First came the fines, issued by the police, for officials who had broken the lockdown laws and participated in their offices in Whitehall. David Warburton then lost the Conservative whip to allegations of drug abuse, sexual harassment and lobbying on behalf of a Russian businessman from whom the lawmaker had borrowed .000 150,000. This was followed by the controversy over the tax status of Rishi Sunak’s wife, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the admission of Sajid Javid, the Minister of Health and former Chancellor, that he was once the owner and benefited from an offshore trust. . Details and legality are of minor importance. Javid explained that his trust had collapsed and he had paid the entire tax on the assets he had repatriated to Britain, while as Labor admits, no one indicated that Sunak or his wife, Aksata Merti, had acted illegally. But the accusation against the Tories – that there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us – is dangerous, because it is based on the popular notion that they sometimes behave as selfish, overly interested in their own interests. by a few lucky ones. And of course these are not isolated stories. We already had the Greensill scandal, in which David Cameron pressured ministers and officials on behalf of a company that was trying to profit from the unnecessary money laundering of public assets. We had the failed attempt to overturn the suspension of Owen Paterson, culminating in the defeat of the Tories in the by-elections in North Shropshire, after Paterson violated the rules and put pressure on ministers for a company that employed him. And we have the ongoing police investigation into whether Boris Johnson himself violated the lockdown rules by attending events in his apartment and at the offices of Number Ten. There is already a concerted effort by believers to downplay the importance of the moment in the event that the prime minister is fined by the police. Their job was made easier by the strength that Johnson showed in arming Ukraine and resisting Russia. They are also helped by the feeling that Sunak’s recent difficulties mean that he is less likely, at least for the time being, to win the fight to succeed Johnson. And they will use Sunak’s example as a warning against other less experienced candidates. Regardless of their good fortune, however, the arguments of the faithful will not be washed away. It is not viable, for example, for Downing Street to keep the names of senior executives or officials secret after being fined. Nor is it viable for fines issued in connection with events in the Downing Street apartment to be kept secret. Neither the Prime Minister nor his representatives can escape, refusing to accept that it will be established, if he is fined that he accepts and pays, that he has violated the law. As much as the faithful want to convince themselves otherwise, the idea that a prime minister must survive a process that finds him guilty not only of breaking the law, but also of breaking extraordinary laws imposed and begged the public to respected, it’s just absurd. The same goes for the idea that he should survive after denying that he violated these laws and made emphatic denials in Parliament. The Conservative Party may be able to deceive itself like that, but if it does, the public will come to very different conclusions. They will see a government – which is already struggling with inflation and struggling to get things done – closing down classes and displaying horrible double standards. This is quite dangerous for the Tories, but if part of the strategy to support the Prime Minister is to limit and devalue potential successors, there are two more problems. Keeping tall poppies away from high office will mean that the quality of daily government will continue to suffer. And there will be a risk of a leadership crisis after Prime Minister Johnson, whenever it ends, as the options are unnecessarily limited. It’s ridiculous that Tom Tugendhat and Jeremy Hunt remain on the bench, and it’s ridiculous that some on Downing Street see only an advantage in Sunak’s recent difficulties. With notable exceptions – such as the release of Nadhim Zahawi vaccine, Ben Wallace’s work equipping Ukrainians and Priti Patel’s forthcoming plans to introduce offshore asylum processing – much of what the government is doing is fragmented, technocratic and often contradictory. The Tories want to intervene in the economy, but they have ruined their industrial strategy. They say they want lower taxes, but they continue to impose them. They promise to raise the level of the country, but while Michael Gove has the ideas, he lacks the spending power to make a difference fast enough. As with issues of ethical standards in government, this lack of coherence can be partly explained by the Prime Minister’s leadership style. Johnson has deliberately formed a third of eleven cabinets to avoid creating strong opponents. It has set high goals, but has not drawn up detailed plans to achieve them, nor has it authorized ministers to do so. He appointed a chancellor with whom he was always to be confronted thanks to their conflicting working methods and completely different views on fiscal policy. Tired governments, tired of years in power, believe that their position of power will last forever. They lose sight of the bigger picture, are drawn to technocratic decision-making, and the battles between them become more important than those with rival parties and vested interests. Unfortunately, this government is now suffering from all this. So now seems to be a good time for the Conservatives to remind themselves of the dual nature of power in our parliamentary democracy. Whether you hold power or not. You can change the country or you can watch the other side change it in ways you do not like. The Tories are faced with a choice between the privilege of power and the vacancy of the opposition. If they do not pay attention, they will soon suffer the latter.
