"Politics, bloody hell"

Following Manchester United’s dramatic Champions League final victory over Bayern Munich in 1999, Alex Ferguson’s surprise and delight was expressed in his post-match comment “football, bloody hell.” Substitute politics for football and that encapsulates events of the past 24 hours in British politics. The most dramatic event was the decision by the Supreme Court which found Boris Johnson guilty of unlawfully preventing parliament from fulfilling its constitutional function of holding the government to account. Under normal circumstances, that would be sufficient to render a PM unfit for office – indeed, most employees losing a court case in such circumstances would expect to be fired – but these are not normal times.

In 62 days as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has lost six parliamentary votes; a by-election; his parliamentary majority; 23 MPs and a major court case in which he was found guilty of flouting the UK’s democratic conventions. These are the actions of a serial loser and were he a football manager Johnson would surely have been fired by now. But for all that, when Johnson finally does get the election he has long wanted – probably before year end – I fully expect him to win (or at least lead the largest party in parliament). And that is because he faces the least competent leader of an opposition party in the history of modern British politics.

Not what you are for but who you are against

For those of you not following the details, the Labour Party conference which is taking place this week shows a party which is in disarray and is remote from the concerns of the electorate. Jeremy Corbyn rejected efforts by party members to adopt a clear stance on Brexit before any general election by gerrymandering the process (par for the course in modern British politics). By packing the conference hall with supporters and calling for a show of hands, rather than allowing the trade unions to put their support behind moves for a second referendum, Corbyn has adopted a position which effectively amounts to “vote for us and we will tell you what our position is after the election.”

Those younger voters who flocked to Labour in 2017 in the belief that the party opposed Brexit will not vote for Corbyn again. The wider electorate is suspicious of a party which has what can only be described as a socialist agenda, and if it will not address the concerns of voters on Brexit, the moderates will desert in droves. I wrote in September 2015, soon after Corbyn was elected leader, that he would never be elected prime minister (“the general consensus at this stage is that Mr Corbyn is unelectable”). I believe this to be even more true today and this week’s conference decisions will go down as the moment Labour lost its chance to win an election.

Keep calm and carry on

Therefore, as bad a PM as Johnson is, all he has to do is hang in there and he will be returned to Downing Street at the next election. Indeed, although Johnson has been thwarted at every turn in his efforts to deliver Brexit, he is pulling out the stops to make it appear that he is prepared to do whatever it takes. This sort of stuff plays well with the half of the electorate that voted for Brexit and just wants to get on with it. It almost does not matter whether Johnson is successful in his efforts to prorogue parliament: By promising to deliver “do or die”, he has made himself into a martyr for the Brexit cause which will suit him as he tries to win back those Conservatives who have defected to the Brexit Party.

In my view, the government now does not have to take the risk of pushing ahead with a no-deal Brexit on 31 October as it can point to the various efforts by other parties (parliament and the courts) to prevent such an outcome. Johnson has already established his Brexit credentials. Indeed, the government would be breaking the law if it decided to push ahead with a no-deal Brexit.  Much of the excitable commentary suggesting that the government might ignore the court and try to prorogue parliament for a second time is probably wide of the mark (or at least it should be. The PM would be well advised not to listen to his advisers).

It is also not inconceivable that a deal can be struck that ensures the UK can enter into the transitional arrangement with the EU on 31 October, as Johnson undoubtedly desires. After all, there have recently been signs that the DUP are apparently softening their opposition to the prospect of an all-Ireland solution to the Irish backstop problem. In short, Northern Ireland would be much more closely aligned to the EU’s customs rules and would mean rather different treatment to the rest of the UK. If this hurdle can be overcome, then the problem of imposing a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland falls away. The EU would certainly be open to this option. After all, they originally suggested it in 2018 only for it to be rejected by the UK government which did not want to see different rules being applied in different parts of the UK.

