OPINION: Why I want Boris as my boss

Committing a sackable offense would usually result in the offending employee encountering the risk of a self-explanatory consequence: facing the sack. It is a regulation yearned to be avoided by most, however I doubt Boris Johnson’s subordinates consider losing their job as a potential punishment.

Johnson’s loyalty demonstrated towards his ministers could be described as nothing short of an admirable trait. But in an occupation which holds great significance in the ruling of the country, displaying softness and excluding the need for dismissals contributes to the formation of a culture of distrust towards the government.

The Prime Minister has exhibited a towering tolerance towards misconduct which has been evidenced by his refusal to terminate the contracts of both Dominic Cummings and Priti Patel when their behaviours breached principles deemed unacceptable in their positions.

Johnson’s former chief advisor caused an eruption of controversy earlier in the year when he flouted travel restrictions that were imposed at the time due to the coronavirus outbreak. Cummings was caught driving over 250 miles from his abode despite a clear “stay at home” message being enforced by the government. This sparked a fuse of fury from the public and political figures who overwhelmingly expressed the opinion that Cummings’ infringement of the national boundaries meant that he should be removed from his role immediately. The prodigiousness of this view did not change after Cummings conducted a press conference in a bid to defend his actions.

It seemed as if everyone was against him but Boris. He allowed Cummings to continue working as his chief advisor and pleaded for a halt on questions surrounding the highly publicised issue. Any questions that did arise during the BBC’s broadcast of the Coronavirus Daily Briefing were swiftly dismissed by the Prime Minister. Clearly he was capable of the action of dismissal, just not where it was necessarily required.

The lack of vindication from Johnson as to why Cummings was permitted to continue working in Downing Street was perhaps the most imprudent element of this incident. Disregarding a decree which reportedly led to the imposition of fines on inferiors to parliament highlights an authoritative advantage and blatant unfairness. Failing to rationalise with the public debilitated the relationship between Johnson and his people as Cummings’ proceedings appeared to influence a growth in contravening restrictions. Clarity and understanding were heavily needed from the Prime Minister. Disrespect towards the public and the media was what he presented instead.

Johnson’s quality of leadership recently came under fire again when bullying claims made against Priti Patel were found to be accurate. The Home Secretary became the subject of an inquiry carried out by the Cabinet Office in response to accusations that she disobeyed the ministerial code throughout a trio of government divisions. The inquiry concluded that Patel did evince unprofessional behaviours that constitute as bullying which would usually result in the prospect of a resignation, although Johnson has rejected appeals to sack her.

Confusion followed as Johnson and the Cabinet Secretary sent an email to MPs which stated: “there is no place for bullying.” Not only does this embody the act of hypocrisy, but it intensely queries what Johnson would consider as evidence of the offense since an official investigation seems to be not sufficient enough.

A strong, authoritative figure who holds characteristics of domination and power is what would be anticipated from the head of a nation, yet the UK’s Prime Minister appears to be too much of a soft touch with his closest colleagues. Refusing to publicly discipline ministers who do not perform to the correct standards of expectation allows citizens to lose faith and limits support for the current government. Johnson’s loyalty that he has shown towards Cummings and Patel exemplifies weak leadership and queries where the line between acceptable and unacceptable conduct is drawn.

Despite the criticisms, a boss of Johnson’s morals would likely be a dream for employees. Each working day would perhaps be stress-free with the risk of dismissal being virtually absent, regardless of the commitment of misconduct. But while Boris’ hesitance to award dismissals is presumably favoured by those who should be granted one, it is a poor method of ministerial ruling that negatively impacts the overall governmental performance.