Rumours, allegations, leaks from unknown sources and enquiries to find enough mud to stick to Boris Johnson are being promoted in abundance. The would-be ousters of the Prime Minister are wrapping up a variety of incidents around UK Government and coating them all with the label of sleaze. There is the Greensill saga (little to do with current Government in fact); Dominic Cummings, a sacked adviser, unarguably seeking vengeance on his previous client using material presumably acquired during his time of service; Boris Johnson’s texts with James Dyson to procure ventilators in the pandemic emergency; and the financing around the refurbishment of 11 Downing Street, Boris Johnson’s temporary home. How much of this is really worthy of labelling as sleaze against the PM, and how much has any real validity?
GREENSILL
Lex Greensill is a financier, closely allied to David Cameron who sought to get, but did not get, UKGOV to take finance Greensill offered: a non-event. But there is the wider dredging of the longer-term relationship between David Cameron, as Prime Minister years ago, and Greensill and the connection since, all now the subject of formal enquiry. That enquiry will seek to establish the facts, still very much the subject of rumour and unverified allegation. But there is no real suggestion of corruption or rule breaking by the current UKGOV. However, into the sleaze bucket of accusation it has been thrown to attempt to create a sense of systemic moral poverty within current government.
DOMINIC CUMMINGS TURNS
This man remains it seems disgruntled, maybe because he was dismissed from his advisory role, now damning Boris Johnson as incompetent, foolish and immoral, not the first person to do so. He is out to wreak havoc. He was of course branded by most of the UK media and all UKGOV opponents as a liar due to his visit to Barnard Castle during the first lockdown allegedly against the rules of the time; and he generally made a lot of enemies as he sought to impose his view of life and the future on UK public policy and the Civil Service and the Conservative party in his role as the chief adviser to Boris Johnson; he is hated too as a force behind Brexit. His primary serious allegation against Boris Johnson is that he was too reluctant to impose an early lockdown or circuit breaker in November 2020, and so he caused unnecessary Covid deaths. This is nothing to do with sleaze or corruption, and UKGOV faces various arguments, in hindsight, that it was slow to lock down. It is a question about Boris Johnson’s judgement in his weighing the need for a lockdown to protect the NHS and the public from Covid consequences against the inevitable damage and suffering, short and long term, that a lockdown brings. It was a choice between evils. He was not alone in being reluctant to impose lockdowns – many eminent scientists such as Sunetra Gupta, a leading Oxford epidemiologist, argue that a better course would be to devote resources to protect the elderly and vulnerable and not lock down, and they still do. Also, leaders of nations throughout Europe have grappled with the same dilemma and face the same kinds of criticism.
It may never be possible to compare the negative effects of lockdown, measured not just by cancers ignored, people dying younger for not being treated, mental health damage, education damage etc, as against lives saved etc. The anti-Johnsons will always say he caused death unnecessarily. While the arguments will run and run and even a public enquiry may happen and run for years wasting millions more of taxpayer money, perhaps there will never be a right answer. That’s not about sleaze.
However, Dominic Cummings is reported to be quoting private conversations of Boris Johnson opposing lockdown and not caring if that means “thousands of bodies piled high in the streets” or various iterations on those lines. Unnamed persons are said to report the same private statements. Boris Johnson denies ever saying such a thing. No context is given by the accusers. The message is that Boris Johnson insults the dead. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, says that if such a thing was said the PM must resign. Of course, he is the man who demanded, without knowing any facts, the resignation of the Chief of The Metropolitan Police over police action at Clapham protests a month earlier. When the facts were established, he was shown to be foolish indeed. As the UK struggles to defeat a pandemic making great progress, these sorts of debates are pathetic.
Dominic Cummings referred to a private conversation in which he says Boris Johnson proposed to obtain secret finance of some £58,000 from Conservative party sponsors to refurbish his flat at 11 Downing Street. Boris Johnson says he paid himself but there is rumour and allegation that maybe an initial loan came from a donor and should have been disclosed under political donation rules, where certain breaches can be criminal. The Electoral Commission is to investigate. If there was a failure of disclosure, opponents will call for resignation as this would be sleaze and reveal his moral corruption. It is too early to opine whether this matter is of such weight that the person who the populace clearly wants to lead the country out of the pandemic should resign. However, if criminal behaviour is discovered then the outcome of this relatively minor incident could have resounding ramifications. If Boris Johnson is found to have committed a criminal offence, he may have to resign his office.
THE DYSON VENTILATORS
In the early stages of the pandemic, a potential shortage of ventilators could have caused unnecessary deaths. Texts between James Dyson and Boris Johnson have been leaked by a person close to the PM it seems, which show James Dyson offering his company’s expertise to design, build and supply ventilators; with a request that his employees working “tax free” in Singapore should not be prejudiced by working for this cause, with the PM saying the issue would be fixed. The political opponents and the media have grabbed the chance to magnify sleaze and cronyism which they suggest is typical of the Conservatives. The BBC stated James Dyson is a prominent Tory donor and sponsor. Labour representatives chastise a system of cronyism where Boris Johnson helps his mates. BBC has had to apologise for its error. James Dyson has made clear he barely knows Boris Johnson. He is not a material donor to the Conservatives. He was a supporter of Brexit as an industrialist not as a political advocate. No sleaze here, just a patriot at no profit seeking to help and Boris Johnson seeking to enable ventilators to be supplied. In the end, the Dyson ventilators were not needed and his company were merely left with costs.
It is to be remembered that when Kate Bingham was appointed by Boris Johnson to head the Covid vaccination procurement programme, sleaze and cronyism was the allegation from the rooftops by political opponents, she, being married to a Tory MP. The almost unique success of the UKGOV strategy around vaccine and the performance by Kate Bingham and her group provide the route for the UK out of the pandemic. She is widely lauded as a national hero. The same people now see another sleaze strategy opportunity. Will it succeed?
AN ESTABLISHED LACK OF INTEGRITY
A lack of integrity has been established. The incidents cited above, and many other instances of unsourced disclosures of secrets, depend on people in fiduciary and special positions within government leaking confidential and private information. Normally an adviser, whether to a Minister or a client, would owe a duty of confidentiality as to all information acquired in that capacity. Yet there appears to be a willingness, or rather an enthusiasm, to reveal texts, emails, recordings, and documents which advisers have. It is perhaps also surprising that an adviser is entitled to leave the role and retain all such information let alone use it to destroy the reputation of their client.
The leaking of texts, whoever was responsible, is surely a breach of confidence on its face. The quoting out of context from a private conversation by unnamed sources, presumably in responsible positions, seems a breach of confidentiality. The established lack of integrity is that some people operating at the heart of Government seem to have lost the required level of integrity as regards privacy and confidentiality, but in many cases lack the substance of character to name themselves. That such behaviour should form the foundation of a smear campaign is ironic at least. Facts may be established which incriminate Boris Johnson and then will be a time for judgement. Until that time, it surely is correct for UKGOV, and its Ministers, to focus on defeating Covid and restoring economic prosperity, as well as more normal life, for all UK people. The media may, in due course, have their moment of personal character assassination so many journalists and Government opponents crave, and Boris Johnson may as a result cease to be prime minister, but the time for that is when facts are clear; or perhaps, in the light of those facts, that moment will not arrive any time soon.
