06 May 2021
Wallpaper or Curtains!
And for whom?
By John Watson
No, they don’t. Because they are not complete idiots. The remark by the leader of the Scottish Conservatives Douglas Ross that the public “expect the highest standards of those in the highest office of the land” is either an absurd piece of wishful thinking (one might surmise that he is not a fan of Johnson) or a comment of stunning naivety. The public have many views of Johnson. Some like him, some loathe him, but it really is no secret that his private life is tangled and that he can be casual in what he says. It would surprise no one if he took a relaxed approach to procedure too.
The electorate understood this perfectly well when they gave the Conservatives a comfortable majority in 2019, rightly or wrongly taking the view that his enthusiasm and drive were needed to deliver Brexit and re-orientate the country, and that this was far more important than the fact that he was not the sort of chap who would necessarily tick all the boxes on detail or who you would want going out with your daughter. It will be no surprise to them if it turns out that he has played fast and loose with the register of interests and it will in no way invalidate the judgement they made at the polls which took this into account. In fact, whatever the standards people may say, the great wallpaper controversy is likely to lack staying power. First, those who believe that Johnson is the best prospect for a robust way forward would be appalled if he were to be replaced by some box-ticking nonentity at the very time when he needs to deliver. Secondly, although the wallpaper thing is about money, there can be few who think that Johnson is mercenary rather than arrogant and careless and that will draw much of the poison.
The matter does, however, put a spotlight on that 2019 election victory and in particular on the fact that, if they believe that someone can make an important contribution, the public is not fazed by the knowledge that the hero has feet of clay. There is nothing new about that and historically many of our greatest politicians and warriors have fallen well below the top standards in the way in which they conducted themselves in private and in public, the need for their services producing a sort of Teflon coating which made scandal slip off them. What is striking, however, is the contrast between the tolerance with which the electorate regards defects and personal foibles and the viciously aggressive attitude of those who will no-platform a speaker because he or she expresses his or herself in a way which touches one of the nerves of political correctness.
What does this contrast mean? Are the no-platformers simply superior in character to the public as a whole and so more discriminating? It is true that one would rather not have dinner with them but perhaps that is a shallow view which misses their intrinsic merit. After all, dinner with Thomas More would not have been a barrel of laughs, particularly if you could hear the groaning from the torture chamber which formed part of his house, but that didn’t stop him becoming a Martyr and a Saint, very superior accolades in 16th century England. Perhaps today’s no-platformers are imbued with similar distinction, apart, unfortunately you may think, for the martyrdom bit.
Or is it simply the re-emergence of the seventeenth century split between Roundheads and Cavaliers? “Right but repulsive” no-platformers driven by dogma trying to put moral spine into a lax and easy going public? Traditionally that would make the public wrong, albeit “romantic”, but it is as well to remember how it ended then. The only reason that little vengeance was taken on the Roundheads was the moderation and decency of the returning King, a man of loose morals and principles to be sure but one suspects that by the end the Puritans were quite grateful for that.
Or is it just timing? Are the public, now tiring of intolerant stupidity, at the van of a movement back towards the traditions of forgiveness which flow from their Christian heritage? Is the momentum beginning to flow from box-ticking correctness towards something more human? Will the country shake itself like some great dog coming in from a swim and wonder how it could ever have allowed such nonsense to flourish? Will those universities who have taken part in the no-platforming craze be reduced to their proper position as technical colleges? Maybe this is the most likely explanation. In the end the pendulum always swings back. Why not now?
Quotations: “1066 and All That” by Sellars and Yeatman
Tile Photo: by Gradienta on Unsplash
