What to do, what to do? Tolerated in the North and fairly loathed in the South, today’s local election results are confusing for the Tories.

Johnson has torn up the anchor of ‘yesterday’s’ Tories

It is not hard to see why. Nationally, and it is national issues which mostly motivate local election voters, the Tories used to stand for a sort of morality in government, moderation in most things, conservativism with a small ‘c’ as they sought to protect the institutions of state and perhaps, most importantly for many of their core supporters, lower taxes. Of course, all these principles were applied with enough ideological flexibility to win elections.

Not anymore. A government trying to illegally prorogue parliament and regularly challenging the judiciary, a misleading Prime Minister constantly accused of being loose with the truth, bringing amorality to its heart, a party ideologically fixated by Brexit and, finally, applying record tax hikes, is not the party of old. It is a strange picture. Beyond this mix of activity being (in part) a winning combination in 2019, what do the anchorless Tories now stand for?

The answer is not a great deal outside Johnson’s ‘shopping trolley’ populism but, of course, the new Tories in the North don’t care about the Party’s past or, to be honest, its future. Many of the current Tory policies tactically appeal or at least fill the vacuum of a mediocre Labour Party which is perceived not to have delivered historically and does not convince about how it will deliver in the future. Northern/Midlands votes are on loan to today’s government. Brexit has been delivered; all politicians are amorally the same so who can bother about such things as ‘Partygate’. Just get on with the job of ‘meaningfully levelling up’ whatever that means in practice and prove you can alleviate the pressures of a soaring cost of living. The loan of votes to the Tories could be permanent if there is no alternative.

But in the South, many voters were committed to the principles of a pre-Johnson Tory Party and are pretty revolted by what they now see. Often anti-Brexit, pro lower taxes, supporters of the status quo and a certain level of probity in government they thoroughly dislike Johnson’s populist regime. Lucky for Johnson et al that Starmer doesn’t quite convince the South like Blair did in ’97, so the LibDems are key beneficiaries of such disillusionment. Congratulations to them. They have had a strong election but in the medium term the ‘post Nick Clegg’ LibDems must hold the centre-ground to build on this success and one doesn’t sense they really understand this. Today, they still seem only a temporary repository for disillusioned Tory votes but that is a subject for another blog.

And Starmer needs to up his game. He needs to stand more clearly for something. Anything. Piling up votes in the cities, notably London, modest gains elsewhere with a bounce back in Scotland is not enough. A brilliant analysis of what he needs to do has been outlined in Robert Shrimsley’s FT column this week. Required reading for any ambitious Labour supporters.

So, there you have it. Not all the local election results are in as this blog is being written but it seems a partly discredited Johnson has upended traditional support in the South for greater loyalty in the North. Net, net, overall, he has done badly but not badly enough to go. His premiership has torn up the anchor of the ‘old Tory Party’ and leaves its long-term future uncertain, not that he cares. It is a problem for his successor.

Johnson is the beneficiary of only modest gains by Starmer’s Labour Party in the North. Starmer is the beneficiary of disillusioned Tories often in the cities. The LibDems are beneficiaries of Johnson’s more widely disliked populism in the South.

On this basis, Johnson needs Starmer and Starmer needs Johnson. Perhaps LibDem leader, Ed Davey, needs them both. What a choice!

Phew! Macron has won re-election and the sigh of relief from liberal democrats generally and the EU in particular is palpable. It was a sound victory but incomplete. The revamped Marine Le Pen came too close for comfort against an incumbent centrist known for his arrogance.

A welcome victory is not enough…

The lesson? No room for complacency. Liberal democracy constantly underestimates the tsunami effect of global crises where the ripple effects grow into a destructive force which has untold consequences such as potential or actual victories for the populist far-right.

