Johnson comeback talk won’t go away

It is hard to believe that a Prime Minister who just two months ago was forced out of office amid unprecedented chaos, as the government disintegrated and ministers deserted him in droves, could possibly return to 10 Downing Street. Yet, as the interminable Tory leadership contest dragged on during the summer this possibility bubbled up to the surface. Even as Liz Truss was today confirmed as the choice of Tory Party members to lead them, speculation about Johnson’s return refused to subside.

To those of us with a grip on reality this seems beyond absurd.

It is, of course, a huge vote of no confidence in Truss before she has even made her first Cabinet appointment. Some are describing it as “buyer’s remorse”. Perhaps “buyer’s amnesia” might be a better description. Can a significant number of Tory MPs and members really have forgotten the shambles that Johnson tried to pass off as a government just two months ago? Can they have forgotten the lies, the lurching from self-inflicted crisis to self-inflicted crisis? Can they have forgotten the slump in the opinion polls and the dangerous (to the Tories) resurgence of the Liberal Democrat vote in local authority and Parliamentary by-elections?

They are clinging to the belief that Johnson wins them elections, obviously realising that Truss is more likely to be an electoral liability than an electoral asset. But surely the Johnson magic has gone, washed away in a torrent of scandal and incompetence?

The most alarming aspect of this delusional nonsense is the attempt to advance comparisons with Winston Churchill by pointing out that he had two separate terms as Prime Minister. This comparison lacks any credibility.

Churchill was elected out of office by the Clement Attlee-led Labour Party in a landslide election victory in 1945. He stayed as leader of the Conservative Party, leading the party to a narrow defeat in a General Election in February 1950 before returning to office in October 1951. He voluntarily retired as prime Minister in April 1955, having led the Conservative Party for 15 years.

Simply no comparison.

For a party that likes to bang on about the need to teach British history in schools, it seems many of its members have a woefully poor grasp of some of the basic facts of our political history.