The Sunday Times - UK (2021-11-14)

26 The Sunday Times November 14, 2021

COMMENT

A bunker mentality is leading No 10 astray.

The worst thing would be to keep digging

Robert Colvile

the standards regime, or in seeking to

limit journalists’ ability to torment it via

the Freedom of Information Act. Tony

Blair, in his memoirs, described himself

as a “naive, foolish, irresponsible

nincompoop” for giving his enemies

such a stick to beat him with. But

freedom of information and

independent standards regulation are

still good ideas.

Likewise, this is not the first

government to be criticised for giving

contracts to its mates. But the answer is

not to make it even harder to find out

what firms have been receiving subsidies

from the state than when we were in the

EU, as the new Subsidy Control Bill does

at present.

In other words, the best way to

recover from the Paterson debacle is not

to shrink from transparency but to

welcome it. What billed itself upon its re-

election as the “people’s government”

functions best when it is actually on the

people’s side. Johnson, too, is always at

his strongest when he is championing

the masses against the elites. With

Paterson he instead championed the

elites against the masses. He will surely

think twice before making the same

mistake again.

@RColvile

the media, the judiciary, the civil

service, the House of Lords and big

business.

Even once the election was won and

the deal was passed, ministers often

found it frustratingly hard to get things

done: in the Home Office there was a

complete breakdown of relations

between Priti Patel and her senior civil

servants. Elsewhere, those keen to push

back against the rise of woke found

departments keener to host seminars on

planetary destruction and correct

pronoun usage.

The growth of a bunker mentality,

and even a persecution complex, is a

natural part of government. Boris

Johnson’s administration is not the first,

in Britain and elsewhere, to see itself as

surrounded by hostile forces. But it

certainly feels that tendency more than

most. Well before the vote on Paterson,

the standards commissioner had been

identified as one of those with an axe to

grind. So when the opportunity came to

redress the balance, the government

took it. The problem, of course, was that

it had utterly failed to make its case to

anyone outside the bunker. So what

No 10 justified to itself as self-defence

ended up looking like a mugging.

This isn’t just about Paterson. On

A

t this stage it may seem slightly

beside the point to ask exactly

why Boris Johnson did what he

did in the Owen Paterson saga.

When your house has been

swallowed by flames, when

you are lying in the street

coughing your lungs out, the

last thing you want is a well-meaning

neighbour to lean over and explain that

maybe it wasn’t the best idea to try

making your own fireworks.

Even at the time, the attempt to use

the Paterson case to bounce the House

of Commons into rewriting the rules on

standards — via a new committee on

which the government would have a

majority — looked desperately cack-

handed. With the benefit of hindsight it

looks far worse. The Tories have

tarnished their image as a party; the

press is in hot pursuit of parliamentary

wrongdoing; young MPs without second

jobs are furious with older ones who

have them; and both are even more

angry with No 10.

Yet it is important to understand why

the prime minister’s political antennae

utterly failed to function. Because it tells

us something crucial about this

government.

For Johnson’s enemies, there are

three competing explanations for why

No 10 decided not just to defend

Paterson himself, but to attack the

standards commissioner. The first is

simply that this was dodgy Tories

defending their dodgy colleagues. The

second, put forward by one Dominic

Cummings, is that this was a pre-emptive

attempt to insulate Johnson from

censure over the costly redecoration of

his Downing Street flat. The third,

popular with those in the acute stages of

what I once christened Boris

derangement syndrome, is that this was

merely the latest step in an inexorable

campaign by a thuggish government to

crush legitimate dissent.

Of these, it is the third that I find most

interesting — because it is the exact

mirror image of what the government

instinctively feels.