Here are three examples:

The crash of 2008 was, with the benefit of hindsight, managed disastrously for the future of democracy. Grotesque capitalism runs rampant, unchecked, courted indeed by the likes of Blair’s government. It leads to a meltdown of the financial system as we know it. Huge government bailouts follow (understandable at the time, the current system being all we have) with no business leaders held to criminal account for their greed and recklessness. Then quantitative easing which fuelled asset price inflation making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The picture is complete for the rise of right-wing populism as the less well-off pay the price of severe cuts in public expenditure to try and balance the books.

The impact of 2008 led to Brexit, Trump, Johnson et al and the rise of Le Pen who, let’s not forget, got at least 40% of the vote yesterday. The resentment of the less well off who are told what’s good for them by an established elite and then things fail to improve or deteriorate is manifest.

So, to Brexit. The detrimental ripple effects, sadly washing over the very people who voted for it, are now increasingly visible. Disrupted trade, an economy growing more slowly contributing partially to the cost-of-living crisis, is painful to see. It is not a coincidence that a weakened EU was applauded by all the wrong leaders. Which takes us to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine…

In a way, this third crisis was of the West’s own making. Obsessed with itself, underestimating the evilness of Putin, failing to adjust energy and security policies even after his actions in Syria and the invasion of Crimea, a quick chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan were all building blocks for the latest threat to Western democracy. Today, despite the brave resistance of the Ukrainians and a better initial response from the West than anticipated, the threat of Putin has never been greater. A victory in the East followed by a renewed onslaught on the rest of the country, perhaps followed by Moldova, is scary. The slow burn fall-out is huge. Success for thuggery, a new cold war, mass emigration, a questioning of the benefits of democracy, support of which is already in decline all provide an opportunity for the West to display its divisive self-interest.

So, yesterday, Macron won but this provides a short-lived respite. After all, who spotted or will spot the crisis of liberal capitalism in the solutions to the 2008 crash, the long-term consequences of Brexit for all of Europe and what may be the West’s patchy response to the long-term fallout of a Russian victory in Ukraine if it occurs?

The West and liberal democracy in general have to restate the principles for their existence and do this constantly. There has to be an understanding of the longer-term reverberations from Western inspired crises on society as a whole and act accordingly otherwise there will be more Trumps, Orbans, Marine Le Pens and, in a more diluted form, Johnsons. Some of them, as we know, get elected and that is never a good thing.

A better title for this blog would be ‘Spot the difference: ‘law makers, law breakers’ but sadly it is already being used and used everywhere.

The position of Johnson and, sadly perhaps, potentially the impressive Chancellor, is untenable. You cannot impose laws on the rest of us and be found breaking them yourselves. How can the integrity of parliament making any laws now remain intact after this if at least Johnson remains in office? There would be no moral authority to pass them and have us obey.

They were the future once…

The next few days and weeks are very dangerous for the Tories. If their leaders can be fined for breaking lockdown laws with the PM presiding over Downing Street staff sharing at least 50 fines across 12 parties, what will voters deduce? And that is before potentially further fines and the likely gruesome full report from Sue Gray into these parties is published.

Many will say Johnson is unfit for office, but they will also conclude so are the Tories as a whole if they can’t act to remove him quickly. Tainted by association will be the obvious narrative. The Opposition must be licking their lips and Starmer may actually want Johnson to stay in office in private whatever he calls for publicly. Johnson provides a ripe target. Surely, the Tories realise this?

And what nonsense it is to excuse Johnson because of the war with Ukraine. Domestic morality cannot be turned on and off for international events. Our response to supporting Ukraine is a government one not the personal fiefdom of the Prime Minister. Any successor would undoubtedly maintain our current stance. Probity in a healthy democracy contrasts sharply with Putin’s brutal, corrupt regime.

So, the scene is set for the Tories to redeem themselves by changing their leader or the scene is set for much more certain defeat, but indications suggest they will not. Whilst Johnson may well be ousted if May’s local elections prove disastrous, it may be too late by then. The damage will have been done.

