Johnson proceeded as he started : he appointed ministers on the basis of their proven incompetence. Indeed, a manifest lack of any of the aptitudes required by ministerial office was a proven component of the CVs of such shining exemplars of the Johnson administration as Dominic Raab, Priti Patel, Elizabeth Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Gavin Williamson, Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace, and Robert Jenrick. For such people, the term 'mediocrity' is far too kind. They are in office because of their craven sycophancy to Johnson (or rather to Cummings : see my earlier blogposts, 'Cummings and goings.') Michael Gove is an exception to this rule, but perhaps he holds his charmed position thanks to Cummings, with whom he has had a long political relationship. There have always been duds as cabinet ministers ; they are mostly forgotten. For every Rab Butler, Ian Macleod, Ellen Wilkinson and Barbara Castle there were many Anthony Barbers, Anthony Greenwoods, and John Moores, who have escaped into the 'memory hole' of history. But I am not aware of many (or any) other instances where ministers appear to have been chosen precisely because they were not up to the job.
The extraordinary 'call and response' cabinet meeting of January this year, where the proceedings were more akin to a kindergarten than to a meeting of adults, was a case in point. This meeting had the fingerprints of Cummings all over it, with his well-advertised disdain for almost all politicians. You would have thought that any self-respecting adult would cavil at being required to participate in such an embarrassing spectacle. Not a bit of it.
The ostensible purpose of this government is Brexit, apparently at any cost, whatever the doubts of its leader. (For that reason, Cummings, who probably knows better than most than Johnson is not an ideological Brexiter, had to stay in post, because he is in a position to blackmail Johnson: see earlier blogpost on 'Cummings and goings.') However, as Johnson desperately seeks a formula which will not irretrievably damage the British economy while satisfying his Brexit-crazed party, the question has to be posed: what is this government really for ? As its multiple failures on austerity, Brexit and coronavirus pile up, there is one activity in which this government can take refuge: 'controlling the narrative', or , to put it in plain English, systematic and organised lying. This government is not alone in using the pandemic as cover for nefarious activity: China is using it to abrogate what remains of Hong Kong's independence, and Israel to annex the West Bank. Johnson is using the pandemic to establish lying as the overriding purpose of government. If that makes the public cynical, despairing and apathetic, that will suit him and Cummings fine. When it comes to mendacity, this government is following Trump (not Nixon, because Nixon had a conscience).
It is clear that this was the principal, if not the only purpose, of the new commission on racism. Johnson said that there was a great success story to tell about racial integration and the achievements of black and minority ethnic people. (His adviser on this issue, Munira Mirza, is a long-term comrade of the ex-Marxist and present-day libertarian Claire Fox: the opposition of both, as well as that of Dominic Cummings, to positive action to counter racial discrimination is well known). The purpose of the commission is to 'construct a narrative', not to do anything.
Similarly, the purpose of the abolition of the Department of International Development has nothing to do with good governance (it is probable that its disappearance will exacerbate one of the problems of bilateral aid, that is, that it has commercial 'strings attached'), and makes the nebulous concept of 'Global Britain' even more incoherent. As the international relations theorists tell us, aid, along with cultural institutions (such as the BBC and the British Council) are crucial components of 'soft power'. Perhaps Johnson thinks that Britain's future in the world lies in 'hard power', or those useless, but dangerous, toys of which Gavin Williamson was so fond during his undistinguished tenure at the Ministry of Defence. But it is more than probable that Johnson has not given any thought to such matters. The parlous relationship with the United States, our needlessly fractious relationship with the European Union, and our decision to reject a close relationship with China, leaves us adrift, and extremely exposed (as Putin is well aware). However, there is no indication that anybody at ministerial level has given serious thought to such matters. This nation state has always depended on alliances (it has never won wars without them), but we have cast ourselves loose. When the principal task of government has become 'public relations management', reassuring your 'base' assumes paramount importance. In this case, he wanted to inform his supporters that he was a true 'populist' conservative, not a wishy-washy suspiciously progressive metropolitan 'liberal' like David Cameron.
For the undeniable fact, that although this government has decided to embrace mendacity in all areas of its activity, the existential issues will not go away. Even before the advent of this pandemic, the Conservative party was facing a crucial choice between continuing with limited government and a market-oriented economic policy and one which favoured more state intervention. (More state intervention would satisfy the more recent parts of its electoral coalition, in the Midlands and the north). The pandemic has only sharpened this choice. Conservative governments of the past century (those of Baldwin, Macmillan and Thatcher) have managed such fundamental changes in ideological direction, but in those cases the party had capable, strategic and inspired leadership. Both sides in this debate about market versus state adopt opposed arguments about the economic reasons for Brexit. Both cannot be right.