In defence of Boris

Jay Elwes’s character assassination of Boris Johnson in “The self-interested man” was an effective polemic, but it is debatable whether he is any more self-interested than most politicians, past and present.

Elwes casts doubt on Boris’s integrity on the grounds that he is said to have written two essays on the question of leaving the EU, the one in favour, the other against. Rather than a fault, this is an exercise that should be recommended to any politician considering the faults and virtues of a policy. Should we not admire a man who can see both sides of a question and then come down on one side? That he considered which policy was most likely to appeal most to the electorate seems certain and he would not have been a politician if he had not. But to say he made his choice on the grounds of which would be more advantageous for him personally seems mere speculation. It was, after all, a brave choice when one considers that the odds and the weight of Establishment opinion before the referendum suggested that Leave had little chance of winning.

All ambitious politicians, save those who dedicate themselves to lost causes, assess the chances of success and what a policy will do for their careers as well as for their country. An example is Churchill, who like Boris was a journalist before he became a politician and who undoubtedly weighed up the alternatives of the Conservative and Liberals and of Free Trade and Protection in his early career. Self-interest played a large part in his decisions. Few would dispute Churchill’s deep concern for his country’s interests, but it would be difficult to argue that his own desire to succeed and to lead determined his actions and policies.

Of course, Boris is self-interested, and Elwes accepts that most politicians are, but which of our past statesmen have not been? Certainly not Palmerston, Disraeli, Lloyd George, or Asquith. Attlee, an unusually modest man for a successful politician, is, perhaps, a rare exception. Gladstone of course would have claimed not to be self-interested, but then like most political leaders, he had the happy knack of eliding his interests and his principles, and moreover saw both as God’s will. Boris has also had a colourful private life, but if this were grounds to deny him high office then we would have to exclude Lloyd George, John F Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

The machinations, foul play and the manipulations of British constitutional law by Remainers have placed enormous difficulties in the way of the British electorate’s desire to escape the European Union. The EU has never negotiated in good faith, while, until recently, the British side in the negotiations over our withdrawal has been hamstrung by half-hearted politicians and reluctant civil servants. Boris Johnson’s main fault is his lack of attention to detail, which he delegates to others, but he was ill-served by those who failed to detect the traps, ambiguities and possible interpretations in the withdrawal agreement he approved.

At last he has realised that “No Deal” was always likely to be the best deal. Britain, we are told, has gained enormous respect for its compliance with international law. So, at any rate,  say two of the worst prime ministers of recent times, one of which was ever ready to do the EU’s bidding, while the other was prepared to enter war on the basis of a “dodgy dossier”. If we roll over now at the instance of the once great and never very good, we will have lost our bid for independence and will be ridiculed as a soft touch, always ready to roll over, when outwitted or deceived by unscrupulous opponents.

Boris is a conundrum to puritans and the liberal establishment, who assume that an old Etonian who lards his speeches with classical references and quotations cannot appeal to the wider electorate, and assume that politicians should always be serious. That a political leader can slip on a banana skin and make a joke of it or seem to be having fun, is an affront to many British commentators and seems incredible to most Europeans. Faced with a bacon butty, Boris would eat the offering with relish and not care about crumbs or a bit of grease on his shirt, which is a reason why working-class voters rather like him. The combination of his patriotic rhetoric and jovial persona did much to help win the Referendum and the Conservative victory in 2019. He gave voice to the long-submerged desire for Britain to once more become an independent state. His faults should not obscure that great achievement or stand in the way of its full implementation.