Think about the narrative. The first serving Prime Minister to break the law amidst heart-breaking lockdown restrictions. A Chancellor appearing to dodge taxes. One law for us, no laws for them. A cost-of-living crisis as the backdrop. A tired Party in office for too long, stripped of its moral authority. It all feels, for those that can remember, very 1992-1997 except the Major versus Johnson comparison would not be fair on Major.

The current best leader of the Tories they never had, the former Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, put it succinctly:

‘Met confirms what we already knew: the PM introduced liberty-curtailing rules for public health reasons. This caused huge hardship for those separated from ill or dying loved ones. He then broke the rules he imposed on the country and lost the moral authority to lead. He should go.’

It is that simple and good Tories know this. Johnson’s time is up, and they should remove him now before it is too late for them all.

In the face of Putin’s onslaught on Ukraine you would have thought populism would be killed off once and for all, at least in Europe. This man had the sympathy of anti-Europeans everywhere, the far-right and where in existence the far-left in Europe generally, let alone populists more globally. Populists’ previous support for Putin and tepid condemnation of his actions now would surely be the final nail in their coffin.

But no. At the start of April, a government in Hungary sympathetic to Putin pre the invasion wins an overwhelming re-election victory. The Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, busily undermining the judiciary and independent media, who called the EU and President Zelenskyy ‘his opponents’ is triumphant.

Then we have the first-round of French Presidential elections, where the far-right Marine Le Pen is within 4% of President Macron and will face him in the second-round runoff on 24th April. She could win.

A little bit of a background to this election. President Macron, infuriatingly arrogant, chose to focus on Ukraine rather than bother campaigning in earnest on domestic issues believing he was home and dry. He forgot the elephant in the room, the cost-of-living crisis, and is rightly taking a kicking. He should still win but might not. The French electorate are angry, and Europe has a history of electing far-right leaders by accident…

For all Macron’s mistakes, how has a ‘previous racist’ who wanted to withdraw from the Euro and EU got this far? Her Party took a generous Russian loan, and she was an admirer of Putin, with Putin appearing in early election literature. To paraphrase a well know saying, you can put lipstick on an animal, but it is still the same animal…

The answer of course is complacent out of touch politicians failing to address the concerns of core voters. When voters feel, however unfairly, that you hear more debate about culture wars, for example, than solutions to the severe economic pain they are experiencing you despair…

Which takes us to the UK. The modestly populist Tory government is in trouble for exactly the same reasons centrist moderates are. It seems to have forgotten the core concerns of voters. With the PM still embroiled in ‘partygate’ and his now formerly admired Chancellor and his wife engulfed in allegations of tax dodging, it appears it is one law on Covid and tax for governing elites whilst the less well-off struggle financially. The massive hike in energy prices is crippling for many. Help so far has come in the form of loans or a relaxation of the impact of the National Insurance increase which only benefits those in work. Against this backdrop, wine in offices during lockdown as laws forced us to self-isolate and non-dom status for fabulously rich partners as taxes for everyone else rise demonstrates an increasingly political tin ear to say the least. Incredibly, bland, second-rate Labour may still lose the next election but, my, the Tories are making it difficult for themselves. They should be thankful there is no credible far-right alternative to vote for.

So, there you are. The forces of populism are alive and well and still the driving force in many democratic countries. And you have resurgent inflation too. A depressing double whammy you might say.

It is fair to assess the NHS on pre-pandemic statistics. The NHS employs approximately 1.2 million people in England alone. In 2019/20, the Department of Health and Social Care spent £148.9 billion, 10.2% of GDP. Ex direct-pandemic spending, this budget will rise to £173.8 billion in 2022/23. It is a wonderful service staffed with many great people. They rose to the challenge of the pandemic brilliantly. Its very existence defines the UK. We should be proud of it.

