X Close

Boris can survive a cancelled Christmas Many voters are still giving their shambolic PM the benefit of the doubt

This is going to be a fantastic Christmas for Britain. Credit: Ben Stansall - WPA Pool/Getty

This is going to be a fantastic Christmas for Britain. Credit: Ben Stansall - WPA Pool/Getty


December 21, 2020   5 mins

A prime minister who dreamt of being a new Churchill is having nightmares about Cromwell instead.  Indeed, such is the strangeness of pandemic politics that last week, Boris Johnson was practically demanding to be compared to Old Ironsides. “I don’t think there has been anything like it since Cromwell’s time,” Johnson said last Wednesday of the Covid rules he promised faithfully to stand by during the Christmas period.

Perhaps the only person who appeared surprised when Johnson, less than 72 hours later, scrapped those rules was the man himself; the look of bafflement on his face as he announced that he was indeed cancelling Christmas suggests that, like many politicians, he himself may actually believe the words he conjures up every time he finds himself in a tricky corner.

But where does that cancellation leave the PM? Measured in his own terms, he has surely failed: he is now doing something he desperately did not want to do and had promised just days earlier not to do. Hence the barrage of brutal headlines, social media sniping and whispers about his future.

On the face of it, that might all seem justified. A politician who does something that will sadden and inconvenience many people cannot expect a good coverage — especially if that thing also hits the bottom line of many media groups that rely on consumer spending for their revenues. Nor can a leader who repeatedly sends his troops out to defend positions that he quickly abandons count on their loyalty forever.

Neither media nor Conservative parliamentary anger are small things, yet they also count for rather less than the views of the wider public. And my bet is that the public will ultimately forgive Boris Johnson for cancelling Christmas.

The British public are generally less political, more pragmatic and far more subtle than those of us who do and write political things for a living. While the SW1A bubble — Johnson included — may be consumed with binary choices between Cromwellian authoritarianism and Cavalier libertarianism, most voters judge governments by results and circumstances, and politicians by their intentions.

Start with the circumstances. For an awful lot of people, it is clear that the Government is facing extremely difficult problems to which there are no wholly good answers. Poll after poll shows that solid majorities of those surveyed are broadly supportive of restrictive policies that cause economic pain and personal sadness. That’s not because Britain is a nation of authoritarians. It’s because voters think that a pandemic that has killed 60,000 people requires unusual interventions.

Those interventions include changing our Christmas habits. Before that agonising retreat over the festive Covid amnesty, the same polls were consistently showing that a majority of people wanted the rules to be tighter. After the “cancellation”, YouGov found that two-thirds of voters approved of the decision.

Again, that’s not because the British hate Christmas and want to cancel it. It’s because they think that in a pandemic, their government ought to take action to reduce the number of people who end up dead.

Boris Johnson has now taken such action, albeit later than necessary and in a typically shambolic manner, dragging his feet, like any decent libertarian. What does that mean for him? Here again, I think the whispers of imminent doom are overdone. I think a lot of voters will still, just about, give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude, in terms, that the bloke is trying to do his best in bloody difficult circumstances. Johnson’s visible misery and exhaustion probably play quite well for him here too: the cognoscenti may regard him as unforgivably unserious, but a lot of people glancing at him making yet another grim announcement will likely see a man who looks like he’s taking the pandemic pretty seriously.

Of course, the suggestions I’ve just made would be strongly disputed in Westminster twitter-chambers, where everyone knows that Boris is a stranger to leadership and fidelity, that he’s the sort of shallow chancer who only tells people difficult truths when he has exhausted every other option first.

That being so, Westminster Twitter might want to ask more questions about why a party led by such a chancer, a governing party that has presided over dither, delay and death and which has now cancelled Christmas is set to finish the year with a polling average of just under 40%, essentially neck-and-neck with the Labour opposition.

For those of us who remember the days, so long ago, when David Cameron’s Conservatives didn’t dare to dream of 40%, it is all the more remarkable that this Conservative government, overseen by this PM, can be even remotely competitive in the polls. Put it another way: if the Tories aren’t a mile behind Labour in the nadir of a miserable pandemic, you have to wonder where public opinion will be in the summer of 2021 if the vaccination programme really has started to make life start to feel more or less “normal” again. If Christmas 2020 and the even bleaker midwinter that follows are as bad as it gets for Boris and his party, he will be uncorking a second bottle of the good stuff to go with his second turkey when Christmas is reinstated in 2021.

