Partygate - what's really at stake

4 Feb 2022 Nick Garbutt    Last updated: 4 Feb 2022

Boris Johnson. Pic: Steve Nimmons, Wikimedia https://www.instagram.com/stevenimmons/

Many politicians appear to be oblivious as to what is really at stake in the crisis gripping the Prime Minister.

It’s not about cakes and Abba and prosecco or even which political tribe wins the next election.

It goes much deeper than that. It goes to the legitimacy of government. Not just this government, government itself, raising fundamental questions about the nature of state power, where it stems from, who exercises it and to whom it applies.

Democratic institutions depend for their legitimacy on the acceptance and support of the electorate and there have already been many signs that this has been eroded to a dangerous respect.

The last General Election in 2019 saw trust in politicians at an all-time low. In fact politicians were trusted less than any other profession – less than estate agents and advertising executives.

A poll that year showed that just fourteen per cent of the public said they trust politicians in general to tell the truth – a five-percentage point fall since 2018 and just shy of the all-time record low of 13% in 2009. Seventeen per cent trusted Government Ministers, another five-percentage point fall since 2018. The lowest score recorded for Government Ministers was in 1993, when 11 per cent felt they could be trusted to tell the truth.

It gets worse.

The Hansard Society conducts annual reviews of public attitudes towards politics. The last published was for 2019, before the pandemic. It shows opinions of the system of governing are at their lowest point in the 15-years it has carried out this work – lower even than in the aftermath of the MPs’ expenses scandal

It found:

  • 72% say the system of governing needs ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ of improvement.
  • The number of people who say the system needs ‘a great deal’ of improvement has risen eight points in a year, to 37%.
  • Asked whether the problem is the system or the people, the largest group (38%) say ‘both’.
  • Britons have more confidence in the military and judges than in politicians to act in the public interest.
  • 50% say the main parties and politicians don’t care about people like them.
  • 63% think Britain’s system of government is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful.

It also found the number who ‘strongly disagree’ that political involvement can change the way the UK is run (18%) has hit a 15-year high.

So before the pandemic and before the current controversy there were disturbing signs that the general public was becoming increasingly disenchanted with politicians and government in general.

This has also been reflected in the falling numbers who turn out to vote. There are still too many politicians and commentators who mistake disenchantment, disengagement and a growing sense of anger for apathy and laziness.

Even in Northern Ireland, with its historically high turnout, if there was a party made up of those who choose not to vote in the General Election it would have won every seat bar one (West Belfast) last time around.

And all that has happened since will only add to disengagement with and cynicism about the entire political process.

This is a dangerous. Wise political heads should reflect upon it.

Representative governments need relatively high levels of political engagement to ensure their decisions and policies reflect the wishes of their citizens, which gives them legitimacy. Hence low levels of political engagement affect the legitimacy of a government, its policies and the wider political system.

The Nolan Principles, adopted in 1994, are supposed to be a great bulwark to ensure the integrity of public life. They comprise seven principles which are deemed to apply to all those either elected or appointed to public office. Under them all office-holders are “both servants of the public and stewards of public resources.”

They are brief and could not possibly be any clearer. They should be used as a checklist both by the general public and the Conservative Party. It usefully lays down the government’s own criteria by which we can determine the propriety of the conduct of those who govern us.  As follows:

“1 Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

2 Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

3 Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

4 Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

5 Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

6 Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

7 Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

The charge sheet facing Prime Minister Johnson is lengthening by the day. However if we confine ourselves to the parties or “gatherings” that were the subject of the heavily redacted Gray report we already have findings to ponder in this context.

Specifically: “Against the backdrop of the pandemic, when the Government was asking citizens to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives, some of the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify.”

And: “At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.”

And: “At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”

This, remember during a period when more than 150,000 lost their lives and the government was imposing the most severe and upsetting restrictions imaginable on the general public. Gray’s report seems to validate the central thrust of allegations, that the government was imposing restriction on others that were not being followed by the Prime Minister and those around him.

That is before the police investigation, including its trawl through more than 300 photographs supplied by witnesses, draws its conclusions.

As to the incidents under investigation let’s also remember that when Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick announced her investigation she stressed that police would not normally investigate retrospective breaches, but emphasised it was not a blanket ban. She said there were three factors that could merit a retrospective investigation.

Firstly, there is evidence those involved knew – or ought to have known – what they were doing broke the laws. Other factors included “where not investigating would significantly undermine the legitimacy of the law”, and “where there was little ambiguity around the absence of any reasonable defence”.

In all these circumstances we are left to ponder why the Prime Minister’s colleagues have yet to remove him from office. Do they think he will still win them an election? Do they believe there is no alternative leader in their ranks? Do they honestly think the voters, many of whom sacrificed so much, will simply forget about it?

And, most important of all, do they not think that integrity in public life is important any longer? And that laws should apply to all citizens with equal force? And if they don’t are they aware of the implications?

In such a world the law no longer has any moral weight. There is no law, just rules for the governed, backed by force.

The opinions, views or comments in this article do not necessarily reflect any views or policies of NICVA.

Join the Conversation...

We'd love to know your thoughts on this article.
Join us on Twitter and join the conversation today.

Join Our Newsletter

Get the latest edition of ScopeNI delivered to your inbox.