“When went there by an age, since the great flood,” Shakespeare writ, “but it was famed with more than with one man?” Or, woman, as the case may be? In the race to become British prime minister, the choice is now between two Conservatives: either a former chancellor, Rishi Sunak, or the current Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss.

Yet for Tory grassroots still smarting over the defenestration of “their” prime minister, that man remains Boris Johnson. Tory MPs thought differently. A Cabinet coup ousted BoJo — all within the practice of parliamentary government. He gave his last Prime Minister’s Questions today, signing off with a characteristically cheery, “Hasta la vista, Baby!”

BoJo’s worries are over. The party membership will mull their options during the coming summer and cast their ballots for his successor. The result, and Britain’s next prime minister, will be announced September 5. One alone will climb to the top of Disraeli’s “greasy pole.” Would Shakespeare approve? Should Britons?

Certainly foes of Caesar were contrary-minded. To paraphrase the Bard’s Cassius, “When could they say, till now, that talked of Westminster, that her wide walks encompassed but one?” Arguably, even a choice between two wouldn’t satisfy these oligarchic desires, let alone “democratic” sympathies.

Nor does such narrowness comport with Cabinet government. “Primus inter pares” — first among equals — had been the traditional refrain. The “first” minister led, but his leadership was contingent on the support of party colleagues and the House of Commons.

The irony is that were Cabinet Government less constrained by a cult of personality, Mr. Johnson might still be premier. Certainly his colleagues would have been more willing to stand up to bad policies — conceding the fact that they would know what constituted good policies. Sadly, the “rule of one” is the conventional “new” normal.

Nor should BoJo be alone to rue the rise of unrestrained authority. A student of the classics, he would appreciate the analogy with Icarus — especially following his flight in a Typhoon fighter. Icarus flew too close to the sun, melting the wax securing his wings, and fell inglorious to earth.

Rather an apt analogy for Boris Johnson. One that the Conservative consensus, high and low, should remember. You’d have thought the rank-and-file had learned their lesson. Hadn’t Boris’s betrayal of the Brexit promise belied the futility of outsourcing personal responsibility?

Apparently not. When it was mooted weeks ago that the best thing for the Conservative Government was to defenestrate BoJo, your Diarist demurred. Policywise, there wasn’t much of a cigarette-paper’s difference between him and his likely successors. Worse, none were gifted with his élan that won popular applause.

As the Sun’s editor is wont to say, it was Boris who epitomized the Churchillian imagery of Britain, moving “forward into broad, sunlit uplands.” Such was the appeal of Brexit and independence from the European Union. But Boris backtracked and brought Brexit — meaning maximal liberty and minimal government — to a halt.

Can those vying to replace him revive the dream? Brexit 2.0? Like Icarus, this Sunak-Truss campaign is already mired in the muck. “The Great Globalist versus Theresa May 2.0” runs one headline.

During the initial leadership campaign, the 10 candidates bunched around the state-interventionist policies of the Johnson administration. On the issues of Covid and lockdown, the “Great Reset” and “Build Back Better,” all stood with the Government. The candidates have repudiated the man, not his measures. 

The goal, therefore, is power, not principle. Only on the question of tax cuts, is there a break with the past. Mr. Sunak is sticking with his policy of tax rises now, tax cuts later. Yet is a trimming of his sails underway? Mr. Sunak may be signaling the possibility of cuts, in his first budget, in the top job.

Same with the question of climate change — all stand with the Government. The surprise candidate of the race, Kemi Badenoch, initially won plaudits from climate change skeptics with her resistance to sign a Conservative Environment Network pledge (unlike her competitors) toward “net zero in 2050.”

Upon reflection, however, Ms. Badenoch’s opposition was qualified by Net Zero’s impact upon struggling households’ petrol and heating bills — and not the orthodoxy of global warming and “anthropogenic” CO₂ as its principal cause.

At present, the stand-out difference between Mr. Sunak and Ms. Truss (besides taxation) is the latter’s willingness to meet with Mr. Putin in the pursuit of peace in Ukraine. Though expect each candidate to highlight their respective differences as the campaign proceeds apace. 

For your Diarist, however, true leadership calls for resistance to Mr. Johnson’s “unconservative” government. Mr. Sunak was content to accept Cabinet responsibility to the bitter end; Ms. Truss continues to serve in Government. 

Nevertheless, the Conservatives must have a leader, and the UK a prime minister. The public scrutiny currently focused on the Conservative leadership race should be the rule, not the exception dusted off for elections. Politicians must never feel they can rest on their oars, once they reach the parliamentary precincts.

“Put not your trust in princes,” saith Scripture. In choosing between Mr. Sunak and Ms. Truss, British Tories must remember people are the fount of political power. If Britons continue to allow politicians free reign to trample their God-given rights, let Shakespeare frame their shame: “The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

BrexitDiarist@gmail.com