That “if” is key. Because while it’s right and proper to look past a lot of headlines and political froth over cancelling Christmas, that doesn’t mean that these dark days are cost-free for Johnson and his government.

While voters are fair-minded and pragmatic, their patience and generosity are finite. There is a very fine line that divides understandable mistakes made in difficult circumstances by people trying their best, and culpable cock-ups committed by a cluster of clowns.

The political history of the pandemic so far is that just enough voters will just about allow Boris Johnson’s government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to competence. That will likely just about hold true for a little longer. By cancelling Christmas, Boris has, eventually done the right thing, and may eventually get a little credit for that.

The same may well apply over the closure of Channel ports. While that’s obviously a dreadful and distressing thing, will voters really — as some sophisticated Tweeters now suggest — directly blame the PM for decisions other governments have made to control the spread of a new coronavirus variant from the UK? I have my doubts.

But if — some would say when — the impression properly takes hold that Johnson and his Government simply don’t know what they’re doing, that they’re just not up to the job, well, then the rest of this Parliament will feel very long indeed for the  Conservative Party, and be potentially quite short for the PM. There are already angry calls for his resignation and a government of national unity. So sooner or later in the New Year, he’ll do what all PMs do so try to hang on to a sliver of that c-word: reshuffle his Cabinet, relaunch his government and brief journalists about “taking personal charge” of stuff. It might work; it might not. The outcome of that will matter more than this week’s bad headlines about a cancelled Christmas.

The Cromwell analogy is a good one, as Johnson’s own words show, but people looking into it for portents of Johnson’s doom might look more closely at dates. Puritans in Parliament banned Christmas in 1647. Oliver Cromwell ruled for another 11 years before dying in office.

And Cromwell’s regime didn’t fall because he allowed the Puritans to ban Christmas. It fell because his son and successor lacked the strength to grip and lead that regime, and provide the reassuringly stable government that the country wanted.

Boris Johnson has always wondered about his place in history. If posterity ends up recording him as another Oliver Cromwell, he’ll be doing OK.

It’s being Richard Cromwell he should be worried about.


James Kirkup is Director of the London-based Social Market Foundation

jameskirkup

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

88 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David J
David J
3 years ago

Of course voters give Johnson benefit of the doubt.
And that’s because few people think that knee-bender Starmer or the invisible Libdems would do any better.

bootsyjam
bootsyjam
3 years ago
Reply to  David J

I’m not clear what Starmer actually wants. You can paint BJ as someone who flip flops, or as someone who is trying to let us be as free as we can until changing data demands that we change course.

Starmer and the media are all united in that they want lockdowns. It has been this way from the start. I’m not sure what they are complaining about now. Starmer wanted an Xmas lockdown https://www.mirror.co.uk/ne
so it’s not clear what he wants. Does he not want to respond to data as and when it changes to allow people a chance to be free? Who knows. It all just seems a bit “if BJ says x then we say y.”

Although it is Johnson’s fault that he hasn’t laid out why he changes his mind. If he says it’s to ensure people keep their freedom as much as they can, and that these are the conservative ideals that he wants to uphold then he would slay a lot of his criticism immediately.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  David J

Exactly, who else is there to turn to? Better the devil you know…reluctant, shambolic, indecisive. But probably not the very worst you could have.

Teo
Teo
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Anyone 4 the return of Dominic Cummings?

The last 40 years have been a political lockout and lockdown, the reason why there is no political competence or dynamics.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  David J

My point (above) entirely

Charles Lawton
Charles Lawton
3 years ago
Reply to  David J

With his current majority Johnson has far more to fear from his own ranks of than the opposition who have a four year campaign to fight

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  David J

There are lots of good candidates for Johnson’s job on the Conservative benches. A great many of them would obviously be better than Johnson.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

Well Boris might survive a cancelled Christmas. But thousands of small businesses won’t.

