Boris Johnson is treating voters with open contempt

Editorial: It’s not about the prime minister’s new settee, it’s about reassuring the voters that integrity matters in politics

The rules on transparency and disclosure of interests are there for a reason (Dave Brown)

The prime minister’s characteristic response to allegations of incipient corruption at the top of the government is that “no one gives a monkey’s” about the stories, and therefore, he implies, why should the media or, indeed, he care about them?

The answer, even if it were true that the electorate is indifferent to such unethical behaviour, is that the British people should not be governed in this way. It is not simply a matter of Boris Johnson and his fiancée having their sensitivities assaulted by having to cuddle up on the Mays’ lightly used pink settee, nor whether the services of Lulu Lytle represent value for money for the taxpayer (who did stump up at least some of the cost). It is a simple matter of the prime minister being beholden to someone, presently unknown, for the loan (or effectively gift) of tens of thousands of pounds.

The rules on transparency and disclosure of interests are there for a reason, and that is to help ensure that politicians and especially ministers act in the public interest and not of their own or those of their friends and associates.

The prime minister, as ever, thinks such rules are for other people and simply refuses to follow them if they don’t suit him, a trait apparently dating back to his childhood. Of course, hard-pressed families on furlough or with a relative in intensive care don’t have much time to ruminate over the Nolan principles or Dominic Cummings’s blog, but that doesn’t mean that Mr Johnson can just do what he likes. It is an absurd line of argument. 

Besides, Mr Johnson is quite wrong to suppose that such matters are universally regarded as trivial. The millions of people who have had their lives touched, and sometimes devastated, by Covid-19 are offended and upset by his willingness to allow the “bodies to pile up” rather than sanction a second lockdown.

In the end, last November, sense, pressure from cabinet colleagues, a timely leak and the expert advice all prevailed and coronavirus wasn’t allowed to let rip after all; but what does it say about the mentality of the man that he thinks in such a way and speaks with such inhumanity? Is that what he thinks leadership is? It betrays what a selfish uncaring man Mr Johnson can be; it is what happens when a devil-may-care contrarian newspaper columnist is instead placed in a position of great responsibility, where actual life-and-death consequences are at stake. 

This is a dangerous juncture for Mr Johnson, because those at the top of his party do give a monkey’s about the way he behaves, and so, in reality, do the voters. The carefully cultivated image of “Boris” as a sort of cuddly bear is getting mangy, unattractive and unlikeable. Boosted by the vaccine rollout, his popularity nevertheless remains fragile. He needs to reassure the voters as the latest round of elections approach, not test them with open contempt. 

If anyone bothered to ask, of course, few would think it was fine for any prime minister secretly to take money from unknown wealthy individuals, and the public would want to know the quid pro quo. Fewer still want a premier who puts spending money on his political plans ahead of saving the lives of their loved ones. No one wants to live in a country where money buys government contracts, influence or laws. The cash for questions and the MPs expenses scandals shredded faith in the integrity of the political system, and Mr Johnson and some of his colleagues seem intent on repeating the exercise. Perhaps what Mr Johnson meant is that people don’t give a monkey’s about these stories because they expect nothing better from those who rule them, not least thanks to his own sorry record.

The public might well automatically assume their rulers are on the make, one way or another. The electorate may well have grown world-weary after three decades or so of being treated with contempt by the governing classes of all parties; but that doesn’t mean that they’re happy with the state of affairs. Like so much else that has happened in recent years, it is bad for democracy and the liberties that derive from it. That’s worth giving a monkey’s about.