“Not a complete clown”

Harri was formerly a member of Boris Johnson’s team during Johnson’s first term as Mayor of London. Considering his well-regarded skills as a political communicator, it was perhaps a surprise that the first utterance we heard from Harri was that Johnson is “not a complete clown, he’s a very likeable character”. Hardly a reassuring start.

"I walked in, I gave him a salute and said ‘Prime Minister, Guto Harri reporting for duty’ and he stood up from behind his desk and started to salute but then said ‘What am I doing, I should take the knee for you."….

— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) February 7, 2022

In a recent interview, Harri told BBC Newscast that, “Boris has always underestimated how critical it is to have a fantastic team around him”. He said he had been informed by some in Westminster that they were not interested in supporting the prime minister while the current political scandals rage on. According to Harri, one commentator told him, “I’m not interested in going in to walk into the gallows”.

Not wanting to be associated with a prime minister on his skids, and with his popularity in freefall, is understandable. What is not so comprehensible is the unwavering devotion and loyalty that (a small number of) ministers and MPs still show to their boss. In the case of a certain female cabinet minister, one can only assume it’s the sheer desperation of knowing that no other PM would ever consider giving her a job.

I am so very deeply tired of being governed by this collection of morons and halfwits. https://t.co/MnmwxJoepa

— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) February 7, 2022

Hedging their bets

Leaving aside the loyalists, and those who have already pinned their “Get Boris done” colours to the flagpole, the vast majority of Conservative backbenchers are still sitting on the fence. Many believe, perhaps correctly, that they owe their place in Westminster to Johnson. They trusted him to carry the party over the line at the last general election, and he didn’t disappoint. In fact, he exceeded all their expectations and won a huge majority.

But the ‘qualities’ that won Johnson an election do not encompass all, or perhaps any, of the skills necessary to run a country. Not only has Johnson proved an incompetent, careless leader, but he has also mired himself and the party in sleaze, corruption, cronyism and poor judgment.

You might think Johnson’s performance would encourage more backbenchers to distance themselves from the toxic atmosphere, for fear of being tarnished by the same brush, but no. The number of letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee still falls short of the 54 required for a vote to be called.

So, why aren’t more Conservative MPs making a stand against Johnson?

Better the devil you know

One theory is that there is currently no suitable alternative candidate for PM – or at least not one who the party has sufficient confidence could win an election. Of course, the issue is not just whether the candidate is suitably statesmanlike, charismatic, strong, etc, etc. It’s whether they have the power to change public opinion about the party.

Johnson has done untold damage to the reputation of the country, but he has not suffered the consequences alone. It’s not just his personal ratings that have suffered from his leadership, he has destroyed the party’s standing in the process. It would have to be a very special candidate that could turn opinion around and convince the public that all the pain, the damage, the recklessness and the waste were solely down to Johnson, and not to the government that circled the wagons around him. That’s a tall order, even for a new leader with a strong following. And I don’t see any of those waiting in the wings.

Maybe – just maybe – with the wind in the right direction, and new staff advising the boss, perhaps Johnson can redeem himself, and repeat the one thing he’s actually good at – campaigning and winning elections. That’s, of course, assuming Johnson would ever, will ever, listen to advice.

Timing is everything

Another concern raised by wavering Tory MPs is the fear of acting too soon and potentially making matters worse. Though I don’t doubt there are many more backbenchers strongly considering submitting their own letter of no confidence, deciding when to act is not so straightforward.

Peak too soon, with an early vote, and maybe Johnson will survive it. If the PM wins the vote, then he can’t be challenged again for another 12 months. With the next general election only two years away, and Johnson in power for the next year at least, that could be a recipe for Tory disaster. Either Johnson does more damage to himself and the party, then tries to fight an election. Or, he’s gone with less than a year to attempt to build up a new leader, transform the party, and convince the public that it’s not more of the same.

One previously loyal backbencher, in a safe Tory seat, recently told me that a letter of no confidence at this time would “do no good”. Johnson would win the vote, “leaving him emboldened and safe for another year”. He added, “Is that what you really want?”

Decision time on the clown in charge

Whether at home, or on the international stage, Johnson and his government are looking increasingly like rank amateurs and outsiders. They have turned a successful, outward-looking, democratic country into an object of embarrassment, disdain and pity.

