If Carrie won't cook, why is Boris so fat?

Parallels and Paradoxes aplenty!

by Tim Veater.

The current wife of the British Prime Minister, Carrie (nee Symonds) has something of the Marie Antoinette about her. From the palatial rooms of Versailles, on hearing the discontent of the starving mob lacking bread, Marie reportedly said, "Let them eat cake."  It crystallised, better than a thousand academic treatises, the gulf in outlook between rich and poor and the contempt the ruling class had for the people. Apparently during the chimeric 'Covid Crisis', the takeaway meals piled up in the Downing Street flat, because Carrie refused to cook! Even so the cook at Chequers, the Prime Minister's grace and favour retreat, had to leave under a cloud because she could not stomach the chaos in the kitchen. Carrie for a while appeared to be exercising undue influence on government policy, particularly in the area of sustainable food production. Boris Johnson clearly isn't starving, so we must presume it worked. It is a tiny paradox that earnests bigger ones as we shall see.

If his wife has a touch of Marie about her, Boris has a sprinkling of the 'Sun King', King Louis IX of France, who was the absolute monarch from 1643 - 1715, and who epitomised the then predominant philosophy of 'Divine Right of Kings'. This was that Kings were appointed by God and ruled by divine right. It was a 'top down' sort of political constitution, replicated at that time of course in Britain.  It was diametrically opposed to the view that monarchs and government were in fact answerable to the people. In Britain King Charles I lost the argument, and his head, in a Civil War over the principle, enshrined forty years later when William and Mary came to the throne. France stuck with absolutism longer, until a violent and bloody revolution swept away not only the king but the whole aristocratic class, becoming in the process a religion-free republic. Famously Britain took a somewhat different route, what we may call a 'constitutional compromise', where a democratically elected Parliament is supreme, but where the remnants of a political aristocracy survive, and the Queen is head of State and Church, with all the ritual of a divine appointment for life. This too is a paradox with ramifications for Boris' current fix in that only the Queen can sack him or appoint another 'First Lord of the Treasury'.

Boris Johnson even when a child, famously wanted to be 'King of the World', and in a sense fulfilled his ambition. He was blessed with a good brain, wealthy parents, social status, arguably the best education. His was a traditional 'Conservative' background and route to the top. His hero was Churchill, actually an aristocratic grandee, who he believed he emulated, though others would disagree. It is perhaps part of the reason why he reacted so swiftly over Ukraine. One of his first telephone calls after his resignation speech was to President Zelensky, to assure him Britain would remain firm in his and the country's defence. Zelenski was said to have told him he was greatly loved in Ukraine, somewhat reminiscent of Tony Blair's ecstatic reception in Kosovo. There is no doubt Boris Johnson has charisma both at home and abroad. The paradox of a big man from a small country on the world stage. The paradox of the gold statue with feet of clay.  Of the ancient myth of Icarus flying too close to the sun.

Whilst we are on historical parallels, I have always thought Johnson had something of King George III about him. 'Farmer George' was much loved by the nation, oversaw the growth of a mighty empire and the loss, to his eternal regret, of the American part of it. Renowned for his "What! What!", he blustered his way through the 18th Century, finally being driven mad by political stress and/or the unusual and then inadequately understood disease of porphyria.  This hunch may have more to it than meets the eye. In fact there may even be a gene or two connecting them! In the BBC series, 'Who Do You Think You Are?' , as far back as 2008 when he was still Mayor of London, he traced a direct line to German aristocracy, and King George II himself. Of course from 1714 and George I onwards, the British monarchy was essentially German, reinforced when Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a fact that later became something of an embarrassment, when the Kaiser Wilhelm II, Victoria's grandson, initiated a long and bloody war.

A colleague, Alister Jack described his qualities as 'kindness, loyalty and courage. He added, 'perhaps too kind'.  For a politician less helpful perhaps than for a good human being. Of the two I know what I would prefer, and it is his apparent humanity and affability that has deflected much of the criticism in Parliament and elsewhere and made him so attractive to the electorate generally. As he has pointed out it appears somewhat 'eccentric' for a political party to evict so popular a leader who has secured for it the biggest vote and majority for generations. In contrast his critics could be scathing.  Rory Stewart has famously described him as a "kind of a monster". It seems Boris is a walking, breathing paradox.

Petronella Wyatt in the Times put it this way, "Give someone a head and they lack a heart. The gods gave him brains, geniality, boundless self-confidence and a sort of acquaintance with the truth, though they were never on first name terms. Boris never intends to lie or conceal. It is involuntary and he can no more help it than breathing." Someone else has suggested his untruths resulted from his desire to please - to tell people what they want to hear. 

