The real villain: Johnson and Cameron under fire for lobbying row

Even before becoming prime minister Boris Johnson has had his fair share of scandals and escapades that made not only the front page in trashy gossip papers, recounting his many affairs and encounters with cocaine (with "no pharmacological, psychotropical or any other effect") but also hurt many moralities, such calling women who wear niqabs "letterboxes" or referring black people as "piccannies". Oftentimes his disregard for his professionally harmed more than mere sensibilities, such as when he incorrectly claimed during his stint as foreign secretary that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe (imprisoned in Iran under bogus charges of spying) was "teaching people journalism" thereby hurting her chances of release.

More recently he has faced growing controversy as prime minister for his row in a enigmatic lobbying row which first broke out as a result of former prime minister David Cameron's own dealing. But this isn't the first their paths crossed.

Boris Johnson and David Cameron began their correspondence in the famed halls of Eton College, an institution that has produced around 20 prime ministers since its founding nearly 600 years ago. This association soon continued in the notorious 'Bullingdon Club' in the historic university of Oxford, after which they both became conservative members of parliament in the year 2001. Everything from their privileged upbringing, to their infamous debauchery as part of the sexist, classist (and overall despicable) club, held the two white men in an odd sort of syndicate laced with deep rivalry and a desire to reach the top. As history duly notes, David Cameron reached number 10 first, despite Johnson being two years his senior, a blow that he wouldn't seem to recover from until he decided to side 'leave' in the Brexit campaign. This arguably served as the spark that brought about the dumpster fire that heralded his very own term in downing street, but that only becomes relevant once we take into consideration his true competency as a leader (examining to which effect fear mongering populism played a role in his appointment deserves a monologue of its own but in the interest of dealing with the scandal at hand, I mustn't diverge).

David Cameron reigned as PM from 2010-16 and during that time he employed Lex Greensill as an adviser. He was unpaid, however in the duration of his time at Westminster Mr. Greensill worked on a government scheme that would end up profiting his own company: Greensill capitals. This conflict of interest went ignored by Mr. Cameron and in itself would have been an icky deal for the public. The very concept of a democracy is built upon the illusive but ever important concept of fairness, 'by the people, of the people' and most imperatively 'for the people'. The roots of the situation being that when this system under which millions (and even billions in some countries) of people give up their direct right to rule by placing their faith in a representative, they expect that their interests are fairly catered to. Therefore, any scenario wherein this position is exploited for personal gain, when a ruling party or representatives's own glory or greed supersedes the collective good, you find yourself with millions of frowning faces.

"By the people, of the people and for the people"

However, it pales in comparison to the way their unsavoury relationship continued to bloom after David Cameron left his post as prime minister. Two years after his fall from power he went onto lobby for the same company who's head he had appointed as advisor during his own tenure, in a move that looked suspiciously convenient. During his time lobbying he used his fervour as a former prime minister to directly contact high level UK officials such as Rishi Sunak and Matt Hancock, in order to appease the company's interests. Mr. Sunak was contacted to help ease in Greensill capitals into the covid relief fund sponsored by the government, something that he to his benefit, flat out refused to do. Mr. Hancock on the other hand met for private drinks with Mr. Cameron and Mr. Greensill in late 2019 to discuss the firm's proposal for having the NHS use Greensill's app for an advanced payment's scheme.

In both scenarios both Hancock and Sunak were keen to wipe their hands clean by proving that they reacted appropriately and didn't pass out any free lunches. Mr. Cameron himself also maintains that he broke no lobbying rules in the whole escapade and thus any questioning is baseless at best. Yet the idea of powerful businessmen having such unhindered access to the people that run the country simply because they have the money to show for it an alarming notion for most voters, thus putting all involves in a rather uncomfortable position. Intimate drinks and texts aren't a good look for fairness and thus many on downing street fretted that the frowning masses, edged on by labour opposition calling for systemic change to lobbying rules, might pick up the pitchforks.

Yet the jest was far from finished for Mr. Johnson himself soon came undone amongst the turmoil. Questions were soon raised about his own honesty and commitment to the public, in particular the media and public were keen to know how he managed to pay for his pricy renovations in his official apartment, alleged to be paid for by conservative party sponsors. The prime minister wholeheartedly denies taking any money, firm-footed on his claim to self sufficiency, yet the very possibility itself makes many wonder who else might hold mr. Johnson in debt?

It didn't help of course that Mr. Johnson offered the privileges of his private contact to Sir James Dyson, owner of Dyson corporations who previously came under controversy for hypocritically moving his company's operations to Singapore after heralding Brexit as an excellent way to bring back jobs to the UK. At the peak of the pandemic when Britains found itself in shortage of vital ventilators, Dyson petitioned to help out. Yet Mr. James himself was more worried about the taxes his employees may be burdened with for flying out to the UK, thus privately contacting the PM to ensure that they would be exempt. The leaked messages can thus be easily viewed as a businessman adamant on special treatment (albeit arguably for the greater good) and a PM willing to bow to his commands. So while the true picture behind that odd exchange is far more complicated than many of those anxious to rally against the PM would wish it to be, the concept of fairness is once again under siege, even if this time it was under the guise of national health security.

At the end of the day what bothers most that read such news isn't merely that two PMs simultaneously came under fire for irresponsible use of their power, but that none of what they did was against the country's laws. Thus it doesn't seem to most that the problem lay specifically in the hands of these two controversial personalities, but rather in the overarching system. And that system, seems far bigger a threat. And in some ways it is. There is no doubt that both Cameron and Johnson would be in hopes that the storm blows over while they themselves keep safe harbour and the other tarnishes. Yet, in order for the UK to overcome the problems that have been surfaced over the past week, it must look past the people and itself vex the order that enabled them. Because that is the true villain of this story.