James Kirkup

How long should we remember the MPs’ expenses scandal? Should someone who used taxpayers’ money to kit out their home and renovate their swimming pool be allowed a second chance at being an MP? The imminent selection of a Conservative candidate in Sevenoaks raises such questions. Selections are politics in its most raw and spiteful form. The battles to be nominated in a seat where your party usually wins are the fiercest, nastiest and most consequential that many politicians will ever be involved in. Because selections matter so much – missing out a safe seat can mean your career is over before it begins – the resentments that flow from these battles can last for years and decades.

Until a year or two ago, if you’d asked me to describe the archetypal Conservative, I’d have sketched out someone who looked a lot like Philip Hammond. Hammond is a self-made man who made a small fortune in several areas of business. He represents a seat in Surrey. He drives a Jag. Politically, he’s small-c conservative: sceptical of radical change and of government intervention, a committed fiscal hawk who instinctively resists the sort of spending spree his party is currently engaged in. Socially, he is no liberal: though he accepted it in the end, he was a Cabinet sceptic of the push for gay marriage, fearing the change would upset many Tory-inclined voters. And as of midnight tonight, Hammond will leave the Commons never to return.

Whatever else is true of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, they have communicated a fairly clear idea of what they think about economics. The same cannot be said of the Conservatives – and that is unlikely to change. What with Brexit, Corbyn-bashing and low-level culture wars, I suspect the 2019 general election campaign will be very light on discussion of Conservative economic policy. In particular, my bet is that Boris Johnson will make it all the way to polling day without articulating a Johnsonian vision of economics. How big (or small) does he think the state should be? What proportion of GDP should public spending account for? Should economic policy liberate markets from regulation, or protect people from markets’ adverse outcomes?

I’ve been surprisingly kind about Theresa May in many of the articles I’ve written here and elsewhere. Surprising, because I never thought much of her as a politician or a person before the spring of 2017. Politically, I found her approach to immigration while Home Secretary to be dreadful and borderline dishonest. That continued seamlessly into her handling of Brexit in 2016, when she made the biggest policy decision of the era – to leave the single market – solely because of the way it related to immigration. Personally, well, like other Lobby correspondents of a similar vintage I can attest that lunch with Theresa May is like crossing a desert at night: cold, dry, shedding no light and seemingly endless. But after the 2017 election, I thought May did OK.

What happened in Brexit this weekend? Here is the story in one sentence. Boris Johnson asked the EU to extend UK membership, something he said he would never do. The rest is spin. How many times did Boris Johnson promise not to seek an extension of the UK membership of the EU? More than I can count. Yet that is what he has now done. By sending a letter to the European Council requesting an extension, the Prime Minister has done something he said he would not do. He talked a good fight, then caved. There are perfectly good reasons for that; I suspect many of the voters he needs will accept them. There is also a debate about whether any of this matters: he may well get a majority for his deal next week anyway. But those things are secondary elements of this story.

Reflecting on Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, I have many questions. Why are people who rejected the possibility of Northern Ireland being subject to EU rules and regulation via a contingent backstop now embracing the certainty of that happening? How could anyone reasonably expect the DUP to sign up to something that really does make Northern Ireland a very, very different part of the Union? Something they were repeatedly promised would never be conceded. Why are none of the people who used to be furious about the '£39 billion' (actually less now but never mind) objecting to paying it now? Why shouldn’t MPs have at least a superficial analysis of the economic trade-offs made in this deal?

Will he strike a deal with the EU allowing Britain to leave this month? Will he compromise on the Irish border? I don’t know what Boris Johnson will do. I’ve thought for some time that he and the Conservatives would be quite willing to compromise on Northern Ireland’s future status, but I’ve also often wondered whether some people close to him would be quite happy to charge towards a no-deal exit in hope of smashing through all those who would stand in the way. Let us assume the current talks with the EU are being held in good faith on both sides. This does make sense: both sides’ best interests lie in a negotiated exit, after all. How to explain Johnson’s drive for a deal, his apparent willingness to compromise?

It gives me no pleasure to report this of my former Daily Telegraph colleague, but some people who know Boris Johnson don’t trust him. Whatever the Prime Minister’s other virtues, he is not seen by some acquaintances as a man who will always keep his word, who always does the things he says he will do. Polls appear to suggest that the public isn’t much more impressed with Johnson’s integrity. YouGov reckons just 24 per cent see him as “trustworthy” and the same proportion rate him as “honest”.