Far from the finish line

If, however, this cannot be achieved then an extension to Article 50 seems inevitable. But this will open up a whole new can of worms. There is already a huge backlash underway against “unelected judges,” which totally ignores the fact that the courts actually opened the way for parliament – the representative body of the people – to take control of the issue. Whilst it is unsatisfactory that the judiciary has become involved in politics in the way that it has over the past three years, it is even more unsatisfactory that the executive has shown such contempt for the democratic process. We are sailing ever deeper into uncharted waters as the government tries to square the unresolvable circle of Brexit. As Brexiteers continue to look for the knockout blow that will resolve the problem “once and for all” they simply create more collateral damage and heighten the risk of an even bigger backlash.

We do not know where it will end. Nor do we know when it will end, for it is often forgotten that delivering Brexit on 31 October simply means entering into a harder set of negotiations with the EU as the two sides seek to determine the longer term nature of their relationship. There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. And even the rainbow now looks more than a little tarnished.

No good options (only bad ones)

Regular readers will know that I am no fan of Boris Johnson, having been critical of his actions over the past three years. Johnson has a long history of lying when it suits his interests (here for a list of issues which renders him sufficiently untrustworthy to take his public pronouncements at face value). Brexit has brought out the worst in him: Remember the weekly savings of £350 million splashed all over the side of that bus? Or what about the fact that he constantly undermined his prime minister whilst sitting in her cabinet?

Despite all of this – or perhaps because of it – I have been of the view that Johnson does not want a no-deal Brexit. Even last week’s execrable decision to prorogue parliament could be justified as an attempt to put pressure on MPs to sign up to the much derided Withdrawal Agreement. As I pointed out in my last post, one interpretation of the strategy was to ensure that it was impossible to reach a deal with the EU so as to put pressure on MPs to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement and dare Labour to block it, knowing that they could be blamed for a no-deal Brexit in any subsequent election. I still think that is a plausible strategy.

But over the weekend, it has become evident that the government is prepared to trample over democratic norms to an extent that was previously unthinkable. We had the unedifying spectacle of Michael Gove refusing to commit the government to complying with any laws passed by parliament. This was followed up by the threat to deselect any Conservative MP who votes against the government in order to block a no-deal Brexit. I do not want to describe what is happening as a coup – a word which has been bandied around a lot recently – but there is a new strain of authoritarianism in British politics, the likes of which we have not seen before (at least in peacetime). This is not the Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill (Johnson’s political hero). 

The sheer hypocrisy of the deselection policy beggars belief. As Tory MP Alistair Burt pointed out in response to the government’s call for MPs to support its Brexit policy, “I did. I voted for the conclusions of the negotiations brought to Parliament in the WA [Withdrawal Agreement]. JRM [Jacob Rees-Mogg], his friends and current Cabinet members did not. Why am I, having loyally supported, now being threatened and not them?” It is hard to dispute the logic of this claim. On 15 January, 118 Conservative MPs voted against the government’s stated policy of ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement. On 12 March this number was reduced to 75 and by the time of the final vote on 29 March there were still 34 recidivists. The 196 Tory MPs who voted with the government on three occasions will not be inclined to be threatened by those who have consistently showed a lack of loyalty to the former prime minister. What comes around goes around, and Johnson’s lack of loyalty in the past means he cannot count on the support of those who he has previously let down. 

Nor does the deselection tactic make a lot of immediate sense. The government has a majority of one: withdrawing the whip from Conservative MPs means that they are effectively excommunicated from the party, increasing the likelihood that they will vote against the government on a range of other issues. But if the ultimate objective is to hold an election sooner rather than later, there may be some method to the madness – why else would a government want to operate without a working majority? As David Gauke MP said in a radio interview this morning, “I think their strategy, to be honest, is to lose [an attempt to rule out a no-deal Brexit] this week and seek a general election having removed those of us who are not against Brexit or leaving the EU but believe we should do so with a deal.” Indeed, newspapers this afternoon were full of headlines suggesting that Johnson would be prepared to trigger an election if he lost a vote ruling out a no-deal Brexit. However, an election can only occur if the government loses a vote of no confidence in parliament or if two-thirds of MPs vote for it. Either way, it will require the consent of Labour MPs.