As government popularity has fallen, the opposition – most notably Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party – are starting to demonstrate a readiness for government. Considering how the Labour Party was perceived when Starmer took over less than two years ago, that is no mean feat. And that’s not just down to Johnson’s failures.

Tory MPs continue to contemplate their navels, and worry about their own futures rather than ours. They need to wake up. It’s decision time – support Johnson or don’t. It’s time to accept that the country needs so much more than a PM who is “not a complete clown”.

As the Tories dither, the country is going to hell in a handcart and the driver is more interested in his own reflection than important matters of state. The public, meanwhile, are considering their own leadership choices. And fewer and fewer of them are choosing Tories. Or clowns.

This is good. pic.twitter.com/jL68jMpUm1

— getnorthern – “a discrace to Britain” (@getnorthern) February 5, 2022

Most of us have heard of the ERG (European Research Group), the libertarian, hard-right group of Conservative MPs instrumental in bringing about a hard Brexit. However, there are several more, including the Covid Recovery Group and the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG).

Steve Baker MP for Wycombe and self-labelled ‘Brexit hard man’ is a prominent member of many of these groups. He and his ilk are committed to fundamentally changing the society we live in by using pseudo-scientific research, skewed analysis, and political pressure. They are doing so not just with the public purse, but with the help and support of some questionable international groups.

As a recent Byline Times article revealed, the American, pro-Trump, far-right are pushing their agenda through British politics, including the likes of Steve Baker who:

Net Zero Scrutiny Group

The NZSG’s remit argues against the government’s plan to reach net zero by 2050. It is pushing for the expansion of domestic fossil fuel supplies. Like the ERG, they are funded through the public purse and their arguments are often based on skewed data and facts.

They say they want to ease the taxpayer and public purse burden. They claim to care about reducing household bills, and are using rising inflation as an excuse to argue for reduced spending on green initiatives whilst advocating for further oil and gas exploration, including fracking.

There are thought to be around 20 Conservatives in this group. Those named are Craig Mackinley, Steve Baker, Esther McVey, Robert Halfon, Julian Knight, Anne Marie Morris, Andrew Bridgen, David Jones, Scott Benton, Damien Moore, Mark Jenkinson, Andrew Lewer, Karl McCartney, Marcus Fysh, Lee Anderson, Philip Davies, Greg Smith, Lord Lilley of Offa, Adam Holloway, and Craig Tracey.

Connections to Global Warming Policy Foundation

Steve Baker is a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (rebranded as Net Zero Watch in 2021). Its founding member is prominent climate change denier and former-chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson. In 2014, the Charity Commission ruled that the foundation had breached rules on impartiality and its charitable status. After this event, a subgroup, Global Warming Policy Forum, was then set up to become its lobbying arm. This organisation is likely where the NZSG will get much of its ‘information’.

The forum questions the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. It promotes climate change ‘scepticism’, campaigning against policies to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Their activities have included the reproduction of newspaper articles, with fake headlines inserted to give them a sceptic spin and are funded by, in the whole, unknown donors. The foundation has rejected freedom of information requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions.

Fossil fuel industry has spent billions protecting itself

The fossil fuel industry has been exposed by many for the intense efforts it has gone to save their industry. As The Climate Reality Project revealed, fossil fuel companies have blocked climate action for years:

The NZSG is a pro-fossil fuel group. They fall under the guise of being about research and data, yet their arguments and messaging are not based on science or fact. They are a radical think tank with their own agenda to undermine the government climate policy using a group of sceptics, conspiratorial denialism, and skewed data.

The government’s work needs scrutiny but not by a radical minority that consists of climate change deniers and individuals with ulterior motives who, in all likelihood, have connections to far-right groups and individuals in America

What can we expect to see from the NZSC?

Expect spin, half-truths, and manipulation of data. Craig Mackinlay, the Conservative MP for Thanet South who is leading the NZSG, has already given misleading and inaccurate claims about the cost of the government’s net-zero target. Writing for the Conservative Home website in July 2020, Mackinlay stated that the climate change committee “has come up with a new estimate for the cost of Net Zero that details £1.4 trillion of capital spending will be required to meet it”. He talks about electoral damage, the cost per household, China and India still using coal. The same old tropes we hear time and time again.

