I will, unfortunately, be in meetings for much of this afternoon, and as a result will not be able to see Boris Johnson's appearance before the House of Commons committee that is considering whether he has misled Parliament. However, as almost everything else has something to say on this issue this morning, so will I.
As I see it, there are a series of questions that this committee will have to answer. The first is whether or not Johnson did, as a matter of fact, mislead Parliament. In other words, was what he factually said to the House of Commons in November and December 2020 inaccurate?
On this question, I really do not think that there is much dispute as to the proper answer. It is very clear that what Johnson said was in accurate. Indeed, he has admitted that fact in his submission of evidence to the committee, so this is beyond dispute. The claims that Johnson made that Covid regulations and guidance were followed on all occasions were wrong. Those regulations and guidance were not followed.
What then has to be considered is whether he misled the House of Commons knowingly, intentionally or recklessly, with each representing an escalation of the alleged offence.
Until now, Johnson had not confirmed at which of the alleged parties he was present. We now know that he was present at at least five of them. What we therefore know is that he had the opportunity to appraise the evidence of the behaviour of others and himself at the time against the regulations and guidance that he was personally responsible for issuing under powers granted to him by parliament.
The test of whether he knowingly misled Parliament, given that these regulations were law, and the guidance was used to interpret that law by those with responsibility for enforcing it, is not in that case what his own thinking and expectations were. The criteria to be used for appraisal is whether a reasonable person should have known that the regulations and guidance were being breached. Law is not, after all, written for the benefit of the law maker (or at least it should not be). It is instead written to be applied generally with ignorance of the law being no excuse for breaking it.
What this means is that whatever Johnson has to say about the advice he received or the claims that he might make that others breached the law with him, is of absolutely no consequence in this case, and can be ignored by the committee. The test is not that others broke the law, so he could. It is personal and is whether he should have known that the law was being broken. I sincerely hope the committee dismiss any evidence on his nit knowing quickly in that case. It is inconsequential. And they need to do so quickly: this is where he will wallow in the hope of winning a sympathy vote.
The only actual question that need to be asked is whether a reasonable person in the situation in which Johnson found himself, encountering staff drinking, without social distancing, with more than two persons present, at an event that was clearly not related to their work duties, would have concluded given the observed behaviour that there was a party going on. If the committee decide a reasonable person would have reached that conclusion, given that the law necessarily required that they consider it, then no further evidence with regard to Johnson's intentions matter. He was guilty of knowingly misleading parliament because he had failed to appropriately appraise the evidence that was available to him as he was required to do by law by being there.
Johnson could, of course, have admitted a mistake. He could, when challenged, have said that he thought there was no party, but now appreciated that his judgement on this was wrong, and therefore he now wished to correct the record. He would have looked stupid. He would have admitted breaking the law. He would have admitted that many others had broken the law (which, as a matter of fact, we now know that they did). He would also have misled Parliament, but he would have put the matter right.
However, when this issue was drawn to his attention, he did not do that. He denied that there had been parties. He asked others to determine facts that he knew for himself. He did not disclose all those facts on a timely basis. He refused to discuss the evidence. He did not use the power of hindsight to reappraise what he already knew. That can only have been intentional. That intentional act led to parliament being misled for much longer than it need have been. He is, therefore, prima facie guilty of that charge.
The final question is whether this was reckless. In essence this asks whether or not he intentionally misled Parliament with the hope that he might get away with having done so. In other words, he gambled on the consequences.
Again, prima facie, that appears to be the case: he hoped that by delaying correcting the record he might be exonerated by the Sue Gray report or by the police who were investigating the parties. What we now know is that this was not the case. He was fined by the police. The Sue Gray report made it clear that there were parties and Johnson had been at some of them. He was reckless in hoping that the conclusion might have been otherwise.
