Last Friday marked the anniversary of when Boris Johnson walked proudly into Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister. He had thumped his chief competitor Jeremy Hunt in the Conservative Party leadership election, securing just over 66% of the vote, and immediately set about announcing major changes to the Cabinet. In the process, Johnson dismissed 11 senior ministers and accepted the resignations of 6 others. Nigel Evans, Johnson’s political ally and now a Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons, described this purge as “not so much a reshuffle as a summer’s day massacre”. It was the most extensive reorganisation of the Cabinet without a change in the ruling party in British political history.
Johnson had finally ascended the greasy pole to the job he had always wanted; his tenure as Mayor of London was merely a stepping stone to greater political heights. With 12 months now passed since his installation as Prime Minister, it is the opportune moment to look back on how he has performed. With any political leader there are myriad ways that their performance can be assessed. Fortunately, Johnson has already given us an “oven-ready” set of criteria by which to assess him.
When delivering his party leadership victory speech, he declared: “you know the mantra of the campaign that has just gone by…deliver Brexit, unite the country and defeat Jeremy Corbyn. And I know someone has pointed out that deliver, unite and defeat was not the perfect acronym for an election campaign since, unfortunately, it spells dud, but they forgot the final e my friends, e for energise. And I say to all the doubters, dude! We are going to energise the country, we are going to get Brexit done on 31 October, we are going to take advantage of all the opportunities it will bring in a new spirit of can do”. So, that is the acronym by which Johnson wants to be assessed. DUDE: deliver Brexit, unite the country, defeat Jeremy Corbyn, and energise. Let us now examine how his first year in office has matched up against his own criteria.
Deliver Brexit
Well Johnson certainly did not deliver Brexit by 31 October as promised. Quite the opposite: he, albeit reluctantly, extended the withdrawal date by three months. 21 of his Conservative MPs rebelled against the Conservative whip to support the so-called Benn Act which compelled him to send a letter to Donald Tusk, then President of the European Council, to request an extension to the UK’s withdrawal date. In fact, he sent two: one – defiantly unsigned – letter requesting an extension and another contradicting the extension request. Even Johnson’s attempts to get the Queen to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid scrutiny of his Brexit plans fell through. The Supreme Court ruled that the advice to the Queen was “unlawful, void, and of no effect”, and quashed the Order in Council which ordered prorogation.
Despite redoubling his efforts to agree a new withdrawal agreement with the EU in mid-October and securing enough MPs to back his agreement in principle, MPs voted against his plans to railroad legislation through Parliament in a handful of days. Johnson’s “do or die” strategy to deliver Brexit by 31 October had failed. He had no other choice but to seek a parliamentary majority through an early general election. When opposition parties finally handed him that early election, he made the most of it, securing an 80-seat majority. With the necessary votes and time, Johnson did eventually pass his Withdrawal Agreement Bill, and the UK formally withdrew from the EU at 11pm GMT on 31 January this year. This is something Johnson’s predecessor was never able to achieve, despite her “Brexit means Brexit” mantra.
Brexit is not a singular event or date though; it is a process. Equally, a withdrawal agreement is not a long-term agreement; it is a free-standing international treaty intended to dovetail a more comprehensive agreement (that is still to be agreed). Although the UK has withdrawn from the EU’s bodies and institutions, Brexit is far from delivered. We are in the middle of an agreed transition period until 31 December, during which time EU law is still applicable in the UK (Article 127), the Court of Justice of the European Union still has jurisdiction (Article 131), and the UK is still bound by obligations arising from international agreements concluded by the EU (Article 129). However, the UK cannot participate in the decision-making process or attend meetings of the EU’s institutions (Article 7). Even after the transition period, the UK courts are required to give “due regard” to case law handed down by the Court of Justice (Article 4(5)), meaning, in effect, that EU law continues to apply.
Johnson’s seriousness of delivering Brexit is marked by the inability to now extend the transition period, meaning a long-term trading relationship with the EU must be in place by 31 December, or it’s the cliff edge and a return to WTO terms with the UK’s largest import and export market. Most free trade agreements, particularly of the scale and ambition that the UK is seeking, take several years to negotiate; Johnson and his negotiating team have just four months to get an agreement ratified. David Frost, the UK’s Chief Negotiator, undoubtedly did well to re-open Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement – something Michel Barnier said would never happen – but a much greater challenge lies ahead. Will Johnson and his team deliver an orderly Brexit, secure a much-fabled comprehensive free trade agreement by 31 December, and “unleash Britain’s potential”; or will he initiate a new era of tariffs, border checks, and barriers to European trade? Whatever happens, the effects of Brexit will be with us for years to come.
Unite the country
A year on from his promise to unite the country, Johnson presides over a United Kingdom fraught with divisions. Although nothing can be done to reverse the withdrawal process, the Brexit tensions that initially divided the nation after the 2016 referendum still persist. Johnson’s response to the COVID-19 crisis has also revealed the fragile state of the UK’s own union of nations. Just last week, he was on a tour of Scotland in an attempt to curb a growing demand for Scottish independence. It’s not how he would have envisaged spending his first anniversary in power but saving the union is now an essential priority for Number 10.