So, eulogies over, it is, like any other huge organisation, prone to errors and failure. Within the £148.9 billion there will be waste. Within the 1.2 million staff there will be lazy, self-interested, or incompetent staff. This is a fact of life not unfair criticism, and we should all be free to question the level of service we receive. After all, it is we who pay for it.

And we should be wary of activist medical staff and the organisations who represent them, who, in providing care when we are most vulnerable, avoid scrutiny as to their motives when campaigning. We should also be wary of the NHS being a political football too. This is in many ways inevitable, bearing in mind its importance to voters, but we should question the motives of politicians who laud the NHS without question, or pump money, or who wish to pump money, into it without the necessary accountability.

The catastrophic maternity care failures at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust are a reminder of not putting the NHS on an unquestioned pedestal. The findings are being well covered in the media but one of the stark findings was patients not being listened to, combined with a culture of bullying internally and mistakes not being investigated. Unforgiveable.

And there have been other scandals too; the Alder Hey organs scandal, the Bristol heart scandal and the Stafford Hospital scandal to name but a few. The latter was particularly worrying in that a Healthcare Commission enquiry found there was no cause for concern in the high levels of mortality at the hospital, only for a subsequent public enquiry to find there were multiple instances of neglect, incompetence and abuse of patients.

A failure to question the NHS also prohibits debate about its future. Should all healthcare be free at the point of delivery, are there ways some members of the public could be incentivised to use its services more efficiently? Why do some hospital trusts have a reputation for efficiency, even cutting waiting lists during the pandemic, whilst others do not? Not directly in the remit of the NHS but why do the services from General Practitioners vary so widely? Why is private healthcare being seen as a necessary option by growing numbers of the public? Many would argue that knowing what we know now, you would not start with an NHS as it is currently constructed. There are plenty of other efficient, effective, fair models of public healthcare in Western countries, as well as models that work less well.

You cannot repeat enough how great the NHS is in terms of its overall service delivery. But is it not perfect and we should not be intimidated into always lauding it. Ensuring it is not automatically placed on a pedestal is good for the NHS but, most importantly, vital for the patients who use it.

Patience was always thin with this charlatan of a Prime Minister. Loose with the truth, failing to understand the checks and balances of an unwritten constitution, reaching the highest of offices without knowing what to do when he got there, he has always been a high-risk office holder.

He has overstepped the mark again, one hopes for a final time, with his offensive comments at the Tories’ Spring Conference this weekend. He is quoted verbatim below:

‘I know that it’s the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom every time…When the British people voted for Brexit in such large numbers…it’s because they wanted to be free to do things differently and for this country to be able to run itself.‘

How crass this man is. Johnson seems unable to undertake his responsibilities, part of which are to heal the wounds of a divided nation and rebuild a new, constructive relationship with the EU, without careless ignorance. How could he equate the appalling war in Ukraine with Brexit? And ironies of ironies, how could he forget Ukraine is trying to join the EU, fighting for the freedom to choose to do so?

Watching the impressive Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, squirm on Sunday morning television when Johnson’s comments were put to him said it all. He was clear Ukraine and Brexit were not ‘analogous’ and the Prime Minister must have been misunderstood. He was not.

The fact that several senior Tories don’t have a problem with Johnson’s comments highlights one of Nigel Farage’s greatest achievements – turning the Conservative Party into the Brexit Party.

I am told wannabe prospective Tory parliamentary candidates cannot now progress if they display any historic Remain instincts publicly. You cannot get a job in Number 10, unless you are a Brexiteer. Good, able Tories such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke and Rory Stewart are no longer members of a Party led by Johnson. He and his Tory followers seem to forget every recent Tory Prime Minister before Johnson voted Remain.