One of the most important things to

understand about the Johnson regime is

that it was born in adversity. Its sacred

mission to push through Brexit was

opposed not just by the other political

parties, and even a swathe of its own,

but by the massed ranks of the

establishment. In its eyes, the

referendum verdict was carried out in

the teeth of opposition (or at the very

least obstruction) from large chunks of

What the

government

justified to itself

as self-defence

ended up looking

like a mugging

On many of these issues Johnson does

have a point. It has been almost half a

century since any government suffered

as many defeats in the Lords — a

phenomenon not unconnected with the

fact that it still has a colossal pro-Remain

majority (including 84 Lib Dems). Nor

does it take the longest exposure to the

output of certain BBC presenters to

suspect a bias towards the left — let alone

Channel 4, which spent the election in a

state of open war with the government.

(Watching the reaction of its studio

audience to the exit poll in December

2019 is still a moment of the purest

schadenfreude.)

But if you are going to say that you are

being treated unfairly, you need to show

how. In the Paterson case there was no

such attempt. Indeed, given the voters’

well-documented scorn for MPs, and

view that they are all in it for themselves,

No 10 took a position that was

guaranteed to lose it all sympathy.

The question here is what lessons

the prime minister takes from this

episode. All governments have a

tendency when criticised to circle the

wagons. The problem is that scrutiny is

an essential part of government. This

administration is not alone, for example,

in feeling it has been unjustly treated by

issue after issue, it feels as though the

prime minister and his enemies are

living in different worlds. In one, a

victimised government is doing its best

to fight back against powerful forces and

insidious ideologies that have seized the

commanding ground. In the other, a

bullying government is stamping down

on criticism.

Yes, and it’s telling, and

sad, that we don’t expect the

PM himself to know when he

is doing something sleazy.

Dan Kavanagh, Largs, Ayrshire

Eyes opened

Johnson’s deceptions and

buffoonery were once part of

the attraction; suddenly

people are starting to see

them for what they are:

deceitful and sinister.

Matthew Goodwin

Richmond, London

The mask slips

My main response to your

report is simply shame. The

Party to a scandal

I was a Conservative voter. No

longer. Most Tory MPs seem

prepared to sacrifice their

integrity to follow a dishonest

leader. It is essential that The

Sunday Times continues to

expose the corruption at the

heart of the party.

AK Cherry, Bristol

Sleazy street

Your leading article notes:

“Either there is nobody brave

enough to tell the prime

minister when he or his

ministers are doing

something sleazy ... or when

they do he ignores them.”

It’s not ego: Greta

has conviction

Jeremy Clarkson is usually

entertaining, but I have to

part company with him on his

trashing of Greta Thunberg

(News Review, last week). He

called her “a bucket of ego”

but in fact she is refreshingly

free of self-aggrandisement.

She constantly says it is not

about her, but about the

behaviour of the intransigent

egomaniacs who lead the

most polluting countries on

earth — they are the ones who

really deserve a metaphorical

smack to the bottom.

Thunberg’s individual

gesture to call out the grown-

ups out may make her a pest,

but don’t underestimate the

effectiveness of pester power.

Sierra Hutton-Wilson,

Evercreech, Somerset

We’re doing our best

At last the voice of reason

speaks. Clarkson’s suggestion

that UK protesters take their

cause to China may not be

practical, but they could

protest outside the main

offender’s embassy in

London instead of disrupting

life throughout a country that

is trying, through legislation

and personal commitment, to

do its bit for the planet.

Peter Eveson, Diss, Norfolk

China’s lead

Clarkson put his finger on the

problem when stating that

“today we have a planet that’s

being fried because too many

people are living on it”.

Exactly, and it is the demand

produced by this that is

driving climate change. The

solution? The world should

follow China’s former policy

of one child per family.

John P Fox, London SE12

Reproduction line

Clarkson’s column was

wonderful stuff and his

argument was bang-on. When

will one of the self-righteous

young admit that the real

problem is too many people?

Helen Lewis, Machynlleth,

Powys

Grow up

I was disgusted by Clarkson’s

column. Does he really think

I paid for my care

over 50 years

Gordon Bonnyman says the

wealthy old should be charged

for NHS care (Letters, last

week). I take a different view.

