Well no sooner said than done. I posted about a possible pact between Farage and Johnson yesterday morning and by lunchtime it was announced! The Brexit Party will not put up candidates in the 317 seats that the Conservatives won in 2017. Farage had to do some nifty and not entirely convincing footwork after calling Johnson's deal 'not Brexit' but he managed to do what was increasingly obvious had to be done.
The questions now are why did he do it and will it make much difference?
He was coming under a lot of pressure from Tories of the ERG persuasion as well as his own side and even from his former backer Aaron Banks, who presumably is beginning to think any Brexit is better than none. But we learned from Lewis Goodall at Sky that one of his sources had claimed talks between the Tories and Farage had been 'going on all weekend' so there is clearly something else that we don't know yet. The Mirror report his comments that he was offered a peerage two days before but he was going to 'snub' the offer. I wouldn't think he would be well received in the upper chamber anyway, but you never know.
Richard Tice of the BXP told Channel 4 there had been zero talks with ministers but of course they wouldn't dirty their hands with that sort of horse trading. It's the foot soldiers who do it isn't it?
What does it mean for the election? Patrick Maguire at The New Statesman thinks it isn't all good news for the Tories. It is of course for most of the 317 seats the Tories won in 2017 but some will be lost anyway - those in Scotland and in the liberal south where the LibDem are expected to challenge strongly. But Maguire points out that 317 seats isn't enough anyway and Johnson needs to win in Labour seats in the north. Maguire:
"If the absence of the Brexit Party delivers more than 300 seats but falls short of a majority, it leave Johnson with a similar inheritance to the Parliament he just dissolved. Not only would he be short of a majority but beholden to two parliamentary blocs that share his desire to leave the EU but disagree with the terms: pro-deal Labour MPs, and the DUP.
"Escaping from that parliamentary bind is the very point of this election. But doing so will mean winning dozens of Labour-held marginals where a majority of voters backed Leave in 2016: Hartlepool, Ashfield, Bolsover. Even if the Labour share of the vote falls in these seats – as most expect it to – the Conservative fear is that the Brexit Party is still likely to act as a spoiler. One minister dismisses talk that today’s news is a game-changer for that reason. A senior member of the ERG, meanwhile, says they are “not yet” delighted: “This is welcome but we must have a clear parliamentary majority to deliver a great future relationship.” Another member of the government defending a slender majority in the East Midlands adds: “A more logical approach would have been to stand against a few Remain Tories but back Leave candidates in marginals.” The mood is one of cautious optimism at best."
So, it helps the Tories but may not be a 'game-changer'.
What it does do is heap more pressure on Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson to show the same level of commitment to stopping Brexit as Farage and Johnson have shown to forcing it through. Polly Toynbee asks: "will the fragmented progressives resolve their differences in an equally ruthless pursuit of power?" If they cannot reach a similar deal it will make a Johnson majority that much more likely.
I wouldn't like to forecast whether they will be able to or not. The right are always far more determined to get and keep their hands on the levers of power while the left and, to a lesser extent the Liberals, are more puritanical about it, preferring to remain untainted in opposition. If there was any rational thinking at the top Labour would join the Remain Alliance, but who knows?
They have until 4 pm on Thursday when nominations close, to make up their mind.
Perhaps of far more importance is Hilary Clinton's intervention in a BBC interview that she was 'dumbfounded' British voters are not being allowed to see the ISC report on Russia before the election.
Clinton said she was “dumbfounded that this government won’t release the report about Russian influence because every person who votes in this country (the U.K.) deserves to see that report before your election happens.”
“I find it inexplicable that your government will not release a government report about Russian influence. Inexplicable and shameful,”.
Clinton is clearly not the force that she was but as the wife of a former president and a former Secretary of State, her words carry some weight. If nothing else it keeps the story in the headlines. If the report, or key parts, are leaked showing there was some sort Russian influence over the Tory party or the referendum it will be a shattering blow to Johnson who will be unable shuffle off responsibility for blocking publication. It was No 10 and nobody else.
I still think this could prove damaging and decisive.
I still think this could prove damaging and decisive.
