Boris Johnson, latter-day Churchill. In all the worst ways

Boris Johnson famously likes to see himself as a latter-day Winston Churchill. But he may be emulating only the worst aspects of his role model.

“Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”

Winston Churchill may have said that himself, but if not, it was certainly said of him.

He was originally elected a Member of Parliament as a Conservative, in 1900. But in 1904, he joined the Liberals, just in time to take part in their electoral triumph of 1906. He enjoyed considerable political success with his adopted party until, once they were a spent force, he returned to the Conservatives in 1924.

Ratting and re-ratting meant that for nearly quarter of a century, he enjoyed a glittering career with each of the two main parties of his day. Among many ministerial appointments, he was a Liberal Home Secretary and a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer within a fifteen-year period.

There is an argument to say that both of Churchill’s defections reflected deep-seated convictions. In the circumstances of the two different times, he may have been closer to one party in 1904 and the other in 1924. But many saw his swinging back and forth as no more than rank opportunism.

Indeed, doubts about his trustworthiness were expressed early in his career. His first party leader in the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister at the time of Churchill’s first election win, was Arthur Balfour. He said of him, “I thought Winston Churchill was a young man of promise, but it appears he is a young man of promises.”

Now, it’s not clear to me that Boris Johnson has ever taken any political position as a matter of principle. Indeed, the only purpose I can see he has for taking any kind of stance is to further his career prospects. We know that as he prepared to take part in the campaign over Brexit, Johnson prepared three draft articles, two in favour of Brexit, one against.

He wanted to see the arguments before deciding which would play best. Which position most served the national interest was no concern of his. Which would be better received most certainly was.

Isn’t that just the kind of readiness to switch position, depending on where the main chance lies, that can lead to ratting and re-ratting?

As for men of promises, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has made as many promises as Johnson has. At the beginning of the Coronavirus crisis, he promised Personal Protective Equipment for health and social care staff, which he conspicuously failed to deliver. He promised 100,000 tests a day by the end of May, a promise only achieved by sending out 120,000 tests to 70,000 people, only on 31 May itself, falling back immediately afterwards.

Finally, he promised a track and trace system based on a bright new app backed by a heavily staffed manual service, by 1 June. That deadline too was missed and now the app itself has been abandoned.

Promises, promises. But no delivery.

Winston Churchill
A smile to go with the iron will

The difference between Churchill and Johnson is stark, in any case. Nothing reveals the nature of a leader so powerfully as their handling of a crisis. Churchill rose to the challenge of the Second Word War with conspicuous brilliance and courage. It is that which gives him his stellar reputation today, allowing most people to forget the ratting and re-ratting, the missed promises, the many blunders.

Johnson’s crisis was Coronavirus. And it has revealed him to be as weak and mendacious as the Second World War showed Churchill to be courageous and endowed with an iron will to win. 

It really does feel as though Johnson has only the capacity to imitate what was least creditable in Churchill. Both men relied on their sense of humour. But in Johnson, it is the clowning of a weak-willed and ineffective buffoon, whereas in Churchill, it was the wit of a man who could smile while he deployed the leadership his nation needed.

Boris Johnson
Self-deprecating because there's so much to deprecate

It makes me want to slightly adapt a remark of Karl Marx’s and say, “history repeats itself, the first time as drama, the second time as farce”.