In some sense, Johnson has inadvertently united the nation; he has united many corners in common criticism of his premiership during the COVID-19 crisis. Even the Daily Mail, a staunchly Conservative-supporting publication, was highly critical of the government’s exoneration of Dominic Cummings’ breach of the lockdown rules at a time when members of the public had to make enormous sacrifices themselves. Since the lifting of the lockdown, it is easy to find people who disagree with one or a number of the government’s measures; and far harder to find people who fervently support them. So much for the so-called “people’s government”. Polling from YouGov shows that public confidence in the UK government’s ability to handle the response is lower than everywhere else in the world, save for the US, Mexico, and Poland. Only 43% of people think that Johnson’s government is handling the response “very or somewhat well”. Compare that with 83% in Australia, 80% in Canada or 74% in Germany. Public approval in the UK was actually at its highest during the toughest lockdown measures in March and April. It has been on a downward trend since Johnson’s confusing TV broadcast of Sunday 10 May which called for people to return to work on Monday morning but failed to publish the official guidance until late Monday afternoon.
Ironically, though Johnson announced the UK-wide lockdown on Monday 23 March, he has only presided over the response in England as health is a matter for the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It did not take long for the four-nation exit strategy to fall apart. When Johnson decided to drop the “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” slogan in favour of the more ambiguous “stay alert, control the virus, save lives” one, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, firmly stuck with the former. England’s response compared with Scotland has been the subject of much polling throughout the crisis, with Scotland always coming out on top. Just five days ago, 52% of those surveyed across Great Britain answered that Scotland has handled the pandemic better; only 10% answered England.
A key part of Johnson’s aim of uniting the country is to “level up” the regions by spreading prosperity and opportunity across the United Kingdom. So far this virtuous aim has been thwarted by the pandemic, meaning that the budget Rishi Sunak announced on 11 March will require significant amendment in the Autumn. Even before the pandemic, levelling up was largely taken to mean increased spending on regional infrastructure such as the improvement of local schools, hospitals, and transport. To be as effective as possible though, some believe – and rightly so – that investment must be accompanied by the devolution of power away from Whitehall. The tasks of revitalising neighbourhoods, designing suitable housing, creating connections between local firms and higher education institutions, is all best achieved by those who know and understand their localities. In the context of the COVID-19 economic recovery, the government must resist any instincts to centralise the response and make real its levelling up commitments by affording councils and cities the opportunity to champion local priorities. That is easier said than done as much of the response will need to come from central government; however, devolution and moving thousands of civil service jobs out of London – as the government has announced – will facilitate the economic and administrative unification of the country after the pandemic.
Ultimately, the most unifying aspect of Johnson’s first year as Prime Minister was the “Clap for our Carers” tradition, and that wasn’t even his initiative. The idea originated in Europe before being appropriated by a Dutch expatriate living in London who promoted an appreciation campaign for 10 weeks. While the weekly tradition installed a newfound sense of community on our balconies and streets, it was criticised as an empty gesture of appreciation for an organisation – the NHS – that has not only struggled through years of government cuts, but also experienced shortages of PPE at critical stages throughout the COVID-19 crisis.
Defeat Jeremy Corbyn
This is one promise that Johnson really did deliver. Like the song, Jeremy Corbyn’s defeat was signed, sealed, delivered. The Conservative Party secured their largest parliamentary majority since Margaret Thatcher’s third general election victory in 1987 and its highest percentage share of the popular vote of any party since 1979. Conversely, it was the Labour Party’s worst electoral performance since 1935, losing 60 seats and almost 8% of the popular vote. Many pollsters and political commentators agreed that the election result was as much about delivering Brexit as it was about keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Number 10.
Johnson smashed through the heart of Labour’s red wall, transforming 47 seats in England from red into blue. All of those seats, incidentally, voted to leave the EU, so Johnson’s “get Brexit done” mantra clearly resonated. Constituencies like Bassetlaw, Sedgefield, Wakefield, Don Valley, Bishop Auckland, and Workington had been tribally red since the 1920s and 1930s, making 2019 one of the most significant realigning elections in modern political history.
Although Johnson unequivocally defeated Corbyn, it took some time for the bearded Islingtonian to hand over the leadership of the Labour Party. Even with his departure onto the backbenches of British political life, the cult of Corbyn has endured. There are still a number of MPs that zealously swear by their former leader, none more than Richard Burgon who tweeted last week, “solidarity with Jeremy, today and always”. This was in reference to potential legal action against Corbyn for his comments about Labour’s agreement to pay substantial damages for their failures over anti-semitism. Still, the Labour Party is under new management with the ever-forensic Sir Keir Starmer now at the helm. The installation of a proper Leader of the Opposition might not have happened but for Corbyn’s electoral drubbing at the hands of Johnson’s Conservative Party.
