The tragedy of inevitability

Some of those who know my views on Brexit were commiserating with me about last week's election result.

In truth, I had given up hope of reversing the referendum decision. I still think that, economically, politically and strategically, Brexit is a blunder, wrapped in a fiasco, inside a catastrophe; but the rift has gone too deep already. Between the EU's disastrous governance - which has grown even worse since the (genuinely) moderating hand of the UK was withdrawn from its deliberations - and the UK's own schizophrenic posturing, the two have already drifted too far apart to simply reglue them and pretend nothing happened.

No, Brexit has to happen now, in the same way as Corbyn had to be given his shot at leading Labour, and - so David Cameron argues, at least - the Brexiters had to be given their referendum in the first place. There's simply no other way to finish it.

One of the stupider takes I've seen on the election - basically from Americans who, I presume, are plugging for someone from the Warren/Sanders wing of their own party - is that "moderation doesn't pay". True, the traditionally-moderate Lib Dem party was crushed - but it was crushed by a Tory party that frankly ate their lunch. The vast distraction of Brexit seems to have blinded a lot of people to it, but on social and economic policy - Johnson's Tories were, by far, the most moderate party on the ballot.

Which brings us to Labour.

Tony Blair tried to tell them - and Blair, for all the hate, remains one of only four leaders in Labour's history who have ever won a general election. But maybe this is something that every generation has to learn for itself. Now it looks very much as if Labour's next leader - or at least, its next serious leader - will have to fight very much the same punishing internal war against Momentum as Neil Kinnock did against Militant in the 80s. Which will probably cost the party at least one more election, very likely two - it depends on the calibre of the new leader.

The thing is - success in British politics is inversely correlated to ideology. The more convinced you are of your own rightness, the less likely you are to win. (Before you hold up Thatcher as a counter-example, consider who she ran against.) The most damaging word you can throw at a British politician, if you can make it stick, is "dogmatic".

Johnson is a brash, lying, cynical, self-serving, manipulative, entitled bully. Supporters of Trump, and detractors of Johnson, like to compare the two - but any fair comparison shows up more difference than likeness. Johnson has none of Trump's "aggrieved" schtick, none of his "outsider" baggage, nor his petty vindictiveness, nor his boundless and groundless self-confidence. Johnson is a man who seeks expert advice and listens to it. He habitually follows up rows with charm offensives, and even apologies. His opponents' efforts to paint him as a xenophobe and bigot fell flat, as they deserved to - those are not labels you can credibly slap on a two-term mayor of London with a long record of supporting socially-liberal causes.

Most of all, Johnson has what Trump never had - a plan to govern. I wish him luck.