And turning back to Johnson’s broader political career, it is littered with irresponsibility. The recently released Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe almost certainly owes part of her extended stay in an Iranian jail to Johnson’s earlier careless gaffes when Foreign Secretary. This current Prime Minister is the subject of a police investigation into breaking lockdown rules. He accepted contributions to a £200,000 renovation of his Downing Street flat, claiming he didn’t know of their source. He has brushed up closely to Russians with links to Putin and oligarchs generally in his desire to shovel money into the Tory Party’s coffers. He has repeatedly been caught misleading audiences on issues too numerous to mention.

The Tory Party has been one of the most successful political parties in history, to be fair also recently under Johnson. It has been so due to a core conservative, small ‘c’ philosophy which has been applied pragmatically to current events. Pragmatism has been lost on the issue of Europe and perhaps gone too far in accepting the lack of integrity of its current leader.

If Johnson’s overstepping of the mark with his Brexit/Ukraine comments was an attempt to distract from a looming cost of living crisis, it has failed. It only focuses attention on his personal failings. Public life, indeed the Conservative Party, would surely benefit if he was shown the door by either his parliamentary colleagues, voters, or both.

The news of casualties in Ukraine just gets worse. The madness of Putin gets madder. As this disaster unfolds it is almost impossible to find any grounds for optimism but there are ripple effects which will have longstanding consequences.

First, and of most immediate significance is the economic response of the West to this war. Expecting a wave of self-interested half measures, Putin has been entirely wrongfooted by the West rediscovering its sense of purpose. Serious coordinated sanctions which will decimate Russia’s economy have been implemented. The West has found its moral compass, even at the expense of potential problems such sanctions will cause at home. The test will be when the consequences for the public in Europe and North America mount, but one senses patience in the face of our very way of life being threatened by Putin’s actions.

Second, and running on from this, recalibrated defence and energy policies. Germany pledging to step up to the plate on defence spending, the UK, US and most significantly, the EU, pledging to wean themselves off Russian energy supplies, will remove Russia’s stranglehold over the West for a generation.

Third, the defenestration of the populist Right. How does Trump’s praise of Putin look now? Can you imagine if he was still President? How do apologists of Putin look in Europe? Begone Salvini in Italy, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemour in France, to name but a few. One almost certain outcome is a victory for Macron in April’s French presidential election. The war has also driven Poland back into the heart of Europe and even Orban in Hungary is making the right noises.

Fourth, China. The last blog suggested war in Ukraine could be a catalyst/opportunity for China to join the heart of the international community. It caused vigorous debate! It was only a suggestion, not an expectation. But, regardless, the West’s economic response must be unsettling for Xi and should make him think twice about his shameless tactical embrace of Russia and any moves on Taiwan.

Fifth, the benefits of a free press. This war has been fought in public and endless Western news outlets have distinguished themselves hugely with their reports, busting apart sometimes ludicrous propaganda from Russia and its allies. In the end, this will have a key impact on ending this war and acts as a reminder to the previously complacent West never to take such news services for granted. It also means the sources of information in social media are now firmly in the public eye with much more scrutiny likely to uncover false information.

Sixth, and closer to home, this war shines a light on corrupt money infecting London, the property market generally and the financing of political parties (really the Conservative Party). Even Conservative commentators are warming to the idea of greater state funding of our political system to create a more level, fairer playing field and remove the temptations of donations from potentially corrupt businessmen and/or unfair access to the honours list…That would be a very good thing.

What Ukrainians are going through is unimaginable and much more can still be done to ease their suffering. Of course, only Putin can end this war but his unintended legacy, for he will not survive his psychopathic act, has been to strengthen the West by ending its complacency and giving it purpose. Very sadly, it has come too late for Ukraine today, but possibly not for future actions by other dictators and their allies.

The invasion of Ukraine is so tragic, so pointless and so self-defeating, words fail commentators. Surely it marks the end of Putin and Russian expansionism in the medium term. But the shorter-term costs will sadly be enormous.

But turn to China for a moment. They are playing a fairly clever hand. Abstaining in the UN, offering to mediate, criticising the invasion but also Ukraine joining NATO, they are just about holding their own.