Gross misrepresentation and exaggeration

As this LSE article by Bob Ward states, the NZSG have been relying on inaccurate and misleading claims to promote their cause, particularly about the investments required to achieve the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

Like the misrepresentation of the Brexit dividend of £350m for the NHS, they reported that the climate change committee’s estimate for the cost of net zero was £1.4 trillion. Yet, they grossly misrepresented the figure by ignoring the benefits and comparing the figure to a single year’s GDP.

The cost of taking the country to net zero is over 30 years, not one year and, just like the Brexit bus lie, it does not consider any of the benefits or savings that these investments would offset, particularly avoiding the purchase of fossil fuels which would amount to £991bn during the 30 years to 2050. Yes, there would be a net cost of £321bn, but that is over 30 years. A yearly savings of £19bn would outweigh annual investment costs of £16bn by 2050. Mackinlay twisted figures for his purposes.

What is their end game?

Fossil fuel companies hope to prolong the world’s reliance on their products. They have made common cause with conservative and libertarian think tanks that promote free-market economics, just like the NZSG do. They therefore oppose fossil fuel regulation on ideological grounds.

There is no evidence that these ultra Conservatives are genuinely driven by what is best for the population and country. If they were, they would not have pushed for the hardest Brexit possible, they would not be arguing against simple covid measures, and they would not be trying to slow down the shift to a green economy, considering it is undeniably paramount to saving the planet and society from total collapse.

Money, greed, power, and insidious relationships are the governing forces behind these groups and individuals. They don’t care about the planet, individual hardships, or our children’s future. Don’t be fooled into thinking that they do.

On Monday 24 March, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss headed for Brussels for her second meeting with EU negotiator, Vice-President of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič. It followed their first meeting two weeks ago at Chevening House in Kent, with little achieved apart from the arrangement of further discussions.

Read my earlier article on the first round of talks here

Look forward to meeting @MarosSefcovic in Brussels today for further talks on the Protocol.

We must focus on reaching a solution that protects peace and stability in Northern Ireland. pic.twitter.com/kvKQiv5loc

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) January 24, 2022

Will the Brexit negotiations ever be wrapped up?

Šefčovič expressed a desire, a week ago, to wrap up negotiations by the end of February – ahead of any campaigning for the Northern Ireland assembly elections in May. He warned that the talks could come to an end if there was no breakthrough by the end of next month. He told members of the European parliament he did not expect Article 16 to be triggered, but that the UK had still to accept the EU’s earlier proposals. Šefčovič reiterated that an overhaul of the protocol was not possible, and progress would depend on whether Truss was ready to be a “deal-maker”.

The day before Monday’s talks, having already agreed to the end of February deadline, Truss was setting out her stall. She suggested both sides needed to focus on practical issues, and not re-visit old arguments. Truss said that, regardless of whether you voted Leave or Remain, or represented the UK or EU, “the focus must be on protecting the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and fixing the protocol”. She stressed the need to find “practical solutions to problems on the ground and maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom”. She said she looked forward to meeting Šefčovič, and added that “there is a deal to be done, and we need to make it happen”.

Protocol talks show only minimal progress

When reports of Monday’s meeting were released, it appears there were few developments. The meeting had followed intensive talks between the two teams the week before. Those discussions will continue and an agreement has been reached to “take stock again by the end of next week”.

🇪🇺🇬🇧My second meeting with Foreign Secretary @trussliz, following a week of intensive talks between our teams. Discussions continue and we will take stock again by the end of next week.

Our joint statement 👉 https://t.co/ISuE7K0asA pic.twitter.com/s0ufxB8iJd

— Maroš Šefčovič🇪🇺 (@MarosSefcovic) January 24, 2022

In a joint statement, it was confirmed that “the meeting took place in a constructive atmosphere with the aim to advance the talks”. Truss and Šefčovič “reaffirmed their shared desire for a positive EU-UK relationship underpinned by our shared belief in freedom and democracy and cooperation on common global challenges”.

