Boris Johnson’s Darkest Hour

B oris Johnson has a popularity problem. As extraordinary a statement as that is for the man who delivered the Conservative Party its greatest majority since Margaret Thatcher, it’s irrefutably true. A new YouGov poll finds that 63 percent of the British public want the prime minister to resign. The Labour Party now has a ten-point lead over the Tories, according to a Savanta ComRes poll. Johnson has apologized to Parliament, the Queen, and the public. It has made little difference.

Johnson’s troubles began with reports that parties had been held at No. 10 Downing Street during the height of government-ordered lockdowns, between May 2020 and April 2021. At first, the government denied the allegation. But more leaks — including photographs and emails — soon collapsed that narrative. Next, Boris Johnson apologized for the impression that the parties gave to the public: that the government wasn’t taking lockdowns seriously. Still, he insisted that they had technically been within the rules. Yet the leaks kept coming. Johnson’s former aide, Dominic Cummings, accused the prime minister of lying to Parliament — a resigning offense, according to the ministerial code.

Cummings told New York Magazine that while the Conservative Party needed Johnson to deliver Brexit and defeat Jeremy Corbyn, getting rid of him now is “an unpleasant but necessary job. It’s like sort of fixing the drains.” He calls Johnson’s fitness for office into question and says that his main preoccupation is media coverage and his legacy: “The only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the buildings of things?” Infrastructure, train stations etc., and “statues of himself.” Naturally.

Partygate is not merely a scandal of hypocrisy but also one of potential criminality. The U.K. Covid lockdowns were enforced by the police. That’s why the Met Police are also investigating the alleged Covid rule-breaking at twelve government gatherings during the pandemic. On the civil side, Johnson tried to buy himself time by asking everyone to wait for the findings of an independent report conducted by Sue Gray, a senior civil servant. But time is up, the report is out and Gray’s findings come as a terrible blow.

Gray was limited in what she could share with the public while the police investigation is ongoing, but even in its redacted form, the report concludes that there were “failures of leadership and judgment.” Gray noted that the behavior at the gatherings was “difficult to justify,” given that the public was being asked to “accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives.” Some of the events, she concluded, “should not have been allowed to take place,” while others “should not have been allowed to develop as they did.” There was also a highly boozy culture within government. Gray wrote that the “excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time.” It is especially inappropriate if that professional workplace is a government office, tasked with responding to a pandemic.

The picture is one of insufferable arrogance: drinking and partying while the whole country was essentially placed under house arrest. But there’s more to this than just a reaction against hypocrisy. At this point in the pandemic, as the Omicron wave seems to have peaked, people are beginning to reconsider their behavior and attitudes over the past few years. Was it really necessary to sacrifice so much? Researchers from Johns Hopkins University recently released a literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on Covid-19 mortality. The authors emphasize that “the most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths.” And moreover, that

the use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.

Think about all that’s been lost and ruined in British life. Life-saving diagnoses were missed. Education, especially for young children, was disrupted. Parents and grandparents were allowed to die alone. Important family events such as birthdays, weddings, funerals, graduations, and Christmas were all experienced in insolation. And all because of a trust in government who said that these sacrifices were necessary. It now transpires that those in charge knew that they weren’t. The British public feel had. They feel foolish. They feel regretful. And they will never forgive Boris Johnson.