Culture news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Boris Johnson: Ramping up the security for MPs would be ‘expensive and pointless’
Boris Johnson has reportedly said that significantly increasing security provisions for MPs would be "expensive and pointless", according to an article published by the Daily Mail. The comments touch on an ongoing debate about how best to protect politicians, a topic that has repeatedly resurfaced in British politics following past attacks on MPs and heightened concerns about their safety while carrying out constituency and public duties.
Beyond the headline and byline, the source material provided does not include further substantive detail, quotes or context from Johnson explaining his reasoning or the circumstances prompting the remarks. The piece is credited to David Wilcock, the Daily Mail's Deputy Political Editor, and was published in the early hours of 20 July 2026.
In short
- Boris Johnson calls extra MP security "expensive and pointless"
- Comments reported by the Daily Mail's Deputy Political Editor
- Full article detail beyond the headline was not available
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of stepping up security for MPs argue that public service should not carry a mortal risk, and that the death of Ms Widdecombe is a stark reminder that threats against politicians have moved beyond online abuse into physical danger. They point to the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess as evidence that existing protections have already proved insufficient, and contend that a modern, well-resourced protective framework – covering homes, surgeries and travel – is a basic duty of care owed to elected representatives and their families. For them, the cost of prevention is trivial next to the cost of another MP's life.
The case against
Those who resist a broad expansion of security, including Boris Johnson, argue that MPs' accessibility to constituents is a defining and precious feature of British democracy, and that heavy security apparatus risks insulating politicians from the people they represent. They caution that lavish new schemes could prove enormously costly to the public purse while offering little real protection, since determined attackers have historically bypassed formal security measures regardless of expense. On this view, resources are better targeted at specific, intelligence-led risk assessments for individuals under genuine threat, rather than a blanket, expensive apparatus applied to all 650 MPs regardless of need.
Explained simply
Members of Parliament in the UK face potential risks to their safety whilst carrying out their work, both in Parliament and when meeting constituents in their local areas. This has led to recurring debates about what level of security protection they should receive, debates that have been reignited several times following violent incidents.
Several attacks on MPs over the past decade have highlighted concerns about their safety and sparked discussion about what protective measures are appropriate. These discussions involve questions about how to protect politicians whilst enabling them to remain accessible to the public and to carry out their constituency work.
Boris Johnson is a former Prime Minister and currently serves as a Conservative MP. His comments on whether increasing security for MPs would be worthwhile contribute to a broader debate about how to balance the protection of elected representatives with other practical and budgetary concerns.