I’ve reported on ministers visiting flooding victims – such appearances do matter

Trips to places affected by natural calamities can prove a distraction, but they let people know their problems are being recognised, writes Andrew Woodcock

Boris Johnson has yet to visit areas hit by recent flooding (Getty)

Boris Johnson has taken a lot of flak over the past few days for failing to visit flood-hit parts of the midlands, Yorkshire and Wales.

While TV footage showed streets that had turned into rivers and tearful householders wading away from their swamped homes, the prime minister stayed put in the government’s Kent manor house Chevening, venturing out only to attend a swanky black-tie ball to raise funds for the Conservative party.

The open goal was too much for Jeremy Corbyn to resist, and he duly accused him in the House of Commons of being a “part-time prime minister” with his “head in the sand”.

A nettled Downing Street put out a string of tweets denying that the prime minister had failed to show sympathy for those affected and insisting that the government was working “tirelessly” to support them.

But when Mr Johnson finally addressed the issue in front of the cameras on Thursday, he presented the situation as an “opportunity” to create jobs in flood defences, and shrugged off any suggestion he should personally have gone to the scene of the deluge, telling reporters: “We have a fantastic system called cabinet government.”

So does it really matter that the prime ministerial wellington boots have stayed firmly in the cupboard under the stairs at No 10 over the last few weeks?

In terms of practical assistance for those affected, clearly not.

As a reporter, I’ve often been along to observe ministers attending the scenes of natural calamities of various kinds, and it cannot be denied that their presence is generally a distraction to recovery efforts, diverting police onto security details and requiring emergency workers to break off from their tasks to brief politicians.

However, speaking to ministers afterwards, you often find that they are struck by comments made by a police officer, a council worker or a member of the public which have brought home to them the reality of the experience and particular needs going unmet. It is not unheard of for big chunks of money to be allocated on the back of quiet word with the prime minister on one of these visits.

And the presence of the prime minister sends a very big signal to the people on the ground. It tells the emergency workers that their efforts are being recognised and valued, it tells stricken householders that their sufferings are not going unnoticed, and it tells the rest of the world that this is a big enough deal for the prime minister to drop everything else from his packed schedule.

It has not gone unnoticed that Mr Johnson was considerably more keen to put on his wet weather gear and head for Yorkshire when floods hit during last year’s general election campaign and he was on the hunt for votes.

So why has he held back now?

He was berated by a flooded-out householder in front of the TV cameras when he went to Yorkshire in November, and maybe his media minders would prefer him to avoid a repeat of those scenes.

Aides have insisted he was busy last week with phone calls to Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping as well as pre-Budget discussions and preparations for EU trade talks, though none of that seems to rule out a half-day in the inundated countryside.

For many at Westminster, his no-show at the pumps is of a piece with his approach, since the general election, of keeping a low profile, maintaining near-silence in the media and making only infrequent and highly staged appearances in public. It’s a high-risk strategy which may keep him away from the hecklers but risks sending the message that he is out of touch with ordinary people’s suffering.

Yours,

Andrew Woodcock

Political editor