But not for long. They will have to get off the fence. Trust in China is very low, and the West is hardening its stance against those who threaten its democratic future…finally.

Could this be China’s moment to reposition itself? President Xi Jinping must realise Putin is an unstable ally unlikely to recover from his disastrous Ukrainian venture. He must also realise that the West can wreak untold economic havoc if they remain united. China’s success story is all about growth. Imagine if this was put in jeopardy by an attack on Taiwan for example?

China could be really smart by dropping its default bellicose behaviour, instead extending its influence through a new, mature, more sophisticated approach to international affairs, which allows them to move closer to the heart of the international community.

Imagine. Putin oversteps the mark one last time and China joins the West in condemning Russia at the UN. It would also have the additional advantage of stealing a march on arch regional competitor, India, whose nationalist Prime Minister, Modi, has appalled observers by his equivocation over the invasion. China starts to court Taiwan and indeed the people of Hong Kong, not threaten them. China reduces tensions in the South China Sea. China, without apology, makes quiet concessions on the treatment of the Uyghurs, subtly acknowledging a new balance between security and human rights.

One accepts this may seem too naïve and idealistic in such grim times. But it would mark China’s coming of age as a self-confident international community member. It would be smart politics by shaping events further through wholly constructive actions.

One can only hope. And as we watch war unfold brutally in Europe, that is all we have just now.

Madness, madness, madness. The invasion of Ukraine could prove the end of Putin in the medium term, but the price paid today by Ukraine and its allies will be huge.

Why has Putin done this? Ukraine will be a drain on Russia for a generation and one sincerely hopes a more formidable longer-term enemy than many of its people suspect.

It is almost certainly about Putin’s legacy. Angry at the dismantling of the USSR and the West’s attitude to Russia generally (not always smartly handled), his well sign-posted objective is to rebuild Russia’s former empire and sphere of influence. He also seems in a hurry. His demeanour appears strange, he walks oddly and there have been persistent rumours of Parkinson’s disease. Perhaps his window of opportunity is a personal one not simply military.

And the West? Its frequent greed, lack of unity, lack of confidence, lack of purpose and understanding of the need to defend democratic principles both at home and abroad has contributed to Putin’s actions. Populism, with Trump only this week calling Putin’s aggression against Ukraine as ‘genius’, ‘wonderful’ and ‘very savvy’, has been a major contributor but so have other actions such as the courting of China for economic advantage and the acceptance of corrupt money washing through the West’s financial structures. Here in the UK, Chinese and Russian money coursing through the property market, tainting British politics in the process, has been a disgrace.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine should shake the West’s complacency and force a resetting of its purpose in pursuing and defending democracy. In this there are grounds for a sliver of optimism in these bleak times and the actions required are many, short and long term.

First, there should be total unity in the West’s opposition to Putin with overwhelming financial support and the provision of weapons to Ukraine, whatever the response from Russia, of course if it is not too late. Crushing economic sanctions too on a fragile Russian economy. No more independent diplomatic initiatives (Macron) or diplomacy at all. The latter has failed, and Western governments have promoted hope over experience in dealing with Putin for too long.

Second, it should be made clear that a single attack on a NATO member is war, whatever the consequences. We cannot let a corrupt iron curtain descend on Europe again.

Longer term, the implications for this invasion are wide-ranging. Europe must now pay up more fully for its own defence. This has been a source of legitimate concern and criticism from America. The EU also needs to unify around a more coherent and consistent collective defence and security policy, having mismanaged it to date. A single European armed force in coordination with NATO, no longer the concern of the UK, has to be under consideration even if today the EU’s disfunction makes it more of an aspiration. This in turn provides a route for the UK to forge a new relationship with the EU on defence and security grounds alone.

Time also for a new European energy policy. Reliance on Russian gas has surely been a huge and predictable strategic mistake. Merkel’s pointless decision to end Germany’s nuclear power capabilities will be seen to have been a disastrous legacy from her chancellorship.