I worked continuously from

the age of 15 to 65. For those

50 years my national

insurance contributions

were paying the care costs of

the previous generation. I

have rarely troubled the

health service.

I am now 83. Statistically,

my remaining years must be

few — but having contributed

for so long, I will feel no guilt

in using the “free” NHS

during my remaining years

should I need it.

Peter Hinchley

Garforth, Leeds

After care

I unreservedly apologise to

your correspondent Michael

Willster, and to all younger

generations, for being born

and thus requiring care in my

older years. However, I would

point out that it was my dad’s

fault for wanting a family

mother of parliaments is as

corrupt as any banana

republic. How dare we talk

about British values and

democracy: it’s just a sham.

Mary O’Brien, Sutton, London

House rules

The Sunday Times has done

us all a favour by highlighting

the link between giving large

sums to a political party (in

particular, the Conservative

Party) and securing a seat in

the Lords. But if we continue

(rightly or wrongly) to reject

wholesale state funding of

political parties, while

keeping an unelected second

We reported last week that those who gave £3 million to the Tory party all became peers

Your revelations of the

peerages scandal have Boris

Johnson at their heart (“New

Tory sleaze row as donors

who pay £3m get seats in

Lords”, News, last week). The

Tory party knew of his lies

and dubious dealings and still

voted to make him leader.

The consequences were

never in much doubt.

He is not Winston

Churchill; he is not Donald

Trump; he is Jacob Zuma,

taking us on the same path to

national disaster and disgrace.

Stephen Poole, Eastleigh

Overgrown schoolboy

A recurring theme in your

excellent Insight investigation

is Johnson’s belief that he is,

in the words of a former Tory

chairman, “immune from the

rules”. Here’s another quote,

from his housemaster at Eton

40 years ago: “I think he

honestly believes that it is

churlish of us not to regard

him as an exception, one who

should be free of the network

of obligation which binds

everyone else.” Our prime

minister has not changed

since then.

David Woodhead

Leatherhead, Surrey

Our Christmas tables may

lack a bird, if recent reports

are right. However, our story

last week suggested booze

will be plentiful — it’s

travelling by rail. Elizabeth

Shaw reflected: “I hope this

will not turn out to be a

stopgap. If we make more use

of the freight train in future,

we will not only be saving

Christmas but also doing

something towards saving the

planet.” Amy Ryan was

intrigued that “seemingly

small tweaks such as

postponing track works,

lengthening some trains and

adding a few trains in unused

slots can save hundreds of

lorry journeys and start to

free up ports”. Terry

mcdonnell pointed out:

“This country has been

moving goods on freight

trains for a long time. Near

Northampton we’re building

a huge depot: the

infrastructure is under way.”

Garioch steamed in: “One

such infrastructure project is

HS2. It will considerably

increase capacity on the west

coast line, which already

moves 40 per cent of the

UK’s rail freight; freight is

mostly confined to night-time

running because of daytime

congestion with passenger

trains.”

A lesser law of physics

holds that headline writers

will have a field day with

articles about electricity.

Apparently readers are

affected too: Rufus Ward

took the title of our report on

a promising electric aircraft

and flew with it: “‘Shocks

away’ — ha-ha! Watt a re-

volting pun. Ampressive idea

in the current world ...” Paul

Hough insisted: “You must

admit they have potential,

Rufus,” but Achilles thought:

“The project will come up

against some resistance”, and

UnderWhelmed added: “I’m

sure the MOD will eventually

do a volte-face.”

Mashed Swede

Rod Liddle tells us the Swedes

have developed a vegan

burger that tastes of human

flesh (Comment, last week).

The question that bothers me

is: how do they know?