Could Rory Stewart become Mayor of London, disrupt the main political parties and strike a historic blow for humane centrism and political compromise? Possibly the best reason to bet against him is that quite a lot of people like me will be arguing – and hoping – that he can win. By “people like me” I mean the commentator-class. I know what I am. I run a think-tank at Westminster and I write about politics for newspapers and magazines. I don’t belong to any political party and have voted for at least five of them in my 43 and three-quarter years.

I can’t say I like it much, but the slogan for the Conservative Party conference in Manchester is a work of political genius: 'Get Brexit done: invest in our NHS, schools and police'. In ten words, it offers a simplicity and clarity of intent that none of those who stand opposed to Boris Johnson have yet summoned up. Arguably, that slogan captures something that could even be described as the missing centre-ground in British politics: socially conservative (Brexit as reassertion of the nation state and the rejection of liberal internationalism) and economically liberal (Spend! Spend! Spend on the strong state!). If – big if – the Conservatives fight a general under that banner, my money would be on them to win.

Ignore, with great respect, the people telling you today that the justices of the Supreme Court have waded into politics, exceeded their mandate and involved themselves in matters that belong to elected officials not the judiciary. Take five minutes to read the Court’s judgement on Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament, where you will find a crystal-clear elucidation of principles that everyone – but perhaps especially those who favour leaving the EU – should celebrate and defend. Before I get to that, it appears to be necessary to point out what the Court has not done and not said. The judges have not ruled that Boris Johnson lied to the Queen, even though many people who really should know better are saying this. David Lammy, for instance: https://twitter.

This is an article about Twitter, so you might decide to ignore it. Social media is not real life, after all, and many sensible people dismiss it as meaningless noise: 'it’s just Twitter'. But this article is also about the current state of politics and journalism, neither of which can – sadly – be discussed without reference to Twitter, so bear with me. Twitter is, to use a technical term, going batshit about Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC political editor. This isn’t the first time, and I’m sure it won’t be the last, but that doesn’t mean it’s not deserving of comment. Kuenssberg’s name is all over Twitter because of an incident at a London hospital that Boris Johnson visited today.

Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth is proving to be a jolly affair so far. I’m writing this in the garden of the Highcliff hotel, looking out over the Channel that divides the UK from France and, perhaps one day, the European Union. It’s Brexit that’s making the Lib Dems happy as they bustle by. Parties are generally happy when they feel they have a clear line on big issues, and the Lib Dem line on Brexit is now crystal-clear: cancel it. Partly because they expect a big Labour shift towards a clear Remain position, the Lib Dems are now, in headline terms, committed to revoking the Article 50 notification and thus returning UK membership of the EU to its previous permanent status.

An awful lot of Theresa May’s resignation honours list is awful. In no particular order: Knighting Geoff Boycott would be a horrible act for any PM, let alone one who actually did some good on domestic violence. Who cares if he punched a woman repeatedly in the face, he played great cricket, eh? A gruesome choice, even though he continues to deny the offence. Knighting the communications Director who failed to communicate your central policy would be a misjudgement at the best of times. But Theresa May adds hypocrisy to the mix: she once cruelly and very publicly mocked David Cameron’s press chief for precisely the same honour.

As a Remain voter who believes that Britain must leave the European Union, I’m finding the Brexit seas ever harder to navigate. In particular, the siren call of the outraged Remainers grows louder. I have little time for many people on the Stop Brexit extreme of the debate, and that includes those who hide beneath the cloak of calling for a People’s Vote. Such people did as much as the headbangers on the no deal side to kill attempts at compromise that could have seen Britain leave with a deal and even – my preference – continued membership of the Single Market. Even Remainiac pin-up Ian Dunt – rightly – laments the People’s Vote campaign’s assault on the Norwegian option as irresponsible 'purity politics'.

Boris Johnson is trapped. He has thrown away his working Commons majority by expelling 21 reality-based Conservatives. He gambled on his political enemies doing the thing he wanted them to, vote for an early general election, then appeared surprised when they declined to do so. If he can’t get a Commons vote for that election next week, it seems quite likely he will face a legal requirement to request an Article 50 extension, with no prospect of an election and a new majority before 31 October that could free him from that obligation. How does he get out of the hole he has dug himself?