That may be true but I think it goes deeper to his basic philosophy of life and the world, grounded in the classical one of Greece.  Like riding a bike we do not have to think to stay upright. The ancient philosophers of that era - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many more - have become an integral part of his make-up. He is a master of detail and his memory for facts and language, both native and foreign, is impressive, but his very mastery eschews triviality. He is broad sweep, intuitive and impulsive. He is noted for his distain of status and position, yet is driven by its achievement and ever aware of the historical perspective of events and achievements. These also are paradoxes that shape this individual's personality. Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me because I shall write it."  Having written a biography of Churchill and one focusing on Shakespeare, Boris may be thinking along the same lines. It is unlikely that boorishness and duplicity will be character failings he applies to himself.

In a very clever political sketch, the consistently acerbic Quentin Letts, refers to what has become the new tradition of the lectern for announcements and resignation speeches in front of 10 Downing Street. He labels it the 'chopping block'. As a nation we have tried to soften the more brutal elements of the law and punishments but the parallels are still there.  A crowd gather to watch the condemned man (or woman) lose their head. Of course Charles I lost his in the first and only case of legal regicide. The nation was truly shocked. In a religious society how could you conceive of killing the 'Lord's Anointed'? However unpopular the incumbent, it hasn't been tried again. Which brings us on to the next paradox, despite resigning he remains in position and in power. How can that be?

Boris' resignation speech reads more like a victory one. The actual word 'resignation' does not pass his lips.  Nor does it touch or examine or apologise for the reasons the decision was forced upon him. Instead it is full of achievement and purpose. It is up-beat in its tone. It talks of change of government but not of him. He 'faints with damn praise' the colleagues and party responsible with thinly disguised contempt, likening them to dull beasts.  "When the herd moves" he says. There is a Shakespearian undercurrent (Johnson loves using allusion and rhetorical devices) and Gove, though not mentioned, was earlier dispatched as a 'traitorous snake'. No doubt he holds similarly justified feelings for ex-Prime Minister John Major and former chief advisor Cummings, all of whom have done their best to bring him down. The paradox of the jovial ditherer who can still act decisively and ruthlessly.

So how is it the man can resign but stay in post? Some, such as John Major, have argued he should leave immediately. But in the absence of a chosen one, who would it be?  Dominic Raab is the Deputy Prime Minister but this, unlike the American system, is more an honorary stand-in than a constitutional replacement. However presidential the role, and Blair did more to create it than anyone, the people do not elect the Prime Minister - except indirectly as the leader of the party with the most elected MPs.  The office remains an appointment at the discretion of the Crown.  The Queen, if she so wished, could sack Johnson and appoint someone else. The Conservative Party or even Parliament has no power to sack a Minister of the Crown. In practice the PM hires and fires ministers.  

However the convention is that the PM must hold the confidence of the House of Commons. One hundred and forty eight of his own MPs have already voted against him. If Starmer does as he has threatened, introduce a vote of 'No Confidence', if carried, would lead not only to the fall of Boris but of the government. It would lead to another General Election, the Conservative Party led by a new man chosen by MPs and members according to the rules. But in theory the Crown is not completely restrained by convention. Pitt the Younger was appointed despite not having a majority of his party or House behind him. So Boris remains in post at the Queens pleasure and until such time he can recommend someone else to her, whoever comes tops in the party contest. Precedents were set when Gough Whitlam was sacked and Alec Douglas Hume was appointed in preference to Rab Butler proving that neither party preferences or even national elections are necessarily binding. That is a bit of a paradox too.

So those are the final parallels and paradoxes. Another page has turned in the long history of British history, politics and constitution. Boris Johnson has made a brief yet indelible mark but it will hardly be seen as a success, shaped as it was by Brexit chaos, Covid mismanagement and now hyper inflation. He will be remembered as being somewhat cavalier with the truth, and rejected because he was found out. As so often happens, it is not the major issues but the minor ones that cause the downfall.  It started with his decision to prorogue Parliament, defeated in the Supreme Court. It continued with indications of contempt of Parliament, and the indefensible defence of Owen Paterson. Then denying there were Covid parties at Number 10 when he knew it was a lie and finally appointing Mr Pincher to Deputy Chief Whip whilst denying he knew of his reputation. That was the camel's final straw. 

However the parties appear trivial in comparison to the huge blunders amounting to over £400 billions connected to the grossly exaggerated and misrepresented 'Covid epidemic' and the very damaging 'vaccination programme' which I believe is now responsible for greatly increased non-Covid deaths. Only time will put these and other policy decisions and Boris Johnson's part in them, in context. And of course, like his hero Churchill, he may come back. Boris has always played for time in the hope, or even certain knowledge, "something would turn up".  Who knows? It may still! END.