Jeffrey Box, Shalford, Surrey

Hot wheels

When my bicycle was stolen

from a busy market square,

the police said they would

review the CCTV the next day

but instead closed the case

after two hours (“More than

half of stolen bikes end up

sold online”, News, last

week). Months later they

phoned to conduct a survey

on the service I had received

for what they insisted was “an

incidence of antisocial

behaviour”. “What service?” I

had to ask. Is it any wonder

bike theft is rife if they refuse

to acknowledge that it is a

crime?

Brendan Russell, Esher, Surrey

Trigger warning

I could not agree more with

your article on the dreadful

National Rifle Association

(World News, last week). I

lived in Indianapolis from

1995 to 1999. The local shop

would not sell wine to go with

our meal on a Sunday, but I

could go to the shop next

door and buy a gun and

ammunition, despite not

even being an American

citizen.

Brian Gibb

Ottershaw, Surrey

Tinkle, tinkle, little star

Thanks for the amusing

article on space loos (“To

boldly go ... when you really

need to go”, News Review,

last week). As an 89-year-old

woman who has to get up

three times every night, I

fancy the Nasa equipment: do

you know where I can buy it?

Pat Farr, Truro

Before the boom

In his generational crib sheet

(News Review, last week)

Martin Hemming shows the

typical introspection of the

millennial by going back

through Generations Z, Y and

X but stopping at the baby

boomers, those born in 1945-

65. I was born in 1941 —
    familiar with cod liver oil and
    hand-cranked mangles, but
    also among the first
    rock’n’rollers. What letter
    should be assigned to us? Are
    we Gen W?
    Colin Jordan, London W4

Debrief needed

You report that the

government may penalise

“warring couples” who go

to the family court (News,

last week). In my own

experience and that of

friends, it is not the couples

who are clogging up the

system but their legal teams.

Under their influence, what

starts as a reasonable

negotiation soon becomes

intolerable, and each party

loses sight of what they set

out to achieve — while the

lawyers chase their firm’s fee

targets.

Edgar Katz, Devon

Market returns

Further to your story on the

“flea market sleuth” (News,

last week), a similar sleuth

recently sent me a copy of

The Raid Spotter’s Note Book,

published in 1941. He said he

had bought it from a stall in

Dalston, east London, and

found my name and former

address written inside. I must

have attempted to use it

during the war when I was an

Air Scout. What is most

remarkable is that, although I

have since moved four times,

Royal Mail was able to deliver

it to me.

Michael Zaidner

Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire

1940 Coventry Cathedral

smashed by German bombs

1952 New Musical Express

launches UK singles chart

1973 Princess Anne marries

Mark Phillips

1994 Eurostar service

through Channel Tunnel

begins operation

PJ O’Rourke is 74 today

The Sunday Times,

1 London Bridge Street,

London SE1 9GF

Email: letters@

sunday-times.co.uk

ANNIVERSARIES

Letters should arrive by noon

on Thursday and include the

full address and a phone

number. We may edit letters,

which must be exclusive to

The Sunday Times

We must mention this

superb comment by Martin

Grindley under our report

on banks’ anti-scam experts:

“I have just been called by my

bank’s fraud department,

who have stopped me

sending £3 million to the

Conservative Party in return

for a peerage. The bank says

it’s a con.” One to treasure.

Rob Nash

Your comments from

sundaytimes.co.uk

Wendy Carlos, musician, 82

Prince Charles, 73

Paul Dacre, editor, 73

Lord (Michael) Dobbs,

novelist, 73

Charles Hazlewood,

conductor, 55

PJ O’Rourke, writer, 74

Condoleezza Rice, US

politician, 67po t c a , 6

chamber whose members are

chosen by the government,

little will change.

Tim Bale, professor of politics

Queen Mary University of

London

New broom

One way out of sleaze is the

immediate abolition of the

House of Lords. A senate of

100 people who had made a

significant contribution in

their careers, carefully

chosen by an independent

panel, should be the

replacement. They should

have no expense accounts,

but a salary commensurate

with the work.

