Britain has always been able to manage an orderly transfer of power from one prime minister to another, despite our uncodified constitution and its blend of practice, tradition and impromptu pragmatism.
But that constitution has never come across a disruptive personality like Boris Johnson. Just as with Donald Trump’s transition after his defeat, Conservative MPs fear how Johnson could behave.
Some, such as his former chief adviser Dominic Cummings, insist he must quit Downing Street immediately. But the successful appointment of new cabinet ministers suggests Johnson has no intention of being hounded out, or of being replaced by the obvious caretaker – his deputy, Dominic Raab.
Part of the problem is the transfer of power from one premier to the next has been made more difficult by the injection of popular democracy into party leadership elections, so making the process longer and more perilous.
It was relatively easy for John Major to succeed Margaret Thatcher. After being fatally wounded by her MPs in a leadership election, she rang her cabinet secretary, Andrew Turnbull, at 7.30am on 22 November 1990 to say she had resolved to resign. She informed her cabinet an hour and a half later and by the morning of 28 November she had been replaced by Major in an election in which 372 Conservative MPs participated.
But by the time David Cameron had resigned at 8.15am on 24 June 2016 after losing the Brexit referendum, the succession process had become more complex: the leadership was to be determined in an election that included the party membership, the first time the system had been used to choose the prime minister.
Cameron did little to interfere in the choice of his successor. Fortuitously, Theresa May won unopposed and she was inside No 10 on 13 July.
May’s own departure was more protracted. Facing a riven party and weakened by the 2017 general election result, she told her husband of her plan to quit on 22 May 2019 and informed the cabinet the following day. Though she hoped to stay on to party conference in October, the party cut this short, electing Johnson two months later.
In that time May oversaw a visit from Trump, went to the 75th D-day commemorations, attended the G20 in Osaka and made a poorly received and self-serving valedictory state-of-politics speech at Chatham House. Although she was distraught that Johnson was to be her successor and bitter at her treatment, she did not say as much and was anyway a spent force.
Her Anglican sense of propriety held her back from making the attacks on Johnson that she now mounts from the backbenches of the Commons.
Probably the most considered and interesting recent transfer of power was the “stable and orderly” one between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Once Brown had forced Blair into his departure in September 2006, Blair set about trying to chart a direction for his successor in a series of valedictory speeches.
Johnson has never shown Blair’s interest in the craft of government – as opposed to politics – or had many valuable reflections on the role of the prime minister.
Yet that does not stop the fear that his populist streak will lead him to cause damage in the months afforded to him before a successor is elected. Gavin Barwell, who served as Theresa May’s chief of staff, said the leadership election must be “relatively quick” and there was a “question whether the PM will be able to lead a caretaker government in the meantime. Will enough ministers agree to serve?” Cummingssaid Johnson would cause “carnage” if he was allowed to remain in position.
Through parts of Tuesday and Wednesday, Johnson appeared to be in a Trumpian state of denial. It was not that he was going to organise a 6 January-style march on parliament, but instead – obsessed by his personal mandate at the 2019 election – he seemed determined to call a suicidal general election rather than be forced to stand aside. That fever seemed to have subsided by the time of his resignation speech.
Conservative MPs must now decide whether Johnson has the authority to run a government in the midst of a European war and a cost of living crisis. Worse, could he try to take government policy in a new direction that would have consequences for the next leader?
It was not just that Trump broke all the courtesies of a presidential transition; the Washington defence establishment lived in fear of what war he might unleash before inauguration. Patronage was dispensed, jobs abolished and mysterious far-right figures appointed. In the end, Trump proved to be so chaotic and unstrategic that true long-term damage to the machinery of government was not immediately inflicted.
The reality is that Johnson is cut from a similar cloth, and a watchful cabinet would probably use its collective restraining voice if necessary.
The betting is the prime minister will remain in office at least for a couple of months, giving him a final chance to show the leadership qualities so glaringly absent up until now.
• This article was amended on 8 July 2022. Margaret Thatcher resigned in November 1990, not November 1989.