Ian Turner
Ian Turner
3 years ago

It hasn’t killed ‘60,000’ this is fake news at its most obvious! Note that Flu deaths are down by 93% this year, this tells you that flu deaths are being conflated with covid, many reports of death certs being covid related deaths when the individuals have actually died of something else (which would have killed them anyway). We will probably never know the true figure of pure covid death rates, due to the lies of politicians and hysterical tabloid press exaggerations.

Ian Burton
Ian Burton
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Turner

Exactly. One of the first things the government did after the pandemic began to unfold was change the way that deaths are recorded. It especially, and deliberately, conflated people who have died with covid (and who often would have died regardless of covid) with those who truly died of it (and otherwise would not have died). The effect of this has been profound – hence the absurd use of “60,000” which simply isn’t true – unless you accept the new ‘creative’ definition of what constitutes a covid death.

Paul Wright
Paul Wright
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Burton

I’m sorry, Svetlana, but this isn’t true. The MDU’s Certifying deaths during COVID-19 outbreak outlines the changes (which are mostly about who can certify a death) and does not say that those who have died “with” are to be conflated with those who died “from”. The death certificate differentiates between underlying and proximate causes, as well as contributary causes, and always has.

Paul Wright
Paul Wright
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Turner

On the one hand, we have over 60000 death certificates signed by doctors saying COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death. On the other, we have you, Vlad“Ian”, suggesting that the doctors can’t tell it from flu. Who should we believe, I wonder?

jamessykes3011
jamessykes3011
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Wright

A medical certificate cause of death is only to the attending dr’s best of knowledge and belief , it is not a sworn statement.

K Sheedy
K Sheedy
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Turner

The measure that counts is the average deaths number. It is clear that covid has killed far more than 60k. If this theory that it only accelerated the deaths of the ancient and frail is correct then the average death count will be extraordinarily low in winter 2021 & 22.
I betting it will not be 60k people less.

Mary May
Mary May
3 years ago
Reply to  K Sheedy

next year those who haven’t had their cancer treatment this year will start dying. your bet is correct but your theory is not

David Uzzaman
David Uzzaman
3 years ago

Boris was unfortunate in being PM when Covid struck the world. We were unfortunate in having Boris as PM when Covid struck the UK. He’s a PM for good times. He’s more fun than most occupants of the job but he’s ended up in a role for which he’s entirely unsuited. He’s been panicked into sudden policy changes instead of waiting to see what the consequences of each change has been. If he survives politically it will be because of the dearth of other contenders.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  David Uzzaman

You can’t have a PM who is only there for the good times, anymore than you can have the managing director of a company who is only capable of managing effectively during the good times.
The real test of a good leader is how they cope during the bad times when unpredictable events happen such as Covid.

David Uzzaman
David Uzzaman
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

You obviously believe in the “great man” theory of history. Whereas I believe that occasionally individuals suit the times. A sort of serendipity. The obvious example is Churchill a political failure prior to 1940 and arguably after about 1945 but right just once.

Jay Williamson
Jay Williamson
3 years ago
Reply to  David Uzzaman

Ooh, yes, what a pity that Corbyn didn’t win the election. What a wheeze that would have been when he put in place his beloved Universal Basic Income and locked everybody up in his own socialist hell.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

I never said Corbyn would have done a better job. I never voted for Corbyn anyway. But Corbyn is not PM of this country, Johnson is, and he is an embarrassing miserable failure.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

Johnson is in charge. He must be held to account. Who cares what Corbyn would have done, he is old news, thankfully.

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

Corbyn would undoubtedly have done very poorly had he been PM over the last year. It is idle to speculate whether he would have been worse than Johnson, because the key point is that Johnson has been, and Corbyn would have been, absollutely useless.

In turn, that is because they are typical products of our political culture: innumerate, desperate to please their followers, tribally convinced that the other side are they very devil despite agreeing with them on almost everything, long on verbiage, short on management skills, pretty ignorant about the world and utterly deluded about the importance of the UK in the world.

We desperately need better politicians on both sides of the House.

David Uzzaman
David Uzzaman
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

Jeremy would also have been a disaster for much the same reason. In a crisis you need an natural authoritarian, someone you wouldn’t want in charge of a liberal democracy in normal times. We haven’t got many in Parliament at the moment but Priti Patel would certainly be a contender. Boris has been weak and erratic like a bad King from the Middle Ages constantly listening to advisors and worrying about his image.

