It would be a scandal if Boris Johnson scrapped having an ethics adviser – and entirely to form

The word in Whitehall is that Geidt did not really quit over steel tariffs, as he implied in his resignation letter, but over Johnson’s cavalier approach to the adviser’s role, writes Andrew Grice

Johnson limps on: unable to ‘move on’ as he desperately wants, but with his Tory critics unable to move him out (REUTERS)

As Conservative MPs compared notes after prime minister’s questions at Wednesday lunchtime, there was cautious optimism among Boris Johnson’s remaining allies that he had weathered the Partygate storm and “moved on” to more favourable territory – battles with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol and the European Court of Human Rights over sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

By Wednesday night, such hopes had largely melted away. Christopher Geidt, the prime minister’s ethics adviser, quit his post. “We’re back to Partygate,” groaned one Tory backbencher. “Will he ever shake it off?”

Geidt’s long goodbye, after months of agonising over whether he could serve a PM who shows contempt for standards in public life, will not result in another attempt by Tory MPs to oust Johnson. Nor will a double Tory defeat in next Thursday’s by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton. I’m told the 1922 committee will not change the rules preventing another confidence vote for 12 months until the autumn at the earliest. So Johnson limps on: unable to “move on” as he desperately wants, but with his Tory critics unable to move him out.

The word in Whitehall is that Geidt did not really quit over steel tariffs, as he implied in his resignation letter, but over Johnson’s cavalier approach to the adviser’s role. The steel issue suited Johnson nicely, because the final straw wasn’t about his own behaviour. Whitehall is mystified as to why the PM felt it necessary to consult Geidt over whether extending tariffs on Chinese imports might breach World Trade Organisation rules, since his views had not been sought during previous phases of this dispute or on potential breaches of international law over Brexit.

The reality is that Geidt was observing an unwritten but golden rule for civil servants and other advisers: we must never bring down an elected politician. If Geidt had resigned a few weeks earlier over Partygate, he might just have done so. The Queen’s former private secretary didn’t want to play a part in the PM’s downfall by quitting at the moment of maximum danger.

Sue Gray, the senior civil servant, was also hampered by the golden rule in her Partygate inquiry. “She was never going to make a direct judgment on the PM,” one Whitehall source said. When Alex Allan, Geidt’s predecessor, resigned in 2020, it wasn’t because Johnson declined to sack Priti Patel – a matter for the PM rather than his adviser – but because he did not accept Allan’s ruling that she had breached the ministerial code by bullying Home Office staff.

Geidt’s departure has further soured the relationship between politicians and civil servants. In an unprecedented move, three former cabinet secretaries – Robin Butler, Bob Kerslake and Andrew Turnbull – have since criticised Johnson’s lax approach to standards. “He’s not worthy of the office,” Turnbull said.

In line with the golden rule, he added: “This matter is not going to be solved by ministerial advisers. It’s going to be solved when enough of his backbenchers can summon up the courage to decide that he’s not a man of sufficient integrity that they want as their leader.”

These normally mild-mannered former mandarins are spitting tacks. They also speak for today’s civil servants. Do the old fogeys’ views matter? Yes, because standards do. Most public servants (including the vast majority of today’s ministers and MPs) care about them. Plainly, Johnson does not.

It would be a scandal if, as seems likely, he now scraps the vacant post of ethics adviser. That would solve the difficult problem of finding anyone with credibility prepared to do it.

Although it is obvious the standards system needs to be beefed up rather than weakened, leaving the job vacant would be true to form. Johnson tried save Owen Paterson’s skin when he breached lobbying rules. He has diluted the ministerial code and the independence of the Electoral Commission, which got to the bottom of the Downing Street flat refurb controversy after Johnson withheld crucial information from Geidt.

Johnson should appoint a new adviser on ministerial interests without delay and hand them the power to launch investigations without the PM’s permission. As Geidt told a select committee during his uncomfortable appearance this week: “I am an asset of the prime minister... rather than a free-orbiting adviser.”

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

The problem is that the PM acts as “judge and jury” over ministers – including him or herself – on whether the code has been breached and on any sanctions. But a PM’s undeniable right to choose their ministers is being abused by Johnson.

The challenge is to create a system strong enough to rein in a rogue PM who laughs off the traditional “good chaps” theory of government, coined by the historian Peter Hennessy, relying on politicians to obey the spirit of the rules. A stronger ethics adviser with greater resources, the power to start investigations without the PM’s permission and to publish the findings on their own account and timescale would reduce a PM’s ability to “mark their own homework”.

It will happen one day. But not under Johnson. The Patel saga, when Johnson sat on Allan’s report for months, and the five-month delay in finding Allan’s successor, suggest he will play for time after Geidt’s departure and do nothing to repair the tarnished image of his premiership.

He won’t care that he is also dragging down his government, party and politics generally. These are lesser priorities than his day-to-day survival. So the vital task of rebuilding public trust in our politicians will fall to his successor.