Johnson will not wish the committee to take this direction of travel this afternoon. He will do his upmost to derail it by claiming that he was advised by others and therefore his actions were reasonable and that he could not have known what was going on. As noted above, the committee has to ignore all of this, and make it clear that they will do so very quickly. They are only required to consider the facts and to consider whether or not he should reasonably have known that the regulations and guidance with regard to Covid at the time that these events took place were complied with, or not. The rest of us were required to form such judgements. Johnson's claim that he was not required to do so but could rely on others is absurd. That is the kernel of this issue. Nothing else matters. I hope that the committee agree, and make this their focus.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The whole ridiculous affair makes the law an ass and parliament a farce. There has been zero need for a committee or for £250k of public money to be spent on it. I am beyond outrage.
Lord Pannick should be dismissed from the bar for participating and lending a veneer of normality to this farce.
Johnson has always followed the Michael Corleone approach.
Deny everything, no matter how ridiculous such denials maybe, and force your accusers to try and prove it.
There has to be a chance that at some point during the proceedings one of Johnson’s allies will appear at the back of the room with his arm around the brother of one of the the privileges committee Tory members.
It is what we won’t see or hear that will be of interest. What has been said or not said to the Conservative members of the committee? Has it been suggested to them that their future in politics depends on hearing no evil? Or has it been decided that, like Trump, Johnson damages the brand?
I’m not so sure how to deal with ‘party gate’ at all.
To me it is simply not the biggest crime Johnson has committed, nor the worst lie (as Peter Oborne will tell you).
I’d much rather he be going before Parliament to explain the PPE fiasco and the poor procurement issues or his dismissal with a speech at Greenwich of the Covid threat which led to such a poor response from his government and far too many deaths.
This is all parliamentary theatre as far as I am concerned. It could go either way you know?
And what is so cunning about it is that the charge sheet is not the most heinous of crimes either!
Some people might see this as an easy way to bring him down. But even so, it was only about a lie over some parties – not thousands of people dying or this misappropriation of millions of pounds of government money.
That’s my problem with it.
If Johnson stages a comeback in 6 months and people know he lied to parliament about some parties, then all they might think is:
1. Parliament is full of liars anway &
2. It was only about a party or two.
I’m afraid I don’t agree.
It is about holding Parliament in contempt, which Johnson has done throughout most of his time as an MP. It doesn’t matter what the subject of the contempt was (and it could, probably, have been many things), but it could lead to his losing his seat. It is beginning to look as if the Tories are losing patience withhim, anyway, so if he loses his seat he is unlikely to be offered one of the safe ones that may be available.
I hesitate to mention Al Capone when Michael Corleone has already appeared in this thread, but he was never done for murder – just tax evasion, but it was enough.
Cyndy
Parliament is in contempt of itself. It does not work. Do you really know how bad things are?
It is disgraceful that I too who had a mother in law of whom I was very fond in a home whom I had to talk to via a laptop – even worse for my partner.
But all of this happened BEFORE any party. It was the acts and omissions that I described above that he and others should be held accountable for.
By settling for this ‘side show’ og a lesser charge – do you not realise what might happen? That is my warning and I will stand by it.
Thank you.
Sorry, but that is making light of it.
How many people do you know who couldn’t see family members who were dying of covid because they obeyed the rules?
The covid enquiry itself has only just agreed to allow the bereaved families to give evidence in person. Until a week ago they would have been represented by well known tory backers.
I was on a covid ward for three weeks on oxygen, not knowing if I would live or die. I watched two women die of it in beds opposite.
He is guilty. If the committee let things continue, and do not give him a big enough penalty to require a recall, all faith left in politics will disappear.
Michael Mansfield led an inquiry in 2021 to ensure that people did not forget what went on in 2020/21 as far as covid was concerned. Obviously some people have forgotten what happened. Here’s the evidence.
https://www.peoplescovidinquiry.com/evidence
My wide said goodbye to her mother at a distance through a window
That was all they would allow
So sorry to hear that about your mother in law, Richard.
The People’s Covid Inquiry has actually sent a letter to the Met accusing Johnson of Misconduct in Public Office along with Hancock and others. They haven’t heard back yet, but the Met has all the evidence, as well as the government’s covid Inquiry.