Martin Davis
Martin Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  David Uzzaman

Then doubly unfortunate that it coincided with a self-imposed radical rearrangement of relations with the EU, coming to a head at exactly the moment when COVID renewed its threat to the country. The fallout will encourage a search for scapegoats, both by the government, and the population at large. With a safe parliamentary majority the odds are on an internal rearrangement of the government. Given Bojo’s prominence, it is difficult to see ejection of Handcock et al as sufficient. One can only hope.

Nicholas Rynn
Nicholas Rynn
3 years ago
Reply to  David Uzzaman

Or perhaps he just failed to rise to the occasion. His problem is his desperate need to be loved. He has yet to understand Government requires hard choices: sadly he is surrounded by people advising him that doing the popular thing is the way forward. That is what you get when government is run by opinion polls and focus groups and not grown ups.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

“the bloke is trying to do his best in bloody difficult circumstances”. Absolutely; and with all and sundry slagging him blind about every move and U turn I’ve yet to read anything anywhere about how any other political party would have handled this any better. “Always make the most out of a good crisis” Labour and specifically Sir Kneel must be laughing down their sleeves all the way to the bank

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago

If they are laughing, they are idiots.

Labour won’t gain any electoral advantage from COVID – if anything – it might be the complete reverse.

The people who thought Labour had nothing to offer at the 2019 election will not have seen anything to change their minds.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago

I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that Starmer is laughing down his sleeve or anywhere else for that matter. On the contrary he has been doing his best to get Johnson to take the pandemic more seriously and to take the necessary action to curb the rising infection rates.
It’s true that any leader would have struggled with a crisis of this magnitude – but the big weakness of Johnson is that he doesn’t listen to advice until the situation becomes critical – and never learns from the mistakes he’s made. And that is also typical of that ship of fools that is pleased to call itself the Cabinet.

johnbird30120
johnbird30120
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

In the history books you will find a government that was known as the ‘ministry of all the talents’. Unfortunately Boris pushed the limited amount of talent at his disposal on to the back benches so he has a ministry of little talent. I suspect Mr Cummings was smarter than anyone in his team but unfortunately not driven by any higher moral purpose than wielding and keeping power. In the face of an ongoing war situation surely it’s time for a temporary government of national unity bringing together those who have competence and the willingness to tell the truth and make timely and well informed decisions!

Teo
Teo
3 years ago
Reply to  johnbird30120

A government of national unity or any other power grab would probably be opinioned by the brutal serfs as the political elite seizing the opportunity to take back control of the sovereignty they prostituted during the Brexit campaign.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  johnbird30120

I would certainly agree that a temporary government of national unity is what is needed. Then sack Johnson, and put a more able Tory in as PM.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

Voters probably give the government the benefit of the doubt because this is an entirely new situation and everyone, everywhere is having to deal with it as best we know how in the absence of complete information and experience. That means trial and error. Talk of “yet another u-turn” is just another instance of an intellectually bankrupt media class trying to keep their chosen narrative on the boil. If the government is still rubbish and can’t perform after this is over (which seems like a fairly accurate prediction), get rid. Then Johnson can at least have been like Churchill in one respect: he was there for the worst of times, then got booted out when it was over.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

At least Churchill stepped up to the plate, acted like a grown-up and led everyone through the worst times – which is more than you can say about Johnson.

Jay Williamson
Jay Williamson
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

Churchill had much more experience of wars and political shenanigans than Boris Johnson, you know! If you read some history you will see that Churchill also had torrid times in Parliament during the war.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

Johnson has been cosseted and cushioned all this life – and been excused from accepting responsibility for his actions. He’s never had a proper job – and whose fault is that? He’s a lazy idle git who wants everyone else to do the hard yards whilst he walks off with all the kudos.
And having limited political experience is no excuse for not being able to do the job. He wanted it, nobody forced him into it. And he was in charge of the Foreign Office at one time and made a complete balls-up there.
He is an arrogant t****r – and I hope some day he receives the comeuppance he so richly deserves.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

I wasn’t comparing their skills as leaders…I was just saying they were both PM during hard times. That much is true. Churchill was a statesman. Boris Johnson hasn’t shown any sign of being a statesman as yet and I doubt he will.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

Yes and WSC had a heart attack in late 1940, which would have killed a weaker specimen. But give BJ a chance it’s still early days!

benmcphilips
benmcphilips
3 years ago

How ironic that this most Cavalier of PMs should in the end be compared to Cromwell rather than Charles II.

