It has been another eventful and potentially decisive week in post-Brexit Britain. Other than Lord Frost’s shock resignation on Saturday night, once again important unresolved Brexit-related issues – most importantly perhaps the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), but also the appalling saga of EU citizens’ rights in the UK – were pushed into the background by tumultuous domestic politics resulting from Johnson inept leadership. Yet, since the transformation of the Tory party since 2010 is inherently intertwined with Brexit, it does seem appropriate to reflect on these events in a Brexit-related blog.

A dismal week for Boris Johnson

“The party is over,” declared Liberal Democrat Helen Morgan after her shock victory over the conservative candidate in the North Shropshire by-election. Indeed, Boris Johnson is probably not in party mood after this week. That was not just down to the loss of a genuinely ‘true blue’ seat that the party had held for nearly two centuries years and – remarkably – where 59.85% had voted ‘Leave’; but also because over 100 of his own MPs ‘rebelled’ against his new Covid measures. As if that were not enough, the week ended with the shock resignation of Brexit Minister David Frost.

Several people close to the Conservatives – such as Will Tanner of the centre-right Onward think tank – have attempted to portray the North Shropshire by-election as just one of those isolated freak by-election results that can be explained away by the specific circumstances. In this case, it came towards the middle of Johnson’s premiership – when governing parties tend to do badly – and the seat in question was Own Patterson’s old seat which was of course at the very heart of the ‘sleaze scandal.’

However, the extent of the vote swing from the Conservatives to the Lib Dems between December 2019 and December 2021 (namely 34%) is remarkable and indeed has few historical precedents. Also important is the fact that after the Chesham & Amersham victory, this is the second hole the Lib Dems have put into the ‘blue wall.’

There is also evidence that this was not all about sleaze alone. The reasons that voters in North Shropshire give for switch to the Lib Dems were mainly local issues such as “farming, the NHS and improving public transport and connectivity.” This list is remarkably similar to what UK in a Changing Europe and academic studies have identified as key reasons for people – both wealthy and not so wealthy – to support the Leave camp in the EU referendum: underinvestment in public services, local infrastructure, and lack of economic opportunities due to deindustrialisation. Clearly, for the people of North Shropshire none of these issues have been solved with Brexit. Brexit, therefore, has stopped to be a reason for people to vote conservative.

After weeks of scandalous headlines that now have started translating not only into poor polling, but actual electoral losses, Johnson’s premiership is on the edge. For a few weeks observers have predicted his demise; although there remains considerable disagreement about the ‘when.’ Predictions range from a demise before Christmas, after the May local elections, to a year from now. But most observers seem to consider that he is "finished” and that the “only question is when” as one Tory MP reportedly put it. Actually, that is not the only or most important question. Rather it is: What will happen to the conservatives once Johnson is gone?

The rot will not go away: The conservatives in the grip of klepto- and aristocrats

One thing that seems certain is that removing Johnson will not solve the malaise that has befallen our country. As Anette Dittert chilling comparison of the Tories’ attacks on British democracy and Poland under the Law and Justice party shows: “Britain’s real problem isn’t Boris Johnson, but rather the Conservatives themselves.” Johnson is not the architect of the type of conservatism he has come to incorporate and that he managed to turn into electorally successful political mainstream. Rather, he is himself the emanation of a long-term trend in Anglo-Saxon conservatism that also brought us Donald Trump and Tony Abbott. Indeed, in an important investigation, Byline Times’ Nafeez Ahmed and Peter Jukes show the influence of US far-right political donors and ideologues like the Mercers and Steve Bannon on British conservatism. The investigation shows that the Tory party is increasingly in the grip of a right-wing libertarian international that has transformed the party in profound ways.

The ‘Covid rebellion’ in the UK parliament this week illustrates this in horrific fashion. What was genuinely shocking about the ‘rebellion’ was not so much that people disagree about how to tackle the pandemic. It was the quality – or rather lack thereof – of the arguments advanced by Covid rebels. They ranged from the ludicrous comparison of Covid deaths to deaths from car crashes to absurd comparisons of Covid passports to the policies of Nazi Germany. The Nazi comparison does not only seem absurd in its own right, but appears particularly appalling when we consider that the Johnson government will introduce voter IDs that are expected to exclude a significant part of the population from political participation.

