Blond British wombat Boris Johnson may redefine politics

The Australian’s Greg Sheridan interviews Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, is an astonishing international brand. As the Lowy Institute’s Michael Fullilove pointed out in his introduction at Johnson’s hilarious Sydney Town Hall lecture on Thursday night, hardly anyone else in the world is instantly recognisable by a single name — Madonna and Beyonce come to mind.

Because everyone expects Johnson to be funny all the time, they are primed to laugh at his jokes. And they are very good jokes, flawlessly delivered. But sometimes this reputation for wit and hilarity can get in the way of the big, substantial, real things Johnson wants to tell the world.

In the course of a long discussion at the start of his Australian tour — his only media interview — I read a passage to Johnson from his book, The Churchill Factor.

Johnson had written about the great wartime leader: “He knew that he got carried away with words, and he admitted it. That is perhaps how he might now be remembered (had it not been for World War II) as an old-fashioned and hyperbolical merchant of bombast; the kind of speaker who thinks it droll to refer to an untruth as a terminological inexactitude. He might be thought of as a man whose love of lush language exceeded his good sense, who lacked that vital note of sincerity — and therefore who lacked the final power to persuade.”

Could he have been thinking that these words applied not only to Churchill but to himself?

“I’m amazed that you could think any such thing. In fact, I’m taken aback. I was thinking entirely about Churchill when I wrote this book.”

Nonetheless, could the words apply to him? This produced a rare pause in what is normally a prodigiously clever flow of words from Johnson: “Well, we’re all journalists. Have I been snagged by a stray adjective? Yeah.”

There is a trace of genius in the way Johnson can defuse difficulties through humour, but it has become a bit of a burden as well.

After that interview I wrote, I thought obviously tongue-in-cheek, that Johnson “looks something like a blond British wombat caught in a perpetual storm of his own making” and then went on to consider the important things he said about Brexit, a possible free trade deal between Australia and Britain, and London’s criticisms of Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea.

All rolled gold, first division foreign policy issues, but the British press jumped on the phrase and there were London headlines that the Foreign Secretary had been labelled “a blond British wombat”, as though this were a criticism. But you will seldom hear Johnson complain about the press, British or foreign. He seems to have made a decision in principle always to be good humoured and positive. It’s a surprisingly powerful disposition but requires enormous discipline — that art which conceals an art — to maintain.

Here is the larger question that haunts Johnson. Does his wit and humour and spontaneity render impossible a shot at national and international leadership? Is he prime minister material?

On the face of it, he is the most powerful campaigner in contemporary British politics. He twice won election as mayor of London, a Labour-friendly city not sympathetic to Tories. And then his personal campaigning was the X factor that got Brexit over the line in last year’s referendum.

Naturally, Johnson won’t hear a word of speculation against the government he serves.

“The people of Britain don’t want more elections,” he tells me.

“They don’t want any more political malarky. They just want a government to get on with their priorities, so we should be focusing on what we can do to improve their schools, to make sure their healthcare works properly, investing in our fantastic infrastructure projects. I think they’ve had a bellyful of elections.”

He boils down his advice to such a government into two neologisms: “Doit toit”, or, as he explains, “Just do it, to it, whatever ‘it’ is. You’ve got to work out what it is you’re going to do first.”

The Theresa May government in Britain, like the Turnbull government, has an extremely narrow parliamentary majority.

“I wouldn’t presume to give any advice to our Australian friends,” he says.

“But it’s all about confidence and determination. Be sure of what you want to do.

“The great thing about Theresa May and her government at the moment is we’re sure about what we want to do. We have a clear plan for Brexit.”

As I reported through the week, Johnson is vastly upbeat about the future between Australia and Britain after Brexit. He thinks we can get a good free trade agreement in place almost as soon as Brexit is done. He says that Brexit is in no sense a sign of Britain becoming isolationist, but rather of it becoming truly globalist, once more, in its outlook.

He is wildly positive about Australia: “I love Australia, I absolutely love it.”

He spent a “gap year” in Australia as an 18-year-old, during which “I tried to contain the strong romantic drives of the adolescent”.