There was progress, however, with regard to the EU-UK joint committee. The panel – set up to oversee the implementation of the Brexit deal – has not met since last June. The pair have now agreed to the committee meeting in February.

.@marossefcovic and I had further talks today in Brussels. Teams continue intensive discussions 👇 pic.twitter.com/thgxjJiaJc

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) January 24, 2022

There was progress, however, with regard to the EU-UK joint committee. The panel – set up to oversee the implementation of the Brexit deal – has not met since last June. The pair have now agreed to the committee meeting in February.

Though we’ve yet to see any evidence of much progress, it does appear as though conditions have improved since Lord Frost stepped down. Despite Truss’ initial threats and posturing, relations seem to be more cordial and cooperative. Whether the change in mood music will lead to a break though, we shall have to wait and see.

One thing that is clear though, is that it may be difficult to reach any agreement until those representing the UK’s interests get a dose of Brexit reality. That’s one element that’s been missing throughout the entirety of Brexit. Outstanding issues will never be resolved unless or until the UK finally drops the ‘cake and eat it’ attitude. It’s high time the UK appreciates it is nowhere near as ‘global’ or important as it would like to believe.

Dear Liz,

It’s a month since my last letter and I’m still eagerly awaiting your response. I appreciate it’s been a busy time for you, especially with you wearing so many ministerial hats. Your quest to replace Boris Johnson in No. 10 must also be quite demanding of your time. I would venture that your constituents have similar problems grasping your attention, what with all your overseas trips and visiting foreign dignitaries. How is the Land of Oz, by the way?

As an avid follower of all things Brexit related, I confess to being rather disappointed by your initial approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol negotiations. I was hoping that as a former remainer, you might take a softer, more collaborative approach than your predecessor. I guess I should not be surprised – Lord Frost was supposedly a remainer too – hard to credit as that is. Then again, so was Theresa May, and look how that turned out!

I am backing remain as I believe it is in Britain's economic interest and means we can focus on vital economic and social reform at home.

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 20, 2016

There’s no doubt that in your time as Trade Secretary you will have gained considerable experience in negotiating with foreign powers. It’s just a shame that the realities don’t always live up to the rhetoric. Back in June, you told the Sun about all the benefits your deal with Australia would bring. Sadly, that deal is now being labelled as being “as one-sided as the Ashes”. Still, new role, new outlook, hopefully.

Before the Brexit referendum, you were keen to stress that the UK would not get better trade deals than the ones we had as EU members. Your success at replicating many of those EU deals – even if you inadvertently claimed them as upgrades – deserves some recognition. I will personally be singing your praises from the rooftops, if you can replicate the deal we had with the EU itself. Membership of the single market and customs union will do very nicely, thank you, and might even get any former Remain supporters back on side. You are going to need them, after all, if you want to stand any chance of running the country. And I don’t mean into the ground, like the last three incumbents!

Leave cannot name one country we would get a better trade deal with if we left the EU.#BBCDebate

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) June 21, 2016

Your recent meeting with Maroš Šefčovič was described as being “cordial”. That’s quite an achievement considering you had been threatening to trigger Article 16 just the week before. Thankfully, the EU are pragmatic and patient, and no doubt willing to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself. However, a word of advice – don’t listen to Johnson, Frost or the ERG when it comes to any negotiations. They are a bunch of stroppy kids who have no understanding of how the world works outside of a playground or gentlemen’s club. The EU, by comparison, can teach you a thing or two about diplomacy, democracy and getting a fair deal for all. In grown-up circles, they call it a win-win. You may have heard of it, though I don’t expect your colleagues in the ERG would understand the concept.

Good talks with @MarosSefcovic over the past two days. Read our joint statement 👇 pic.twitter.com/fwoONouaX9

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) January 14, 2022

Šefčovič has signalled a desire to resolve outstanding Protocol issues by the end of February, so as not to “get dragged into” the Northern Ireland election campaign. I am pleased to see that you appear to be on the same page and are aiming to agree a deal soon. As time is tight, might I suggest you just take whatever is being offered and say thank EU! After all, it’s not like you haven’t got other important issues you should be working on like the worrying situation in Ukraine, or Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release.

With regard to your support for the Prime Minister, I think it’s time to take a stand and tell Johnson what you really think of him. And soon. I don’t think anyone was fooled by your 12 January tweet “PM is delivering for Britain” nonsense, not even the Big Dog himself. And you really shouldn’t use language like “stand behind the PM 100%”. Every man and his dog (even Dilyn) will have immediately pictured you at Johnson’s back with a dagger in your hand.

The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain – from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward.

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) January 12, 2022

Your recent comments that Johnson is doing a “fantastic job” and has your “100% support” were, to be honest, rather hard to swallow. To make matters worse, you then said you wanted the PM to “continue as long as possible in his job”. Maybe we should not take that statement at face value, but read more nuance between the lines. It would appear to be an odd position to take from someone so clearly after his job. But maybe you really did mean it and you just need more time to prepare your campaign. Time to work on your list of achievements, perhaps. Or start one.

You may believe the ability to change your principles as often as you change your hairstyle is a positive attribute. I can assure you, it’s not. It makes you look flaky, inconsistent or untrustworthy, or possibly all three. We’ve already had one PM who chose a side based on his own career prospects. It would be a refreshing change if the next PM actually believed their own hype.

I’ll wrap up by wishing you luck in your quest for the top job. I have it on good authority that you are the preferred candidate, at least as far as the opposition parties are concerned. Can’t imagine why that would be. No doubt your own party will catch up soon.

I look forward to having a leader that will put the country first. If you know of suitable candidates, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

This week, the Home Office released a report on child sexual exploitation. The media headlines that came from the report in the media were broadly “Most child sexual abuse gangs made up of white men”.

To some, particularly those who deal with and work in the area of child exploitation and sexual violence, this will not be a surprise. To many, however, it will be, because of a fundamental issue in our society: that crimes committed by migrants and people who are black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME), get far more attention than crimes committed by white nationals. Indeed, Research suggests that people tend to overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality due to the tendency of the media to wrongly depict immigrants as particularly crime-prone.

From an evolutionary basis, humans are programmed to be fearful of strangers. In early times, humans outside the family group were likely to be a raiding party, coming to steal from us or do us harm. Culturally, we love stories about dangerous strangers and serial killers, fact or fiction. ‘Fear of foreigners might well be the most intractable of all human prejudices because it is so tightly linked to survival and natural selection,’ but modern society has moved on. Nowadays it is your friends and your family that pose the most risk to your life.

These deep evolutionary instincts are easy to tap into, and this helps explain why throughout history, migrants and minorities have been an easy target for stigmatisation and scapegoating. Both then and now, they have been used as political weapons, to entice fear and to drive changes in political policy. Historically, this method has been used as a catalyst to introduce more authoritarian policies and erode human rights – an erosion that end up being to the detriment of all citizens, not just minorities and migrants.

It’s institutions that protect abusers and fail victims.

Initially coming to light in Rochdale, a case that gathered much attention and coverage was that of the so-called ‘Asian grooming gangs’. Greater Manchester Police’s Operation Lytton investigation exposed the nature of these gangs. Hundreds of young girls had been groomed and sexually exploited over a period of many years. It became apparent that these men were mainly from Asian backgrounds, Pakistani in particular, and there were similar networks across the country including in Rotherham, Bradford and Huddersfield. There has been visceral rage around these crimes from the public and particularly from far-right groups.

Most of the men were British Pakistani so not immigrants, however the racial element meant the ‘them and us’ narrative was very much evident. The perception was that the girls’ plight was ignored because the authorities didn’t want to be deemed racist. When you look at the case in more detail, it turns out this was certainly not the full reason. The victims often came from dysfunctional homes, were at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and were let down by many in their communities, including the police.

If they were from a different social class, attended private schools, and had ‘good’ families, do we genuinely believe the police would not have investigated because they were worried about racial tensions? Let us remember, it was two women who tried to bring light to the case in Rochdale: a social worker Sara Rowbotham and police detective Maggie Oliver. Their concerns were originally dismissed by their mainly male superiors. It wasn’t just the abusers who thought these girls were worthless or a lost cause, some of those meant to protect them did too.

In mid-November 2016, a child sexual abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players at football clubs in the United Kingdom started coming to light. The revelations began when former professional footballers waived their rights to anonymity and talked publicly about being abused by former coaches and scouts in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Within a month of the initial reporting, the Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, and several football clubs were being investigated by 20 UK police forces.

