Boris Johnson’s destructive path towards a general election will come back to haunt him

When he took office two months ago, Boris Johnson said outside 10 Downing Street: “My job ... is to be prime minister of the whole United Kingdom, and that means uniting our country.”

A very different Mr Johnson gave a rare full-length interview to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday. He was unrepentant about using intemperate language, doubling down on describing the Benn Act, forcing him to seek an extension of the UK’s EU membership in the event of no deal, as the “Surrender Act”. It doubtless plays well in focus groups, and he will not lose sleep if accusing parliament of surrendering to the EU widens the already dangerous divide between MPs and the public. Or worry that his label is factually inaccurate: the Benn Act, named after its Labour sponsor Hilary Benn, gives MPs the right to reject an extension proposed by the EU.

In his interview, Mr Johnson used “surrender” no fewer than 15 times, taking refuge in MPs’ use of military metaphors “for centuries”. He deployed it to deflect attention from his dismissing as “humbug” the fears of female MPs about threats of violence against them. He claimed, unconvincingly, there was a misunderstanding; that he used “humbug” in the context of MPs trying to prevent him using “surrender”.

Mr Johnson and his influential adviser Dominic Cummings will not worry too much about a row over their toxic language. As with their bogus claim in the 2016 referendum that leaving the EU would provide an extra £350m a week for the NHS, they calculate that if enough people talk about something, it enters the public consciousness whether it is true or not. It diverts attention from what they don’t want to talk about: the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that Mr Johnson unlawfully suspended parliament slipped quickly out of the headlines amid rowdy Commons scenes encouraged by Mr Johnson’s language.

But he is playing with fire: his apparent dismissal of threats of violence has damaged him, and will not help him close the gender gap in which his support among women trails that among men.

He is also playing with fire in a much wider sense. The former home secretary Amber Rudd was right to warn that the language “coming out of No 10 does incite violence”. Indeed, some of Mr Johnson’s allies have been irresponsibly talking up the prospect of a “violent uprising” if parliament blocks Brexit.

Although Downing Street sources deny they might use such a threat to evade the Benn Act by invoking the Civil Contingencies Act, the same sources denied Mr Johnson was about to prorogue parliament just before he did. The prime minister deserves full marks for irony: another possible loophole in the Benn Act being explored by ministers is to argue that EU law takes precedence over it, so the UK should leave on 31 October under Article 50 of the EU’s governing treaties. Such a claim should be tested in the Supreme Court, and surely would be.

By writing the 48 per cent out of the script, Mr Johnson is breaking his promise to unite the country. He has set his course: a narrow path to a general election in which he hopes to whip up angry Leave voters, and rely on the Remain vote being split between the Tories’ rivals. It would further polarise the country. He is also ignoring his responsibility as prime minister to set the right tone of the debate at such a sensitive time. His claim to have been “a model of restraint” is fanciful.

At some point, after an election or Final Say referendum or perhaps both, a decision on Brexit will be reached. Mr Johnson or a successor will have to pick up the pieces, heal the wounds and bring the country back together again. As he prioritises getting over the Brexit line whatever the damage, Mr Johnson’s reckless approach is making that eventual task much more difficult.