By John Pickard
The House of Commons Privileges Committee has officially reported that Boris Johnson lied repeatedly to Parliament. Their next two inquiries are to ascertain whether or not the Pope is Catholic and if bears really do defaecate in forests.
Johnson himself has gone full Trump, denying – as he has done throughout his careers in both journalism and politics – that he tells lies “on purpose”. He has accused his fellow MPs of conducting a “witch-hunt.” It remains to be seen what support he has among Tory MPs, but there are at least some who still support him and he has been backed by part – although not all – of the Tory press.
The word “unprecedented” is used so much in British (and US) politics these days that is has lost some of its impact. But it is worthwhile taking a breath to think that it has never before happened in British Parliamentary history for a former Prime Minister to be banned from parliament.
Not only would Johnson have been banned for 90 days from the Commons – had he not chosen to jump before he was pushed – but he will now be denied the complimentary pass that is usually given to ex-Prime Ministers to allow them access to the Palace of Westminster.
The report of the Privileges Committee, over 100 pages in length and around 30,000 words, is not only a crushing condemnation of Johnson’s statements and assurances given over Covid lockdown breaches, but it gives an excoriating criticism of his attitude to the Committee itself.
“Many aspects of Mr Johnson’s defence are not credible…”
It lists four separate occasions when Johnson lied to the House of Commons over breaches in Covid rules: December 1, 2021, December 8, 2021, January 12, 2022 and May 25, 2022. In ever-so-polite parliamentary language, the report says, among other things, “Someone who is repeatedly reckless and continues to deny that which is patent is a person whose conduct is sufficient to demonstrate intent…Many aspects of Mr Johnson’s defence are not credible: taken together, they form sufficient basis for a conclusion that he intended to mislead”.
These four cases, of course, are only the episodes that are most clearly evidenced by the Committee’s meticulous – one might say ‘forensic’ – study of the records. But Johnson-watchers in general are well aware that he practically lies every time he opens his mouth. Like his friend Donald Trump, he habitually says what suits his needs in the moment, whether it bears any relationship to real facts or not.
The final insult the Committee baulked at was Johnson’s release of the contents of the report which had been given to him in confidence before it was officially released, and him throwing his toys out the pram. Johnson, the Committee found, committed “egregious breach of confidentiality“.
Then there followed his condemnation of the Committee as a “kangaroo court”. The Committee noted that “This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions“.
Committee attacks Johnson…but supports curtailment of democratic rights
It was Johnson’s release of details of the report and his rubbishing of the Committee that led to such a severe penalty, which otherwise would have been a lot less draconian.
We should not foster any illusions in this Committee, of course. They may object to Johnson trashing the ‘traditions’ and ‘norms’ of parliament, but his real crime is to do it in such an open and brazen fashion. Tory MPs and Prime Ministers have always lied, that is in the nature of their work. The economic system that they defend is based on greed and the enrichment of a tiny minority, and it would not last a week were it not for the lies they tell and the covering up they do, ably supported, of course, by the BBC and most of the media.
The ladies and gentlemen of the Committee may object to Johnson’s boorishness, but it hasn’t stopped them supporting a government, whose main policy thrust has been, and still is, the biggest cut living standards in generations. They have supported government cuts in the democratic right to strike, pushing us back a century in that regard, and to even to protest.
The right to protest is now virtually dependent on the whims and subjective wishes of the police; it is a right exercised for generations that is now emasculated and the Tory majority on this committee all trooped faithfully into the voting lobbies last week to support the government in it. Shamefully, Labour MPs abstained, which under the circumstances, was as good as support.
Trash the traditions of the honourable members in the House and you will be punished. Trash the democratic rights of ordinary workers, and you will be supported.
Unprecedent Tory split in its scale and toxicity
So what will happen now? There is no doubt the report will be agreed by the House of Commons, because every opposition MP will vote for it. The more interesting issue will be the extent to which Tory MPs back the report.
The Tory Party is split right down the middle – and it is justified, again, to use that word unprecedented, at least in modern times – to describe the scale and the toxicity of the split. Supporters of Johnson, including some newspapers, are threatening the deselection by local Tory associations of those MPs who back the report. Johnson may have limited support among MPs, but he is still widely supported by the geriatric membership of the Tory Party around the country.
Many Tory MPs are already planning to absent themselves from the vote next week and even Rishi Sunak, apparently, has decided to abstain. Sunak’s timidity will do him no good. If he loses the next election, as looks likely, Johnson will be back. The number of his open supporters in parliament today is not a measure of his potential support on the right of the Tory Party.
The Tory Party in parliament today is something of a circus, even if the chief clown has resigned. But as much as we might enjoy the spectacle, the serious side to the split in the Tory Party is that the Johnson wing today represents the outline of what may be a much more threatening far right party tomorrow.
[Top picture how the ‘i’ newspaper covered the report]
