Tories should beware Boris the incredible sulk

All ex-PMs, from Walpole to Johnson, bemoan their successor but Boris Johnson threatens to be a particular nightmare and should not be indulged.

Boris Johnson won’t give Rishi Sunak an easy ride if Sunak replaces him. Picture: AFP.

You might think that in 300 years of prime ministers, there would be a few who have praised the record of their successor. But try to name one. When Theresa May pointedly refused to join in the applause for Boris Johnson at his final PMQs last week, she had very good reason. Yet it is a struggle to find a single one of our 55 prime ministers who have given sustained approval to the next incumbent, with good reason or not.

Many occupants of No 10 are defeated by a rival party, so it is not surprising that those evicted in this way are unenthusiastic about the winner. Even when power changes hands within the same party, however, enmity or disappointment are the general rule.

Did Tony Blair think highly of Gordon Brown’s premiership? You can stop laughing now. Or Margaret Thatcher of John Major’s? Keep going. Did Wilson refrain from criticising Callaghan, or Macmillan think highly of Douglas-Home’s tenure, or Churchill express delight with Eden’s time in office? No.

Former British Prime Ministers (left to right) James Callaghan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home (1903 – 1995), Harold MacMillan (1894 – 1986), Harold Wilson (1916 – 1995) and Edward Heath with Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, to celebrate the building's 250 years as the Prime Minister's residence in 1985. Picture: Getty Images.

Perhaps those nice Liberals behaved differently in days of old? No: Asquith loathed Lloyd George and split their party rather than support him.

Well, what about PMs who were actually related to each other, you are now thinking. Surely Lord Salisbury approved the performance of Balfour, his successor and his nephew? No. Within a year he thought the new leadership weak and divided. What about my own special subject, Pitt the Younger, who arranged for his close ally Henry Addington to succeed him, briefed him personally and ensured he had the votes? No, I’m afraid not. Within two years he was trying to oust Addington and eventually succeeded – to be replaced, of course, by Pitt.

If the collective wisdom of British PMs is to be believed, every single one of them has been worse than the one before, in a continuous line of decay that leads from Walpole to Johnson. There have been isolated cases of unenthusiastic silence: Grey on Melbourne, Gladstone on Rosebery, or Cameron on May herself. Baldwin did join a national government under Ramsay MacDonald, but only after first opposing him and then being told to team up by the King.

Others did not live long enough for us to know their views, but it is a stretch to think that Chamberlain, had he lived, would have ended up as a firm acolyte of Churchill. History suggests our prime ministers regard their immediate successor as some variation on a novice, an impostor, a traitor, a fraud or, if none of these apply, a general disaster nonetheless.

While many of them would be justified in this view, there are clearly many other cases here of self-justification and delusion. The addiction of power is strong, and the resentment at its withdrawal can be overwhelming.

Margaret Thatcher (R) applauds her successor John Major in 1992. Picture: AFP.

Then Conservative party leader William Hague with Baroness Margaret Thatcher in 1999.

Our brutal parliamentary system, in which heads of government are removed by voters or MPs and rarely come to a dignified end of their term, makes the torment of being replaced even harder to bear. This is particularly severe if a PM believes they never did anything wrong – think Heath – or if they consider the electorate always backed them but their MPs were too weak to stick with them – think Thatcher.

Now think of Boris Johnson. All of these feelings will apply to him. He is going to be Heath with jokes added in, and Thatcher with consistency taken out, all rolled into a bundle of resentment, denial, attention-seeking and attempted vindication that will be a permanent nightmare for the new prime minister.

That he wants revenge on Rishi Sunak is already apparent, but if Liz Truss is elected, she will face the identical problem. The chances of her loyalty to him being repaid are close to zero. Boris lives his life as a performance, and he will want the next act to fill every seat in the theatre of British political life.

The Conservative Party had no choice but to remove Johnson from office. His standards of governance and veracity had fallen below what reasonable people could defend. The downside is that the party will always have the problem of what he will say next.

I experienced something similar as a mere leader of the opposition, beset at party conferences by the circus of three ex-PMs at large, even though one and a half of them were trying to be helpful. The one was John Major, and the half was Thatcher: she wanted to be supportive but couldn’t help saying something shocking. Heath just glared at all of us as if we were dimwits who failed to understand his greatness. Voters could not understand why I, the hapless leader, could not control all the has-beens.

Theresa May watches on as Boris Johnson speaks during his final Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) at the House of Commons. Picture; AFP.

Either Sunak or Truss is about to own this problem. Johnson might be near the bottom of the class of PMs in the reputation with which he leaves office, but he could be top of the class in the trouble he can cause afterwards. Of course, he could sensibly choose otherwise. Highly gifted as a writer, fascinated by history, passionate about nature – what a contented life, free of bitterness, he could lead if he focused on these attributes.

His replacement, however, will need to get their defences in place from the beginning. They need a cabinet promoted on genuine merit, so old loyalties fade. They should adopt rigorous rules on ministerial ethics, to show the issues that bedevilled Johnson can be confronted. Above all, they must prove that a post-Brexit plan for a growing economy can be made to work in a government that is run with disciplined leadership.

By doing these things they can make clear the contrast with Johnson’s three years in office. But they will not be spared the recurring nightmare of their predecessor on the rampage unless others, inside and outside their party, see that spectre for what it will be: a common feature of our history that often diminishes a departed prime minister as the years of resentment unfold. The patterns of the past, the sheer rarity of a PM praising the record of their successor, help us to see in context the disruptive performance that is to come.

And, crucially, we can choose not to indulge it. Some former PMs have good cause to attack disloyalty, but in Johnson’s case the disloyalty was his own – to the conventions and institutions of government and to the massed ranks of colleagues who did their best to support him but ultimately quit in disgust or told him to go.

We should always respect the office of prime minister, but we do not have to cheer everybody who has held it. Theresa May had it right in this case, when she stood up, but refused to applaud.

The Times