Boris Johnson - competence and honesty?

Competence

Regarding competence, you could take the view that this is the application of the Peter Principle

Peter principle - Wikipedia

This says that people are promoted based on some degree of competence, but when they get to a level at which they are completely incompetent promotions cease and (in the corporate world when the book was written) they stay there. It's a theory which provides a rational explanation for many managers being incompetent.

Boris Johnson clearly does not have the competence or integrity to be Prime Minister. For evidence of this, look at any news story about Boris Johnson this month (September 2019).

His case does not fully fit the Peter Principle model, because he was dreadfully incompetent as a Foreign Secretary, but was elevated by the Tory Party as a vote-winner.

Honesty

The "Boris Johnson Prime Minister" brand is now firmly associated with dishonesty. Now it is true to say that that was also true of the "Boris Johnson" brand before he became Prime Minister. But at that time one could hope against hope that he might be grateful for the undeserved promotion, and resolve to adopt a more statesmanlike approach. It didn't happen with his friend Trump, and that may have been an influence on Boris Johnson, but one could still hope that he would respond to the responsibilities that he now had.

That hasn't happened.

The problem is not just that he has told some lies. The problem is that his dishonesty is now factored into other people's dealings with him. The other Parties in parliament quite openly make their plans acknowledging that they cannot trust Boris Johnson.

We now know that the lies have come thick and fast.

• In the leadership elections he said that we could continue to trade with the EU on existing terms, even if we left with no agreement; this statement has been widely discredited.
• He promised to unite the country, and immediately appointed a very right wing cabinet that was very unlikely to unite the country.
• He let it be known that he was not thinking of proroguing, when he had already approved the idea of proroguing.
• He has said that the sole reason for proroguing was to prepare for a Queens speech, while also making clear in communicating to MPs that it was to stymie Parliament in order to expedite Brexit. Note that the Courts don't disagree about the facts - the Scottish Court found that his objective was to stymie Parliament, whereas the English High Court found that if that was his intention then the Court wasn't going to stop him.
  This is explored further in this Financial Times article - you may need a free guest account to read it. Subscribe to read | Financial Times
• He told his Cabinet that he was working towards a new deal with the European Union, but was unable to provide evidence of any significant work, when this was requested by Amber Rudd. She should not have needed to request it

Bizarrely, on one of his electioneering photo opportunities for which he had asked the Press to attend, he declared that no Press were attending. The Press representatives that his office had invited took note of his comments.

In this case the actual statement is not of enormous significance. It's of some significance, indicating that he is busy electioneering while not wanting to be seen to be electioneering. But the fate of the UK does not rest on whether the Press were there or not. It's a bizarre lie because it's so obviously untrue.

But let's just take it as an example. If a generally honest PM had said this then we might have been persuaded that there was some genuine mix-up and that the PM hadn't realised the Press were there at that moment. But since it is Boris Johnson I suspect most people will simply conclude "Boris Johnson - lying again, trying to get himself out of trouble".

So the "Boris Johnson Prime Minister" brand is now firmly seen as "Liar".

What does this mean, nationally and internationally?

His core support in the U.K. is loyal, and as I've written elsewhere may think "Yes he's a liar but he's OUR LIAR, he's on our side", or "Politicians are all liars, but Remainers deserve to be lied to". Floating voters may be less convinced of his "jam tomorrow" spending pledges, but that certainly goes with the territory for all politicians. But the reputational damage may be of most significance when dealing with politicians. All trust in him from any opposition politicians has gone, and so they will box him in to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, any secret arrangement with the Brexit Party is unlikely because Nigel Farage will not trust Boris Johnson.

The international implications are much more serious however.

Brexit is the obvious initial situation. The EU27 will not trust his honesty (or competence or domestic political capability). That alone makes any agreement while he is Prime Minister very difficult. Negotiation takes time and effort, and you would be less inclined to do it if you did not trust the other party. This will also damage the goodwill from the EU27 towards Boris Johnson's successor. The EU has shown enormous patience but this should not be taken for granted.

But, looking beyond Brexit, what does it mean across the world if no one trusts the UK Prime Minister? This almost equates to "No-one trusts the UK". Imagine a Middle East crisis (not much imagination needed). How will Britain's standing be affected if no one trusts the U.K.? Imagine the long-drawn out trade deal negotiations, with the U.S. for example; how well will those go if no one trusts the UK? How about restoring Stormont government, where trust from all parties is crucial?

Even from his own Party (until recently), Rory Stewart or Dominic Grieve would be taken much more seriously as Prime Minister.

In just two months Boris Johnson has damaged his own standing and in doing so has damaged the UK's international standing, and I don't believe he can or will reverse the damage. For this reason I think history will see him as the UK's worst Prime Minister.