The Chris Pincher affair, a former whip accused of groping two men at a private members’ club, follows a familiar pattern: a scandal breaks, Number 10 mishandles it, and a story that might have been embarrassing but self-contained becomes a comment on Boris Johnson’s leadership style.
Why was the whip not immediately withdrawn? Why was Mr Pincher appointed at all given that he had previously resigned over a sexual complaint and, being the subject of historic rumour and now seeking medical help, perhaps unsuitable for the job? It is said that the PM believes strongly in loyalty and that he prefers to give accused people a fair hearing (a lot of rumours turn out to be false). He has himself ridden out several negative stories by stubbornly refusing to comment. Then there is the desire to avoid another by-election, which is hard to win at the best of times, near-impossible following a humiliating resignation.
But critical elements of leadership include judgement of character and decisiveness: anyone who initially briefed in favour of Mr Pincher keeping the whip will have been surprised and frustrated when it was suddenly withdrawn. This, too, is a familiar scenario. People are routinely sent out to defend Number 10’s actions only to be embarrassed to discover 24 hours later that Downing Street has changed its mind, an approach that is not going to encourage loyalty.
Number 10 has got to get a grip. In the 1990s, personal scandals reached a critical mass, giving the impression that the Major government was exhausted and corrupt, that it was time for a change. Today, Conservative MPs, most of them honourable, are desperate not to be tarred with the same brush: the likelihood of defections will increase if people sense the ship is in listing. And the opposition would love to build the case that the ministerial code should be replaced with an independent, corporate-style system of compliance. This would make governing Britain that much harder, as it would undercut the ability of a PM to hire and fire at will.
The British constitution rests ultimately on a culture of trust – the assumption that our leaders have the best of motivations and zero tolerance for abuse. When there is an appearance of anarchy at the centre, it erodes faith in the system, which is why sometimes a PM has to be made of steel and act firmly and fast, regardless of their feelings about the accused.
The Chris Pincher affair, a former whip accused of groping two men at a private members’ club, follows a familiar pattern: a scandal breaks, Number 10 mishandles it, and a story that might have been embarrassing but self-contained becomes a comment on Boris Johnson’s leadership style.
Why was the whip not immediately withdrawn? Why was Mr Pincher appointed at all given that he had previously resigned over a sexual complaint and, being the subject of historic rumour and now seeking medical help, perhaps unsuitable for the job? It is said that the PM believes strongly in loyalty and that he prefers to give accused people a fair hearing (a lot of rumours turn out to be false). He has himself ridden out several negative stories by stubbornly refusing to comment. Then there is the desire to avoid another by-election, which is hard to win at the best of times, near-impossible following a humiliating resignation.
But critical elements of leadership include judgement of character and decisiveness: anyone who initially briefed in favour of Mr Pincher keeping the whip will have been surprised and frustrated when it was suddenly withdrawn. This, too, is a familiar scenario. People are routinely sent out to defend Number 10’s actions only to be embarrassed to discover 24 hours later that Downing Street has changed its mind, an approach that is not going to encourage loyalty.
Number 10 has got to get a grip. In the 1990s, personal scandals reached a critical mass, giving the impression that the Major government was exhausted and corrupt, that it was time for a change. Today, Conservative MPs, most of them honourable, are desperate not to be tarred with the same brush: the likelihood of defections will increase if people sense the ship is in listing. And the opposition would love to build the case that the ministerial code should be replaced with an independent, corporate-style system of compliance. This would make governing Britain that much harder, as it would undercut the ability of a PM to hire and fire at will.
The British constitution rests ultimately on a culture of trust – the assumption that our leaders have the best of motivations and zero tolerance for abuse. When there is an appearance of anarchy at the centre, it erodes faith in the system, which is why sometimes a PM has to be made of steel and act firmly and fast, regardless of their feelings about the accused.