Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Cameron is trashing his own party, and it’s not a pretty sight (Daily Telegraph)

Gay marriage is an admirable cause, but if Conservative membership keeps falling at this rate, we will soon enter a new political era, says Peter Oborne.

2. Stafford Hospital, NHS managers, and why money rather than reform sometimes really is the answer (Independent)

A confused, simplistic and narrow debate about the true meaning of NHS reform has been exposed by the appalling neglect of patients in this exceptional case, writes Steve Richards.

3. The five questions Carney must answer (Financial Times)

The next BoE governor must live up to his rock star billing, says Chris Giles.

4. 'No more Mid Staffs' sounds so simple. It will be anything but (Guardian)

The parties were unified but we know that reform in the NHS, though massively necessary, has defeated many politicians, writes Martin Kettle.

5. It isn't those who oppose gay marriage who are the bigots - it is the liberals who demonise them (Daily Mail)

It marks a watershed in modern Britain when the leader of the party to which instinctively conservative people might be expected to look champions social revolution, says Stephen Glover.

6. Why the Tories need a meritocrat's manifesto (Guardian)

Fairness has traditionally been seen as a Labour preserve. But we can find a better way to reach the aspirational underdog, says Dominic Raab.

7. Confused of Westminster seeks a big idea (Times) (£)

Fractious Tories fight their leader and each other, while docile Labour is devoid of a plan, writes David Aaronovitch. The old politics is dying.

8. Turkey and the Kurds: progress on the horizon (Guardian)

If a Kurdish spring happens, the rewards for both sides are significant – not just the end of a conflict that has claimed 40,000 lives, says a Guardian editorial. 

9. Leveson and the Lords (Daily Telegraph)

The Defamation Bill is being used as a backdoor means of introducing state regulation of the press, says a Telegraph leader.

10. Rating agencies must beware of the law (Financial Times)

Free speech is no defence if standards are lowered to please issuers and gain revenues, writes John Gapper.

Picture: ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left