Why does Boris Johnson appoint such weak, lousy ministers?

Boris Johnson and his Government have missed a glorious opportunity to transform British politics. Today, it is easy to forget how powerful Boris could have been after he won the last Election. He had a whole-Parliament majority and a united party; the first Tory leader in that position for almost thirty years. The great wrecking-ball of Europe, which had been fatal to four successive Tory Premierships, appeared to have been decommissioned. The Labour Party was in a mess – and as for the Liberals, they appear to have disappeared.

Indeed, Boris was more powerful in early 2020 than Churchill had been in 1940 or Thatcher in 1979. When Churchill became PM, it was not clear whether he could win the War or unite his Party. When Mrs T arrived in No.10, it was not clear whether she could win the peace or unite her Party. Boris was in a stronger position. He has not used it and Covid is not to blame. He is.

Obviously, Covid was a problem. After all, it nearly killed him. But it need not have paralysed the whole of Government. That happened and it is Boris’s fault for allowing the non-Covid domestic agenda to languish. He could have used his victory to capture the moral high ground.

What a delicious paradox: the thought of Boris Johnson capturing the moral high ground. Yet it could have happened, with the Labour Party’s help. For years, Labour had enjoyed two undeserved benefits: one political, the other cultural. Among the voters, it was widely assumed that Labour was the party of the public services. Tories did not care about the schools and hospitals that most people used, because they themselves did not do so. Given a choice between higher social spending and lower taxes, the Tories would always imitate Lady Thatcher and cut spending to finance tax cuts. Labour was the caring party.

That is a travesty of the truth, if one examines the actual record of the two Parties in power. Yet it persisted, partly because of Lady Thatcher’s one malign legacy: the association of her name with ‘cuts’. David Cameron had some success in altering public perceptions. Another paradox: an Old Etonian helped to persuade the voters that he and his party did care about the public services. Labour’s claim that the Tories wanted to destroy the NHS seemed increasingly implausible. But there was more to be done.

Johnson should have started with some political arithmetic. Even before Covid, the Government was spending around £850 billion a year. Yet vast numbers of voters have no idea that the figure is so enormous. In real people’s money, it adds up to around £60,000 a year for a family of four. It should not be impossible to convince people that this ought to be enough to pay for teachers, doctors, nurses and policemen.

Propaganda is not enough. The Boris government also needed the right policies, especially in two crucial areas, education and housing. On education, the Tories have a story to tell. Michael Gove was the most influential Education Secretary since Rab Butler. Arguably, he was the best one ever. In Butler’s tripartite structure, many secondary moderns became sink schools. Gove made war on bog-standard comprehensives and on their patrons the ‘Blob’, an educational establishment which was uninterested in higher standards. 

Sometimes, Gove was too passionate for his own good. Not all teachers are Trotskyites; not even all Department of Education officials are Trots. Abetted by Dominic Cummings, then his special advisor – both of them bulls who carried a china shop around with them – he did not do enough to win parents’ confidence. David Cameron was right to move Gove. By then, the requirement was for Gove-ism with a human face, but no loss of momentum.

On the whole, the impetus behind the Gove reforms was strong enough to ensure that the good work continued. Then came Covid. The urgent need was for an outstanding Education Secretary who could deal with the crisis while reassuring parents, pupils and teachers. This would not have been easy. There would have been no guarantee of success. But by leaving Gavin Williamson in post, the PM has issued a cast-iron guarantee – of failure.

His belief in weak Ministers carries over into housing. Housing should not be a troubled policy area. There are plenty of brownfield sites in Southern England. It is possible to build houses without ravaging our beautiful countryside. Equally, there is no need for new houses to be ugly. Crescents, squares and terraces can house large numbers of people while pleasing the eye. ‘Build sensitively, build beautifully’: that ought to be the Government’s message. And there is a further point. Although we hear a lot about Nimbys, Nimbys have children. They will want to own property. An outstanding housing minister would have a chance to make his name. Instead, we have Robert Jenrick. We are not dealing with Gavin Williamson the Second. Jenrick is not hopeless. He is merely mediocre. What is it that draws Boris towards mediocre ministers? Does he want his Premiership to be a failure?

Failure leads us on to Sir Stumbler. Keir Starmer and Boris Johnson have far more political symbiosis than either would be happy to acknowledge. If they say their prayers, which seems unlikely, they should each pray for the other’s survival. But Labour faces a long-term cultural threat which precedes Sir Keir and cannot be blamed entirely on Jeremy Corbyn, though he exacerbated it.

As its name implied, the Labour Party used to rest on a bedrock of manual labour. That gave it moral depth as well as political stability. The coalition between able members of the working-class and middle-class intellectuals could be formidable. For a start, it usually prevented the intellectuals from becoming too flighty. But in recent years, this has changed. First of all, there is much less manual labour around than there used to be. The trade unions have increasingly been taken over by clerical employees in the public sector. Second and related, there are fewer former workers on the Labour benches. In their absence, the current – apologies for – intellectuals’ preoccupations have become predominant: wokery, identity politics, culture wars, the disparagement of Britain and British patriotism.

This does not go down well with traditional Labour supporters, as Starmer himself recognises. But it is not easy to counteract it. You cannot tell an advertising agency to create an Ernie Bevin. So it is harder and harder for the Labour leadership to communicate with its former base in the North. Tony Blair at least had John Prescott. As he was merely a heterosexual waiter, his horny-handed credentials were questionable. But he did at least speak ‘ee ba gum’ and was a plausible ambassador to the working class. Who is there now? Sir Keir can scour the coal-fields of Hampstead or the steel-works of Camden Town but it will be in vain.

Using education and housing as his strike battalions, a good Tory Prime Minister would be pushing hard to take the moral high ground on the public services. That would help behind the Red Wall. He could also rely on Labour to alienate everyone who is not drawn to wokery – which is most people. 

Tell it not in Islington, but most people are normal. This absolutely does not mean that they are intolerant: merely bewildered by the absurdities which are now infesting the public sphere.      

Absurdity: that applies to the Extinction Rebellion agenda, yet the Government is doing nothing to make a sensible case on the environment. We are not facing catastrophe. It is not even clear how much of climate change is man-made. There are sensible measures which could be taken. 

 It is time to send Miss Thunberg back to school. Nearer home, it may also be time for Boris to stand up to Carrie Antoinette and thus rebut the charge that she is insisting on a naive green agenda.

It all comes back to Boris. He was desperate to be Prime Minister. Somehow, he did. For his next trick? Will he give us an answer or more vacuity?