Hopefully if MPs do the right thing this afternoon and Johnson is no longer an MP, the Met’s memory might be jogged.
PSR, people aren’t settling for this sideshow.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02803-8
People’s Covid Inquiry in the Lancet, by John Puntis who runs KONP, who organised the People’s Covid Inquiry. I’ve watched all the evidence, 2 hours a fortnight for a few months in 2020/21. Chaired by Michael Mansfield, it’s very compelling.
I am wondering if, if Johnson loses his seat with this “sideshow”, it could be easier to take him to court. All the evidence is with the Met and the government covid Inquiry.
I understand your concerns about PPE and the like but never underestimate the importance of honesty, particularly in the democratic life of the country.
If our elected leader is prepared to lie with impunity in Parliament then the floodgates open.
Truth is the only thing that stands between us and rule by the very worst in this country.
Paul
There was dishonesty over PPE; dishonesty over ‘putting a protective ring around care homes’; dishonesty in making light of and not attending COBRA meetings.
How much dishonesty do you want Paul?
Take your pick?
But pick the worst is my advice. We are being set up here to think that the parties thing was really bad. Was it? A whole load of bad went on before the parties believe you me.
And getting a bollocking for a few parties leaves the door possibly open to Johnson’s reform and restoration as a political player.
Johnson is not done yet. He knows there are people who support him and people who will fall for him. And the Tories have enough money and nous to make that work – just ask Isaac Levido.
Johnson is obviously guilty. Why did the Metropolitan Police fine him if he is totally innocent? Corrupt and institutionally racist, misogynist, and homophobic as they are, even the Met would not make a mistake on this one. Let’s hope Johson is banned from Parliament, and a bye-election is called and he is soundly defeated. He is a lying and thoroughly unpleasant character – good riddance!
I’m not sure how much good it does to get bogged down in legal niceties, but “intention” is usually interpreted as carrying a higher degree of culpability than “recklessness”.
Intention generally connotes knowing the consequences of an act (or omission) and doing something to achieve those consequences. There are no windows or doors in men’s souls, so you have to impute intention from the evidence of what people say and what they do. Courts do it all the time.
Recklessness generally connotes taking an action that someone knew (or should have known) gives rise to a risk of a consequence, and going ahead anyway, either not caring about the risk or not giving any thought to the risk.
Knowledge sits somewhere in the middle – knowing something is wrong, and doing it anyway.
Johnson will say he did not know, could not have known, and was not told, there was a breach of the rule or guidance, and almost everyone else will roll their eyes, and ask in what world was it “essential” or even “reasonable necessary” for the Prime Minister and his staff to hold multiple drinks parties during a global pandemic. The guy has been shown time and again to be a compulsive and inveterate liar, and will continue to lie even when when caught out.
But this is not a court of law
I gather it did not go well for him
Richard, you say that you are going to watch the Johnson proceedings. I looked at every TV channel I had and saw no listing. If you have a moment, could you mention how you are accessing the prodeedings? Thanks.
I think Parliament TV had it
I did not see it. I have been in meetings
I think it’s on the BBC Parliament channel via IPlayer
The whole unedifying spectacle is here, if you have a spare three hours or so: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/b9859dd9-ee83-4af2-ae71-9fac617dc570
It seems clear that there was a regular and unhealthy drinking culture at Downing Street before the pandemic, and that continued during the lockdowns. Perhaps the special bunnies there just thought that their regular socialising was an essential and unavoidable part of their work, but that really does not hold much water. I doubt many people outside the Whitehall bubble were drinking with dozens of work colleagues on a regular basis during the lockdowns.
Whether people were subsequently fined or not (and there are all sorts of reasons why the police do not try to punish every crime) it was clearly and obviously against the rules and the guidance.
While Partygate may not be the most serious of Mr Johnson’s transgressions, its public, understandable and simple to understand.
In my experience, as a ‘for example’ disciplinaries at work, whatever they start with end up with looking at if someones time sheet is accurate – or not
I am watching a world first – man in coffin – nailing the lid shut on himself.