Lastly, and crucially, the West should tackle its own compromising greed with immediate effect. No limit on economic sanctions whatever the price in the face of aggressors, however powerful. No dirty money in Western finance and politics. No compromise in trading democratic principles for ongoing trade with China for example and a total commitment to defending the independence of Taiwan. If there is an economic price to be paid by people in the West, so be it. It is the job of politicians to explain why and gain acceptance for any painful fallout.

It is a depressing day. Just as the threat of Covid finally starts to recede a new global disaster threatens to overwhelm us. But if the West cleans up its act in defending democratic principles through concrete and constructive actions, Putin’s aggression may provide a route for the West to recover its purpose. And not a moment too soon.

The greased piglet, as Johnson is unpleasantly nicknamed, has done it again. At first sight, and it is only first sight, there is not quite enough in Sue Gray’s report to remove him, and the moment of maximum danger has passed for the time being. The Metropolitan Police have some responsibility for this. Their confused, belated response in deciding to undertake a criminal investigation into parties at No. 10 on the cusp of the report’s publication has dulled its impact. It should surely mark the end of Metropolitan Police chief, Cressida Dick’s career. Her nine lives are over.

A temporary reprieve only…

In the meantime, Tories, even this lot, know how dangerous it can be to try and remove a wounded sitting Prime Minister who is still standing. The trauma of a no confidence vote and/or a leadership contest can derail a Party in office, particularly when there is no clear successor. There is still a pandemic to fight, let alone a cost-of-living crisis and potential hostilities on the Russian/Ukrainian border. Tearing the government apart now with Johnson digging in would look self-indulgent at best, hugely irresponsible at worst.

But be in no doubt, the findings of this report are damning. Johnson’s premiership was always going to be a high wire act. The chaos surrounding this most amoral and unTory of Tory Prime Ministers was well sign-posted. However, his unique public persona (albeit a fake one from reality) and campaigning style also allowed him to reach parts of the electorate Conservatives normally find hard to reach. His job was to see off Corbyn and get Brexit done. Mission accomplished.

In the light of these revelations, the very traits that have carried Johnson’s political career to date now look like a millstone round his neck. Loose with the truth, a belief that rules apply to other people, poor attention to detail, chaotic in his private life, climbing to the highest of offices without any guiding philosophy except to reach and stay on top make his continued leadership a disaster.

The public everywhere cannot forgive and forget the parties in Downing Street. It has ‘cut-through’ as they say even though the blatant conflicts of interest surrounding the funding of the redecoration of Johnson’s Downing Street flat often seem a more serious long-term threat to good governance. Voters are angry, as every opinion poll confirms, and Johnson’s dishonest, wayward personality traits will be seen through the prism of this emotion. There is plenty of fodder for his long-standing opponents but now also to new Tory and floating voters alike and it will be this that does for him in the end.

And if Johnson clings on, those in Cabinet seeking to replace him will be tainted by his reputation. Theresa May’s intervention in parliament today about the lack of integrity at the heart of Downing Street was brutal and impressive in its frankness. Would any Cabinet member have the guts to share these same sentiments in public? Highly unlikely.

Turning briefly to Labour, Starmer’s Opposition is not the calibre of Blair’s Opposition, although Starmer himself is gaining authority. Labour do not have Scotland either and a vote for them will be open to the accusation it lets the SNP into UK government by the back door. Combined with a lack of bounce back from the LibDems, a hung parliament is still likely under Johnson or indeed any successor. But what a fall from grace. The Tories were all but certain to win a 2023/24 General Election. No longer.

‘Red Wall’ Tories are angry, more liberal Tories in the south disillusioned by this government’s populist stance. Johnson’s strength was being the best of both worlds electorally. Now he is the worst of both worlds. The damage has been done however long he holds on and rightly so.