Such gut-wrenching hypocrisy permeated the whole debate about the measures and made any reasonable debate about the public health situation impossible. Conservatives get all red-faced about wearing a mask in a shop or having to show a vaccine passport when entering a large event, because they consider measures an insufferable attack on our liberties. At the same time, they have no problem whatsoever to support the government’s assault on our basic democratic liberties of protesting and questioning most basic human rights in the form of the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Bill, the Nationality & Borders Bills, and the reform of the Human Rights Act.

This paradoxical stance of the Tory right on liberties demonstrates that Steve Baker’s “free-market conservatism” is about a very incoherent and selective interpretation of liberalism and freedom. What libertarian Tories mean when they say ‘freedom’ is their own, personal claim to be freed of any obligation towards our society’s moral norms and of any duty towards the common good. They mean the freedom to use their riches in whatever way they see fit without being subject to public scrutiny or accountability. They mean freedom from taxes on their wealth and income; and they mean freedom to use their political power to enrich themselves further. This has become clear over and over again in recent weeks - with the ‘second jobs scandal,’  but also with former PM Cameron’s interference in politics for person gain, as well as unlawful PPE contracts and government Covid loans being given to Tory donors and party members (what the Good Law project call the “VIP lane”).

This may also explain Tory’s stance towards the Covid restrictions and their hatred of ‘experts.’ Someone whose only goal in life is power and money will have a hard time conceiving that some people actually do things with a view to genuinely help other people. People who read Ayn Rand and, until recently, did not believe that there was such a thing as society, the very notion of ‘public service’ and ‘public good’ do not make a whole lot of sense. By definition, the only thing that drives scientists and experts is their own narrow self-interest not the public good. Therefore, of course, any measure to contain the virus has got to be a cunning plan to grab power and control other people. This type of thinking was illustrated by a (now deleted) despicable tweet by Tory MP Joy Morrisey that suggested that – in the name of democracy – scientific knowledge (about the virus in this case) should be subject to public opinion and to that of elected politicians. What the tweet revealed is the fundamental belief that scientific knowledge is not something that is deployed to help people protect themselves from harm, but simply an instrument to control them. That is a common belief amongst adherents to pseudoscientific theories. As Peter Krekó wrote in an excellent piece on pseudoscience in the pandemic: “All these suspicions point to Big Pharma and an imaginary cabal of doctors, virologists and scientists, who supposedly want to impose their will on the people for greed or to gain political control.” This sort of thinking does nothing to help us design public health strategies to deal with the pandemic, but it tells us a lot about the people who hold such beliefs. While this sort of thinking is worrying in citizens, it is even more worrying when around 100 members of the UK’s governing party adhere to it.

The libertarian Tory kleptocrats who instigated the Covid rebellion are supported by a second group of Tories that seem a bit more aloof from the pursuit of direct material gains. They are perhaps too well-off to care too much about the pecuniary benefits of being a Tory politician. Rather, they seem to be emanations of the aristocratic side of Toryism and seem mainly motivated by the thrill (or just habit) of exercising power for the sake of it and the ambition of restoring Britain’s world power status and 19th century greatness. Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg is the most publicly visible incorporation of this type. He probably genuinely believes in the possibility of taking the UK back to Victorian times. He probably thinks he is speaking the truth when he says loud and proud that Brexit was a ‘triumph for this nation in reasserting its freedom.’ Although, of course, the seriousness of anything that Rees-Mogg’s says always has to be measured against another statement he made in the Commons, namely that infamous argument about British fish being happier outside the EU. There’s nothing wrong with humour in politics per se (although that may be debatable). But in Rees-Mogg’s case it seems to be an expression of the fact that to him politics is just a game he is playing for his amusement, knowing full well that whatever decision he makes for the country does not really affect his privileged lifestyle.

The PM clearly embraces the aristo- and kleptocrat conception of politics where those in power should be given the freedom to use it however they see fit without any accountability to the public. His annoyed reaction when asked about the reasons for the North Shropshire by-election results illustrates this. In his view, the problem is not his and other senior Tories’ behaviour regarding lockdown rules and parliamentary standards, but the fact that the media and public focusing too much on them.