The story would not have been materially different if anyone else had been running the country. Starmer might have locked down sooner but so what? Being PM at this time is like applying for Mayor of Hiroshima in 1945.

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  benmcphilips

Ummmm. Johnson is a journalist by profession – good at striking a pose but not interested in data, detail and hard decisions. Starmer might well have been no better, but Johnson has set a very low standard and other industrial nations have dealt with this a lot better – notably Japan, South Korea and Germany.

Roger Inkpen
Roger Inkpen
3 years ago
Reply to  B B

Including Germany in that list might have made sense a couple of months ago. Have you seen how Corona is spiking there now?

Early Nov: 10,000 deaths
Now: 25,000 dead

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  B B

So was WSC.

Teo
Teo
3 years ago

Brexit was the outcome of decades of infighting within the Conservative party, the present machinations are the opening shots of the infighting between the one nation conservatives and the laissez faire right. Indeed some of those laissez faire madmen even marked MrsT as a socialist.

Roger Inkpen
Roger Inkpen
3 years ago
Reply to  Teo

All the evidence so far is that this govt will be more socialist than Blair’s!

johnbird30120
johnbird30120
3 years ago

I wish commentators would stop quoting YouGov polls as evidence of public opinion. The membership is heavily skewed towards older retired people. It’s convenient if you want to find some conservative views (small c) but probe deeper for balance.

Matthew Duggan
Matthew Duggan
3 years ago

I think much of the electorate will be of the view that, in the circumstances, they would, like Boris, choose the more optimistic course even if that means having to back down in the face of new information, as opposed to the lockdown-hard-now-forever approach advocated by some. I suspect Starmer knows this, and recognises that his polling would suffer if he becomes seen by all as an unequivocal lockdown fanatic and humourless Puritan.

RALPH TIFFIN
RALPH TIFFIN
3 years ago

Well I’ll not vote for Boris or his team of inadequates. Instead of terrifying us why do they not make it clear we are not immortal and they are not god’s? That would be honest.

The government does not seem to appreciate that the many of the ever-growing band of arithmeticians, political scientists and psychologists in or linked to Sage, demonstrably have very limited experience of the world and life outside their cloisters. Neil Ferguson has his fixation on geometric growth. Then there is a professor from St Andrews who tells us that Christmas dinner ‘creates perfect conditions for coronavirus’ ““ it takes a giant mind to work that out.

Few of the “sage” folk can suggest any other plan than lock-down. Of course Boris
and most of his team are in their thrall as they evidently lack real scientific
knowledge and have limited experience of the world and life outside of their “bubble”.

Are there plans B ? C or D? The government has had 10 months to come up with them. Vaccination is now the promised solution. What happens if vaccination is not as successful as forecast ““ what then? There will be more early deaths ““ we are all going to die one day ““ how could this be sensitivity dealt with?

We need knowledgeable leaders.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  RALPH TIFFIN

After nearly fifty years of Comprehensively (dreadful) Education, which accounts for about 90% of our children, we just don’t have any “knowledgeable leaders” anymore.

Judging by the fiasco just executed at Eton, we shouldn’t expect anything from the Private Sector either.

Consummatum est!

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

The history of British education over the last fifty years is indeed a sad story. But those same comprehensives have done what they were intended to do – they have raised the standard of education of the bottom half and especially the bottom quartile.

The choice of this dismal goal is the problem, not the comprehensive system.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  B B

Thank you Anthony Crosland Esq.

Martin Price
Martin Price
3 years ago
Reply to  B B

I was one of the first to experience the Comprehensive system having missed the Grammer system by two years. I can attest that it did not in any way improve the standard for those who experienced it. Perhaps you could provide evidence for your opinion?

