(Bloomberg Opinion) -- We might have hoped for two small things from Tuesday night’s Conservative Party leadership debate: a clue as to how Britain’s next prime minister, most probably Boris Johnson, would solve the Brexit impasse, and a sense of the direction in which he would lead the party. It disappointed on both counts.
Collectively, the candidates provided a clear reminder of why the party is struggling to hold itself together. It’s hard to think of a single memorable idea that was pressed home.
The questions came from the kind of voters the Tories need to win over if they are to remain in power – a former supporter demanding tax cuts, a young woman concerned about the environment, a Muslim community leader asking about inflammatory rhetoric, and a foster mother angry about cuts to local mental health and social services.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who barely scraped through the second round of voting, did better than expected: He at least got the others to agree to an independent investigation of Islamophobia in the party. Johnson himself, though, seemed to fumble key answers. The candidates talked over each other and sought to squeeze in prepared lines. The questioners looked either unimpressed or disgusted.
The real audience that matters right now is the Conservative Party’s membership, of course – and it is far from conservative. A YouGov poll of members released Tuesday suggested they would be happy for Brexit to take place even if it meant Scotland leaving the union, the party falling apart, or inflicting significant damage on the U.K. economy. And almost 40% of those surveyed wanted Brexit even at the cost of losing power to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
It’s possible such views would soften if any of those hypotheticals had a prospect of becoming real. But no serious contender for the role of party leader can afford to gamble on that.
Time is running out if Britain is to leave the European Union on Oct. 31 after renegotiating the terms of its departure. The new leader would only take office at the end of July, shortly before parliament’s long summer vacation. September brings the party conference season. Then we are into October as the European Commission prepares to change hands. Where is the time to do an entirely new deal, even if the will existed?
Johnson’s Brexit plan is to convince the EU to deal with the question of the Irish border in the implementation period which begins once Britain leaves. He is correct that changing the agreed sequencing would potentially change everything: The permanent backstop guaranteeing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will remain open and unencumbered was the key reason why May was unable to get her deal through parliament. But for Johnson to succeed, the EU would have to relent on its fundamental demand that the border guarantee be incorporated into the terms of the divorce. There are no signs of that happening.
Johnson argues that a combination of factors will be a game-changer: Newly elected representatives from Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party will soon take their seats in the European Parliament and presumably irk their colleagues so much that the EU will be desperate for a split. The threat of losing 39 billion pounds ($49 billion) in divorce payments, and all the uncertainty and cost of a no-deal exit, will cause the EU to be more reasonable than it was with May since the bloc will know that Johnson, unlike his predecessor, really means it. Finally, he says, the U.K. will obtain a standstill agreement protecting its current terms of trade under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – an idea that has been pretty thoroughly debunked by trade experts.
The only candidate to reject an Oct. 31 departure and call time on the empty promises was Rory Stewart, the surprise underdog who has charmed social media and many U.K. audiences. But while he shone in an earlier debate where he could address a studio audience, he struggled with the format on Tuesday and never quite landed enough punches. His success, and outsider status, only made him a target for the other candidates.
Johnson’s main message has been “believe in Brexit” (and, by extension, in Johnson). On several issues – the Oct. 31 deadline, tax cuts for the rich, and the expansion of London’s Heathrow airport – his position seemed Tuesday to soften just a little, or at least his answers made it impossible to be sure. But the defining feature of his candidacy – and the central contrast with Stewart’s – is that it is so dogmatic. That says much about the dramatic transformation that has taken place within a party that used to seek out compromise and eschew ideology.
The problem with ideas is you have to sell them to the electorate. But the one thing on which all the candidates could agree was that none of them want to hold a general election. The country has had enough voting for now, said Johnson, who once denounced Gordon Brown for taking over the Labour leadership (and becoming prime minister) without holding a general election. “No general election until we have regained trust,” echoed Stewart.
Emily Maitlis, the moderator, saw right through it. “That sounds like fear,” she said. And, really, why wouldn’t they be afraid? The only winners from the debate were Farage and Corbyn.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Therese Raphael writes editorials on European politics and economics for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.