All this illustrates once again what the Tory party really is about: Not about the public good, not about solving any of the issues the UK and the World are facing, and – despite lip service to patriotism – not even about the national interest, but simply about the narrow private interests of Tory politicians themselves. The conservatives have become a party drunk on rich donors that is working on its own account. The original meaning of the term Tory – from the Irish word for ‘robbers noted for outrages and savage cruelty’ – seems perfectly appropriate to describe this coalition of kleptocrats and aristocrats. As a result, the only thing the Tory party has to offer is – as Ahmed and Jukes aptly put it – an ‘Ostrich-like ideological ‘laissez faire’ fanaticism that is doomed to endlessly repeat the ignorant mistakes of an arrogant past.’

This may read like a very long rant. But it is an important one to understand post-Brexit Britain. Once we accept that the Cabinet is replete with people whose only goal is to be in power and to use that power in their own private interest, policies that look absurd to most observers such as the Australia trade deal that was signed this week (about which I will write next week so as not to make this blog any longer) and the deliberate bad faith approach to the NIP (see below) start to make more sense.

Yet, may there be a glimmer of hope coming from an unexpected direction?

2019 Red-wall Tories to the rescue?

Many progressives and left-leaning observers were understandably dismayed at the success of Johnson’s Tories in the formerly firmly Labour-voting constituencies in the North and Midlands of England. However, there are some signs that this success may become a problem for the klepto- and aristocrats in the Tory party. Tory MPs of the 2019 intake seem less easily sold to the purely self-seeking logic of the far-right of the Tory party.

This first became clear during the sleaze and second jobs scandal, which went down particularly badly in Red Wall constituencies. The breaches of lock down rules and news about parties in government buildings clearly do not help either. This has led to considerable anxiety amongst members of the 2019 intake of Red Wall Tory MP who are said to be “fed up with having to deal with complaints from constituents relating to things the PM is apparently culpable for.”

They reacted particularly virulently to the recent string of scandals and Thursday’s by-election defeat. One of them being quoted as describing the situation in no uncertain terms as a “clusterfuck of shithousery.”

With Brexit losing its power as a uniting cause that brings together atypical Tory-voters from poorer, working-class constituencies with libertarian kleptocrats and aristocrats, the new cleavages within the Tory party that have resulted from its populist right shift could potentially threaten, if not its survival, at least its ability to win elections. As Will Tanner put it “you can enjoy an 80-seat majority, including the red wall or you can pursue Singapore-on-Thames. You can’t do both for long.”

The intolerance of the right-wing fanatics inside the Tory Party – including Johnson himself – has already led to the exclusion from the party of very senior centrists and the formation of the short-lived centrist party Change UK. Their intolerance has been illustrated again this week by an anecdote about the removal of culture secretary Nadine Dorries – hardly a centrist – from a WhatsApp group of around 100 far-right Tories manged by Steve Baker. If the divide between the factions inside the party continue to grow, the centripetal forces may become too strong to resist.

A more optimistic interpretation may be that the Tory Red Wall rage may be what will halt the party’s further descent into a purely rent-seeking coalition of kleptocrats and aristocrats. Given the quite different policy preferences of Tory voters in the formerly industrial North and Midlands of England regarding welfare services, industrial policy, and jobs, they may share some values and policy preferences with more traditional centrist (former) Tories – who have often been vocal opponents of Johnson’s populist conservatism and have paid the price for it. This could form the basis of a collation that challenges the ‘Spartans’ on the Tory right-wing and shifts back the party to the centre.

Progressives may be tempted to disregard the changes within the Tory party and simply hope for a opposition victory at the next General Election.  Yet, banking just on that may be a very risky strategy. For one, Labour have a mountain to climb to win the GE outright – an estimated lead of 12% points.  The Shropshire by-election has shown the potential of an alliance that would put pressure on Tories both in ‘Blue Wall’ and ‘Red Wall’ constituencies. Yet, while there are signs that tactical voting to defeat conservative MPs is taking place, Labour still rejects the idea of a formal ‘progressive alliance’ and denies informal non-aggression arrangements. If Labour does not embrace the possibility of an electoral pact – formal or informal – the next election may very well return another Tory government.