Former PM Tony Blair has warned Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn against falling into the “elephant trap” of calling for an election. Blair’s words should be heeded. As much as people are opposed to Brexit and the way in which Johnson has ridden roughshod over the British constitution, there is no guarantee that voters will flock to Corbyn as an alternative. In fact, I am pretty sure they won’t. Obviously Corbyn does not see it that way but I would be prepared to bet that he will not improve on the relative success of the 2017 election result.

If Corbyn really wants to put pressure on Johnson, his strategy should be to get as many Tory rebels as possible to sign up to a motion which commits parliament to ruling out a no-deal Brexit, whilst refusing to rise to the bait of any vote which would trigger a general election. This has the disadvantage that if Brexit can be delivered without collapsing the economy it will hand Johnson an electoral boost. But a more likely outcome is that since the EU will not cave in on the Irish backstop, which the hardliners in the Conservative Party will not be able to accept, a disciplined Labour Party can hold the Tories’ feet to the flames for a much longer period and possibly even force the party to split which would be to Labour’s electoral advantage.

Unfortunately, this would mean a continuation of the political wrangling that has characterised the last twelve months – and that is definitely not in the electorate’s interest. But an election is not in the country’s interest either. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 was designed to prevent governments controlling the timing of elections for their own purposes (which it spectacularly failed to do in 2017). If the terms of the Act had been adhered to, we would not have had an election since 2015 and would not have to face the prospect of another one until summer 2020. The 2017 election was a device to suit the government’s convenience – as will any plebiscite in 2019. If there is another election this year, it will further undermine the claim that a second EU referendum would be to disrespect the “will of the people.” 

Is there a way out of this political nightmare? It is hard to see one. We are paying the price for a litany of past mistakes – from the decision to hold a referendum at all; to drawing red lines around membership of the single market and customs union, to Johnson’s plan to resolve the issue by 31 October.  Whatever happens now, half the electorate will be left disaffected and angry. There are no good options – only bad ones.

Prorogation over negotiation

Like many people, I was initially horrified by the news that Boris Johnson is prepared to suspend parliament in order to deliver Brexit by 31 October. It certainly put a damper on the last day of my summer holiday and the Douaumont Ossuary near Verdun was a good place to ponder the stupidity of politicians and the consequences of their actions which impact on the ordinary citizen. But on reflection, I do not buy the kneejerk reaction of those who believe Boris Johnson’s government is intent on driving the UK to a no-deal Brexit. Instead I view it as a gambit to try and force a break in the impasse that has characterised the last two years. This is not to say that the actions of the government should be condoned. It is taking a major risk and those who play with fire run the risk of getting badly burned.

The constitutional aspects

Obviously, I am not a constitutional lawyer but the general consensus of opinion from the experts appears to be that the Johnson government is taking a major risk that could have profound consequences. The UK's constitutional system is based on a democratically elected parliament whose primary role is to hold government to account. Moreover, the British constitution is uncodified and many of the rules which guide it are based on tradition rather than a fixed legal process. Governments have traditionally always played by the unwritten set of rules but a departure from this principle threatens the basis of the current system. As a number of constitutional experts have pointed out, if norms and traditions are not respected they cease to exist and will lead to calls for constitutional change. I would thus not be at all surprised if at some point there are calls to codify a written constitution to prevent this kind of abuse from occurring in future.

