Curtains for Johnson?

 

In his chapter on "High Finance" C Northcote Parkinson of "Parkinson's Law (1957) explains his "Law of Triviality," namely:

 "[T]he time spent on any item of the agenda  will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. " (page 63, Readers' Union edition.)  

Parkinson illustrates this by imagining a Board of Directors which is asked to approve, among other things, the building of an Atomic Reactor at a cost of £10m, and a bicycle shed for the clerical staff costing £350. (It was 1957.)

 The Atomic Reactor goes through "on the nod", partly because only one member of the board really knows what an atomic reactor is, or what it is for, and none of them can really comprehend how much  a million pounds is, least of all 10 of them. (It was 1957.)

However, they all know what a bicycle shed is and have a grasp of £350.  So there is a lengthy discussion on the details of the construction. Should it have an aluminium roof or would asbestos be better?(1957) Is the quotation competitive or would another contactor be cheaper? Do the clerical staff really deserve a bicycle shed?  

Discussion is lengthy: the directors feel they have pulled their weight and earned their fees.

There are clear parallels here with the situation between Prime Minster Johnson and the British electorate.  

He and his government are squandering £37 billion on a test and trace system which at one time involved a "world beating" app.   Well, as our houses inch up in value through no effort of our own, if we're lucky enough to have one we begin to get the hang of what a million pounds is (or a significant fraction of one here in Yorkshire) but a billion is beyond our comprehension* and many of us, including me, are not all that sure what an "app" is.  

 So we let that through on the nod.  

Similarly with umpteen thousands, or tens of thousands, in dodgy contracts given to mates without "due process." But given that most of us have never knowingly procured anything in our lives, maybe that was necessary in these circumstances that we're repeatedly told are "unprecedented."

 Hence so far Teflon Johnson and his Tory Cronies remain unscathed and are even riding high in the polls.

 However, we do know what a flat is: lots of us live in one or have friends who do so.  We do know what redecorating is and most of us have either done it, or hired someone else to do it an paid for it ourselves. 

So the circumstances of Johnson's redecoration, and the money allegedly involved, fall within our  spectrum of understanding.

 A £30 000 government grant  for redecorating: most of us could redecorate for a tenth of that.

 And according to the BBC it's an annual grant.  (Maybe that's for the whole of Downing Street, not just the flat)

 But that £30 000 wasn't enough.  £58 000 has been mentioned,  though it is not clear whether that incudes or is in addition to the £30 000 "freebie."  

We understand what  £58 000 is, though not many of us possess that kind of money in one go**: you go to work five days a week for 8 hours a day  for two years to earn it - and much longer if you're on the minimum wage or a zero-hours contract.

 Some say the decorations could be costing £200 000. You could buy a house for that in Hartlepool.

 And all because he didn't like the "John Lewis furniture nightmare* he inherited from Theresa may. 

 Well, in spite of the "never knowingly undersold" claim, most of us regard John Lewis as pretty up-market, certainly a cut above Marks and Spencer and streets ahead of Poundland.

 Trivial as the sums involved are compared with £31 billion on our upgraded nuclear defence (against what we're not sure)  the Downing Street Decoration Saga could fall into the remit of Parkinson's  "Law of Triviality" and be the issue on which, finally, the mud sticks.

 Fingers crossed. 

 

* A useful rule of thumb is to remember that a million seconds is 12 days; a billion seconds is 31 years.

** More than 16m people in the UK have savings of less than £100, a study by the Money Advice Service (MAS) has found.