Boris Johnson recently told a private meeting of Tory MPs that the success of the UK’s vaccine programme was because of capitalism and greed. By associating capitalism with greed, it can be inferred that Johnson’s understanding of capitalism is a reductive one, misleadingly conflating enlightened self-interest, property rights, and individualism with the pursuit of greed, writes Pippa Catterall

Catterall, Pippa

English

LSE Research Online

‘Greed,	my	friends’:	has	Boris	Johnson	finallyrevealed	his	political	philosophy?Boris	Johnson	recently	told	a	private	meeting	of	Tory	MPs	that	the	success	of	the	UK’svaccine	programme	was	because	of	capitalism	and	greed.	By	associating	capitalism	withgreed,	it	can	be	inferred	that	Johnson’s	understanding	of	capitalism	is	a	reductive	one,misleadingly	conflating	enlightened	self-interest,	property	rights,	and	individualism	with	thepursuit	of	greed,	writes	Pippa	Catterall.On	23	March	2021,	Boris	Johnson	was	widely	reported	to	have	told	the	1922	Committee	ofbackbench	Tory	MPs	that	‘the	reason	we	have	the	vaccine	success	is	because	of	capitalism,because	of	greed,	my	friends’.	It	was,	the	Prime	Minister	swiftly	admitted,	a	remark	he	regretted.	Those	opponentsof	his	on	the	backbenches	who	leaked	it	no	doubt	saw	it	as	something	that	he	should	have	cause	to	regret.	Yetthere	is	more	to	this	episode	than	the	continued	undercover	squabbling	in	Britain’s	ruling	party.	This	political	figure,who	has	made	a	career	out	of	obfuscation,	ambiguity,	and	dissimulation,	immediately	–	as	so	often	and	usually	withsuccess	–	tried	to	pass	this	gaffe	off	as	a	joke.	Yet	this	was	a	remarkable	and	rare	moment	of	candour.	For	what	itreveals	about	him	and	his	government	is	worth	further	exploration.Most	obviously,	it	reveals	that	Johnson	cannot	resist	saying	something	that	is	palpably	untrue	if	it	serves	to	makewhat	he	sees	as	a	politically	useful	point.	Indeed,	in	his	speech	Johnson	contradicted	his	own	claim	by	praisingAstraZeneca	for	producing	the	vaccine	at	cost.	This	is	not	usually	taken	as	a	sign	of	greed.It	may	be	that	Johnson	was	conscious	of	this	contradiction.	Otherwise,	his	invocation	of	greed	reveals	a	profoundignorance	of	how	scientific	advancement	tends	to	work.	In	response	to	the	tendency	of	nationalist	governmentsright	from	the	start	of	the	pandemic	to	flag-wave	about	the	science,	Adrian	Hill	–	the	head	of	the	Jenner	Institute	atOxford	where	much	of	the	work	on	the	AstraZeneca	vaccine	took	place	–	laconically	pointed	out	‘that	isn’t	howthings	happen’.	A	quick	search	of	reports,	even	in	the	mainstream	as	well	as	the	scientific	media,	will	reveal	that	thetrope	of	collaboration	is	pervasive	in	accounts	of	the	process	of	developing	the	vaccines.	Greed,	until	Johnson,	wascontrastingly	never	mentioned.Of	course,	the	vaccine	success	that	Johnson	was	actually	boasting	about	to	his	MPs	was	not	the	internationaldevelopment	of	the	vaccine,	but	its	roll-out	in	Britain.	The	Big	Pharma	companies	Johnson	went	out	of	his	way	topraise	have	certainly	made	some	contributions	to	this	by	supplying	the	doses	in	the	first	place.	Yet	AstraZeneca’scontracts	with	Britain	which	underpinned	Johnson’s	comments	have	little	to	do	with	free-market	capitalism.	Profit-motives	also	do	not	seem	to	be	the	decisive	factor	in	processes	of	distribution,	let	alone	in	the	NHS	organisation	ofthe	actual	vaccination	programme.Mobilising	and	feeding	greed,	nonetheless,	does	seem	to	have	played	a	key	part	of	the	Johnson	government’sapproach	to	managing	the	pandemic.	Much	has	already	been	written	about	highly	dubious	bending	of	normalprocurement	rules,	with	lucrative	government	contracts	given	to	various	rapacious	organisations	whose	mainqualification	to	carry	out	the	work	all	too	often	seems	to	be	their	ready	access	to	ministerial	circles.	However,attention	thus	far	has	tended	to	focus	on	accusations	on	nepotism.	What	Johnson’s	remark	suggests	is	that	thisapproach	is	in	fact	reflective	of	a	core	tenet	of	his	government.	This	deliberate	encouragement	of	greed	is	sosystematic	as	to	suggest,	reinforced	by	the	revelation	of	Johnson’s	recent	remark,	that	he	sees	greed	as	afundamental	driver	of	efficient	delivery.	There	have	indeed	been	some	attempts	in	economic	theory	to	examinewhether	corruption	and	greed	are	efficient,	avoiding	as	they	do	all	that	time-consuming	and	costly	compliance	andaccountability.	They	do,	however,	have	a	tendency	to	lead	to	misallocation	of	resources	and	the	encouragement	ofrent-seeking,	neither	of	which	is	either	efficient	or	desirable.	Transparency	International’s	work,	for	instance,	revealsthe	coincidence	between	high	levels	of	corruption	and	high	levels	of	national	inequality	and	poverty.	