As this unfolded, just as the grooming gang scandal did, the scale became apparent. Operation Hydrant identified 300 suspects and 849 alleged victims, with 2,807 incidents involving 340 different clubs. Amongst the professional clubs, an incredible 23 percent of them were home to abusers. Hundreds of boys’ lives were ruined – all now men of course. Many have reported ongoing drug and alcohol-related issues and still struggle with their abuse.

The individual stories are harrowing, even involving trafficking, as with the case of Malcolm Rodger: “He took me to Spain for an international football tournament and abused me constantly for ten days … At that, he introduced me to Barry Bennell for a second time and basically stood and watched guard as Bennell abused me”.

Allegations were also made against George Ormond, a former Newcastle United youth coach and scout (who also had previous convictions), former Chelsea scout Eddie Heath, and former Southampton and Peterborough coach Bob Higgins. In early December 2016, allegations about former youth coaches and scouts in Northern Ireland and Scotland also started to emerge.

The extent of the abuse was shocking, yet notably this abuse case failed to get the attention of the so-called Democratic Football Lads Alliance (DFLA) and Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), who were so vocal in their ‘campaigning’ for justice for the victims of the Asian grooming gangs.

The public is certainly aware of this. So we must ask ourselves, why do we not see the same reaction and outrage in other abuse cases?

While the extent of the football abuse may have passed some by, due to the way it was reported, what about the abuse scandals of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England?

The Church of England recently agreed to a compensation scheme for victims of sexual abuse. In 2017 alone, the Church dealt with 3,287 incidents relating to current and past abuse of children and vulnerable adults, including some allegations of serious criminal offences. The findings of an independent enquiry into abuse by the Anglican Church found that it allowed abusers to hide, in an attempt to defend its own reputation rather than protect young people. This is just another case of a predominantly male-dominated organisation hiding and covering up abuse to protect its own.

There are very few who are not aware of the sexual abuse that has perpetuated for decades within the Catholic Church, from all corners of the world. It is well reported, yet the media and public do not pick up on it as they do when sex crimes are committed by migrants or BAME persons. The Independent Inquiry Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report into the Catholic Church, found that the Church had also moved abusive priests and monks to different parishes, where some continued to prey on children, resisting any external intervention.

The Catholic Church has paid out billions in compensation to victims of abuse, yet we do not see the same reactions or coverage of this form of exploitation as we do when Asian offenders are involved. Let us consider for a moment what would happen if a story of this scale came out about sexual abuse by Imams in mosques. We can be assured that the coverage and probably reaction would be very different.

We all hold subconscious biases, and are influenced by what we absorb and see around us. To be an advocate and campaigner against abuse and sexual exploitation is, of course, a worthy cause. But if, as a society, we are willing to only give focus on one group, then what are we saying? Is it ok for a white national to commit a crime, but not a person of colour?

You only have to look at the likes of Tommy Robinson and his supporters. These people are not concerned for the victims; they are angry because the crimes were committed by non-whites. By focusing attentions and anger in this way, they skew our beliefs and create a narrative that is divisive and destructive to social cohesion. As individuals, we need to challenge our own feelings, be aware of where we are getting our news from and support all victims equally.

It’s now time to grow up as a society, face our own individual and societal biases, and dispel the notion that having dark skin or being from another country is a prerequisite for criminal behaviour.

Prime Minister Johnson seems to have got himself into a bit of bother. The supposed leadership ‘qualities’ that brought him to power and convincingly won a general election in 2019, are now considered potential liabilities. But in typical party fashion, the Conservatives are split as to whether Johnson has outlived his usefulness, and is now doing more harm than good.

Stick: the MPs who think Johnson should stay

Operation ‘Big Dog’ – named by the Johnson himself – is a plan to save the prime minister. It has been reported to include the overhauling of his top team. No doubt some Conservative MPs and ministers coming out in support of Johnson are considering their own political futures, as well as that of their boss.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted: “The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain – from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward.” Considering Truss is one of the most active runners and riders in the race to replace Johnson, he may well be wondering what she is holding behind his back. A double-edged sword, perhaps.

