In The Critic, James Kirkup has a particularly interesting piece on Boris Johnson.
When I was starting out in newspapers in the 1990s, I used to say that my career ambition was to be an ex-editor. It seemed to me that the people who had the very best of Fleet Street were the ones who’d once run the place then stepped down or — more often — been given the push. Accustomed to passing authoritative judgement on the events of the day, the ex-ed crew could hold forth as columnists and authors. The grandest collected glittering prizes: Oxbridge masterships and seats in the Lords. The pay-off cheques were nice too.
The point was that former editors had made their bones. It didn’t really matter whether they’d run their paper well or badly. They’d done a job that few others had. They had standing, the right to speak, and be heard — because of what they used to do. Boris Johnson understands this very well, and not just because he technically qualifies for the ex-editor title, having — nominally, at least — run the Spectator. It’s one of the reasons he’ll be a very good, and happy, ex-prime minister.
The whole piece is well worth reading as an entirely plausible take on the shallow character and ambitions of Boris Johnson. Not an unfamiliar angle in view of his career to date, but well worth revisiting. Brexit for example. Remain would have left Boris with nothing to talk and write about after his stint as prime minister.
There, his status as ex-prime minister will give him standing nonpareil. Name your subject, the words of the former leader of a nuclear-armed G7 State will carry some weight, or least some interest.
Remember: after Johnson was binned as May’s foreign secretary, he didn’t miss a beat before returning to the Telegraph as a columnist, and not just because he had (very considerable) bills to pay. It’s what he knows, what he is. What he’ll be even after he’s done being prime minister.
5 comments:
Yes, that all makes good sense. It's sensible to listen to those who actually know Boris and who worked with him, if we want to know what makes him tick.
I'm not sure if I completely believe the bit about Boris's gaffes being deliberate, though. Some of them - partygate included - have had the potential to finish him off. It seems more likely that he has a poor team surrounding him, and relies on spontaneously good ideas and adrenaline rather than planning and policies.
What is seriously depressing about UK politics is the sense that none of the top-level "performance" seems to matter. Decline is managed at a fairly constant rate, no premier really seems to get a grip on anything of substance, and huge effort is put into managing the optics. Good reputation or bad reputation, it hardly matters to most normal people's lives.
Sam - I agree, it is depressing that none of the top-level "performance" seems to matter. How voters could tackle that isn't clear. Not voting for the major parties may make a difference but the whole political game seems to attract the wrong kind of people.
The longer she's gone the more I miss Thatcher.
The world was lucky that it had, simultaneously, Reagan, Mrs T, and the Polish Pope.
The country was unlucky that it had, simultaneously, Toni as PM and Gordon as Chancellor. Though you could argue that it was the country's own ruddy fault.
Locally: "Because there were no nominations for election to the Parish Council by the cut off date of 5th April the Parish Council election fixed for 5th May will not take place.[…] It would be very damaging for the Parish to have no Parish Council for the foreseeable future. Apart from anything else, it would prevent the Parish from having a say in planning matters. This could be disastrous.
Please give serious consideration to putting your name forward. Five councillors are needed – could you be one of them? "
Why I wonder? Well maybe because it brings responsibility without power; no, not even that, more like liability without influence. An expectation that you can do something about that planning application that cannot be fulfilled. A recipe to make foes rather than win friends. The process, the machinery of government proceeds regardless, those nominal democratic representatives, can only beg favours. And the same all the way up the greasy pole.
dearieme - I miss Thatcher too, plus a sense that political government was a serious business. Yes - Blair and Brown were country's own ruddy fault.
djc - it could be interesting if that problem spreads and becomes a political issue. It does highlight a problem though, one where normal, sane people don't want a role where they are liable to make foes rather than win friends.
Post a Comment