Simon Newman
Simon Newman
3 years ago

While I don’t believe the polls, there’s no indication that Labour would have done any better. There’s no sign of any adults in the room – no grown-up alternative government in waiting.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Newman

I have found Johnson’s tone to be extremely jarring. The way he scoffed at Starmer for wanting to cancel Christmas last Wednesday during PMQ’s was typical of his lack of seriousness. He is not a person that inspires and unifies during a national crisis. He feels inadequate and not up to the task. Even if a different PM had not made any materially different decisions at least they might have struck a better tone with the public. Although, I believe a more decisive leader would have made better decisions when it counted and not always waited till the last minute.

Philip Perkins
Philip Perkins
3 years ago

It may be that Sage’s over-reliance on flawed PCR testing and perverse computer modelling will be what finally undermines public confidence the government.

The distinguished lawyer Rainer Fuellmich has recently sent a Cease and Desist letter to Christian Drosten, co-author of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test accusing him of providing misleading information about the ability of the test to identify infection. Further, a group of 22 scientists has written to Eurosurveillance alleging 10 fatal flaws in the original SARS PCR paper that Drosten co-authored back in January and asking that it should be withdrawn.

The government’s response has been largely based on fluctuations in numbers of PCR ‘cases’. If the test is finally proven to be flawed, then their strategy collapses.

Andrew Holland
Andrew Holland
3 years ago

The Johnson government has revealed it has, and perhaps has all along only ever had, a one-tracked mindset about this – an all-out effort to eliminate Covid irrespective of the cost is the only policy they’ll consider. I can’t see this goal being achieved in objective reality, so their only possible strategy is that a combination of the objective benefits that the vaccine can deliver towards this goal, plus a massive propaganda campaign to convince us that they’ve successfully dealt with the problem by their own terms, will satisfy enough of the public that they’re done an acceptable job.

In fairness, their first propaganda campaign did work – it’s convinced many people that this virus is far worse than it is. So maybe the government can pull another con job off again.

But imo this has spun completely out of control since the initial 3 week lockdown, and the current leadership is not going to be able to get things back under control now. Nothing they’ve done has worked so far (if by “worked”, we mean stopping Covid in its tracks, which as mentioned above appears to be the government’s sworn mission now). And I don’t have the confidence others have that the vaccine will be the silver bullet.

Therefore it seems to me that a change at the top is the only way out of this. Much the same with the Brexit paralysis; it was never going to move forward with May in charge, and similarly with Covid, while Boris (and Hancock etc) are in the top seats, we’re never going to get out of this. A pasting in the local elections, just as the Tories suffered over Brexit in 2018, which forces MPs and the wider party into finally getting off their arses and pressurising the government (and leads to a no confidence vote and Boris being replaced with some fresh thinking on the issue) is to my mind a more realistic scenario than thinking Boris is going to come out of this looking like a hero.

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Holland

You aren’t taking the Covid seriously enough. So far it has killed about one Brit in a thousand in about 9 months. That’s serious.

Stephen Easton
Stephen Easton
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Holland

I agree. The government here plus pretty much everywhere else is in so deep on this that the vaccine is the only way out.

It’s the only approach that justifies the measures that have already been taken. Any other way out, such as seeing the level of deaths tail off naturally (as seems to happen with viruses, or else our species would be extinct) would concede that the measures had little or no benefit.

They need the vaccine. Which also makes me wonder if that is truly safe too.

William Gladstone
William Gladstone
3 years ago

Polls eh, nuff said

ncvireland
ncvireland
3 years ago

Boris is a bumbling buffoon. It is not an act, is a fact!

Jay Williamson
Jay Williamson
3 years ago
Reply to  ncvireland

Looking at your photo I think it’s you that’s the bumbling buffoon!

Chris Hopwood
Chris Hopwood
3 years ago

Interesting to note that Sturgeon , who hasn’t really done any better in fighting Covid, is miles ahead in the Scottish polls.

bob alob
bob alob
3 years ago

When Kier Starmer is describing the Governments previous plans for Christmas by allowing families to enjoy meeting up for 5 days at Christmas as “a free for all” I can imagine how authoritarian his approach would have been had he been PM, there are many people who describe the current measures as too restrictive but Keir Starmer reminds us it could be much worse had he been in charge.