Of course the biggest irony is that Brexit was all about taking back control. Whatever happened to that?  In one fell swoop, the Brexiteers have undermined their case, with the scrupulously fair David Allen Green (no Remainer, he) accusing the government of “constitutional cheating”. He goes on to argue that “It is beginning to look as if there will be a constitutional crisis. So far we have not had one about Brexit. There has been a political crisis, and much constitutional drama, but each tension so far has been resolved between the elements of the British state. This prorogation, however, is a direct attack by the executive on parliamentary democracy. It is a cynical device for the government to escape parliamentary scrutiny in the crucial few weeks before a no-deal Brexit is likely to take place. Nothing good can come of this. It is a divisive act when consensus is needed. It is a gross abuse of the constitutional powers of the prime minister. And it breaches a principle far deeper than any constitutional norm — that of fair play.”

Green also makes the point in another Tweet that whilst the government has generated a lot of fake outrage over the reaction to its prorogation decision, there is a whole host of other “constitutional outrages” that have been perpetrated in the name of democracy which have been ignored by politicians and the press.  It has indeed been evident since 2016 that the government is determined to deliver a Brexit at any cost and has ridden roughshod over the UK’s democratic norms in order to deliver it. But this is the only way that it can take a near 50-50 vote split in June 2016 and turn it into something realisable. The damage will only become evident in the longer term. One of the underlying forces driving the Brexit vote was the belief amongst a large section of the population that they had been ignored by politicians. Although the government was never likely to win over hard-core Remainers, its recent actions are likely to alienate reluctant leavers – those who don’t like the idea of Brexit but can live with it if the pain can be minimised. There will be a reckoning from the newly ignored.

History teaches us that it could be profound, albeit a long time coming. One of the most famous prorogations in English history was that by King Charles I in 1629 who ruled for 11 years without a parliament. This was a major contributory factor to the triggering of the English Civil War in 1642 which ultimately resulted in the execution of King Charles and placed significant limits on the power of the Monarchy following its restoration in 1660. It was a long time ago and so what? It is, however, a demonstration that constitutional decisions taken in haste can have huge unintended consequences.

Has no-deal become more likely?

Yes and no. I maintain that Johnson does not want a no-deal Brexit. If even half the concerns pointed out by the leaked Operation Yellowhammer documents are realised, the economic consequences of Brexit could be profound. This is not a good platform for a general election, which I still believe is a likely prospect before year-end. So why is Johnson prepared to take such a gamble?

I may be guilty of applying logic to an illogical situation, but here goes. Johnson was elected as Tory leader on a platform to deliver Brexit. If he fails, his credibility is shot but if he delivers without a deal, his chances of winning an election are also shot. So he either has to get the EU to change its mind on amending the Irish backstop or persuade MPs to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement that has already been rejected by parliament on three occasions. His strategy of apparently excluding parliament from Brexit discussions may partly be designed to send a message to Brussels that he is serious about leaving without a deal. In my opinion this is unlikely to be sufficient to persuade EU leaders to change their mind at the summit starting on 17 October. It is likely they will take the view that a no-deal Brexit is a bigger problem for the UK than for the EU27, so if Johnson wants to plunge the UK over the cliff edge, that is his problem.

Parliament will of course be in session again by this time (it is scheduled to reconvene on 14 October). At this point, Johnson says that the only way the UK can avoid a hard Brexit is if MPs agree to ratify the deal negotiated by Theresa May (perhaps made more palatable by some tweaks at the summit). Unless MPs can somehow force the government to take a no-deal Brexit off the table, they may have little choice but to comply. Cue the triumph of Johnson diplomacy which he celebrates by calling an election, campaigning on the basis of the PM who delivered Brexit. We thus should view the prorogation as a signalling device to terrify MPs as much as sending a signal to Brussels.

This is a high stakes poker game and the higher the stakes the bigger the chance of losses. It is thus possible that it could backfire if the EU refuses to bend, or an insufficient number of MPs are prepared to play along. After all, why should Labour MPs want to give Johnson his triumph? There again if they don’t support the Withdrawal Agreement, Johnson holds an election anyway and blames Labour for failing to support the plan. 

