One of the first rules of journalism is that “dog bites man” is not news, and on that basis, Robert Jenrick publishing another video on social media is an unpromising peg for an article. But the real question is whether or not his hyperactivity and gonzo tactics are making a difference. If so, to whom, and to what?

Yesterday, the Shadow Justice Secretary published a video of himself playing the role of vigilante, stopping fare dodgers on the London Underground and questioning their behaviour. “Do you think it’s alright not to pay?” he asks one man. He accosts another: “Do you want to go back and pay like everybody else?” When one offender swears at Jenrick and tells him to move out of his way, the Conservative politician asks: “What, are you carrying a knife?”

Will the message cut through to its intended audience? Yes, a cynic might suggest — given that audience is Tory MPs. Increasingly an innovator in the field of instability, the Conservative Party is currently in an historically unprecedented position: the defeated candidate in last year’s leadership contest remains the most dangerous rival of the current leader.

Jenrick’s videos and media appearances not only display an energy and drive for engagement which Kemi Badenoch’s critics perceive her to lack, but their often slick production contrasts markedly with the limited offerings from cash-strapped CCHQ. And while personally confronting fare dodgers might strike some as a little cringe-inducing, to others it demonstrates a streak of chutzpah which can be extremely attractive when backed up.

Another group that definitely sees this output is journalists, who will use the videos to inform their judgements. These views then filter out to colour media coverage more widely; as such, the impact of a video like this could be much more significant than its not-insubstantial (at the time of writing) 8 million views.

Yet if Jenrick’s content were aimed strictly at a limited SW1 selectorate, he probably wouldn’t have focused on fare dodging, which is hardly an animating cause for many MPs or journalists, at least in their public work. What it is, however, especially in the capital, is a form of lawbreaking which millions of people are likely to witness on a weekly basis. And much as it can irritate Whitehall policymakers, people care most about the ills to which they are personally exposed.

Anyone with Monzo, or who has cause to fill in a tax return, might know exactly how much they spend on the Tube every year, and how aggravating it is to see others shamelessly forcing their way through the gates when nobody is looking. Surely, very few people disagree with the depressing notification TfL blares out at stations: “It’s only fair we all pay the fare.”

That sense of fair play really matters, even for something as seemingly trivial as fare evasion. If Government and public services start tacitly tolerating serial lawbreaking, then a legitimate cost gradually mutates into a tax merely on those who abide by the law.

Some people on the margins will start thinking: “Well, why should I pay either?” But others will just get angry. And if they’ve seen or heard about the Shadow Justice Secretary’s video, then the next time they see someone forcibly move through a ticket barrier — an increasingly common sight — they might remember that Jenrick said he’d do something about that, and that London Mayor Sadiq Khan hasn’t.

That’s a small thing, in itself: there probably aren’t many people deciding their vote on the question of fare dodging. But there are lots of areas where Britain tangibly doesn’t work for ordinary, law-abiding people and overt rule-breakers go unpunished. All that irritation adds up, and it may yet be a powerful political force.

---

Henry Hill is Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome.

HCH_Hill

---