What Charles Dickens Would Think of Carrie Johnson

 Carrie Johnson (née Symonds), wife of former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has been actively involved in animal welfare, environmental causes which is certainly very impressive and commendable- she has also been socially active- her motivation must be partly due to her father- founder of The Independent newspaper- and a tad at least from grandad-Labour MEP John Beavan.

 She has also been credited (or blamed) with influencing the political direction of her husband’s policies—particularly pushing for more progressive stances on the environment and LGBTQ+ rights, can't be bad. In media circles, she’s occasionally framed as a behind-the-scenes force for “political correctness” though- especially in the Tory party, with some critics accusing her of softening or sanitising Boris's previously brash libertarian tone. Which is a deep shame for British (and other countries) libertarians. 

From a classical libertarian viewpoint, which values individual freedom, minimal state interference, and resistance to enforced moral orthodoxy, Carrie Johnson's influence might be seen as emblematic of soft authoritarianism cloaked in compassionate causes. Cruel but true? No matter how well intentioned- is she thinking right?

 You can still be kind to animals without directing strong narratives that may be unsuitable for resilient free thinkers.

 Her brand of elite activism—often delivered from an unelected and unofficial platform—feeds into a technocratic culture where moral mandates override democratic debate. Don't push the socialism doll. Not if you know what's good for our country - other democracy loving cultures and countries don't need it either. 

Now, to view this through the lens of Charles Dickens, who championed the plight of the poor and was deeply suspicious of both entrenched aristocracy and self-righteous reformers: Virtue signallers take note! 

Dickensian Critique:

If Dickens were alive today, he might portray Carrie Johnson as a kind of modern-day Mrs. Jellyby (from Bleak House), the well-meaning but blinkered philanthropist whose grand causes abroad (or today, animal rights and climate virtue) distract her from more urgent, gritty injustices at home- Child protection? Disability Discrimination? Farmers issues? Bullied policemen due to endemic poor, 2nd rate training? PTSD treatments, especially for our service people? The mental health industry pathologising breathing as a disorder? (and the cost of that!) etc- not much to celebrate from the Boris term. 

Dickens might say:

“There is no shortage of noble causes in Mrs. Johnson’s parlour, but precious little bread in the scullery.”

Dickens distrusted performative piety and "telescopic philanthropy"—campaigns that looked righteous from afar while ignoring the suffering next door.

 He’d likely recoil from her style of moralising without mandate, a new kind of nobility unmoored from responsibility to the poor.

And as for Labour (especially the Blairite-legacy version), Dickens might equally condemn their bureaucratic dehumanisation and fetish for systems over souls. He would find today's Labour anti-libertarian tendencies—such as speech codes, surveillance tolerance, and nanny-statism—eerily akin to Mr. Gradgrind’s utilitarian nightmare, where nuance, joy, and eccentricity are flattened and medicalised in favour of state-sanctioned correctness.

Synthesis:

So from a Dickensian angle:

• Carrie Johnson embodies well-fed, well-intentioned aristocratic meddling.

• Labour’s technocracy embodies cold industrial tyranny masquerading as benevolence.

• And liberty, in all its messy glory, is what’s trampled by both.

In a world increasingly divided between myopic control freaks and moral busybodies, Dickens would cry:

“It is not benevolence, nor progress, nor cleanliness of speech that makes a society just—but the presence of imagination, of kindness without coercion, and freedom to speak with our own tongues, even if they wag foolishly.”

Liz Lucy Robillard ai assisted