By Dr Simon Tormey, PhD, University of Bristol — The Conversation, 13 July 2022
The scandals attract all the attention but the real problems in Johnson’s administration ran much deeper. Following an excruciating few days when many of his colleagues left his cabinet over yet another scandal — the Chris Pincher affair being the final straw — Boris Johnson finally resigned on July 7 as leader of the Conservative party. Led by Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Chancellor Rishi Sunak, over 50 members of Johnson’s government resigned in a day and a half. Johnson had won a huge electoral majority in 2019 only to be forced into resigning less than three years later.
What exactly was “Johnsonism”? Beyond a few slogans such as “levelling up,” the answer is not much. Johnson successfully reached out to some working-class sections of the population who wouldn’t usually vote Conservative by promising to “get Brexit done,” but beyond this gesture in the direction of earthy nationalism, there was very little in his policy agenda for them. It soon became clear that Johnson could not maintain the allegiance of his newly recruited voters; meanwhile, in wooing his new base, his neglect of traditional Conservative communities cost him votes in other areas.
Isn’t this just a form of “big tent” or centrist politics of a kind associated with Emmanuel Macron in France or Angela Merkel in Germany? Not quite. The political centre has a certain ideological logic of its own — built on the social democratic belief that a healthy economy is needed to maintain public services, but equally that efficient public services are needed to maintain a strong economy. Johnson’s government had no such ideological core. This wasn’t catch-all politics built from the ground up — it was a single-issue campaign around Brexit that lost traction and significance once that objective had been obtained. Politics under Johnson morphed into a campaign to keep Johnson in power. Power for power’s sake. Johnson for Johnson’s sake. In the end, his party woke up to the realities of this maverick, self-interested figure: they had created a “single point of failure.” They stood him up on the plank, marched him to the end at the point of many swords, and finally nudged him over. An ignominious end for an ignominious figure who presided over an ignominious period of British politics. This article has been republished under Creative Commons licence.