Boris Johnson’s problem isn’t what he wrote decades ago – but that he still seems to hold the same abhorrent views

Are unpalatable opinions more acceptable if they are delivered in a posh, authoritative voice?

Can you remember what opinions you held 25 years ago?

Before Boris Johnson became a politician, he earned a living as a professional columnist, churning out thousands of words several times a week. Writing for right-wing magazines, he held the post of assistant editor at The Daily Telegraph, not known for its liberal views (in the Nineties, at least) on the lower classes and female rights.

Johnson described himself as a reporter, but I wouldn’t say that’s accurate. He received a higher wage because he has a unique skill: the ability to work up a trenchant opinion and deliver it in an entertaining format every couple of days. It’s a job he has been reluctant to abandon, even as prime minister. Ranting in print is what he’s happiest doing – no one can interrupt or ask intrusive questions. It’s a one-way medium.

Unlike a pub bore, columnists can be held to account and easily tracked through modern technology. What seemed entertaining 20 years ago can appear bigoted and facile now. There are countless examples of unfortunate tweets and social media posts that have been unearthed and used to unseat candidates on all sides of the political spectrum recently. Is that a fair tactic? Surely most people can be allowed to mellow as they age?

I started writing a column at the age of 22 and it’s fair to say it’s not stood the test of time. Like the clothes we wore, the men we dated and the music we listened to, our opinions reflect our circumstances and social circle. Can we allow that when it comes to Johnson?

Is it fair that a column he wrote in 1995 (aged 31) has been unearthed by Baroness Chakrabarti as an example of his antediluvian attitudes to women? Published in The Spectator, the offending piece complained about single mothers, citing their “desire to procreate independently of men”, claiming they chose to have babies to “have a little creature to love in their monotonous and depressing lives”.

Johnson described working-class men as “likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless, with low self-esteem brought on by unemployment”. Inflammatory language, but how much offence did it cause at the time? After all, Johnson was preaching to the converted – his readers were hardly fans of people on the dole or single mums claiming child benefit. These groups represented an easy target for someone short of ideas and with a deadline to meet.

Complaining about children born out of wedlock and the decline in the popularity of marriage seems especially hypocritical in 2019, coming from someone who had a child with a woman who wasn’t his wife, as well as several well-documented affairs. These days, it’s my generation, the boomers, who are responsible for a rise in sexually transmitted diseases, excessive drinking and a higher divorce rate. Young people seem almost puritanical by comparison.

We live in super-sensitive times, when people can get offended by the slightest misuse of the wrong language. But the job of columnists hasn’t really changed – they are not employed to practise what they preach, but to engage with and entice readers. To do that successfully, they need to get angry – and then wipe the slate clean and get cross about an entirely different subject a few days later. In that sense, Johnson is a brilliant columnist, but does that skill make him a good politician? Should women ignore his track record and put it down to youthful ignorance?

Chakrabarti and Jo Swinson are both convinced that Johnson has a woman problem, that he has consistently used patronising language, that his attitudes to women are out of date. So why is it that so many female voters are prepared to overlook his well-documented gaffes, from comparing burqa-wearing Muslim women to letterboxes and bank robbers to referring to homosexuals as “tank-topped bum boys”? Are unpalatable opinions more acceptable if they are delivered in a posh, authoritative voice? Boris employs the tactic of bluster and buffoonery to avoid being taken to task or to answer a straight question, and his skills as a performer allow that to replace actual content.

When asked if he would be taking part in an interview with Andrew Neil, he managed to give a classic Boris non-answer, although it’s obvious the last thing he wants to do is submit to ruthless questioning by a professional inquisitor.

A new study by Queen Mary University of London has found that accent bias still exists, and is just as entrenched as it was 50 years ago. Although young people were less judgemental, people over 40 were more likely to associate well spoken “Queen’s English” (ie Boris-speak) with intelligence and employability, whereas working-class accents scored low ratings.

Boris Johnson’s vocal delivery is the sound of privilege, confidence and self-assured pomposity – even when he’s saying nothing of note. The narrow mindset which produced his 1995 column about single mothers is still informing every off-the-cuff remark he makes, from describing women athletes as “female otters” to calling David Cameron a “girly swot” as a soft term of abuse.

Jo Swinson is right – Boris Johnson only cares about Boris Johnson, and that’s the reason why no woman in her right mind should vote for him. I can forgive a crass piece of writing from 24 years ago, but I can’t forgive someone who thinks it’s acceptable to talk about women in such a patronising way in 2019.

Put simply, I see no evidence that the man who once said the best way to deal with a female colleague was “to pat her on her bottom and send her on her way” has really grown up. There is no sign that Boris understands modern women at all.