Boris Johnson is no Churchill and can resign during a war, say baffled historians and diplomats – iNews

Has Russias invasion of Ukraine saved Boris Johnsons premiership? Listening to some Conservative MPs, it sounds that way: he broke the law over Partygate, they admit, but Britain couldnt possibly have a change of prime minister at a time of war.

The Daily Mail agrees, having run the front-page headline: Dont they know theres a war on? Even vehement critics of Johnson, such as the Tory MP Sir Roger Gale and the Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross, who had both previously called for him to stand down, say now is not the right time.

This argument has baffled some of the countrys leading historians and diplomatic experts, who are also unconvinced by Johnsons efforts to portray himself as a latter-day Sir Winston Churchill.

Britain is not at war, says Leo McKinstry, author of Attlee and Churchill, so this argument seems very specious. Every prime minister faces problems at home and conflict abroad. For 30 years, prime ministers faced conflict in Northern Ireland, so its a pretty dubious argument that the pressure of events mean he cant possibly resign.

He adds: Its a life-and-death struggle for Ukraine, but its not for Britain.

The mechanics of government would continue during a change in leadership because weve got a very good Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, and the logistical system has been set up to supply Ukraine.

And even if the UK were fighting, he tells i, it is ludicrous to suggest that the occupant of 10 Downing Street cannot change it has happened many times before.

Simon Fraser, a former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office during the Coalition government, tweeted: If the argument that you should not change PM during a war had applied in 1940, Boris Johnsons hero Churchill would not have become PM (And then, unlike now, we actually were at war).

This wasnt for lack of trying by No 10s incumbent at the time, says McKinstry. Neville Chamberlain presented the Boris-camp argument on 10 May 1940, saying that with the invasion of France and the Low Countries, this wasnt the time to change prime ministers. The Cabinet said this is exactly the time were facing the greatest crisis in the history of Britain, we need the best possible leader and youve proved youre not that man. Churchills time had come.

Not only did Churchill enter Downing Street during the war, he left with potentially months of bloody fighting still ahead in the Far East. When the public elected Clement Attlees Labour government by a landslide in July 1945, people had no idea that two atomic bombs still secret at the time would end the war within weeks.

That was a great argument that went on within the coalition: is this the time to hold an election with a potential change in government? People argued: surely we should wait until Japan is beaten? says McKinstry.

But one of the great strengths of democracy is that it carries on even in wartime. Think of Franklin Roosevelt having a US presidential election in 1944. And in a way, thats what Ukraine is fighting for against Russia. If that seems an odd argument that you have to suspend democracy because youre in the middle of a conflict.

Indeed, many have pointed out that France is going through a presidential election now, with Emmanuel Macron facing off against Marine Le Pen for a run-off vote on 24 April.

Peter Ricketts, a crossbench peer who served as National Security Adviser to David Cameron and in high-ranking diplomatic roles for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, tells i that the normal rules of politics should continue to apply, and theres no reason for suspending them because of Ukraine.

Lord Ricketts, the author of Hard Choices, explains: John Major replaced Margaret Thatcher in November 1990, when the Conservative Party had no scruples about making a change right in the middle of the final build-up for the Gulf War, where very large numbers of British forces were preparing for combat. They didnt have a problem then.

He adds: David Cameron won the 2010 election when the armed forces were heavily committed in Afghanistan. I dont think anybody said you couldnt change the government in the middle of a serious military operation. And while Johnson has been effective on Ukraine, he is not irreplaceable.

Both McKinstry and Ricketts underline that they do not necessarily think Johnson who maintains that he did not knowingly mislead Parliament over Partygate should resign or be ousted. Nor do they predict that he will.

I dont think this fine in itself disqualifies him from being Prime Minister but it poses a question to the Conservative Party: do they still think hes a fit person? says Ricketts.

Do they think this is enough to cause them to set in motion a Major-for-Thatcher kind of change? If they dont, in the end the electorate will decide in 2024.

McKinstry says: Johnson is the first prime minister to be convicted of breaking the law, but some might say that other prime ministers have committed far greater offences like Tony Blairs war in Iraq which many would say was illegal, Thatchers leaking of documents in the Westland crisis, Antony Edens invasion of Suez, Churchill and Attlee for the strategic bombing of Germany. You might say that those are greater moral offences than attending a birthday party during lockdown.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of a leading politician remaining in office despite a very dodgy record is David Lloyd-George.

When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he offloaded lots of Marconi shares when he had inside information, explains McKinstry.

That was a great stain on Lloyd George. Looking back, it seems inexplicable that he didnt end up in court on charges of insider dealing. How did he survive? That was in 1913. Three years later, Lloyd-George succeeded Asquith in running the Liberal-led wartime coalition. Will Johnson take inspiration from Lloyd-Georges brazen behaviour?

For those who think that drinks gatherings in No 10, even if they were illegal, should not be resigning matters, history also bodes well.

McKinstry names Archibald Primrose, the 5th Earl of Rosebery, as the only modern Prime Minister since the mid 19th century I can think of who resigned over not a major issue. He stepped down in 1895 after his Liberal government lost a vote on the supply of ammunition to the British Army. He wanted to get out anyway, so he just took it as an excuse to say: Theyve lost confidence in me, says the historian.

Every prime minister since then has either resigned because they lost an election, they lost the confidence of their party, they had ill health as in the case of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Andrew Bonar Law or the major central plank of their policy was last, like Theresa May over Brexit.

Following visits to Kyiv by the prime ministers of the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia last month, Johnson was widely applauded for travelling to the Ukrainian capital at the weekend to meet President Zelensky, who urged the world: Be brave like Boris.

Commentators such as is Ian Birrell have little doubt that, while this was an important and admirable show of support for Ukraine by Johnson, he has also used Russias invasion opportunistically for his own political ends, portraying himself as a Churchillian wartime leader. Bloomberg declared that Boris Johnson Is Having His Winston Churchill Moment because in standing next to Zelensky, the Prime Minister knows that reflected glory is often the best way to come by extra kudos.

If these fines have been imposed to two or three months ago, his position would be far more precarious but he shored up his authority a bit with his statesmanlike leadership in the crisis, and that footage of him walking through Kyiv with Zelensky certainly did him no harm, says McKinstry.

He thinks criticism of Johnsons behaviour on Ukraine is harsh.

Hes surprised even his critics by his stature and the strength of his leadership. The Ukrainian government openly says that Britain has been their staunchest ally. There are all these problems at home, with transport chaos and inflation, but the actual organisation logistically of Britains military support for Ukraine has been very effective, from the anti-tank equipment to the Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles. Zalensky has been full of praise for him. Its not just an invention that he has proved himself an effective leader in a crisis overseas.

Nevertheless, he feels there are few genuine parallels to be made between Johnson and Churchill, beyond the fact they are both maverick, colourful characters whose careers recovered after wilderness years, and their oratory skills when able to write their scripts in advance.

Ricketts is also frustrated by misleading comparison between Johnson and Churchill. Churchill was leading the UK in an existential war for survival. Boris Johnson has not committed British Armed Forces to conflict, he says.

Johnson has long encouraged the public to think of him as a Churchillian figure. In 2016, he even wrote a biography of the man The Churchill Factor in which he referred to himself 30 times in the introduction alone.

The book says perhaps less about Churchill than it does about the ambition and self-image of Boris, concluded Sonia Purnell in her review.

Some will point out that many aspects of Churchills life mean he is not necessarily a good person to be likened to. Reviewing the book Churchills Shadow, in which Geoffrey Wheatcroft sought to cut through what he sees as blinkered idolisation of the man, a New York Times review summed up its argument that Churchill was not just a racist but a hypocrite, a dissembler, a narcissist, an opportunist, an imperialist, a drunk, a strategic bungler, a tax dodger, a neglectful father, a credit-hogging author, a terrible judge of character and, most of all, a masterful mythmaker.

But McKinstry says that as an overall characterisation of Churchill, this would unfair with no doubt that he was a truly great leader with tremendous judgment of military strategy and prescience.

The idea that he was just this drunken bore who invented stuff about himself is so absurd.

Ultimately, can analysis of the past offer us any guidance on what will happen next for Johnson? The author Sir Simon Jenkins thinks not. Boris Johnson is not Churchill or Pericles, he wrote in The Guardian this week, adding: As a guide to the present, let alone the future, history is for smart alecks and podcasts. It is bunk.

McKinstry agrees. History never repeats itself, and one of the great failings is always looking for parallels with the past. You get unstuck because theyre not exactly the same This is going to be decided by the Tory MPs.

Whats going to be a huge influence on their judgement is the outcome of the local elections. So in a perverse way, democracy is going to have the final say. If the Tories do really badly in the local elections, what seems possible, that would probably sound the death knell for Boris. In a way, it is quite democratic that its going to be the court of public opinion that will probably decide this.

Attlee and Churchill: Allies in War, Adversaries in Peaceby Leo McKinstry (10.99, Atlantic Books) and Hard Choices: The Making and Unmaking of Global Britain by Peter Ricketts (9.99, Atlantic Books) are both on sale now

View original post here:
Boris Johnson is no Churchill and can resign during a war, say baffled historians and diplomats - iNews