But amid all this bonhomie, Johnson had lots of serious things to say: “For all your readers who are worried about whether Australian investments in the UK will be affected, let me reassure them, we are seeing huge inflows of investment.

“We will remain the No 1 urban economy in Europe and probably extend our lead. I would urge people to be full of boundless optimism.”

He rejects the idea that the narrow election result weakens Britain’s negotiating position in Brexit talks: “No. Absolutely not. Our resolve is hardened.

“In contemplating Brexit, people should ask themselves what would Australia be like” if it had had the restrictions of EU-style regulations during the past 44 years, Britain’s time in the EU.

At the Town Hall he had people rolling in the aisles with an extended counterfactual along these lines. Polly Waffle would not have been approved by EU regulations as chocolate. The Australian wine industry would have been killed at birth because EU regulations are about preserving Mediterranean producers, so all our grapes would have been turned into bioethanol.

Our foreign diplomats would have spent their time trying to prevent things happening rather than make things happen. We would have been constantly overruled in the councils of Europe. We would have been unable to determine our own immigration program or our own clean energy target. He even won an overwhelming show of hands in support of the idea that it was a blessing that Australia was never allowed to join the EU.

At this dinner he courted a little controversy by suggesting that Britain might use its two new aircraft carriers to conduct freedom of navigation exercises near Chinese-claimed territories in the South China Sea.

In his interview with me Johnson had been clear and deliberate in his criticisms of Beijing’s behaviour in the South China Sea.

Britain, he said, did not take a position on the merits of the rival claims of sovereignty over territories in the South China Sea. However, Britain did believe the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, against Beijing’s claims should be honoured and the South China Sea should not be militarised. In answer to a question he said Britain would be extremely interested in looking at a freedom of navigation operation.

However, not too much should be read into this. Johnson did not say Britain would do this, merely that it would be interested in it. He also said there were different ways such an operation could be done.

Australian naval and air patrols go close to Chinese-claimed territories and Canberra describes these as freedom of navigation exercises. None of them, however, has gone within the 12 nautical mile distance of a Chinese-claimed territory or Chinese-constructed artificial island.

The British position, which is similar to Australia’s, is that it would not rule in or rule out going within the 12 nautical mile zone. But certainly it has not made a decision to do so.

Johnson is not freelancing here. The British, the French and other European powers have big interests in Asia and are increasingly worried at China’s growing strategic assertiveness. Canberra has long urged London to be more forthright in giving voice to these concerns and that is what Johnson was doing.

Johnson extols the Australia-Britain military partnership and frequently expressed his thanks for Australia’s efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and other theatres.

“Australia is a very significant partner of ours in all kinds of fields,” he says.

In singing the praises of our intelligence co-operation, he rather intriguingly told me that “you may know it was collaboration between Australian and British intelligence which enabled us to …” and then he became a bit non-specific, referring to a particular success against Daesh, or Islamic State. More than that, alas, I do not know.

Johnson vehemently rejects the idea that Britain or Australia (though he is careful not to give public advice to Australia) should distance themselves from Washington because US President Donald Trump is unpopular.

He says: “It was that alliance (US, Britain, Australia and others) that was responsible for the right side winning in two world wars, victory in the Cold War and the end of communism. That alliance, that shared way of looking at the world, is more relevant than ever. The values that we believe in are not uncontested. It is very important that we work with the White House, and that we work with our friends and partners in Australia.

“President Trump has his style and his approach. He may stir up controversy with people. But in the end he’s the leader of the country that has been the most important guarantor of peace and prosperity in the world for a very long time.”

The persona of Boris Johnson represents a distinctive British response to the new dynamics of politics, in which individuality, authenticity, distinctiveness, celebrity, entertainment value, consistent good humour, or consistent bad humour, can all play a part.

It may be a minor tragedy that the old style steady and reliable — Carruthers of the Foreign Office on one side or decent, modest Clement Attlee types on the other — are no longer sellable products in the political market.

But it’s the reality. Political leaders have to connect with voters in multiple new ways. And no one should doubt that Johnson holds serious beliefs and holds them deeply. Journalists around the world have a vested interest, unrelated to political preference or ideology, in Johnson becoming British prime minister. He would be as good for newspapers as Trump. And he is a much better person.