Viewed in these terms, the prorogation device is very neat and it has the fingerprints of Johnson’s special adviser, Dominic Cummings, all over it. He has outmanoeuvred the opposition very cleverly. However, Cummings does not have to face the electorate. Johnson does, and when push comes to shove he may be forced to blink to prevent the worst case outcome. Cummings is unconventional and politically fearless. But by dragging the unwritten constitution into the spotlight, he is undermining the UK’s reputation for political pragmatism and tolerance, built up over centuries. This vandalous act is the work of a zealot and the world will not forget. Nor will the British electorate.

If Johnson is the answer, what is the question?

It seems such a long time ago but it is in fact only three years since Theresa May entered Downing Street, giving a speech which raised hopes that many of the social injustices which had characterised the recent past were about to be rectified. We were sadly disappointed. Now her race is run, and we await the confirmation of Boris Johnson as the 55^th person to hold the position of UK Prime Minister. The political temperature is even hotter than the weather, as we bask in the hottest day of the year so far, but the outlook is far less clear than it was on that sunny July day in 2016 when Theresa May took the reins.

My views on the suitability of Johnson for the highest office have been well documented on this blog over the past three years. That said, I have underestimated him. After he quit his role as Foreign Secretary in July 2018, having turned out to be one of the most disastrous incumbents of that office, I thought he was due a long spell on the backbenches.  I never quite believed his political career was over but his inability to deal with the detail required of a front-line national politician, let alone maintain high level relationships with other governments, demonstrated his unsuitability for the top job. It is a sad indictment of the other candidates that the Tories voted 2:1 in favour of handing the party leadership to Johnson just 12 months after he walked out, claiming that he could not sign up to the type of Brexit proposed by the May government. It is true that the likes of Jeremy Hunt are pretty colourless characters but sometimes you need adults guarding the liquor cabinet. Johnson is akin to the alcoholic who has just been given the keys to a brewery and I fear it will not end well. 

He is an antidote to the caution of the May era and whilst this is welcome in many ways, he does not seem to understand the constraints under which she operated. In the course of his victory speech today, Johnson promised “we are going to get Brexit done on 31 October, we are going to take advantage of all the opportunities that it will bring in a new spirit of can-do. And we are once again going to believe in ourselves and what we can do and like some slumbering giant we are going to rise and ping off the guy ropes of self-doubt and negativity.” You cannot fault the optimism but in many ways these few sentences illustrate all we need to know. It is all about what he didn't say: He didn't explain how “we are going to get Brexit done” nor what are “the opportunities that it will bring.” And if you want to extend his boxing metaphor, Muhammad Ali was an expert at coming back off the ropes but look what happened to him within a few short years. 

As for delivering Brexit on 31 October, it can be done. The question is, at what cost? A no-deal Brexit would fulfil the mandate, but there are sufficient concerns regarding the economic impact that MPs are likely to do all they can to prevent it. Last week’s Fiscal Risks Report from the OBR provided a timely reminder of the potential costs of a no-deal Brexit. Based on the IMF’s relatively benign growth scenario, which reckons on a 4% loss of output relative to baseline over a three year horizon, this “adds around £30 billion a year to borrowing from 2020-21 onwards and around 12 per cent of GDP to net debt by 2023-24.” This may prove to be overly pessimistic, of course, but why would any responsible politician want to take the risk?

As for “all the opportunities that it will bring” we have been through this so many times that it has become boring, but I am professionally bound to ask “what opportunities?”  What exactly is it that the EU prevents the UK from doing today that would make it better off? And don’t say negotiate better trade deals with third countries. Just don’t go there! The UK is already one of the most deregulated economies in the EU and as I pointed out in 2016: “Not in the single currency nor party to the Schengen Agreement, it broadly worked for us.”

