Boris Johnson battles to survive in politics

March 22 was a day of extraordinary televised theatre in one of the committee rooms of Portcullis House, a modern extension of the 1,100-year-old Palace of Westminster or Britain’s Houses of Parliament. Unprecedentedly, a former British prime minister, Boris Johnson, was questioned under oath for three hours by the directly elected House of Commons’ Privileges Committee. This was democracy at its finest, though hard-core supporters of the man in the dock condemned the process as a ‘witch-hunt’ and a ‘kangaroo court’.

The accusation against Johnson is that he, as head of government, deliberately and recklessly misled the Commons in December 2021 about parties in 2020-21 at his iconic office premises at 10 Downing Street, which were strictly forbidden under Covid restrictions. If indicted, he could be suspended from Parliament for a long enough period to trigger a by-election in his constituency—which in the present climate of his Conservative party struggling in opinion polls, he could lose and thereby be unseated. It may seem harsh punishment for the offence committed. But there is no escape from the standards expected of a minister of His Majesty’s Government.

On 30 November 2021, the left-leaning daily The Mirror ran an eye-catching exclusive, based on information leaked to it via a proverbial ‘brown envelope’. It headlined: ‘Boris Johnson “broke Covid lockdown rules” with Downing Street parties at Xmas.’ The reference was to Christmas 2020, when Britain was in the throes of a strangling epidemic, with nationwide lockdown rules imposed by Johnson’s own government.

The next day at the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons, he was questioned about the party—which was held on 18 December 2020—by the leader of opposition Sir Keir Starmer. Johnson did not deny that such an event had occurred. But insisted: ‘All (Covid) guidance was followed.’

A week later at PMQs, when a video surfaced of his press advisor and her colleagues in splits in a mock run of a media conference on the matter, Starmer pressed him again. Though apologising profusely for his officials’ conduct as caught on camera, Johnson replied: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged, there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken.”

The assurances he claimed to have received before he made his statements in the Commons have become an issue. But more central to his current difficulties is British MPs’ unanimous reference to the Privileges Committee for adjudication on whether he intentionally lied to Parliament on 1 and 8 December 2021. Thus, he appeared, less dishevelled than normal, his blond hair no longer the old-signature Friar Tuck design, in defence of his case.

The drama was preceded by the eight-member Committee publishing an interim report, to which Johnson responded with a 52-page denial; the Committee, five hours before the hearing, updated its latest opinion. In a prepared statement before his fellow MPs—who are called upon, as Chair Harriet Harman put it, to leave their ‘party interests at the door of the Committee’—he said: “Hand on heart, I did not lie to the House”.

He did not deny that gatherings had taken place where alcohol was served. But justified these as being “essential for work purposes”, thank you parties, to lift staff morale after in one instance the departure of a cabinet secretary and in another the resignations of his chief of staff and director of communications in what he described as “acrimonious” circumstances.

He also did not refute the charge that existing Covid rules were imperfectly followed, suggesting “unsocially distanced farewell gatherings” were permitted, pointing to mitigating provisions in the guidelines that had been set out accompanying the rules. He pleaded: “We were following the guidance to the best of our ability”. To this, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Johnson’s Conservative party Committee member, quipped: “I’m bound to say that if you had said all that at the time to the House of Commons, we probably wouldn’t be sitting here, but you didn’t.”

Johnson, however, refused to accept that any of the assemblies were social functions, not even a drinks get-together in the Downing Street garden attended by his wife Carrie, where 200 people had been invited (though only about 40 turned up) when the ceiling for open-air meets was categorically 20.

London’s Metropolitan Police slapped 126 £100 penalties on offenders for various violations, including Johnson and Rishi Sunak, now prime minister, for a mini birthday bash in Downing Street’s cabinet room. One party the night before the late Queen Elizabeth’s husband Prince Philip’s funeral in April 2021 stretched into the early hours, with music, dancing and consumption of suitcases of hard liquor.

Johnson has since developed a dislike for Sunak, whose resignation as chancellor of the exchequer in July 2022 was the beginning of the end for Johnson as prime minister. The ‘accused’ undisguisedly attempted to drag in his once protégé into his corner by saying, if it was ‘obvious’ to the Committee that there had been rule-breaking at No. 10, then it would also be ‘obvious’ to others, including Sunak.

What happens next? The Committee will now collate Johnson’s testimony with the evidence it has gathered over the past 11 months. Its verdict is expected to be published by the summer. The pronouncement will determine whether Johnson was in contempt of the Commons. If it concludes that he was, then it will recommend appropriate sanction.

Whatever the ruling, the whole of the Commons will then debate the findings; and founded on a free vote, pass a motion for or against it. Johnson maintained it would be ‘utterly insane’ if the Committee found him to be in contempt of Parliament. He expected to be ‘exonerated’ as, according to him, there was no evidence against him.

The Privileges Committee generally reaches its opinions by consensus, if not unanimously. With four of the eight members being Conservatives, notwithstanding their commitment to impartiality, the political editor of the right-wing Spectator magazine felt Johnson might be spared the worst. In other words, he may not be exposed to the ignominy of losing his parliamentary seat. The left-of-centre Guardian seemed to concur: ‘sources suggested it was possible they (the Committee) could recommend a sanction just short of that required to prompt a by-election’.

Johnson poses the greatest threat to the Indian-origin Sunak’s continuance as prime minister. If the sanction is relatively mild, he will most likely mount a challenge to dislodge the incumbent. A significant section of the Conservative rank and file still prefer him to the lacklustre and politically lightweight Sunak. They think Johnson’s connect with voters and campaign technique will narrow the margin of what looks like an unavoidable defeat to Labour in next year’s general election.