The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain – from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward.

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) January 12, 2022

The education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, chose a different tack to defend Johnson over the ‘Partygate’ debacle, saying, “he’s human, and we make mistakes”. Considering the backlash from the public, his suggestion that Johnson “called it right” may have misread the mood of the country completely.

"He's human, and you make mistakes"

Nadhim Zahawi suggesting that ‘making mistakes’ is a valid defence for breaking the law is possibly the most asinine thing we’ve heard this year.

pic.twitter.com/FMqhz7e03Z

— Simon Gosden. Esq. #fbpe 3.5% 🕷🇪🇺🇬🇧🏴‍☠️🦠💙 (@g_gosden) January 17, 2022

Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary – in hot water herself over her plans to defund the BBC – said Johnson “did the right thing, he apologised”. She said, “what we all want is the enquiry to conclude & to see what the findings are”, adding that she did not accept that “he’s in the wrong”.

"I don't accept that he's in the wrong".

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries says she "supports the prime minister in his apology", adding that "we can't judge what happened" until we know the facts. https://t.co/EV14WVXjjH

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/2MP2VqkYQB

— Sky News (@SkyNews) January 13, 2022

Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, dismissed those calling Johnson to resign as “people who are always unhappy”.

Twist: the MPs who are undecided

Hedging their bets, there are those calling for change, but not directly for Johnson’s resignation. Amongst them, MP Tobias Ellwood described Johnson as having “a cavalier disregard to these hallowed professional grounds”. He said Johnson needed to lead “in a very different style”, adding that a “fresh tone” was needed. “The Boris approach of old is simply not enough.”

"A cavalier disregard to these hallowed professional grounds" 😲

Conservative MP @Tobias_Ellwood says constituents are "utterly appalled" about events at No.10#KayBurley #partygate UF pic.twitter.com/WYs18KyP1w

— Kay Burley (@KayBurley) January 17, 2022

Former leader of the ERG, Steve Baker, said it was “impossible to say” if Johnson would lead the party into the next election. He said his constituents were “absolutely furious” and that they may be “too angry to forgive”. Presumably, he was referring to their anger at Johnson, while overlooking their anger at the government in general.

'It's impossible to say' whether @BorisJohnson will lead the party into the next election because people may be 'too angry to forgive', @SteveBakerHW says

It comes as allegations of Covid-rule-breaking pile up around the PM https://t.co/gSCS8XuiQC pic.twitter.com/TlQqnSZwvt

— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) January 17, 2022

While Chancellor Rishi Sunak – another candidate for Johnson’s replacement – also thought Johnson was “right to apologise”, his ‘support’ was generally considered rather lacklustre and late in the day. Like many, he appears to be waiting for the result of Sue Gray’s enquiry before pinning his colours to the mast

Bust: The MPs who want Johnson to go!

Although still relatively few, the Conservative MPs calling directly for Johnson’s resignation are increasing in number. 

Andrew Bridgen MP said, “I’m calling on the Prime Minister to stand down”. In years to come, he said, Johnson would be remembered “as delivering Brexit and guiding us through a pandemic. His legacy shouldn’t become one mired in sleaze but rather one of knowing when the time is right to leave the stage”. That legacy “should be cemented now by a dignified exit from politics”. He said he believed more revelations were yet to come, and that Johnson had lost the “moral authority” to lead the country.

I will always be grateful for what Boris has achieved and his legacy should be cemented now by a dignified exit from politics.

My @Telegraph comment: https://t.co/8Ax68PeHWk

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) January 13, 2022

Veteran backbencher, Sir Roger Gale – who has never been a major fan – described the prime minister as a “dead man walking”. He said, “I think we’ve now got to the stage where frankly we have to find another leader”. Gale submitted his letter of no confidence to the 1922 committee a year ago. Other MPs have followed suit, though the number of letters received is a closely guarded secret.

I have already indicated publicly that I have submitted a formal letter to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee calling for a Leadership Election. (This was done a year ago following the 'Barnard Castle' incident and has been refreshed recently). 1/3

— Sir Roger Gale MP (@SirRogerGale) January 12, 2022

Tim Loughton MP described Johnson’s position as “untenable” adding that his “resignation is the only way to bring this whole unfortunate episode to an end”.

