of Johnson to become indispensable to the maintenance of the
Leaver-Remainer balance in cabinet, but her intentions and instincts were
correct. Political crises are rarely resolved by leaders surrounding themselves
with yes-men and those with identical perspectives.
Johnson, on the other hand, has selected a cabinet of sycophants. Some of the appointments were so ridiculous it had something of a comedy about it. The worrying thing, however, is that this is not comedy drama - Johnson is serious (at least, as serious as Johnson can be). He was serious when he appointed a man to the foreign office who not only failed to appreciate the proximity of Calais to Dover but also protested about the Withdrawal Agreement he had helped to negotiate and design. He was serious when he appointed to the home office a woman who not only supports capital punishment but made comments on Ireland I'll diplomatically call insensitive. He was serious when he appointed the embodiment of class-based privilege, Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Leader of the House - hours after he had announced he would be forming a cabinet to reflect modern Britain. He was serious when he appointed, as the business secretary, someone who believes the UK economy can thrive based on fruit-picking and "innovative jam" manufacturing. He was serious when he sacked cabinet members who committed the heinous crime of supporting Jeremy Hunt in the leadership contest, and similarly serious when he dismissed a palatable Brexiter like Penny Mordaunt.
There are those who say this shows that Johnson wants to get "down to business". Liz Truss expressed the view last night that it was vital the cabinet was committed to leaving the EU on 31st October - and this is all that seems to matter to Johnson. But that logic is flawed, and obviously so. Why should it be assumed that any such cabinet would be able to convince parliament to support its determination to leave on that date, irrespective of the consequences? Why should collective intransigence succeed now when it hasn't in the past?
Johnson, on the other hand, has selected a cabinet of sycophants. Some of the appointments were so ridiculous it had something of a comedy about it. The worrying thing, however, is that this is not comedy drama - Johnson is serious (at least, as serious as Johnson can be). He was serious when he appointed a man to the foreign office who not only failed to appreciate the proximity of Calais to Dover but also protested about the Withdrawal Agreement he had helped to negotiate and design. He was serious when he appointed to the home office a woman who not only supports capital punishment but made comments on Ireland I'll diplomatically call insensitive. He was serious when he appointed the embodiment of class-based privilege, Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Leader of the House - hours after he had announced he would be forming a cabinet to reflect modern Britain. He was serious when he appointed, as the business secretary, someone who believes the UK economy can thrive based on fruit-picking and "innovative jam" manufacturing. He was serious when he sacked cabinet members who committed the heinous crime of supporting Jeremy Hunt in the leadership contest, and similarly serious when he dismissed a palatable Brexiter like Penny Mordaunt.
There are those who say this shows that Johnson wants to get "down to business". Liz Truss expressed the view last night that it was vital the cabinet was committed to leaving the EU on 31st October - and this is all that seems to matter to Johnson. But that logic is flawed, and obviously so. Why should it be assumed that any such cabinet would be able to convince parliament to support its determination to leave on that date, irrespective of the consequences? Why should collective intransigence succeed now when it hasn't in the past?
This is not a Conservative cabinet,
but a Vote Leave cabinet. The Guido Fawkes blog tweeted "basically got my
fantasy cabinet" which tells you everything you need to know. This is a
cabinet that doesn't have the interests of the country at heart or even the
interests of the Conservative Party. It is a Brexiter's fantasy - nothing more,
nothing less. Nigel Farage has won: he might not be physically present at the
cabinet table but his influence and ideology have informed its make-up.
This Vote Leave government cannot be good for the country for the simple reason that it is willing to alienate at least half of it. I suspect it will also be bad for Brexit, because the approach apparently being adopted is doomed to be counter-productive. If we have learned anything from the previous year, it is that parliament will not be bullied into submission. With 99 days to go until 31st October, Brexit requires a leader with imagination and creativity to make it happen.
On the plus side, the Cabinet of Leavers will have no-one else to blame for their inevitable failures, and they will be judged on that failure. As the Conservative Party becomes ever-more indistinct from the Brexit Party, the rest of us have some significant questions to ask ourselves - and decisions to make. The abandonment of the historic Conservative Party to the Brexit faction presents a huge opportunity to create new movements not determined by the traditional party identities: perhaps, inadvertently, Mr Johnson has struck a blow for the advancement of progressive politics?
This Vote Leave government cannot be good for the country for the simple reason that it is willing to alienate at least half of it. I suspect it will also be bad for Brexit, because the approach apparently being adopted is doomed to be counter-productive. If we have learned anything from the previous year, it is that parliament will not be bullied into submission. With 99 days to go until 31st October, Brexit requires a leader with imagination and creativity to make it happen.
On the plus side, the Cabinet of Leavers will have no-one else to blame for their inevitable failures, and they will be judged on that failure. As the Conservative Party becomes ever-more indistinct from the Brexit Party, the rest of us have some significant questions to ask ourselves - and decisions to make. The abandonment of the historic Conservative Party to the Brexit faction presents a huge opportunity to create new movements not determined by the traditional party identities: perhaps, inadvertently, Mr Johnson has struck a blow for the advancement of progressive politics?
Comments