Boris is right that Britain is not corrupt

Boris Johnson is not always wrong. His insistence that Britain is not remotely a corrupt country provoked jeering and derision. Yet the PM is right, though in one important respect, he is to blame. Boris’ previous conduct has destroyed his credibility.

That is a deserved fate, and could well have a positive outcome. If he were forced from office, the hysteria would die down and the country could recover its equilibrium.

But assuming that he does manage to stay in office, there are risks. If hard cases make bad law, panicky attempts to placate an indignant public are likely to lead to thoughtless changes which would weaken important institutions. Both chambers of Parliament are now under attack and Boris is a double liability.

First, his loss of prestige makes it almost impossible for him to perform his constitutional duties by restoring calm and protecting institutions. Not that he will care. Just as he is only interested in other people when he can use them as a means of his own gratification, he has no interest in institutions: no understanding that they are the coral reef of British history. In Burke’s language, they are the embodiment of an awe-inspiring partnership, between the living, the dead and the as yet unborn. Boris has no feeling for any of that. If he felt it necessary to shore up his own position by rushing through measures which might get him out of a hole next week but which would have damaging consequences down the years and decades, he would not hesitate. He would always come first.

Fortunately, his diminished authority will make it harder for him to coerce his backbenchers. Two rumours were going around the end of last week. The first was that Boris would sack the Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, throwing him on the bonfire to placate angry Tory MPs. The second, that if Boris did so, the entire Whips’ Office would resign. We would then be in leadership election country. Almost certainly, both were exaggerations, but all this tells one something about the current febrile mood.

If we had a Prime Minister who could command respect in a quiet, un-shouty way with no bombast and few jokes, merely moral dignity, there should be a first priority: the restoration of the prestige of the House of Commons, and its self-confidence. This would not be easy. The public would need to be convinced that most Members of Parliament are worthy of respect. But we now have a situation where MPs are at the beck and call of officials, many of whom are not even of the highest calibre. Even if they were, Parliament should regulate its own affairs.

The current mess owes a lot to the expenses degringolade. Not long before that, an MP friend of mine put in his monthly expenses, which included the rent of a cottage in the constituency. There was a call from the fees’ office. He had not sent a rent bill. “Sorry”, he said: ” it must have slipped off the paper clip. Don’t worry. I’ll get another one.”

“No need,” he was told. “Just put it down as food.” He gently declined and did procure a copy of the bill.

That might have been too lax. But a few months later, MPs were treated like Bob Cratchit, trying to account for a farthing’s deficiency in the day’s ledger to an irate Scrooge. There ought to be a middle way and a small group of wise men (as always in my writing, the word man covers woman) probably chaired by a judge, should be tasked to find it.

A lot of voters are unhappy about second incomes. They are wrong. If Ministers can do two jobs, so can other MPs. Indeed, it is useful that they should. This will broaden their experience and should add breadth to Commons debates. But there is an obvious difficulty. Someone who draws on knowledge and commitment ought to be entitled to a respectful hearing, even if he is in receipt of a salary, as long as he declares an interest. But that should not be true of an MP who is a mere gun for hire.

So there should be a clear distinction between an MP who could justify his advocacy because his views are based on a serious engagement and one whose views are for sale. Full disclosure should help to clarify matters. Moreover, MPs – and Peers – are usually pretty good at spotting a wrong ‘un. Outside interests are to be encouraged: professional lobbying, barred.

We then come to the egregious Sir Geoffrey Cox. Eye-watering sums, certainly, but barrister friends tell me that they are by no means at the top end of commercial silks’ earnings. That leads to another question. In the past, outstanding lawyers often became MPs, which helped to provide a pool of potential Law Officers. But when top tax rates were reduced in the Thatcher years, the sacrifice of time involved in becoming an MP – unless you are Sir Geoffrey – became more expensive. This deterred a number of good lawyers from trying to reach the Commons.

That is not easy to resolve. If Geoffrey Cox stands at the next election, we can be certain that thousands of Liberal anoraks will descend on his patch intending to turn it into a single-issue campaign. The present incumbent and his association might decide that self-deselection is the better part of valour.

There is a further related point. When a number of his own backbenchers were making trouble for him, John Smith told some of them that he was one of the few Labour MPs who could make more money outside the Commons than in it. That remains the case. In those days, it would have been true of the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs, many of whom were lawyers or bankers. Even if they had part-time earnings, they could have increased their incomes by giving their full time to the previous profession.

Today, that is less true. The party has broadened its social intake. But there remains the question of school fees. A large number of Tory MPs would like to educate their children privately, which is virtually impossible on an MP’s salary alone. The danger of restrictions on earning capacity, plus public obloquy, is that it will discourage able people from going into Tory politics. The Labour front bench is well aware of this. Their pretence of high-mindedness is a thin disguise for an attempt to do the Tories long-term damage.

The same is true of the attack on Tory treasurers. Almost all of them are able, successful and interesting figures who have built up businesses, thus creating jobs and tax revenue. In multiple ways, they have been benefactors of the British economy, and not just of the Tory party. Most of them are also involved in charities. In other words, they are precisely the sort of people who ought to be in the Lords.

Ideally, the Labour party would like to discourage the rich from helping to fund the Tory party, while allowing the trade unions to pour money into Labour and to have a large say in Labour policy-making. That would hardly be an acceptable outcome.

There is, of course, another solution: the taxpayers could finance the political parties. It is hard to imagine that the public would clamour for that. It is, therefore, best to let sleeping dogs lie.

As for the House of Lords itself, few people are happy with the present arrangements. Here, Tony Blair is the guilty man. He found it aesthetically unacceptable that hereditary peers should be part of the legislature. He also discovered that you can legislate first and think later – if at all. So frivolity was reinforced by thoughtlessness Over twenty years later, we are still confronted by the consequences. Something might have to be done, but only after due deliberation. Anyway, there is a much more urgent need: getting rid of Boris Johnson.