World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Boris Johnson says increasing MP security in wake of Widdecombe murder is ‘expensive and pointless’ – as it is revealed MI5 gave politicians advice on home safe rooms
Boris Johnson has described proposals to boost security for MPs, prompted by the murder of a Widdecombe family member, as "expensive and pointless". His comments come as it emerged that MI5 has been advising politicians on setting up safe rooms in their homes, highlighting the heightened concern among security services about threats to elected officials following the killing.
The remarks add Johnson's voice to a wider debate about how far the state should go in protecting politicians without isolating them from the public they represent. The disclosure that MI5 has offered guidance on home safe rooms indicates that intelligence agencies are already taking practical steps to address MPs' safety, even as senior figures like Johnson question whether further spending on security measures is proportionate or effective.
In short
- Boris Johnson calls extra MP security "expensive and pointless"
- Comes after the murder linked to the Widdecombe case
- MI5 has been advising MPs on home safe rooms
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for stronger protective measures argue that the murder of a sitting politician is precisely the kind of foreseeable, catastrophic risk that duty of care demands acting on, not shrugging off. They point out that MPs conduct constituency surgeries and public engagements with minimal protection, making them uniquely exposed compared with other public figures, and that modest, sensible steps such as secure areas in the home are a proportionate response rather than an overreaction. For these advocates, the cost of prevention is trivial set against the loss of a life and the wider chilling effect an unaddressed threat could have on people willing to stand for office.
The case against
Sceptics, including those who share Boris Johnson's characterisation, argue that heavy security spending risks being a costly gesture that would not actually have stopped a determined lone attacker, and that resources are better directed towards intelligence-led threat assessment than physical fortification of homes and offices. They value the tradition of MPs remaining visible and reachable to constituents, warning that safe rooms, barriers and heavier guarding could entrench a sense of remoteness between politicians and the public they serve. On this view, proportionality cuts the other way: symbolic security measures may offer reassurance without meaningfully reducing risk, while quietly eroding the accessibility that underpins representative democracy.
Explained simply
A member of the Widdecombe family, a prominent political family, has been murdered, raising serious concerns about the safety of MPs. The incident has prompted debate about how much the state should spend to protect politicians from potential threats.
Intelligence agencies have begun offering practical security measures to MPs, including guidance on setting up safe rooms in their homes. This suggests that security services view the threat to politicians as significant, even as questions remain about whether increased security spending is an appropriate response.
Boris Johnson has argued that greater spending on MP security would be expensive and ineffective. His position reflects a broader tension about balancing the safety of elected officials with keeping them accessible and visible to the public they represent.