I have regretfully come to the conclusion that Boris Johnson’s position is now untenable, that his resignation is the only way to bring this whole unfortunate episode to an end and I am working with colleagues to impress that view on Number 10.https://t.co/HhjiUHVpPW

— Tim Loughton MP (@timloughton) January 15, 2022

Caroline Nokes acknowledged that many Conservative MPs owed their seats in parliament to Johnson, and that he did a “fantastic job” in winning the 2019 election. However, he now “looks like a liability. He is damaging the entire Conservative brand”.

“He’s damaging us now, he’s damaging the entire Conservative brand”
@CarolineNokes calls on @BorisJohnson to resign.
#Peston pic.twitter.com/h2Xzj2NN54

— Peston (@itvpeston) January 12, 2022

Never regarded as a fan of Johnson’s, Douglas Ross, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said Johnson could not continue as PM if he attended the party in Downing Street on 20 May. He described Johnson’s apology as “acceptance from the prime minister that it was wrong”.

Scottish Conservatives Leader Douglas Ross calls on Prime Minister @BorisJohnson to resign

'I don't think he can continue as leader of the Conservatives' @Douglas4Moray says https://t.co/gvFjHbudfB pic.twitter.com/1bO27H8YCm

— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) January 12, 2022

In support of Ross, former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, now member of the House of Lords, Baroness Ruth Davidson, said, “Nobody needs an official to tell them if they were at a boozy shindig in their own garden. People are (rightly) furious. They sacrificed so much – visiting sick or grieving relatives, funerals. What TF were any of these people thinking?”

This line won't survive 48 hrs. Nobody needs an official to tell them if they were at a boozy shindig in their own garden. People are (rightly) furious. They sacrificed so much – visiting sick or grieving relatives, funerals. What tf were any of these people thinking? https://t.co/bsxJzdvp6N

— Ruth Davidson (@RuthDavidsonPC) January 11, 2022

Davidson was joined by fellow peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who went one further, suggesting all current ministers should quit if they are implicated in Partygate – not just the prime minister. “Every minister, parliamentarian & staffer at any #downingstreetparty must resign NOW. No ifs no buts.” She added, “the rule of law is a fundamental value – the glue that hold us together as a nation. Once that is trashed by those in power the very essence of our democracy is at stake”. Her tweet on 12 January was a repeat of one she had posted on 8 December.

Retweeting👇🏽
Every minister, parliamentarian & staffer at any #downingstreetparty must resign NOW.
No ifs no buts
The rule of law is a fundamental value-the glue that hold us together as a nation
Once that is trashed by those in power the very essence of our democracy is at stake https://t.co/WgR6v2g62q

— Sayeeda Warsi (@SayeedaWarsi) January 12, 2022

Chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, William Wragg, commented on the main defence currently being employed by both Johnson and many ministers – waiting for the findings of the enquiry. He said he did not think “it should be left to the findings of a civil servant to determine the future of the Prime Minister and, indeed, who governs this country. The Prime Minister’s position is untenable”.

The most recent MP to add his name to the list of those calling for Johnson to go, is Tom Hunt. A new MP who won his seat in 2019, Hunt claimed to have changed his mind after speaking to enraged constituents. He described Number 10 as seeming more like a “frat house” than the centre of government. He said there “there needs to be almost a total clear out of Number 10 and all of those who were in anyway connected with what appear to be clear rule breaking events need to properly held to account”.

Betting on the future

While public opinion shifts away from Johnson and in favour of Keir Starmer, opposition parties are watching every governmental manoeuvre and reaction with interest. As the Conservatives dig themselves ever deeper graves, their opponents will be only too keen to supply more shovels.

It’s no longer a question of if Johnson is busted, but when. It will depend on any further awkward revelations, or the government’s handling of such. A week is a long time in politics.

Whether Johnson’s remaining in position will help or hinder the Conservatives chances in the next election, is open for debate. Potential replacements look equally ill-suited to the role of leading the country. What we can bet on though is that as long as this PM – or indeed, this government – is in power, the damage to the country’s economy, reputation and its inhabitants will continue. Time for a change. Let’s start at the top.