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  bob alob

Do you think imposing public health measures during a pandemic disease is authoritarian ? Maybe it’s just an annoying but essential step that nobody wants but needs to be done.

bob alob
bob alob
3 years ago
Reply to  B B

Well if we are calling them simply public health measures we might as well go all out and do a full Wuhan, or maybe quarantine people in tower blocks with armed guards as happened in Australia recently, even here those people who are unwilling to follow the current rules risk fines which could impact the rest of their lives, but as long as it’s for the good of public health I suppose anything is justified.

Stephen Easton
Stephen Easton
3 years ago
Reply to  B B

The question to address is whether the measures are even helping to stop the virus. The evidence for that, as opposed to theoretical modelling, is very weak. They are not “essential” if their impact is low. We also know that the lock downs impose an adverse impact on human life too.

Andrew Best
Andrew Best
3 years ago

It’s not cancelling Christmas that will stick to Boris, it’s being poor at everything else
Will probably betray us on brexit.
Can lock down the country but can’t send back foreign pedophiles, rapist,
murders etc
Business destroyed
Lives ruined due to NHS not dealing with cancers etc.
The only plus he has is all the other parties are an absolute shower

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

“It’s because voters think that a pandemic that has killed 60,000 people requires unusual interventions.”

And Britain has had a year of unusual interventions. 60,000 people still died. And millions more had their lives irretrievably damaged. If lockdowns worked there wouldn’t be 60,000 dead people. As for Christmas, some people will cancel it and others won’t, regardless of what Boris Johnson says.

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
3 years ago

If those 60,000 cases were examined closely, one by one, it would probably be found that most of them were people in very frail health who were going to die of the very next thing to come along that gave their bodily systems the smallest slightest push; e.g. a bad cold.
So the economy and civil liberties have been destroyed owing to an illness which, SO FAR, has been fatal to the tolerably healthy in a vanishingly small percentage of the population.
How does this make sense?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

It doesn’t make sense. I agree that it’s been mostly frail, elderly and those with underlying conditions that died, same as here in the US. On top of that, since US hospitals got money related to covid cases, some people who died with covid were counted as dying of covid. We likely won’t ever know the actual death count.

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
3 years ago

People will give Johnson the benefit of the doubt as along as they accept the ‘scientific’ premises of his strategy for dealing with the pandemic.
But as the economic catastrophe caused by this strategy unfolds, they will question whether the ‘science’ was all it was cracked up to be; and discover that (a) there were a lot of different opinions from different, equally qualified, biologists and epidemiologists; most of whom had a much better track record of prediction than the lamentable tiny crew who have been advising this PM; (b) that the threat from the Chinese WuFlu has been (hitherto) greatly exaggerated, and (c) that, just as a certain kind of military general is always looking for a war for his country to fight [it gives him the chance of swaggering around, being important, lecturing the public, winning gongs], so a certain kind of epidemiologist will massively exaggerate threats from viruses because that makes THEM super-significant in the national eye. Neil Ferguson got the Foot and Mouth outbreak completely wrong at a terrible cost of animal life.

The public will then conclude that this PM, and his woefully inadequate team, from motives of cowardice let themselves be the prisoners of a small coterie of alarmists, who got to be more important and self-important the more they banged the Terror Drum.
When giant multitudes have lost their jobs and futures, this error will not be treated as a slight mistake.

Stephen Easton
Stephen Easton
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

I agree. I just think that the realisation may take time. My own MP is a Minister. I have emailed him to remind him that WW1 Generals were popular during that war. But they are not now. I believe the analogy is very relevant.

Shay McInerney
Shay McInerney
3 years ago

Still can’t fathom why people are so worked up about cases. Excess mortality is the only metric that’s relevant.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago

What can we do if we do not give him and the rest of his useless cabinet the benefit of the doubt? The next election is years away.

William Murphy
William Murphy
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

The Supreme Court refused to hear the recent legal challenge against lockdown which Simon Dolan organised and to which I contributed. So legally we are at the end of the road, unless Boris’ blundering opens up another legal pathway.

https://www.crowdjustice.co

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago

He has to believe what he says; he lies too often to live with himself if he owned it!

