A lame duck PM is a gift to Putin. Boris Johnson must go now

This is a bad historical moment for Western governments to be paralysed. But this is where we are. In France, President Macron is trapped by the electoral success of rivals from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Germany has an unworkable coalition rendered helpless by its dependence on Russian energy. When the Republicans win a congressional majority in the autumn midterms, President Biden’s administration will be caught in the impotent futility of Washington gridlock.

And in the UK for the moment, we appear not to have a functioning leader at all. This, presumably, would be Boris Johnson’s argument for staying in office until there is a duly elected successor to replace him. Somebody has to be in charge of the shop – and that person cannot be appointed simply by acclamation, as a “caretaker prime minister”, because no such thing exists in our constitutional arrangements.

Although, you may recall, precisely this did happen, quite uncontentiously, when Mr Johnson was seriously ill in hospital. Dominic Raab, the deputy leader of the party, simply stepped into the role occupied by the official party leader who was also prime minister. Why was that move uncontroversial? Because during the Covid crisis, all the usual rules and expectations were suspended? Or because Mr Johnson’s condition was known to be so grave that any cavilling about the measures taken would have seemed tasteless?

For whatever reasons, the power of a head of government was passed – albeit temporarily – to someone who had no formal mandate from the majority party in parliament. So why should this suddenly seem so inimical to our system – even now that Mr Raab has made it clear he has no intention of running for the leadership and so could not gain any personal advantage?

The only argument that does seem plausible is that there is so much ambiguity attached to the fictional role of a “caretaker prime minister” that the government would be unable to act effectively in an emergency. And considering the number of emergencies that are already in sight

– a cost of living crisis, runaway inflation, economic recession, an escalation of the Ukrainian war – this governmental paralysis would be very dangerous.

But how can it be better for Mr Johnson to remain as Prime Minister? He is now a lame duck national leader without the authority to take substantive decisions which could commit the country to future action. He has officially accepted this by stating that he will not propose any new policies during his remaining time in office. So how is an outgoing leader who admittedly no longer has the support of his party better than a caretaker who has never been mandated by the party?

There is another dimension to this too. Mr Johnson was forced to resign on grounds that are quite unprecedented in contemporary British politics. Unlike David Cameron and Theresa May – who did remain in Downing Street for the entire length of time it took for their successors to be chosen – he is not going because he lost a political argument. He has been forced to resign because he was judged to be dishonourable. It was not his policies which were repudiated but his character. He was found to have lied repeatedly to his colleagues and to the country and what’s more, seemed scarcely to recognise the seriousness of this. How can it be right that having come to that conclusion, the party should permit such a person to continue in the office that gives him de facto decision-making powers over national matters? Surely this cannot be morally acceptable. If the reason for the party’s rejection of Mr Johnson – that his word cannot be trusted – is sound, then he must not stay in office for a day longer.

Alas, this argument does not seem to be carrying the day. The 1922 Committee will change a few rules and get the substance of the matter settled as soon as humanly possible, and in the meantime, Mr Johnson will remain in Downing Street.

But the longer that is the case, the more untenable will the party’s position become. This has got to be sorted before the Conservatives’ reputation for probity is damaged beyond repair. So we come to the question of the hour.

Assuming that there must be something like the traditional procedure for a leadership contest, even in a speeded up form, who are the contenders most likely to create an impression of integrity, competence and – above all, as an antidote to the Boris years – seriousness.

The party membership had appeared last week to have made its decision on this. Ben Wallace, the much admired Secretary of Defence who has acted with determination on Ukraine and was an architect of the UK’s pivotal role in the conflict – was the favourite of the party in the country. But with what is perhaps a characteristic sense of responsibility, he has pulled his name out of consideration. He might have been an effective antidote to the Johnson era of egotistical bravado and unreliability but his continued tenure at Defence is presumably beyond doubt, which should reassure the Ukrainians (and their terrified neighbours) that they are not about to be abandoned.

So who else? I am sorry to say that I cannot buy the idea of Rishi Sunak as the “serious” candidate after that super-slick, American style, alarmingly commercial video which was released with such immodest haste as soon as the Prime Minister stepped away from the Downing Street podium.

Sajid Javid has a back story to die for and probably more steel in his character than his softly pleasant manner would suggest. Liz Truss has had a good trade agreement record but the electorate at large does not seem to warm to her.

I suspect that the end of this story might be a surprise – just as Margaret Thatcher, a once undistinguished education secretary, was. Following a chaotic collapse can be easier for someone less implicated in the original shambles. Watch out for the quiet outliers.

At this moment of crisis, the West can ill afford another leader without the political or moral authority to make important decisions

This has got to be sorted before the Conservatives’ reputation for probity is damaged beyond repair