That was some weekend. I doubt the turmoil has ended yet. But there as fallouts, and those are what I am interested in.
One such fallout is with regard to parliamentary democracy.
Johnson and his acolytes have tried to shred the idea that this exists. Johnson quit knowing that a Conservative-dominated committee was reporting against him. He also knew that the Conservative majority in the House of Commons, which he created, would do the same thing. Consequently, he, Nadine Dorries, Jacob Rees Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns and others have been calling the process used by the Privileges Committee that of a Kangaroo Court.
It was no such thing. It was a proper procedure by the House to investigate a member who had misled Members from the Despatch Box.
This worries me if it is not addressed because there is no doubt that Johnson will spend the rest of his life saying that he was driven out of the House by an undemocratic process. He wasn't. Democracy - and anti-fascism - requires that it be clear that he was not.
In that case, I do hope that the members of the Committee in question take legal action against members still sitting for what they have said and libel action against those former members who have maligned them, because that would seem to be what has happened.
You cannot describe those undertaking due process in a democracy who make findings based on evidence as a kangaroo court when you are a former prime minister, minister of MP and hope to get away with it. Democracy requires that these people be brought to account. I hope that they are.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I forget – what did Johnson mislead the house into doing? He’s not believable anyways so how could he lead MPs into doing something they would not otherwise.
Parliament didn’t vote on anything material, or anything at all as far as I can tell after listening to what Johnson had said.
It’s rather different to a Prime Minister who was usually believable presenting misleading evidence about something horrible in a dossier to Parliament and then asking them to vote on what to do about it.
Very politely, please stop being stupid
I don’t understand your point. Johnson has decided to resign and, in doing so has accused the members of the committee who have produced a report about him of dishonesty. Are you saying that Johnson is so mentally incompetent that he should not have been allowed to resign, a little like those with mental health issues are sometimes not allowed to make their own decisions? Or are you saying that dishonesty is acceptable if there are no direct consequences?
It really isn’t just about partygate, and I wish some people would stop pretending it is.
Johnson and Hancock are responsible for thousands of people dying unnecessarily.
There are 62,000 children with Long Covid now, who will be adversely affected probably for the rest of their lives.
30% of people with long covid work in healthcare, and are more likely to lose their jobs because of long covid.
Johnson lied about all of that and is still lying.
Orwell said if you remove the data, you remove the concept, and that is what the government is doing all the time. Johnson is responsible for that!!!!
Vile-tory MPs were happy using Mendacious Fatberg we they needed him, knowing his congenital faults. When these all became too much, it was dump-him time. As for Dorries, SMogg, Jenkyns et al calling the process a Kangaroo Court, they rather miss the point. It was merely a process to get rid of bad rubbish. Fair? Unfair? – largely irrelevant, the rubbish had to go, it went, in a process largely managed by Fatbergs previous supporters (et tu Brutus?).
In my view, this is much more serious:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/12/police-in-great-britain-could-be-given-near-total-discretion-over-protests
Keep in mind, the laws that allow thug-plods total discretion with respect to citizen (sorry “serf”) assembly & protest were voted on by the self same vile-tories that dumped M-F. These vile-tories are not & never have been defenders of democracy, they want UK serfs – servile & quiescent. The M-F saga can be regarded as a squabble in an exclusive club – with one member being expelled because his face didn’t fit. But, the resulting fan-fara is useful to obscure far far more pernicious acts by the vile-tories, with vile-Liebore silent because they can’t wait to get their hands on the levers of power & all those wonderful laws that they did little to oppose.
But the committee now need protection from the mob
That matters
I’ve noted that various tory ministers have recently been challenged by the opposition about ‘incorrect assertions’ made at the dispatch box (read: lies) and are downright refusing to instruct Hansard to update the records of their lies.
A very chilling development.
Agreed
It is not long ago Amber Rudd resigned for inadvertently doing this
Now they just lie
We can see quite clearly what happens when the kind of cynical and dangerous games being played by Johnson and his clique go unchecked.
Trump got away with this kind of behaviour for years, and managed to squeak through two impeachments, so that now, the lie that the 2020 election was stolen is part of the fabric of right wing politics.
We must not allow that to happen here, and the actions in parliament over the next few days will be critical in squashing Johnson’s attempt to discredit the process. Is Rishi Sunak strong enough to do this? If not who will?
Getting the gist of this, I would say that those who have been given peerages, need to have them revoked first of all.
How an earth they can go into the Lords denouncing legitimate parliamentary functions is beyond me and affront to our democracy.
Anyone standing down and saying such things should be barred from standing again.
Hi Richard. I think the origin of the term matters too, if we are worried about the worst abuses of the US system that we have seen under Trump being dragged across the Atlantic by Johnson and his supporters and inflicted on us: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/10/word-of-the-week-kangaroo-court
I noticed on Politics Live that the tory MP, Jake Berry, a lawyer, would not say if he agreed that it was a kangaroo court as he had not read the statement.
He was asked a few times if that meant it could be, but would not answer.
The committee should be able to say that all those who said so were/are in contempt of parliament, surely.
Definition of contempt of Parliament :
“deliberately misleading a house of the legislature, or a legislative committee;
refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, a house or committee; and
attempting to influence a member of the legislature by bribery or threats.”
I would deem branding the court as a Kangaroo Court as a threat to its impartiality and a threat to the power of Parliament itself.
In constitutional terms Johnson represents an attempt to aggrandise the power of the executive over all constraints : Parliament , the law and the King himself.
Things like threats to judicial review, Public information requests, the use of vague enabling legislation, intimidation of the courts to not interfere all rose under Johnson.
Allowing him to skulk off is not punishment enough. Charges of Misconduct in office are still relevant and will be shown to be more so as the Covid inquiry proceeds. As with Trump there is no point in showing clemency.