This is even more likely because there are signs that the current government will do anything it can to retain power, including redrawing constituency boundaries (Gerrymandering). Therefore, seeing the conservative party move back from the right wing fringe  is equally – if not more – important than the opposition winning the next GE. As long as the Tory party is a force for evil and a danger to the country, every General Election will be a high stakes event that may quite literally decided over life and death – as not only Johnson’s largely incompetent handling of the pandemic and Britain’s death rate (7th highest in the world and highest in Europe in absolute terms) but also before him Osborne’s decade of austerity illustrate.

Be that as it may, those who are eager to see that back of Johnson, may have to wait some more. In particular, some observers believe that the Tories will try and avoid leadership contest in the middle of the Omicron upsurge and before key Brexit-related issues – NIP in particular – are resolved.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Recent weeks have seen considerable uncertainty over the UK government’s position on the NIP in the ongoing negotiations with the EU. On the one hand, the government seemed to downplay the possibility of triggering article 16, only for Lord frost to reassert yet again this week that the option remained very much on the table. Similarly, the UK side also started showing readiness to compromise by excluding the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from the current negotiations. The question was largely whether this was a genuine attempt to solve the issues around the NIP, because the government had gotten cold feet, or simply a way for Johnson to temporarily postpone the clash with the EU to focus on his domestic political survival strategy.

On the face of it, Frost’s resignation could be taken as prove that Johnson genuinely wants to find a compromise solution with the EU, which Frost the hardliner could never agree to. Indeed, there are reports of considerable Eurosceptics’ fears that the PM may be ‘capitulating on post-Brexit trade arrangements in Northern Ireland.’ The Democratic Unionist Party gearing up its warnings and threats about the Irish Sea border – including a renewed threat to walk away from the Stormont assembly – may lend further credence to that interpretation.

However, the Financial Times quotes sources close to Frost stating that it was Frost – not Johnson – who was seeking a temporary agreement on the NIP and that the softening of the UK’s stance on the NIP was hence not the reason for his resignation. Instead, Frost blames his resignation on the fact that post-Brexit Britain is not moving fast enough into the direction of the libertarian wet-dream of a ‘supersize tax haven’ aka Singapore on Thames (note that politically Singapore is an autocracy – which clearly is also part of the Tory right’s plan for Britain).

Yet, this seems an implausible explanation as the timing of the resignation over such a fundamental long-term concern (in the middle of the ongoing negotiations with the EU) would seem odd to say the least.

What is more likely to have happened is this: It has started dawning on Frost that without a softer version of Brexit, the Irish Sea border is an inevitability. Realising that Brexit cannot be done in the way Brexiters promised especially not regarding Northern Ireland, he has prepared his exist strategy. This strategy consisted of taking the ECJ issue off the table in the NIP negotiations in order to reach an ‘interim agreement as a first step to deal with the most acute problems.’ Many Brexit pundits saw this move as a genuine sign of pragmatism and willingness to solve the issue once and for all. Others, however saw it as an attempt to keep the NIP in a limbo of semi-permanent negotiations in order to satisfy the Brexit ultras’ claim that the NIP is not be binding. Frost’s resignation suggests a third, more selfish motivation: Concluding such a provisional agreement early in 2022 will allow him to walk away from the mess, claiming he has achieved some sort of solution – albeit a temporary one – while leaving the unsolvable issues (the fact that there needs to be a border somewhere between the UK and the EU) to others. This constitutes the perfect basis for a well-known Brexiter defence strategy that Chris Gray has astutely called the ‘not-my-Brexit’ defence, which consists of blaming all the negative consequences of Brexit on the way it has been delivered by others.

It may also prefigure a new internal dynamic in the post-Brexit Tory party that we may have to get used to: The Brexit ultras push for control over the Brexit-process, but necessarily fail to deliver on their fantasist promises of full sovereignty at no economic cost. One by one the ultras – including Johnson – are then either removed from their position or step aside themselves. Brexit, as Chris Gray’s book shows, is a project that necessarily denies everyone what they want. The Brexit ultras will always only be able to stand on the side-lines and shout that they would have done Brexit differently, better; but every time they are given the chance to try, they will fail.

What is obvious is that Frost’s resignation constitutes another hammer blow to the PM at the end of an already dismal week. Yet, Frost’s resignation may be genuinely good news and a real opportunity to reset the fraught relationship with the EU. It is very likely, however, that cannot happen without deepening the divisions and tensions within the Tory party. It is anyone’s guess where that will lead the party.