Boris johnson

Boris Johnson and Ruth Davidson are two of my favourite Tory politicians: both energetic, eloquent, optimistic, pro-immigration and – in general - liberal conservatives. Both have proven track records of winnng voters in parts of the country that had been inhospitable to Tories. Both are advocates of conservatism for explicitly progressive reasons: but because it’s the best way of helping those who need help most.  So I’ve never worked out why there seems to be a firth of bad blood between them. We saw it in the Brexit campaign: it seemed, as times, that the main reason Ruth joined the Wembley Brexit debate was the joy of giving Boris a kicking.

Oh dear. As the speeches get underway on day two of Labour conference, Emily Thornberry has kicked off proceedings with a low blow aimed at the Foreign Secretary. Rather than attack her opposite number for his policies alone, the shadow foreign secretary appeared to try and make a jibe about Boris Johnson's personal life as she went on the offensive over Brexit: 'Let’s all take a second to sympathise with poor old Boris. Come on, just a second. He’s not been happy lately. Apparently he’s sick of being blamed for the way that Brexit is going, and all the broken promises of the leave campaign. I’m sorry, what? Like, what? Who does he think made all those promises? Who does he think was in charge of the leave campaign?

Sir David Norgrove, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), is an honourable man. When he publicly rebuked Boris Johnson for his use of the famous £350 million figure about our weekly EU contribution, I am sure he was statistically, not party-politically motivated. But two points occur. The first is that Sir David was, arguably, mistaken. He thinks Boris said that, after Brexit, Britain would have £350 million a week more to spend. He didn’t. He said ‘we will take back control of roughly £350 million a week’. This is correct. So long as we are in the EU, that £350 million a week is out of our control, because even our rebate, which forms part of that figure, is EU-dependent. When we leave, it will all be under our control.

When Boris Johnson received a sharply worded rebuke for his 'clear misuse of official statistics' from Sir David Norgrove, the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, The Spectator rushed to his aid. Steerpike asked why the statistics chief had intervened when 'every word from Boris (this time) was accurate'.  The short answer is that Norgrove intervened because Boris was wrong to say that 'once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week'. Here’s why. The Boris explanation - or, at any rate, Steerpike’s - is as follows: 'We all know the deal with the EU: we pay in, then there’s the rebate and EU spending (farm subsidies, etc) in the UK'. But this isn’t our deal with the EU.

The Cabinet remains divided on one of the most fundamental Brexit questions. Everyone in the Cabinet does accept that Britain is leaving not just the EU but the single market too. But there remains a split over whether Britain should be aiming for an EEA minus deal with the EU or a CETA plus one. This might sound techy but it is fundamental to Britain’s future. Free movement makes it a political non-starter for Britain to stay in the single market. However, several of the most senior members of the Cabinet, backed by the institutional Treasury, think that Britain should stay as closely aligned to the single market as possible. They want Britain to shadow the EU’s regulatory structures and transpose European Court of Justice judgements.

Okay, it’s a rainy Sunday, but surely the new chief of the UK Statistics Authority has better things to do than send angry tweets to the Foreign Secretary? Alas not. Today Sir David Norgrove, the newish chairman of the UK Statistics Agency, tweeted out a letter declaring himself 'surprised and disappointed' that BoJo has 'chosen to repeat the figure of £350 million per week, in connection with the amount that might be available for extra public spending when we leave the European Union'. He says that this 'confuses gross and net contributions…. It is a clear misuse of official statistics'. https://twitter.

I used to have a lot of time for Boris Johnson. Sometimes whole days, in fact: from 8am until 8pm, I'd ring and text and email him, politely urging him to tell me what he planned to write his exquisitely expensive Telegraph column about, and when he'd deign to send it to me. It was, as others who've had the joy of calling him a colleague can attest, maddening. But he always filed, in the end. I don't claim that working acquaintance with Boris gives me any unique insight into his soul. In fact, familiarity only makes his real character more obscure. My overall impression of a man famous for being talkative and flamboyant is that the real Boris Johnson, the man concealed beneath onionskin layers of artifice and performance, can be quite guarded and even a bit shy.

Stephen Bush of the New Statesman asked a good question the other day. Why do people who hate what Boris Johnson and Liam Fox are doing to Britain go easy on David Davis? He’s right to be perplexed. It turns out all those trade deals the leave campaign promised can’t be done for years. Liam Fox has nothing to do except be a public nuisance, which now I come to think of it is the only post he’s qualified to fill. Johnson meanwhile is an embarrassment, even to an administration which seems beyond shame, and Theresa May does her best to keep him locked in an FCO cellar. Davis, on the other hand, is Britain’s chief negotiator, and as such is the most important politician in the country today. Yet he receives little of the abuse directed at his colleagues.