We thought we were all in favour of devolving power these days?

Of course, we’ve always been in favour of devolving power. That’s what markets are, we as individuals deciding how we’re going to live our lives within the constraints reality imposes upon us. But putting that aside there’s a general agreement that power needs to be devolved downwards in Britain. From Whitehall to local areas, from national to regional and county/city, from the centre to the periphery.

At which point we get this complaint:

Since winning a majority of 80 in December’s snap election, Johnson has gone a little camera shy. When an Iranian general was assassinated, the prime minister sent his foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, to deal with the fallout while he finished his Caribbean break. When flooding hit areas across the country this month, rather than get out there with a mop as he had done during the general election campaign, Johnson chose to stay at one of his grace-and-favour residences and left the environment secretary, George Eustice, to take the lead instead.

The minister for dealing with Johnny Foreigner matters deals with a Johnny Foreigner matter, the minister for Hullo clouds, Hullo sky (chiz) matters deals with a Hullo clouds, Hullo sky matter. This seems appropriate to us, as with whoever deals with taxes doing so and so on. The idea that the one atop the pyramid must deal with - or at least emote over - everything strikes us as going against the very grain of the original insistence.

Of course this is politics so asking for either logic or consistency is a fool’s errand but then that’s why politics is such a bad way of dealing with things. And thus our original insistence that absolutely everything that can be be devolved down to the individual and thus escape politics altogether. The country where the Prime Minister has little to comment upon because the PM is responsible for little strikes us as a place which is at least heading toward being optimally free and liberal.