What did for him was his personality and lack of integrity over personal issues, rather than unresolvable policy differences with his cabinet.
So, advantage Sunak, who has no discernible personality of any kind.
He also made quite elementary political mistakes when dealing with what should have been minor issues. Loyal found themselves having to defend him in public only to discover his untruths later exposed. He made them look like idiots because of his own sloppiness.
Johnson liked the power and prestige of his position but did not gave the self discipline to govern and lead effectively. The party liked him because his charisma and personality seemed to be a vote winner that gave them a majority.
Johnson was lucky in that he could point to international crises like the pandemic and Ukraine to cover his mismanagement and the effects of Brexit on the economy. For his successor, those ‘get out of jail free’ cards are used up. Dealing with the economic crisis is going to require some deeply unpopular measures. The effects will be very evident in the disparity between monthly income and expenditure.
This is not the job for a chaotic populist showman.
But you do let them wield power for two months after they’ve been voted out of office by the electorate. In the UK, the Government/PM are out on their ears before the election. The PM basically resigns to the Queen when they announce the election and dissolution of Parliament. And they better have booked the removal company for no.10 for the day of the result.
Not at all. The PM will appoint some heavyweights who align with his thinking, or who are too dangerous to leave out, but there isn’t some priority list he picks from - he can appoint anybody, in either house (Commons or Lords). And only some of the candidates for this election currently sit in the Cabinet.
My ignorance is deep. Thanks for helping fight it.
Sunak 137
Truss 113
Mordaunt 105
So it will be Sunak vs. Truss as seemed likely from the outset.
Truss is very much in the Boris Johnson style, She is concerned with image, photo ops and sound bites. She is flaky and will brush off and criticism with rhetorical flourish and her ministers will desperately try to cover her mistakes.
We can look forward to some Margaret Thatcher Cold War warrior poses as she faces off Putin from the safety of the other side of Europe.
Like Johnson, she is the ‘fake it until you make it’ candidate whose primary concern will be managing the Conservative party rather than the more complicated business of government.
However, for a public addicted to reality TV she may be as compelling as Johnson. Though I doubt she can keep up the same level of performance.
I wish politics could return to the managerial style of the Blair years. Where they actually did manage to deliver on policy and get stuff done. All this focus on ‘charisma’ is so superficial. All you end up with is a lot of BS and mismanagement.
Truss is not going to address the competence deficit. She was quite as bad at being Foreign Secretary as Johnson was and will I believe be just as bad as him if she makes PM.
So… arsenic or cyanide?
Depends on the perceived prestige of the Cabinet position and the perceived opportunity afforded to the governor or congressperson’s state.
For instance, at least in the 20th or 21st Centuries, the Secretary of Agriculture has usually been a governor, a senator, or a representative of a farming state.
Johnson was the Zaphod Beeblebrox of the nation, but the nation (or at least the party) seems to no longer have patience with their candidate “elected to distract attention from those truly in power”.
(Which is where the analogy with Zaphod Beeblebrox breaks down, because the PM and the Cabinet is supposed to wield actual authority on behalf of the nation, not distract from where is purportedly supposed to be.)
The Labour Party are probably quite pleased with this result. Neither Truss nor Sunak are bringing anything new to the Conservative leadership. They are Boris Johnson continuity candidates and he will certainly be lurking in the background, giving the party speeches, pulling strings for lobbyists that pay for his expensive lifestyle. Ex prime ministers rarely go quietly.
Political parties tend to run out of steam after a couple of terms in power and they descend into factional in-fighting. They need time out of power so they can sort out their differences without the responsibility of governing.
The Labour Party have a couple of years to get themselves in shape for a General Election. By then the UK electorate will have enough of politics as a ‘reality TV’ entertainment and yearn for someone who has well thought out policies and has a competent team to deliver them.
If the UK electorate tires of these noisy bagatelles and wants a party led by a competent but boring PM then Labour have Kier Starmer. The Conservatives have Sunak, who is not exactly Mr Personality but he will have a challenging time dealing with the infighting. He may find himself like John Major dealing with constant insurrection.
The UK political parties are not in a healthy state. Membership is very low. I thought the Conservative party had a membership of 350,000. Now I learn it is 160,000. This is a party that once had a membership in the millions.
I like the recent name I’ve heard about Truss: “Thick Lizzy”.
She posted on twitter today that she was “Looking forward to hitting the ground” No, nothing more than that, not running. She can’t even get a popular phrase right.
The latest Yougov poll has Truss beating Sunak by 24 points. It’s hard to see him making up that gap or that the polling error is so big. His biggest opportunity will be the debates where he appears much more articulate and polished than she does. It will be a struggle though. I imagine the average Tory member will find him quite hard to relate to, partly because of his ethnicity but more so his background: Stanford MBA, Goldman Sachs, his wife’s massive fortune. He is a prime example of the global elite that right-wing populists like to rail against.
Here is that Yougov poll.
Questions asked from 730 respondents out of the 160,000 or so members.
It suggests ‘telling the truth’ may be the differentiator.
But assessing voting intentions is fraught with problems. We are at the beginning of campaigns aimed at party members. But I guess the news media need stories and pay for this.
It would be interesting to know how they select their correspondents. Conservative party members are not exactly typical of the voting public and the party does not release any details. Studies of the membership involve a lot of assumptions and guesswork.
Polls are full of holes.
The respective campaigns will have plans for trying to influence this electorate. They have plenty of ammunition in reserve. But any direct attacks could be counter productive. These are regarded as very damaging to the Conservative party because they provide quotable material for Labour to attack the party during a General Election campaign.
I hear that “hitting the ground” is what happens after a defenestration. And the noise it makes is a dull wet thud.
One can hope.
Ducks shot from the sky hit the ground, too. No running involved.
It’s like having to choose between herpes or IBS
John Oliver had a lot of fun with this clip last Sunday – he even used it a second time in the closing credits. He compared it to a kid in kindergarten proudly looking at her parents after a successful recital. 