Vivek Rajkhowa
Vivek Rajkhowa
3 years ago

Imagine thinking beinf compared to Cromwell is a good thing

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 years ago

Actually, I suggest that his recent decision to put London in tier 4 shows him as rather more courageous that he is given credit for.
There are bound to have been poor decisions in the confusion caused by the virus but Johnson has shown the willingness to take very unpopular decisions and reverse his own plans and open himself to criticism.
I hate the lockdowns, there’s a good chance that they achieve little at great cost but my confidence in the government has increased this week.

B B
B B
3 years ago

From the article: “There are already angry calls for his resignation and a government of national unity.”

Just let things sink in a bit. This is a Conservative government which won an 80-seat majority scarcely a year ago. Johnson may survive on the basis set out in the article, that the public don’t blame him for the Covid. But equally, he may not. The evidence to date is that he and his government have fallen very far and very fast in popularity. Every good conservative ought to be asking why, and asking what should we do next.

William Gladstone
William Gladstone
3 years ago

In the last week or so Boris has quietly cancelled criminalising the BBC licence fee and has let the home office civil servants get away with total lies in the grooming gangs report. Who exactly do you think is going to vote for Boris and why?

simon taylor
simon taylor
3 years ago

Why does Unherd give copy space to this bubble dwelling remainer? Anyone who believes there is such a thing as a”sophisticated twitter user” needs some kind of intervention.

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
3 years ago

Boris’s ambitions should now be restricted to avoiding the fate of his hero Mussolini.

Charles Lawton
Charles Lawton
3 years ago

Interesting analogy however, Boris is totally unlike Cromwell, he did not fight and win a Civil War, close down Parliament: no he is much more like “Tumbledown d**k” as Cromwell’s son was known. So it will not be long before he gives up. Just as long as we don’t end up with a restored Stuart Style Monarchy with Prince Charles in charge.

Jay Williamson
Jay Williamson
3 years ago

Let’s not forge that the alternative was Corbyn, not some imaginary person who would have known exactly what to do and not to do, every step of the way!
Boris is doing ok in the circumstances. Corbyn would have had everybody on Universal Basic Income and the country changed into his idea of a socialist paradise.

Martin Davis
Martin Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

Unfortunately this particular scapegoat is not longer available for denunciation, though in certain quarters the ritual will no doubt be perpetuated ad nauseam, having had no influence on the course of events since before COVID arrived. That albatross, along with another, is firmly tied around the neck of Her Majesty’s Prime Minister. He doesn’t seem to be enjoying the experience.

B B
B B
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

Slightly before the choice narrowed to Johnson v. Corbyn we had other options including Jeremy Hunt and Rory Stuart. Neither of them was perfect, but either of them would have been preferable to both Johnson and Corbyn.

dorothywebdavies
dorothywebdavies
3 years ago

Not a word about Brexit! This is where Boris stands to win a great name for himself and his government, if he frees us from the coils of the unelected Brussels bureaucrats. Covid seems to have been a diversion run by China. I would like to see China boycotted by the rest of the world.

Phil K
Phil K
3 years ago

I’ve always been suspicious of those who call him an idiot – maybe what they’d like to believe – but I think his strength lies in the advisors around him. Since DC departure, that quality has improved and I expect the quality of decision making to improve. Communication needs to be better, but for those who want it to all change, be careful of what you wish for – I don’t see any alternative government in waiting

K Sheedy
K Sheedy
3 years ago

He may well survive. Inertia is a poweful force. But with a british sense of humour Boris is a sausage roll (or similar) will be a christmas #1.

Maureen Spears
Maureen Spears
3 years ago

I just feel that we should have a more balanced view between the damage to the economy and covid. Lockdowns don’t work – if they did we would not be in the situation of repeating them. In the immediate future I think Boris will remain or fall on the outcome of Brexit. If he leaves us under the remit of the EU I think he is finished. Re covid, I don’t trust the figures I think the tests are unreliable and I think there is a lot of preparing asbestos pants for any subsequent enquiry. Ferguson has a dreadful track record of prediction and yet Boris and his cabinet are preferring the opinion of modellers over that of other experts. Garbage in, garbage out. They have not, as yet, provided any meaningful cost/benefit analysis. The corvid rules are illogical. I am amazed at how easy it was to deprive us of liberty in this ‘pandemic’.