In many ways the fact-free nature of the Brexit debate has intensified over the past three years making it even more difficult for the next government to deliver. As a minister who was capable of extreme disingenuousness towards the previous prime minister even as he sat in her government, Johnson cannot rely on the loyalty of those Tory MPs who oppose his vision of Brexit. At some point, fantasy and reality are going to collide. It is one thing to convince your electorate but the Tory debate has been conducted in plain sight and the rest of the world has been looking on in amazement as the Tories attempted to outdo each other’s hard Brexit credentials. Moreover, Brexit is not just about the UK – the EU also has a big say. And why should the EU reopen negotiations with the UK when it has already made the least-worst offer that will satisfy the conflicting requirements of both sides? Nor should we be under any illusions about how widely reviled Johnson is in the rest of the EU. He is the last person to whom Emmanuel Macron will be prepared to offer any concessions.

It is profoundly depressing to think that a country that prides itself on its pragmatism has now elected a person who is more remembered for their appearances on a light-hearted topical news quiz (here or here for example, but there is lots more) than for their tenure as Mayor of London. There again, Johnson is not the only comedian who has achieved high political office recently: Beppe Grillo in Italy and Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine spring immediately to mind. And Donald Trump’s previous gig was as host of the TV series The Apprentice.

There is, of course, a deeper issue here: It is all about how the message is delivered, not the content of the message itself, and what better way to do this than employ an engaging frontman (or woman)? Johnson is not a dyed-in-the-wool Brexiteer but he has been well paid for delivering this message by people that are. Nor does Trump have any strong political views but he is a great frontman for those with a message to peddle.

To finish on a lighter note in these dark times, a few days ago, a colleague sent me a copy of The Ladybird Book of Brexit which takes a sideways look at the issue. I was particularly taken with the satirical paragraph which pointed out that ”Montmorency De Douchelord Ponsonby-Fring and his friend Sir William Du Flournay were glad the public voted Leave. Like so many land-owners, newspaper barons, hedge fund managers, firebrand back-bench MPs, ex-pat billionaires and Russian oligarchs, they thought it was high time the ordinary people of Britain got a chance to send a message to an out-of-touch-elite.” And what better person to represent the ordinary people than defender-of-the-common man Boris Johnson?

The end of May

Game of Thrones, the TV series which ended its 8-year run this week, followed the fortunes of various political dynasties as they pursued their claims to the Iron Throne which would allow them to rule all the seven kingdoms of Westeros. The path to the top was brutal with various leading contenders beng executed, murdered or dying in battle. As a piece of television fiction it was compelling but it is highly improbable that such levels of brutality could be sustained in real life. That said, the behaviour of the Conservative Party increasingly resembles a GoT plot line which is unlikely to end well.

It appears that MPs believe compromise is for the weak

As regular readers of this blog will know I have been highly critical of the way in which Theresa May has conducted Brexit policy over the course of the last three years. She has tried to "own" the issue, pandering to the right-wing of her party, when in reality cross-party support was always going to be required in order to find a consensus, particularly following the needless 2017 general election which cost the Conservatives their majority. When May finally cottoned onto the need for a cross-party solution last month, her political position was so weak that the Labour Party had little incentive to cooperate in order to get the Withdrawal Agreement ratified by parliament. But the reaction this week to May’s ten-point plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through parliament said more about MPs than it did about the prime minister. Having listened to what the right-wing of her party want, what Remainers want and the issues raised by the Labour Party, the PM offered something for everyone and ended up pleasing no-one.

So it came to pass that the day before the European Parliament elections, the UK news was dominated by stories discussing how long the prime minister was likely to keep her job. As a campaign message it was the most spectacular of own goals: Not that the Tories have bothered to campaign for an election in which the PM promised the UK would not have to take part, and they could well trail a distant fourth in terms of the vote share. Yet as ineptly as May has handled Brexit – so much so that she has created space for a Nigel Farage resurrection – and as inflexible as she is on policy issues, the problem is less the prime minister than an inability of MPs to compromise. Whilst there are many good reasons for not liking the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the EU last November – it essentially compels the UK to be an EU rule-taker during the transition period, which runs to end-2020 – it is still the least worst outcome that the UK could have obtained.