Pity one of the Greek playwrights are not still around – they would make a great comedy out of it (tragedy being for more serious subjects).
Mike, Parr, Max Hastings said we won’t see the end of Johnson until he is buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart!
Which is precisely my point.
Parliament – a root of power that has actually had its power stymied by the Tories – has decided in my view to pursue Johnson over what is the lesser of the evils he committed. I watched the committee as well and to be honest I’m not sure it looked as damaging as suggested.
I want to be wrong but I’m concerned that we’ve been conned because I’m looking at the people who might replace Johnson/Sunak and they seem just the same policy wise. And there is still a chance he could come back from this.
Parliament is merely giving the people an offering in my view – satiating anger but leaving the war on working people and continuing support of the establishment’s influence on government policy, with Harriet Harman as Pontius Pilate.
Ha ha Jenw, don’t forget the garlic stuffed into the mouth, and the head then separated from the body! But I hope you’re wrong, and this wretch is forced to face a by-election which he loses (heavily), and is then held to account as a private citizen for his crimes and misdemeanours in office by the People’s Covid enquiry.
Then sued into orbit and bankrupted by damages fees by those who lost loved ones as a result of his actions.
It was on the BBC news channel. I was thinking it might be on parliament TV, but it said on there that it was on BBC News channel.
I think calling the committee insane if they say he is guilty is insane. Has he bween reading your tweets, Richard, or had someone read them to him?
Rees-Mogg is making himself look insane on Channel 4 news now, saying he thought Johnson was cool as a cucumber when questioned. However calling the committee a kangaroo court and the people on it marsupials is not going to help Johnson.
I wonder if all of the tories on the committee have decided to leave when this parliament comes to an end. The one who was cool as a cucumber was Bernard Jenkins.
Bernard Jenkin’s quiet but relentless questioning in the face of Johnson’s bluster and fits of temper was a thing to behold. Things may have been said quietly to the committee members but you shouldn’t assume orders will be followed. Anyway, Sunak may well want to bury Johnson.
In Other News, the tide is slowly going out on Brexit. There is a direction of travel and Sunak is taking the first steps out of necessity. The next government will go further, out of necessity.
How brutal will Sunak be in stamping his control over the party? We have seen what Starmer did to the Corbynites and Sunak was undoubtedly taking notes.
I thought the way all of the committee dealt with Johnson was impressive. Instead of getting into an argument with him they let him speak his nonsense, asked some pointed questions, let him tie himself in knots giving a non-answer, and moved on. They did not need to get him to admit he knew he was in the wrong, they just wanted to hear wether he had any justification to offer. I particularly liked the chap on the left side of the committee, second one up.
I was also intrigued by the expressions crossing Pannick’s face – he was the one sat behind Johnson’s right elbow withe grey hair and round datk framed glasses. I think you could tell each time Johnson strayed from the agreed responses, from the little smiles he couldn’t conceal.
Yesterday proved for anyone who doesn’t have a servile peasant mentality a classic expose of the ‘public school class’. Johnson didn’t just show the whole country what an arrogant, entitled scumbag he is, he put all his peers in the frame as well.
They are as a class 99.9% immoral, totally corrupt, really quite stupid and if pushed into a corner by overwhelming mass action will have no hesitation in using the police and the army to maintain ‘control’. You only have to profile their ‘way of life’ to see how dysfunctional it is. It starts with the brutalising of little boys, sending them away to prep school at an age when they should be receiving time,love and affection from their parents. The very real indoctrination both subtle and overt they receive at ‘public school’. What normal woman would willingly send her young son away to institutions that are riven with paedophiles?
Anyone who has studied psychology at even a basic level could see clearly how dysfunctional Johnson is. Then apply this lens to look at virtually all in the Nasty party and it is self evident.
Sadly most on the island block out this realisation because it must imply action to remove this debilitating virus and that frightens them into inaction. This inaction leaves the country in the state it is now.
The best was at the beginning, when Johnson clung on to a very large Bible with his pudgy hands and promised to tell the whole truth! The rest was Johnson as usual