THE faces said it all. Cabinet members were this morning doing a great impression of the crew facing the last moments of the Titanic as the TV camera panned from one glum expression to another during Tuesday’s weekly meeting in Downing St.
The first iceberg struck just after 6pm with Sajid Javid’s resignation, quickly followed minutes later by a second, Rishi Sunak’s. A coincidence? Probably not. This smacked of a co-ordinated strike meant to be lethal.
As I type, other resignations could follow. Oliver Dowden, of course, had already jumped overboard as party Chariman following the Conservatives’ dreadful by-election losses in Wakefield and Tiverton.
Having lost a majority of the backbenchers in the recent confidence vote, it now seems the PM is, one by one, beginning to lose his frontbench.
Through the partygate psychodrama, Johnson’s on-off relationship with the truth worried a significant number of his colleagues. The Chris Pincher saga with Downing St’s duplicity and dysfunction displayed for all to see has convinced more of them that the PM’s time is up.
In his bombshell letter, Javid said the British people “expect integrity from their government” but voters now believed Johnson’s administration was neither competent nor “acting in the national interest”.
In his equally incendiary message, Sunak insisted the “public rightly expect government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously” and added: “I believe these standards are worth fighting for and that is why I am resigning.” The implication was clear.
The resignations followed a highly uncomfortable TV interview in which Johnson was forced into a humiliating apology over his handling of the Pincher row, saying he had forgotten about being told of previous allegations of “inappropriate” conduct.
In the past hours, minister after minister were – yet again – sent onto the airwaves to defend the indefensible, saying they had been told by Number 10 the PM had not been aware of previous specific allegations about Pincher’s sexual misconduct. Only for it to emerge hours later that he had.
The final straw probably came with Johnson’s claim that he reappointed Pincher due to a memory lapse despite the fact he had labelled him “Pincher by name, Pincher by nature”.
The PM admitted he should have sacked his colleague when he was told in 2019 about claims against him when he was a Foreign Office minister but instead he went on to appoint him to other government roles.
Last week, Pincher quit as Deputy Chief Whip following claims that he groped two men at a private members’ club in London.
In his resignation letter Sunak, who had been due to make a joint economic speech with Johnson next week, also pointed to a policy gulf, noting how “it has become clear to me that our approaches are fundamentally too different. I firmly believe the public are ready to hear that truth”.
The now ex-Chancellor added: “Our people know that if something is too good to be true, then it’s not true. They need to know that whilst there is a path to a better future, it is not an easy one.”
Johnson has managed to steer the Tory ship through many dangerous waters and if no other ministers bail out, he might seek to struggle on. Yet after the resignations of two such senior figures, the push for a fresh confidence vote before the summer recess will grow. Coincidentally, the Conservatives’ 1922 backbench committee is due to meet on Wednesday.
How, one asks, can the Tory Party win a General Election campaign when former Cabinet ministers are writing their opponents' campaign slogans?
As of this evening, it looks like Johnson’s premiership has been holed below the water-line.
It could now be just a matter of time before HMS Boris finally sinks. Wednesday with PMQs and a scheduled appearance for Johnson before the Commons Liaison Committee could be quite dramatic.
The question on people’s lips will be after Javid and Sunak: who’s next?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel