Boris Johnson has always been an enthusiastic proponent of the long unfashionable ‘great man’ theory of history. As he argued in his short biography of Winston Churchill, Churchill was a living refutation of the notion that great men and women are just ‘meretricious bubbles on the vast tides of social history’, a ‘withering retort to all that malarkey. He, and he alone, made the difference’.
Boris’s own downfall is a magnificent demonstration – though perhaps not of the sort he would have hoped for – that he was onto something. Character does make a difference. It wasn’t ‘events, dear boy, events’ that did for him – though heaven knows he was rocked by a few of those. Everything he got wrong, in the end, came down to defects of character: he dithered over difficult decisions because he wanted to be loved; he hadn’t the patience to get across important detail; he put himself and his unregulated appetites first; and when the threat arose of having to take responsibility for anything, his reflex was always to tell a fib.
It seems to me that the qualities which made him a successful journalist and an entertaining companion are the same qualities that made him such a disaster in high office.

Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate, free for a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first month free.
UNLOCK ACCESS Try a month freeAlready a subscriber? Log in