Boris Johnson’s 2019 commitment to ‘high standards’ in office is worth reading again

“To win back the trust of the British people, we must uphold the very highest standards of propriety,” the prime minister said. “There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”

Which prime minister? Theresa May, a stickler for such rules? John Major, who brought in the seven principles of public life –integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership? No, the words were written by Boris Johnson, as he committed himself to those principles in his foreword to the ministerial code of conduct on taking office in 2019.

It’s now clear his government has failed all those tests and to “win back” public trust. The proportion of people who regard Johnson as “untrustworthy” has risen from 45 per cent to 69 per cent since he wrote those words. Among Tory supporters, the figure has increased from 32 per cent to 49 per cent; remarkably, only one in three trust him now.

The latest revelations about how Johnson initially funded the £112,000 refurbishment of his Downing Street flat show he treated the system for monitoring ministers with contempt, and that the system itself is deeply flawed.

Christopher Geidt, the PM’s “independent adviser on ministerial interests”, is not really independent, if the standards watchdog is to be believed. He cannot launch an inquiry into the conduct of ministers – the PM included – unless the PM gives their approval. It’s blindingly obvious that this must be rectified when Johnson reviews the adviser’s remit in the next few months.

In his letter to Geidt apologising for his response to the refurb inquiry, Johnson promised him more staffing resources but stopped short of giving him the right to instigate investigations.

As the committee on standards in public life said in November, regulation of the ministerial code lags behind the system for MPs, peers and civil servants and lacks “meaningful independence.” One rule for us all over again.

The committee said: “The adviser should be able to initiate their own investigations and have the authority to determine breaches of the code.” This came after Johnson overruled Geidt’s predecessor, Alex Allan, over his finding that Priti Patel broke the code by bullying officials and Allan, rather than Patel, resigned.

Geidt should now tell Johnson he will follow suit unless he is given “meaningful independence”. The need for that is underlined by the Cabinet Office’s failure to pass on “missing” WhatsApp messages when they came to light. Many civil servants are reluctant to dump on their political masters – not least because it might jeopardise their own careers.

Johnson is fortunate Geidt concluded he did not breach the code. There were grounds for doing so; a possible conflict of interest over Tory peer and donor David Brownlow pushing Johnson to back his plan for a second Great Exhibition in WhatsApp messages discussing funding the refurb. Downing Street insists Brownlow’s pet project did not go ahead but he did secure a meeting with Oliver Dowden, the then culture secretary.

Geidt could easily have concluded that was a “perceived conflict of interest”. While his criticism of Johnson was wounding, Whitehall insiders suspect Geidt did not want to inflict a blow that might have played a part in the PM’s downfall.

However, Johnson is not in the clear yet: Kathryn Stone, parliament’s standards commissioner, might now investigate the PM’s declarations about the refurb funding and the inquiry into Downing Street parties will report soon.

The critical WhatsApp messages between Johnson and Brownlow came to light only because of a separate investigation by the Electoral Commission, an independent body whose powers the government is diluting. Under the Elections Bill going through parliament, the government will set a strategy and policy statement for the commission, which will no longer be able to prosecute people for breaking electoral law on parties and campaigners.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

The commission has been in the sights of Tory Brexiteers since its investigations into Vote Leave’s spending at the 2016 referendum. There’s a pattern of behaviour here. Johnson also tried in effect to put Stone out of a job by ripping up the standards regime for MPs to save Owen Paterson’s skin. If he could have got away with it, he would have done.

“Respect” is an old-fashioned entry in the political lexicon but it’s back. Geidt accused Johnson of not showing sufficient “respect” for his role, just as Keir Starmer made “respect” one of three principles in his contract with the British people, along with “security” and “prosperity”.

The “wallpaper-gate” affair provides more evidence, as Starmer put it, that “we have a prime minister who thinks the rules apply to anyone but him”.

Johnson allies say we should not underestimate his ability to do “whatever it takes” to survive in his job. “Meaningful regulation” of ministers would be a start and provides a test of whether he really can change. But Johnson will never regain the public trust he hoped to win back in the heady days of 2019. He has destroyed it.