Boris Johnson is a social progressive

The argument

Supporters who preferred Boris Johnson to Keir Starmer argued that, contrary to his caricature, Johnson held genuinely socially progressive positions on a range of issues, making him a more liberal and modern figure than his critics allowed. They pointed to his record as Mayor of London, where he governed one of the world's most diverse cities and championed it as an open, tolerant and cosmopolitan place, and to his consistent support for immigration on liberal terms, including his backing for an amnesty for some long-resident undocumented migrants — a markedly more liberal stance than many in his party held. Proponents also cited his support for socially liberal causes such as LGBT rights and his self-presentation as an instinctive social liberal rather than a traditional conservative. They noted his appointment of women and ethnic-minority figures to senior positions, including some of the great offices of state, presenting this as evidence of a commitment to diversity at the top of government. On environmental questions, too, his government advanced ambitious net-zero commitments and green-investment pledges that supporters argued aligned him with progressive priorities rather than against them. From this standpoint, Johnson combined his appeal to traditional and Leave-voting constituencies with a genuinely liberal streak on social and cultural questions, making him a broad-tent figure rather than a narrow ideologue. A leader who could hold socially progressive commitments while reaching voters across the spectrum was, proponents argued, better placed to govern a diverse modern nation than a more conventional opponent. Because Boris Johnson is a social progressive, this argument holds, he would make the better prime minister.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Supporters of Keir Starmer, and critics of this argument, contend the 'social progressive' portrait is selective. Against the liberal London record they set a government that pursued a notably hard line on immigration — including the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda — and a leader whose past columns and remarks on race, gender and sexuality drew wide criticism. Appointing women and ethnic-minority figures to senior posts, they argue, is not the same as pursuing progressive policy, and the net-zero commitments were criticised as inconsistent and, in places, watered down. They add that even if some socially liberal instincts are granted, 'better prime minister' turns on competence, honesty and governance as much as on cultural positioning, and it was on those grounds — a record of scandal and disputed trustworthiness — that critics rested their case against Johnson. On this view cherry-picking progressive-sounding episodes does not establish either that Johnson was a social progressive or that he would govern better.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics note the same premier pursued a hardline immigration agenda (e.g. the Rwanda deportation plan) and faced criticism for past remarks, so the Mayor-of-London record does not establish a consistent social-liberal outlook. [Rejecting P2] Appointing women and minority figures and announcing net-zero targets are contested as evidence of progressivism, given criticism that the climate pledges were inconsistent and the appointments did not translate into progressive policy. [Rejecting C] Even granting some liberal instincts, 'better prime minister' depends on competence and trustworthiness, not social positioning alone, which is where critics located their objection.