Like Trump, Boris is preoccupied with messaging

The case against impeaching Donald Trump has always about politics rather than law. It’s worth bearing that in mind as some seem to think a case can now be made against Boris Johnson for proroguing parliament.

Given the context, some of the overreaction of this week is understandable. We’ve endured weeks of silly season when politics have been hidden behind stories about human-sized penguins and a girl who used her fridge to send tweets. Politics returned on Wednesday and the person charged with turning the valve seemed to have overcompensated. We went from zero to the Queen suspending parliament in what seemed like a tug of a Johnsonian cufflink. The Privy Council, Balmoral, Jacob Rees Mogg leaning over Her Majesty to show her where to sign away our freedom… The response – in social media land — ranged from “General Strike!” to “Civil War!” This is a “coup” cried some who then declared that we no longer have a functioning democracy…

Whilst the revolutionary talk is certainly overblown, the politics of this are undoubtedly strange. Some ministers  — Hancock, Rudd, Gove — are now faced with the rather difficult prospect of squaring events with their previous opposition to prorogation. Meanwhile, as moderate Tories squirm uneasily on their seats, Lord Young has quit the government whip and Ruth Davidson has done a runner for “family reasons” which bear a striking resemblance to “having no part in whatever is about to descend”. It’s moderately easy to defend Johnson’s legal right to do what he’s done but his actions are much closer to a “constitutional outrage” described by the Speaker. It pushes at the bounds of what’s politically acceptable.

And that’s what’s so odd. Johnson is closing parliament for just two weeks. The headline figure is five but that includes the three-week conference season when parliament is normally in recess. All of which begs the question: why go to these extraordinary lengths to avoid two weeks of debating? Is it worth this backlash?

Well, it is worth it if you welcome that backlash.

“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him,” wrote Sun Tzu in “The Art of War”. Johnson no doubt has read the fifth century BC classic but Donald Trump has clearly intuited the principle. The two appear to be engaged in a similar kind of battle. Consider the way Trump is provoking his opponents ahead of 2020. Trump riles Democrats, forcing Nancy Pelosi to ally herself with Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He wants Democrats to make their own brand toxic. This is why impeachment remains a dilemma for Democrats. Whilst it would damage Trump in the long term (even if not convicted, his legacy like Clinton’s before him would be one about the impeachment process), there might be some short-term advantages to be had. It would give him room to accuse his opponents of radicalism and the worst kind of plotting against the elected President.

Johnson’s meanwhile appears to find equal delight in infuriating Remainers. If the assumption is that he cannot get a deal and that parliament will somehow block No Deal, then Johnson must do his utmost to fireproof himself and the party from the coming conflagration. The next General Election will be won by whichever party does the most to stop its base from fracturing. On the Tory side, the challenge is to make Nigel Farage and The Brexit Party appear superfluous; the non-serious tiny teal tinted party compared to the Big Blue Party committed to the same goals. The logic runs that if the Tories are the True Party of Brexit, they stand a chance to emerge with a vote share somewhere above thirty per cent. Compared to the utter wipe out predicted just a few months ago, that would be some achievement, even if it does little to solve the immediate problem. Unless Johnson wins a clear mandate, the politics of the next parliament might be even more torturous than this one.

In the meantime, talks of coups, General Strikes, and much worse do little to elevate his opponents. In the great Battle of Messaging, Remainers must still make a sensible case for avoiding a No Deal Brexit. There are plenty of arguments in their favour – more than Johnson has available for crashing out — but they must learn to temper their rhetoric. Johnson is emboldened by anything that makes him look reasonable, moderate, and sensible before the wider public. One side has, then, to make a quite radical argument sound reasonable and the other side must make a moderate argument sound less radical than they tend to do.

The irony in all of this is that Brexit was supposed to be about reclaiming the sovereign power of the UK Parliament. The next election could well see Tories arguing against that. Whilst it’s always wise to avoid cataclysmic predictions, the “will of the people” argument is a dangerous one to make and an even more dangerous precedent to set. It is, however, a much easier message for Johnson to sell. It’s certainly more campaign friendly than selling fusty old representative democracy back to the electorate. The danger is that in winning Brexit, Johnson risks breaking the very thing he was meant to save.