This	suggeststhat	Johnson’s	belief	in	the	value	of	greed	is	misplaced.British Politics and Policy at LSE: ‘Greed, my friends’: has Boris Johnson finally revealed his political philosophy? Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2021-03-29Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/greed-my-friends/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/It	is	interesting	that	he	rhetorically	associated	capitalism	with	greed.	We	can	only	assume	that	in	his	mind	the	twoare	indeed	intertwined.	This	infers	that	Johnson’s	understanding	of	capitalism	is	a	reductive	one,	essentially	andmisleadingly	conflating	enlightened	self-interest,	property	rights,	and	individualism	with	the	pursuit	of	greed.	Likemany	of	his	political	generation,	he	also	seems	to	assume	that	neoliberalism	equates	to	allowing	free-rein	tobusinesses	and	the	greed	of	those	who	run	them.	This	reflects	ignorance	of	the	emphasis	placed	by	figures	likeHayek	on	the	importance	of	accountability,	albeit	through	mechanisms	such	as	the	market.Johnson	attempted	to	pass	off	his	comment	as	a	jokey	reference	to	the	invocation	that	‘greed	is	good’	in	the	1987movie	Wall	Street.	This	raises	the	question	of	whether	Johnson	has	seen,	let	alone	understood,	Oliver	Stone’sFaustian	drama.	The	movie	does	not	present	greed	as	good.	Indeed,	in	the	film	greed	is	shown	as	efficient	only	forthe	crooks	who	pursue	it,	whose	gains	are	at	a	cost	for	society	as	a	whole.	This	is	not	an	appropriate	subject	forlevity.	The	attempt	to	pass	it	off	as	a	joke	is,	however,	in	keeping	with	Johnson’s	common	practice	of	turninganything	misspoken	into	something	plausibly	deniable.	It	is	a	way	of	hiding	what	he	really	believes	in	plain	sightbeneath	a	carefully	curated	act.The	rapid	withdrawal	of	the	remark	reveals	how	aware	the	Prime	Minister	is	of	not	letting	the	mask	slip,	even	beforea	supposedly	friendly	audience	of	Tory	MPs.	Several	competing	explanations,	of	varying	plausibility,	were	offered	tojournalists	to	explain	his	comment	about	greed.	Johnson’s	anxiety	to	distance	himself	from	greed’s	unsavouryconnotations	was	obvious	and	understandable.	For	Johnson	is	usually	very	careful	to	avoid	direct	association	withanything	in	the	public	mind	other	than	his	carefully	projected	persona.	His	political	appeal	has	little	to	do	with	policyor	ideology	and	is	built	around	a	larger	than	life	personality,	reinforced	by	a	cunningly	constructed	jokiness.	Cleverand	pithy	slogans	focused	on	delivery	and	playing	to	populist	frustrations	with	supposed	red	tape	are	central	to	hiselectability.	So	is	an	ability	to	play	on	various	aspects	of	the	English	imagination	of	themselves.	His	rhetoricalconflation	of	national	identity,	capitalism	and	greed	was	therefore	a	rare	misstep.	Capitalism,	even	amongConservatives,	is	not	universally	associated	with	English	national	identity.	Few	of	those	Conservatives	would	feelcomfortable	associating	the	national	genius	with	greed	as	well.It	was	also	a	misstep	for	Johnson	to	present	a	linkage	between	national	identity	and	capitalism	and	greed	asfundamental	to	his	own	beliefs.	Notably,	Johnson	did	not	withdraw	the	comments	extolling	capitalism.	It	was	theassociation	of	both	capitalism	and	himself	with	greed	through	the	addition	of	the	words	‘greed,	my	friends’	that	heregretted.	This	observation,	whatever	the	subsequent	denials,	was	clearly	not	a	mistake	but	an	explanatory	gloss	ofhow	Johnson	thinks	capitalism	works.	That	he	assumed	his	audience	of	Tory	MPs	would	all	see	an	association	inthat	way	as	well	is	implicit	in	his	confidential	inclusion	of	them	in	his	remarks.	Johnson	presumably	felt	that	he	couldadmit	that	greed	is	a	fundamental	principle	of	his	government	when	among	‘his	friends’.	Now	we	all	know.__________________About	the	AuthorPippa	Catterall	is	Professor	of	History	and	Policy	at	the	University	of	Westminster	and	iscurrently	writing	a	book	on	prime	ministerial	statecraft	and	strategy.		Photo	by	Jon	Tyson	on	Unsplash.British Politics and Policy at LSE: ‘Greed, my friends’: has Boris Johnson finally revealed his political philosophy? Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2021-03-29Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/greed-my-friends/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Greed, my friends: has Boris Johnson finally revealed his political philosophy?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110099/1/politicsandpolicy_greed_my.pdf

Greed, my friends: has Boris Johnson finally revealed his political philosophy?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online