IF, as has been suggested, Boris Johnson’s wedding was a dead cat strategy, it wasn’t exactly his most subtle effort.

Personally, I don’t buy it. Not because I don’t think he is a duplicitous chancer – he is – but because to hastily arrange a wedding to bury a bad news week would require a level of competence the Prime Minister has proved time and again to be utterly incapable of.

On Saturday, the Tory party leader married Carrie Symonds in an intimate ceremony at Westminster Cathedral. Tourists visiting the cathedral are said to have been ushered out of the venue mere moments before the bride emerged from her limo to walk down the aisle.

It seems few had advance notice of the upcoming ceremony – including Johnson’s senior advisers, who were reportedly in the dark about the whole thing. Still, after the week he’s had, it’s not surprising that Boris Johnson might have a few trust issues when it comes to political aides.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson marries Carrie Symonds in secretive ceremony to 'bury bad news'

Dominic Cummings didn’t receive an invite to the wedding. Maybe it got lost in the post. Not that he would have been able to attend even if he had been asked. He would have been far too busy throwing sharp objects at the Johnson-shaped dart board he’s had installed at both his London residence and Durham bolthole.

In a sensational appearance in from of the joint health and science parliamentary committees last week, Mr Cummings showed that the fury of a woman scorned is of nothing when compared to the wrath of a sacked former adviser.

It was one of the most extraordinary evidence sessions I’ve ever witnessed. When, at the very beginning of his testimony, broadcasters had to apologise for Mr Cummings’s language, you knew to get comfy and commit to watching it in its entirety. If Johnson was hoping to distract from all that was revealed over the seven hours of evidence with a pretty photo of Carrie wearing a white dress and a flower crown, he might yet be left disappointed.

Of course, at any other time, with any other prime minister, claims such as those made by Cummings would have sounded the death knell on a politicians career.

Cummings knows where the bodies are buried. He also explicitly confirmed that Boris Johnson did in fact make the repugnant “let the bodies pile high in their thousands” remark.

Cummings was scathing about Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who he insisted had numerous sackable offences under his belt. Cummings also called him a liar. Which caused Mr Hancock to burst into suspiciously dry tears.

On The Andrew Marr Show yesterday, we were reminded why political standards are so low and why true accountability is now a thing of the past. During a discussion about the allegations made by Dominic Cummings, the presenter uttered that God-awful phrase “cutting-through”.

Does the public care that somebody who was once one of our Prime Minister’s closest advisers now believes Johnson is unfit for office? Do it care that his inaction and neglect contributed to

the UK having one of the worst coronavirus death tolls in the world? Is this issue cutting through with the public?

It’s such a vapid way to approach the scrutiny of those in power and suggests a rot that will be difficult to recover from. Whether your average non-committee-watching voter cares or even knows about the failings of this Prime Minister is of little importance. That’s not the test by which we should judge the significance of an event.

One of the issues that we are told did cut through with the public was Cummings’s dash to Durham. But it’s all a bit chicken and egg, isn’t it? What came first, the public anger over Cummings breaking lockdown or the wall-to-wall coverage that that story provoked?

READ MORE: Tory cover-up risks THIRD coronavirus wave, health expert warns

Were newspapers and broadcasters giving it so much airtime because the public were angry, or were the public angry because enough airtime was given to it to guarantee they knew about it?

When questions are asked over Johnson’s evasiveness over funding, personal failings, fitness for office and poor relationship with the truth, these are all valid and necessary lines of enquiry – whether or not ordinary people are angry about all or any of them.

Johnson started last week in the worst possible way – with damaging revelations that brought into question his suitability to continue in the office he holds. But his week ended with what my married friends tell me is the most joyous of days.

As the Prime Minister embarks on this new marriage he will be hoping it’s third time lucky. Maybe this time he will stay true to the vows he has made to his wife.

Now that the wedding is over and done with he might want to consider the vows he made to the public upon assuming the highest office in the land. And whether or not he is as committed to upholding them as he should be.