Energise
By energise, it’s not entirely clear what Johnson means. Energise is one of those nebulous words that, detached from other descriptive value, rings hollow in the ears. In fact, it sounds more akin to an Oxford Union election campaign than a policy platform. Presumably, Johnson felt that, freed from the yoke of European bureaucrats, he could galvanise a new age of British innovation, productivity, and optimism. All are worthy aims to strive for, but they require accompaniment with practical policy detail and a road map to follow. In fairness, Johnson has repeatedly set out significant funding commitments for the building of new schools and hospitals, the restoration of UK towns, and the recruitment of new police officers. It remains to be seen, however, whether these policy destinations will be reached, particularly as the government has – understandably – been blown off course by the ubiquitous impact of the pandemic.
As a word taken in isolation though, there has not been a lot of energising taking place over the last 12 months through the agency of Boris Johnson. Despite storming to victory in last year’s general election, the voter turnout was actually down 1.5% on the 2017 snap election. Johnson’s election campaign also lacked the energy he claims to champion. His “get Brexit done” mantra bore a striking resemblance to the robotic “strong and stable” campaign of Theresa May; there was no explanation of the how, just the constant parroting of the what. Rather than face scrutiny on live TV debates or face up to questioning from Andrew Neil (as every other party leader did), Johnson opted for his old London mayoral schtick: getting out and about for an amusing publicity stunt like smashing a JCB tractor through a wall of polystyrene. His relentless sound bites and gimmicks did ultimately hit home, but interestingly some of the Conservative gains from Labour were constituencies with especially low voter turnouts, presumably because so few of them could bring themselves to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
The main source of energy in this country over the last year has not been through any government policy, but through the activism of thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters and others who have stood in solidarity with their cause. They have been demanding an end to the odious racism that still plagues countries like the UK and a tangible set of reforms, both legislative and educational, to achieve that. Their activism – and the activism of people across the democratic world – has shone a light on the insufficient progress that has been made towards building a more equal, co-operative, and tolerant society. Only time will tell if Johnson’s government has properly heeded their call, but more proactive policies are certainly needed to bring an end to racial prejudice and injustice.
One thing that the pandemic has thrown into sharp relief is the reactive nature of Johnson’s government. Whether it has been the U-turn on extending the free school meals voucher scheme over the summer, or the policy reversals over the NHS surcharge for migrant health workers and the Home Office’s coronavirus bereavement scheme, Johnson’s government has consistently backed down in the face of public pressure (with the exception of compelling Dominic Cummings to resign). In all cases, the real unity and energy has come from a chorus of journalists, public figures (like Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford), a medley of MPs, and members of the public.
Overall verdict
Johnson’s first year in office has been characterised more by failure than success or, in his own words, more dud than dude. Although he overwhelmingly succeeded in defeating Jeremy Corbyn, he has not yet fully delivered Brexit and he has failed to properly unite and energise the country. There are, of course, a whole host of ways to assess his performance and other achievements and failures worthy of note, but this article makes its assessment on the basis of the “DUDE” criteria Johnson set out when he first became Prime Minister.
Johnson has had an unenviable task on his plate in recent months, having to spearhead the government’s response to the greatest challenge this country has faced since the Second World War. While an effective campaigner, his handling of the pandemic has revealed the limits to his leadership abilities. Even in an interview with Laura Kuenssberg last week, Johnson admitted the government “didn’t understand the virus in a way that we would have liked in the first few weeks and months”. This admission looks like a diplomatic way of trying to cover up some of the government’s failings under his watch. These include: entertaining the idea of herd immunity at the expense of valuable time to put the country into lockdown; actively making the care home epidemic worse by sending coronavirus patients back to care homes; inadequately stockpiling and supplying PPE at critical stages in the first peak of the virus, and failing to universally roll out its “world-beating” contact-tracing app. Any government is bound to make mistakes and errors of judgment during an unprecedented public health crisis, but some of the aforementioned failings have reached levels of gross incompetence. The only area where the government has exceeded expectations is through the Treasury’s extensive spending commitments to support the country’s economic recovery, though these policies are at odds with the importance Conservative MPs place on fiscal responsibility so it is uncertain how long they will last.
His handling of COVID-19 aside, Johnson has already left his personal mark on Number 10. He has unlawfully sought to shut down the UK’s parliamentary democracy, withdrawn the whip from more MPs than any other Prime Minister in recent history, delayed the publication of a parliamentary report into Russian inference in the UK, sought to influence the election of the Chair of a non-partisan parliamentary committee, appointed a political appointee to the position of National Security Adviser, and stood by his chief political aide who broke the government’s own lockdown rules. Johnson’s high regard for parliamentary accountability and professional integrity is all too clear to see. With the fallout of Brexit and a public inquiry into his government’s handling of COVID-19 on the horizon, Johnson’s next four years in office are set to be just as turbulent as his first.
Nicholas Leah is the Managing Editor of the Oxford Political Review. He is currently a postgraduate law student at City, University of London and a Scholar of Gray’s Inn. He previously completed his BA in history at UCL and his MPhil in history at Lincoln College, Oxford.
Article image credit: Andrew Parsons/Number 10 Downing Street (https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/49698381936, licensed under Creative Commons 2.0, with no changes made)