Elizabeth Roe, Chelmsford

A taste of his own medicine

Johnson deserves credit as

the man we needed to get us

out of the EU. But the

qualities that helped him

push through a single issue

against all opposition are not

those needed for sober

governance. The time has

come to get rid of a leader

who has served his purpose,

before his antics convince the

electorate that all Tories are

incompetent and dishonest.

Francis Bown, London E3

PM is no Churchill — he is Zuma, leading us to disgrace

A collection of Fabergé items

to be sold by Christie’s

belonged to the late Harry

Woolf, founder of the

Underwoods chain of

chemists, not Lord Woolf, the

former lord chief justice, as

we wrongly stated (News in

Brief, last week). We

apologise for the error.

Complaints concerning

inaccuracies in all sections of

The Sunday Times should be

addressed to complaints@

sunday-times.co.uk or

Complaints, The Sunday

Times, 1 London Bridge

Street, London SE1 9GF. In

addition, the Independent

Press Standards Organisation

(Ipso) will examine formal

complaints about editorial

content in UK newspapers

and magazines. Please go to

our website for full details of

how to lodge a complaint.

when he came back from

winning the war.

Ian Nelson, Northampton

Dear prudence

Willster’s point about taxing

the profit on family homes

doesn’t take into account that

many paid for those homes by

forgoing the “live for today”

pleasures — smart cars,

clothes, holidays and so on —

that others indulged in. To hit

the prudent with a massive

tax for their own care, while

helping those who have

blithely blown their own

money, just isn’t fair.

Michael Ward, Manchester

Pay on demise

I’m a baby boomer with a

stupidly valued house. When

I pop my clogs, the state will

take 40 per cent of its value,

minus the inheritance tax

allowance (assuming old age

care doesn’t eat it all up).

That’ll be half a million for

the state coffers at current

rates. I’m not sure where the

notion arises that we

boomers don’t pay.

Paul Matarewicz,

Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

POINTS

LETTERS

TO THE EDITOR

JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE

BIRTHDAYS

CORRECTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS

it’s appropriate to suggest

that an 18-year-old woman,

who campaigns on the

world’s most urgent problem,

“needs a smacked bottom”?

Robert Westwood, Alderholt,

Dorset

First World problems

Clarkson’s analysis is

excellent. The protesters tell

us nothing that we are not

aware of, and the world has

other problems. About 26

million refugees, including

nearly six million

Palestinians, live in squalid

camps. Millions more are

heading towards starvation in

Afghanistan. Our leaders

focus on just one problem and

kick the destitute, stateless

millions into the long grass.

Taifur Rahman, Rayleigh,

Essex

Blowing smoke

If he believes in personal

action, why is Clarkson still

reviewing gas-guzzling cars?

Last week he drove one that

weighed more than two

tonnes and averaged 25mpg.

Will Longman, Crewkerne,

Somerset

Families will have

a say on Grenfell

A story in The Sunday Times

in September suggested that a

decision had been taken

within government to

deconstruct Grenfell Tower

(“Grenfell Tower to be torn

down amid safety fears”,

News, September 5).

I make no criticism of The

Sunday Times’s decision to

report this story, which came

from government sources.

However, the news caused

tremendous and justified

upset to many of those

bereaved by the Grenfell

tragedy, many who survived

it and many who live in the

local area. I am truly sorry on

behalf of the government that

it ever should have occurred.

As the new secretary of

state for housing, I write to

make clear that I will take a

different approach. I am

determined to hear directly

from the community before

any decision about the future

of the tower is taken, and I

have begun that process of

engagement. Any decision on

the future of the tower will be

communicated not through

anonymous briefings, but

directly and respectfully to

those affected.

Michael Gove

Secretary of state for

levelling-up, housing and

communities, London SW1

Last week we asked:

Is British politics corrupt?

From a poll of 12,702 Times and Sunday Times readers

This week’s question:

Should smart motorways be scrapped?

Have your say at sundaytimes.co.uk/poll

NO

89% 11 %

YES

READERS’ POLL