AFTER TWO days of voting, Tory MPs have chosen two of their colleagues to progress to the next stage of the leadership election: a second round in which the party’s 160,000 members will choose the winner. They are Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary. Mr Johnson received more than half the votes with 160. Mr Hunt just defeated Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, by 77 votes to 75.
Boris Johnson’s ascension to Prime Minister now seems even more likely than a week ago. Johnson’s biggest problem has always been winning over his fellow Conservative MPs. He has never been much of a team player: he has spent more time lining his own pockets (in one year he earned £540,000 from journalism and public speaking) than campaigning for his colleagues. He was also a bland and lazy artist on the post box in Parliament. But he is adored by the country’s party members who cherish his Bertie Wooster-with-a-thesaurus speeches and flamboyant style. They also agree with him on Brexit.
It’s unlikely Hunt will be able to slow his momentum. The Secretary of State is an impressive figure in many ways. He inherited a marginal seat and turned it into a safe one. He was Health Secretary for six years – longer than anyone since the creation of the NHS. He has been a far better Foreign Secretary than Mr Johnson, his predecessor: Foreign Office insiders say he inherited a demoralized and disoriented department and quickly revitalized it. But Mr Hunt is a sensible man trying to win the support of a party that has gone a little crazy: fixated on Brexit, furious at the way Britain has been treated by Brussels, and fond of chasing unicorns. The majority of party members say they support a no-deal Brexit, despite overwhelming evidence about the damage it would do to the economy. Mr Hunt also bears Cain’s mark for the Conservative Party: he voted Remain in 2016. So while he claims he is now determined to deliver Brexit, he is inviting comparisons with Theresa May who, according to hardcore Brexiteers, failed to deliver Brexit. Not achieving Brexit because of an intractable problem and a hung parliament, but because she did not ‘believe’.
Johnson would have faced a much tougher battle against Michael Gove. Mr Gove is one of the party’s most talented debaters: quick on his feet, often funny and, unlike Mr Johnson, steeped in policy detail. He also feels like going for the jugular. Mr Gove would have caused real damage to Mr Johnson. By contrast, Hunt is too soft-spoken a figure – his critics would call him “bland” – to burst the Boris balloon. Once again the luck lies with the frontrunner.
Tory MPs are also acting out of self-preservation in choosing Messrs Hunt and Johnson to settle the contest. The MPs knew that a battle between Mr Johnson and Mr Gove could easily have degenerated into the modern equivalent of the battle between Polynices and Eteocles, who killed each other in their determination to rule Thebes (Mr Johnson, who read classics in Oxford, is fond of classical references). The two men were close friends in Oxford and beyond, with Mr Johnson playing the leading role and Mr Gove a courtier of sorts. Mr Johnson chose Mr Gove to run his 2016 campaign for prime minister. But then Mr Gove turned on his friend and former mentor and announced he did not think he was fit to be prime minister. By electing Mr Hunt, MPs have avoided bloodshed and distanced their party from one of the great psychodramas of recent years.
The party may have limited the potential damage from the race, but it certainly wasn’t lost on Scott. The two remaining candidates are both products of private schools and the University of Oxford, Mr Johnson Eton and Balliol, Mr Hunt Charterhouse and Magdalen. Conservatives have eliminated the son of a Pakistani bus driver who entered the country with £1 in his pocket (Sajid Javid), the adopted son of an Aberdeen fishmonger (Michael Gove) and a foreign office high-flyer turned author-turned-academic and brimming with original ideas (Rory Stewart). Mr Johnson refused to attend the first televised debate and parliamentary lobbying parties. His team also reportedly used tactics worthy of the Oxford Union (of which he was once president) rather than parliament: ‘lending’ votes to various runners-up (by encouraging loyal supporters to vote for them) to promote candidates such as the Mr Stewart and Mr Gove, who might cause him the most trouble. “There have been lies and lies and lies and a lot of pomposity,” is how one Tory MP summed up the race so far.
Whatever the truth of these rumors (and that is impossible to know given the secrecy of the ballot box), it is important for the future of the Conservative Party that some of the personal damage done during this leadership campaign and its predecessor caused is repaired. Messrs. Johnson and Stewart must make peace (and Mr. Stewart must swallow his pride and retract his promise not to serve in a Johnson administration). Mr. Stewart has shown that a conservative can still excite middle-of-the-road voters. He would also make an excellent Secretary of State.
From the Conservative Party’s point of view, it is even more important that Mr Johnson and Mr Gove bury the hatchet. Mr Gove is that rare thing: a Brexiteer who understands the dangers of a no-deal Brexit. He is also gifted with the strengths that Mr Johnson lacks: an ability to reinvigorate government departments with conservative ideas, a broad interest in public policy and an impressive grasp of detail. In an ideal world, Mr Gove would be an excellent CEO for Mr Johnson’s chairman of the board. But in an ideal world, Polynices and Eteocles would not have slaughtered each other.