It has now become an article of faith amongst the ultras that the only good Brexit is a hard Brexit, yet three years ago even the most ardent proponents of leaving the EU were not advocating such a policy. Somewhere along the line, the Brexiteers have convinced themselves that leaving the EU at any cost is the only goal worth pursuing and it is impossible to convince them otherwise. This is not a rational, evidence-based policy: It is faith-based zealotry. And the more the faithful proclaim their litany, the greater the pushback by their ideological opponents. Indeed, in the fly-on-the-wall documentary, Brexit: Behind Closed Doors, in which cameras followed the EU Parliament’s Brexit representative Guy Verhofstadt for two years, the former Belgian prime minister warned that the Remainers were increasingly becoming a problem due to their inability to know when to compromise.

Who really wants to take on the impossible job?

It has thus become impossible to meet in the middle and it does not matter who is the prime minister in the current environment. At the time of writing, it is reported that May is likely to announce her departure within the next 24 hours. Her successor, who is expected to be a Brexiteer, will inherit a minority government reliant on the DUP and a party divided over Brexit. If, as widely tipped, that person is Boris Johnson it is difficult to imagine any improvement in the current parliamentary impasse. Johnson is widely loathed by large numbers of Conservative MPs who do not trust him due to his duplicity during the Brexit referendum campaign and his dreadful tenure as Foreign Secretary. His advocacy of a no-deal Brexit will not win him any friends outside the coterie of backbench Tory MPs who believe such an outcome is somehow in the UK’s best interests. This is to say nothing of the fact that he is also reviled by many European leaders and he would be the last person to send to Brussels to plead for any concessions. 

However, Johnson is not guaranteed to get the top job. Although he is the favourite, we all know what happened in 2016 and Oddschecker.com is offering odds on dozens of MPs so it is a crowded field. But none of them set the pulses racing and none have the brand recognition that the Tories need. If he does beat off the challenge of MPs to go forward as one of the two candidates from which members of the Conservative Party will choose a new leader, he will probably win a majority of the 120,000 party members eligible to vote. Johnson will then have a maximum of three years before he faces the 46 million eligible to vote in a general election which will determine whether he is the Heineken candidate of old (reaching the parts other mainstream politicians cannot reach) or whether he is now Marmite Man (loathed at least as much as he is loved).

The bottom line is that Brexit has indeed upended politics in a way that even Nigel Farage did not envisage in 2016. It has certainly changed the Conservative Party and severely damaged its reputation for competence. Worse still, it has completely eroded many people’s faith in politics, the echo of which will resonate for many years.

Sometimes it pays to pass up the top job

I have often used the Alex Ferguson syndrome to describe the poisoned chalice of taking on the prime minister’s job in the current circumstances and it is a metaphor worth revisiting. Recall that following Ferguson’s departure as Manchester United manager in 2013 his replacement, David Moyes, seemed to find the job too daunting and was gone in less than a year. It was thus decided that a bigger, more well-known figure was required to fill the post and the board duly appointed the highly acclaimed Dutch manger Louis van Gaal. He lasted two years before being sacked with the board deciding that insufficient progress was being made. May reminds me of Moyes – a low profile character who is out of their depth in the top job. Johnson has many of the characteristics of van Gaal – confident and up for the fight. Yet the Manchester job proved to be van Gaal’s last in football.

The moral of this story, and indeed the same is true of Game of Thrones, is that being in the right place at the right time is important and even extraordinary people will struggle with mammoth tasks if they find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Succeeding Theresa May will be like walking into the lion’s den. I suspect whoever they are they will eventually be chewed up and spat out by the complexities of Brexit.