Sleazy does it!

Something's finally cut through. After over 100,000 dead from Covid-19, billions shifted away from the public purse into the hands of Tory cronies and a 'death by a thousand cuts' approach to silencing media opposition, the Conservatives have lost their lead in the polls.

The margin of the loss varies depending on which poll you look at, naturally, but working out whether the Conservatives are neck-and-neck with Labour or a few points behind is to debate the finer point; the reality is that the Conservative lead (as high as 10% in May 2021) is gone.

In simpler times, one could point to any of a myriad of reasons. The UK continues to have one of the highest rates of Covid-19 infection in the world. Inflation has reached 4.2% – the highest in a decade – with soaring prices of fuel, gas and electricity exacerbated by Brexit. And speaking of the B-word, shortages of foodstuffs and products continue to afflict British supermarkets.

But as with anything even remotely linked to the Church of Brexit, blame is thrust onto other factors such as a sudden, enormous mass retirement of lorry drivers. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with the fact that Britain is suffering the consequences of leaving the European labour market. It is truly remarkable how the goalposts of VoteLeave have moved from "sunlit uplands" to "there should be enough petrol, but it'll cost a fortune".

At last, however, something appears to have resonated with at least some of the core Brexiteer vote. 125,000 deaths from Covid-19 in England alone barely moved the needle. Mile-long queues at the pump? Not a problem. It took a quintessentially British sleaze scandal to finally make a dent.

The furore surrounding Owen Patterson and his lobbying are well documented. Sensing the scale of public outrage, traditionally Conservative-leaning newspapers such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Sun rounded on their Blonde Brexity Hero. In two weeks, a 5 point Conservative lead was wiped out.

It seems that the thing that really, really cheeses people off is MPs making a lot of money personally. They don't seem to mind huge amounts of their own money, paid through taxes, being siphoned into shady corporate entities. They turn the other cheek when the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Nadine Dorries (a perfectly normal English sentence, right) lobbies for LBC host James O'Brien to be removed from the air for disagreeing with the Government. The same Secretary of State, by the way, who wants to tackle online abuse despite having previously direct messaged the radio host, calling him a f**kwit.

I resent calling these issues complex, because they're certainly not, but they do not resonate with the voters. If they involve faceless corporations, or a feud between an MP and a radio host, who cares? And if the person overseeing the media in this country censure the BBC Political Editor on Twitter because they don't want any criticism whatsoever? Hilarious hijinks.

However, once there's a face – a truly recognisable  face that can't hide behind the name of a committee, or a business – then it becomes as simple as "This is your MP. You voted them into office, and now they're making lots of money on the sly." And people go nuts.

In the steady stream of corruption scandals to ooze out of CCHQ this week, it's startling how the likes of Owen Patterson and Jacob Rees-Mogg are being held accountable for their dodgy dealings and yet Nadim Zahawi is having a relatively easy ride. The reason? Zahawi came up with a highly sophisticated means of cloaking his corruption. By routing the money through a third party company with a name so obscure it could never be linked to him (Zahawi & Zahawi Ltd.).

One might expect the fact that the Secretary of State for Education - arguably the highest profile Cabinet role involved in the sleaze scandal so far - would be front and centre in the media and in the crosshairs of enormous public scorn. Yet, he isn't. The fact that he resigned as a director of Zahawi & Zahawi Ltd. in 2018 (transferring his shares to his wife) introduces a degree of separation. The fact that he's not a serving director provides an unmerited level of shielding against criticism, at least so it seems. The Secretary of State for Education seems to have had a few lessons in PR, and dodging political bullets so effectively it would make the Wachowskis blush.

There does appear to have been a tidal shift in the last few weeks. Whether it lasts is another question. The editor of the Daily Mail, having fired an uncharacteristic barrage of scrutiny towards BoJo and his Sleaze Squad in the last week, has been swiftly removed from position. As we have seen before, the teflon-coated Prime Minister and his party have an uncanny ability to survive scandals and general incompetence that would have destroyed many a government. Admittedly, the army of shadowy figures who are wheeled out to support them do assist. Even post-#MeToo, after the PM's father and celebrity posh-dude Stanley Johnson was accused of groping multiple women this week, the likes of Isabel Oakeshott are on call. Have we learned nothing?

On the subject of learning nothing, another shocker from the Johnson family this week came in the form of his sister Rachel - an LBC presenter who has curiously not faced calls to be culled from Nadine Dorries. In a truly staggering article for the Spectator, she wrote of her sympathy for the facilitator-in-chief and former partner of serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell. After all, they met at Oxford.

Further revelations included how close Boris is/was to Ghislaine Maxwelle, enjoying some time relaxing together in the Junior Common Room, Ghislaine's "boot resting on [Boris'] thigh". How delightful. The fact that this was willingly published and considered to be a 'good idea' truly boggles the mind.

What we have learned is that some misdemeanours do still resonate. Provided they're sufficiently pinnable on an individual MP, provided they're so blatant that there is no plausible (or even implausible) explanation, and provided they involve the individual MP receiving enormous amounts of money, then the voter still won't accept them.

That's why the Government were so desperate to rush through a watering-down of the rules rather than punish Patterson at all. It's why they're still using this scandal as a means to rush through other, draconian legislation without scrutiny. And it's why, at some point very soon, they will attempt to "draw a line" and "consider the matter closed" once again. Then, like snakes slithering into the daylight, they will attempt to rewrite the rule book to ensure this never happens again. Not the corruption, of course, simply the scandal.