Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser may want more power – but it’s clear the PM doesn’t believe in the position

Never let a good crisis go to waste, as they say, and Lord (Christopher) Geidt, the independent adviser on standards, is using to some modest advantage the recent “episode” – as he calls it – over refurbishments to the Johnsons’ flat.

Having been deprived of some of the relevant facts of that unfortunate, not to say Byzantine, affair, Geidt has already a secured a “humble and sincere” apology from Boris Johnson for his lack of support. How much value can be placed on that is debatable, but there it is. Johnson has also promised to support Geidt with a beefed up secretariat and better access to officials, the least he could do, given that if Geidt had resigned and caused a stink Johnson might already have been pushed out. The PM has also offered to “carefully consider” strengthening Geidt’s role, which is nice of him.

Now, Geidt has written to the chair of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, William Wragg expressing the hope, and no doubt soliciting support, for a real increase in power. Slightly haughtily, but understandably, Geidt says that “more important” than the prime minister’s formal apology, something of a devalued currency, is the vague promise of more authority.

Geidt also points out in his letter to Wragg that the problems he encountered investigating the “flatgate” scandal were not so much due to failures of process and lack of powers as “lack of care for the role of independent adviser”. He sounds more hurt than angry, but he’s optimistic, too: “I would expect by the time of my next annual report in April to be able to describe the role of independent adviser in terms of considerably greater authority, independence and effect, consistent with the ambitions for the office that the prime minister has set out.”

By April, of course, the present prime minister might have departed, which would solve a lot of things for Geidt, and, insofar as general ministerial behaviour takes its cue from the top – and indeed directly involves the person at the top – a smaller workload of cases.

What Johnson has not conceded, and merely promised to think about, is giving Geidt the right to initiate investigations, which would perhaps include investigations into a PM, the person he also reports to and advises – awkward. Geidt, who spent his career in military intelligence and at the palace, would probably prefer to work on the basis of trust and unspoken understandings, rather than having a rule book to police, but his misfortune is that Johnson only understands and respects raw power.

Reading between the lines of all this, and in the context of partygate, it is plain that the role of independent adviser, whoever is doing it, is untenable in an administration that doesn’t really believe in it. That is evidenced by the resignation about a year ago of Sir Alex Allan, another distinguished public servant, after Johnson ignored his carefully crafted report into allegations of home secretary Priti Patel bullying her staff.

Presently, Johnson and Geidt are like a couple of poker players who are betting their house keys. Johnson, in his weakened state, knows that if Geidt resigned because he couldn’t trust Johnson, he would do enormous damage to the PM’s chances of keeping his job. The impact would be about the same as if a senior minister quit – probably, but not certain, to tip Johnson over the edge right now.

On the other hand, Geidt is a calm, deeply establishment figure who must pride himself on being able to place even the likes of Johnson in proper perspective. Getting rid of any prime minister is a necessarily difficult process, and one that should really be exercised by a combination of parliament and the prime minister’s own cabinet, MPs and party members – all obviously driven by the state of public opinion. A “palace coup”, if you’ll pardon the expression, is not the right way of going about such things. Between Geidt and Johnson, it is Johnson still in the more powerful position, and he has the measure of Geidt.

Geidt won’t finish Johnson off, but he won’t feel obliged to save him either. Why would he, when Johnson shows such scant “care” for him?