How low can you go?

Dominic Grieve (“An atmosphere of sleaze, dishonesty and chaos,” Jan/Feb) rightly suggests that the Conservative Party’s reputation as a responsible governing force is threatened by recent events such as the Owen Paterson standards row, the Priti Patel bullying scandal and claims about Downing Street parties which have since engulfed the government.

But it would be shortsighted for the Conservative Party’s opponents to view this as a cause for celebration. By reinforcing some of voters’ worst suspicions about politicians’ honesty and integrity, such episodes potentially drag down the whole reputation of politics. And as citizens become more cynical and disengaged, democracy becomes increasingly fragile, making it more difficult for any group to govern with public consent. Such a direction of travel should deeply trouble not only all politicians, but all democrats.

So what can be done? The regulatory framework could clearly be strengthened, as recently proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Some regulators need further support—the Electoral Commission’s independence is currently threatened, and propriety recommendations by the House of Lords Appointments Commission have been flouted. There is pressure now for new mechanisms to enforce truthfulness in parliament. Recent research by the UCL Constitution Unit suggests that the public, disenchanted as it is with politicians, might well strongly support such moves. Hence those vying to succeed Boris Johnson, both within his party and in opposition parties, could benefit from supporting them.

But while the obvious way to clamp down on misbehaviour is through new rules, this can never be enough. The extent to which a written constitution is no guarantee is visible in the likes of the US, Hungary and Poland. Whatever the formal rules, politicians have responsibilities as key guardians of our institutions, and of the robustness of our democratic systems. When they lose sight of this we need to worry.

Meg Russell, director of the UCL Constitution Unit

A paper’s power

Jane Martinson’s thorough piece on the defenestration of Geordie Greig as editor of the Mail was illuminating reporting, a cut above the gossip that often serves as analysis of the media (“The toppling of an editor,” Jan/Feb).

But is it surprising that Greig has gone, or that Paul Dacre is back running the paper’s parent company? Thwarted in his desire to control the modern world of communications at Ofcom, Dacre needed some empire where he could go on wielding his uncanny brilliance to threaten, control, harm and shape. With authority collapsing right at the centre of government, wresting the Mail back to its toxic agenda is more urgent. Greig was simply too critical of the populists in Downing Street.