Well, that didn’t last long. When Boris Johnson entered Downing Street last month, there had been a hope among his supporters that internal Tory critics would give him the summer to get settled in, before airing any differences when parliament returns in September. That was not to be. Philip Hammond has today concluded that three weeks was plenty of time for the summer Brexit truce. The former chancellor has used an op-ed in the Times to voice his concerns about the new prime minister’s strategy, arguing that a no-deal Brexit would be “as much of a betrayal” as remaining in the EU.

If an election does occur, Hammond and other anti-no-deal MPs will need to consider how they plan to position themselves

Hammond lambasts Johnson for moving from demanding changes to the backstop to demanding its total removal which he describes as “a pivot from a tough negotiating stance to a wrecking one”. He also appears to find time to criticise the role of Johnson’s senior aide Dominic Cummings – formerly the campaign director of Vote Leave – warning against “unelected people” who are given the power to “pull the strings” of government.

The aim of Hammond’s intervention is to pressure Johnson to work towards a Brexit deal rather than continue the current standoff he appears to be in with the EU – refusing to talk about a deal until the EU agrees to ditch the backstop. For all of Johnson’s talk in the leadership contest about the chances of no deal being a million to one, many even in his own government are treating it as the working assumption.

Those who still think a deal is possible believe it will only happen if the government can survive the first two weeks of September when parliament returns and MPs work to try to stop no deal through various legislative means. This morning Hammond said he was confident MPs would succeed in stopping no deal. However, the majority of MPs and government figures are on the fence as to how such efforts will play out. While there’s a majority in parliament against no deal (Hammond’s intervention comes as a letter leaks from 20 Conservative MPs warning Johnson not to pursue no deal), it’s still unclear what mechanism they can unite around to stop it.

What effect will all this have? The fundamentals have not changed. Hammond has long been known to be sceptical of no deal. During the three years Hammond served as chancellor, he earned a reputation among Brexiteers for being an Eeyore figure on the UK’s exit from the EU. Leave ministers and MPs complained he withheld funds on no-deal planning and repeatedly went off-message in interviews and public appearances to undermine the government’s negotiating stance. It follows that there was already an expectation that Hammond would work with cross-party MPs to try to stop no deal. With all the talk of a “Gaukward” squad forming (made up of former ministers united in a quest to stop no deal), Hammond is frequently described as one of the most gung-ho.

The most telling part of the whole episode is the reply from inside Downing Street. The Times quotes a source as accusing the former chancellor of “actively undermining the government’s position by frustrating and obstructing preparation to leave the EU” – concluding that “the ex-chancellor’s real objective was to cancel the referendum result”.

Under Theresa May, Downing Street was constantly petrified of upsetting one faction of the party by revealing its Brexit position. Not only is this government unashamedly pro-Brexit “by any means necessary”, it also feels little need to win over or court wavering MPs. A government with a working majority of one would normally be expected to be a little less bold than to effectively accuse one of its own MPs – who voted for a Brexit deal three times – of trying to cancel the referendum result.

After the Brexit storm, a new political alliance could emerge | Rafael Behr Read more

This is another reminder that No 10’s audience is not MPs, but the public. It knows the current situation is untenable in the long term and will need to seek a mandate from the public sooner rather than later. The government is preparing for the possibility of an autumn election in the knowledge that the numbers in parliament are so fragile it could happen against its will. Two Conservative MPs – Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve – have already suggested they would vote down their own government if they believed it would stop no deal.

If an election does occur in the next couple of months, Hammond and his fellow anti-no-deal MPs will need to consider how they plan to position themselves. If the party runs on a no-deal platform, would he remain a Conservative, campaign and simply contradict the manifesto?

At least for Johnson’s government, the decision appears to be an easy one. All its actions so far suggest this government’s priority is reuniting the leave vote – not trying to win over sceptical MPs like Hammond to their cause.

• Katy Balls is the Spectator’s deputy political editor