The National:

IT seems much of the UK media is reluctant to criticise Boris Johnson’s government’s response to the coronavirus crisis but, as The Jouker has been highlighting lately, journalists around the world have been vocal in their attacks on Westminster’s handling of the pandemic.

Yesterday we showcased a Sydney Morning Herald story brutally headlined “Biggest failure in a generation: Where did Britain go wrong?”, which slammed the UK Government as being slow to implement a lockdown, accused ministers of bungling testing and was highly critical of PPE shortages on the front lines of the NHS.

This morning we’re flagging the front page of the New York Times’s international edition – which features a column from writer Jenni Russell titled: “The UK needs a real government”.

In her article the British writer takes aim in particular at Johnson’s “markedly weak” Cabinet, which she argues was highlighted by the Prime Minister’s near month-long absence as he suffered from Covid-19.

READ MORE: Australian paper tells the truth about UK Government's Covid-19 failures

Russell argues these problems with the Cabinet are the “consequence” of Johnson’s Brexit-focused approach to governance.

She writes: “Mr. Johnson’s cabinet is so markedly weak, with so few politicians of intellect and experience, that the prime minister’s absence for nearly a month left an alarming void

“A shifting cast of ministers stood in for him at the daily pandemic press briefings, with performances ranging from mortifying to faltering or defensive to occasionally, thankfully, competent.”

Russell says the “lack of depth” at the Cabinet table was highlighted by the nervousness of ministers who had to answer press questions at the daily briefings. Some, she argues, like Chancellor Rishi Sunak, could handle their briefing. But she goes on: “Not one felt able or authorized to even begin to address the big questions Britain now wants answered: What is the route out of lockdown, and how should deaths be balanced against isolation, loneliness, futures and jobs? All those queries were diverted, with evident relief, to the stock response: We’ll have to wait until the boss gets back.”

Moving on to discuss the press’s thrilled reaction upon Johnson’s return from his time off sick, Russell writes: “His dominance is no accident. It’s the consequence of the deliberate choice he made after he became Conservative Party leader last year to expel principled opponents within the party and to surround himself with smaller characters, ones who will neither threaten nor challenge him, politicians chosen on the whole more for their malleability and their loyalty to Mr Johnson’s Brexit project than for their talent.”

The writer criticises Johnson’s “centralisation” of power, where a core group of insiders decide the Government agenda and Cabinet ministers follow orders. She points to former chancellor Sajid Javid’s resignation earlier this year after he was asked to fire his advisers and replace them with ones appointing by Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings.

Summing up, Russell takes aim at Johnson himself. She writes: “His path to the top has been based on a simple strategy: He’s not a knowledgeable, able, policy-driven leader. He’s an optimistic figurehead who prefers an easy life and gets competent people beneath him to do the actual work.

“That strategy risks falling apart now because neither Mr. Johnson’s narrow group of advisers nor the ministers he appointed for their loyalty are the people best qualified to handle the grave perils ahead.”

For an article like this to appear on the front of one of the world’s most influential newspapers is significant and shows press around the world are not afraid of criticising Johnson’s government.

It would be good to see media closer to home do the same …