Johnson has more to fear over trade talks than just Corbyn’s NHS dossier

One of the great surprises of the general election of 2017 was Jeremy Corbyn. Still untested in a major campaign, the Labour leader's performances were, on the whole, assured and he actually seemed to be enjoying himself out on the stump. It was stark contrast to his awkward opponent, Theresa May. Mr Corbyn, in other words, far exceeded expectations; Ms May the opposite.

Now Mr Corbyn is better known to people; expectations of him have fallen; yet he still underperforms. Many on his own side, rightly or wrongly, expect the same sort of Corbynite surge that Labour befitted from last time round. There is little sign of that recurring. Within a few days Mr Corbyn has been personally condemned (and rightly) by the chief rabbi and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and been roundly humiliated by a quasi-religious figure of almost equal moral stature – Andrew Neil, king of the inquisitorial interview. Maybe next week the Dali Lama will get stuck into the leader of the opposition. Nicola Sturgeon persecuting Mr Corbyn with increasingly steep demands will have to do in the meantime.

Had Mr Corbyn handled himself even marginally better, the Neil interview might have been something that bolstered his faltering personal ratings, and allowed him to defuse the antisemitism scandal. Of course it didn’t turn out like that.

Just as well, therefore, that Mr Corbyn was able to whip out the unredacted version of the documents he was brandishing during his head-to-head encounter with Boris Johnson last week. The 451 pages suggested that the NHS, or aspects of it, would be the subject of trade talks with the US. Mr Corbyn says that it proves that “the NHS is up for sale”; the Conservatives deride and deny the claim.

Of course the fact that some American pharmaceutical companies or US trade negotiators would like something doesn’t necessarily mean that they will get it – but it does hint at where their interest might lie. It does also confirm that the British government (albeit in Theresa May’s time) was happy to chat around it, rather than refuse to even discuss the NHS. On balance, it will not have done the Conservatives any good, at a time when they want to keep the emphasis on Brexit and off issues that naturally favour Labour. Unfortunately the NHS and Brexit are linked.

Yet, in their shock and disbelief at such Tory treachery, Mr Corbyn and his would-be international trade secretary, the mellifluous Barry Gardiner, forgot to mention a more important point about such trade talks. And that is that the Johnson government’s solemn manifesto pledge that there will be no extension of the transition period beyond 31 December 2020 puts the UK in an appallingly weak position in the talks with the EU, and an equally bad one in resisting US pressure to open up the NHS – a huge £100bn-plus potential market.

If the record of the negotiations since the Brexit referendum in 2016 is anything to go by, then it is plain that the tighter the deadline for something the more disadvantaged the UK will be. His fans may claim that the prime minister did something everyone said he could not do in reopening the EU withdrawal agreement; yet all he managed to do in his last minute diplomacy was to put an economic border down the Irish Sea, a suggestion made 18 months earlier by Michel Barnier.

It may have been seized gratefully by Mr Johnson, and repackaged as an “oven-ready deal”, but it was one that he had previously said no British prime minister could ever accept. If Mr Johnson is allowed to continue as prime minister after 12 December, he may find himself in many more tight, desperate corners, and agreeing to things that he said he would never do – including to the NHS. It is rare to see such economic and political calamity quite so preordained.