Boris Johnson attacks 'wettest generation since the Flood' in Daily Mail column

Former prime minister Boris Johnson argues in a Daily Mail column this week that Britain’s younger generations have become markedly cautious and emotionally fragile, describing them as “the wettest generation since the Flood.” He contends that many in the 21st century avoid driving, drinking and even sex, suggesting that some would rather see a man shot than hear views they deem offensive. The column uses the Oxford Union debate scene as a touchstone for his broader argument about free expression, moral philosophy education, and the perceived decline of national resolve.

Johnson recounts his experience at the Oxford Union, noting that while students should not be punished for expressing views within the law, the episode highlighted what he sees as a troubling shift in attitude toward controversial speech. He references the reception to Charlie Kirk, the American conservative commentator fatally shot on a Utah campus, and points to the union’s president-elect facing disciplinary action after remarks celebrating Kirk’s death. The piece argues that the real issue is not the legality of statements but the emotional reaction they provoke among students who feel affronted by opinions outside their own. This framing sits at the center of his critique of a broader culture of offence-taking and what he calls a “culture of general wokery.”

In Johnson’s view, the problem extends beyond campus quarrels to a pervasive form of risk aversion that he says is hollowing out public life. He argues that younger people in particular are retreating from activities that used to be considered routine or essential, such as driving. He cites data showing the number of under-25s with a driving license falling by eight percent in the past four years, a trend he attributes less to economics and more to nerves and safety concerns. He also points to a decline in alcohol consumption among youths and a drop in sexual activity, referencing a recent National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL) finding that young people have less sex per month than their older peers at the same age. Johnson suggests these shifts reflect a broader retreat from physical and social risk into the relative safety of digital life, with profound implications for social cohesion and national readiness.

While acknowledging that today’s generation is, in many ways, nicer, kinder and more attuned to feelings than earlier cohorts, Johnson contends that such sensitivities come at a cost. He argues that the emotional impact of opposing views is now treated as a societal problem rather than a personal challenge to be navigated, and he worries this trend erodes the ability to engage robustly with disagreement. The column frames free speech as a cornerstone of democracy and moral philosophy as a coaching ground for evaluating competing ideas, insisting that the right to express controversial views should be preserved even when those views are unpopular or upsetting.

Johnson contrasts the current climate with the more combative spirit of his own generation, recalling how the Oxford Union once debated whether to fight for Britain in wartime. He notes that the 1933 vote against war, which appalled older generations at the time, was followed by a later demonstration of national resolve decades later. He warns that external adversaries, such as Russia, might misinterpret signs of domestic risk-aversion as weakness, and he urges a resumption of mental and physical robustness to deter aggression and preserve freedom. In his view, the United Kingdom would rise to the challenge if confronted with a crisis, drawing on the resilience that history has shown Britain can summon.

The piece closes with a call for tempered, principled courage rather than capitulation to fear or offense. Johnson says that while the younger generation possesses many virtues, it must also demonstrate the resolve that national security and free society require. He emphasizes that the nation’s long-standing belief in free inquiry, even when it provokes discomfort, remains essential to countering external threats and maintaining a robust public life. The final sense he leaves is of a society capable of courage and debate, yet at risk if it retreats into protection and hesitation rather than principled confrontation of difficult ideas.

In summary, the column paints a picture of a generation navigating a complex moral landscape—one where free speech, personal risk, and social restraint are all in tension. It calls for a recalibration that preserves open debate while encouraging responsible, thoughtful discourse, insisting that freedom of expression and national resilience must go hand in hand as global tensions remain high.