Boris Johnson has chosen to support Priti Patel but her weaselling non-apology indicates she feels no remorse

The principal reason for the lenient treatment of Priti Patel is that her bullying was “unintended”. 

This novel concept of “unintentional bullying” is a strange one. It makes about as much sense as Tyson Fury delivering an “unintentional” knockout punch in the ring. Bullying is bullying, and there is nothing unintentional about stomping around swearing and belittling people. The upset is not “inadvertent”, as claimed, but deliberate, and Ms Patel’s weaselling non-apology – amounting to “I’m sorry if you’re upset” – indicates that she feels remorse only about the political embarrassment. “Unintentional bullying” is a nonsense.  

So much a nonsense, indeed, and so offensive that the prime minister’s adviser on breaches of the ministerial code, Sir Alex Allan, has resigned, rather than Ms Patel. That seems to be the wrong way round. He rightly says that the sanctions applied for a breach of the code are a matter for the prime minister, but he has taken the view that it is too much for him to stomach.  

It is a sorry episode, and it is by no means clear that Ms Patel will survive. She has the support of the prime minister, a beleaguered, incompetent figure who needs to hang on to reliable allies in the cabinet. She is also fondly thought of among her colleagues. But when the likes of Matt Hancock and Iain Duncan Smith paint her as tough-but-nice, they have never been yelled at by her or asked why they are so (expletive deleted) useless. Bullies tend to attack those below them. 

However, Ms Patel still has to face the employment tribunal case brought by her former permanent secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam, which has the potential to destroy what is left of her credibility. Should it come to court, she will be cross-examined as a key witness, in front of the press, and there will be a wealth of publicly available documents describing in gory detail her unique style of people management. It will be another circus the government really does not need.

Of course, Boris Johnson could reshuffle her into some other role, either in cabinet or in Downing Street, as a modest act of punishment, but that would merely allow one of the cabinet’s least effective operators to flounder in some other arm of government.  

During the Dominic Cummings affair in the summer, Mr Johnson demonstrated an ability to simply “tough out” awkward situations, but he expended a great deal of political capital in doing so, and of course Mr Cummings has now left his side.

Oddly, Mr Cummings didn’t rate Ms Patel especially highly, so his going may have helped her survive. Yet, as fresh details about Ms Patel’s behaviour no doubt emerge in the coming days, Mr Johnson may come to wonder why he is defending the indefensible again. His party should be wondering already.