22nd April 2022
As the cliché of American political reporting has it: what did the president know, and when did he know it?
Applying this same sort of question to current British politics, it may not be important so much that the prime minister (says he) did not realise he had misled the house of commons on four occasions, but about when he realised he had done so.
Here we need to look at this Twitter thread by the estimable Alexander Horne:
However, the rule also has a second limb – which to my mind is equally important. Ministers are expected to correct “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.” Thus, it is not sufficient for the PM to say that he did not “knowingly” mislead Parliament. /4
— Alexander Horne (@AlexanderHorne1) April 22, 2022
It will be impossible for any sensible person to believe that the prime minister did not realise at the time he misled the commons that he was lying.
Of course he did.
But – let’s pretend that the prime minister inadvertently misled the house of commons and that he believed in the truth of what he was saying.
Let’s pretend.
At some point between then and this week, he would have come to the realisation that he had misled the house of commons.
That might be when he had subsequent advice and briefings in respect of his evidence to the Sue Gray investigation.
It might have been when he had sight of the Sue Gray report.
It might have been when he had subsequent advice and briefings in respect of his evidence to the metropolitan police investigation.
But it is unlikely that the first time he realised was when he received his (first) fixed penalty notice.
Now, let us turn to a curious form of words used by the prime minister last Tuesday in his statement to the house of commons (emphasis added):
“Let me also say—not by way of mitigation or excuse, but purely because it explains my previous words in this House—that it did not occur to me, then or subsequently, that a gathering in the Cabinet Room just before a vital meeting on covid strategy could amount to a breach of the rules.”
At the time, that the two words “or subsequently” struck me as odd and in need of explanation.
The words did not seem like mere surplusage.
And now, given Horne’s highly useful and informed thread, the meaning of those two words are apparent.
For it is one thing for the prime minister to claim that he did not realise at the time of his four statements that he was misleading the house of commons.
But it is quite another for him to also maintain that he corrected “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
At some point between the four misleading statements to the house of commons and last week’s statement, the prime minister became aware that those four statements were not true.
(Of course, he knew at the time he misled the house, but let us continue pretending for the sake of exposition and analysis.)
And if and when the Sue Gray report is published (and/or the briefing given to the prime minister for the metropolitan police inquiry is disclosed) it may become plain that the prime minister did not correct “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
Those two words “or subsequently” are going to be doing a lot of work.
For, if it can be shown that even if the prime minister did in good faith mislead the house of commons on each of those four occasions, he also needs to satisfy the privileges committee that he corrected “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
And it may be that the Sue Gray report – or other information – may show that is just not true.
Given the powers of the privileges committee, that will not be a comfortable position for the prime minister.
He should brace, brace.
**
Thank you for reading – and please support this blog so that it can carry on.
These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
And by stating that it didn’t occur to him then or subsequently, he may have misled the House again in this instance, if there’s evidence he did know his earlier statements were misleading.
This makes perfect sense and to be honest I’m amazed no-one has raised it sooner. But just as the words ‘or subsequently’ are clearly BJ’s lawyer’s get-out phrase, so are phrases such as ‘I am reliably informed’ ‘I have been advised’ ‘from what I’ve been told’ and ‘I have it on good authority.’
I am not certain, but I believe he used such caveats every time he spoke in the House about this. Does that give him a legal escape?
I suspect he believes it does because he can argue he was only stating that someone told him something and he was just passing on what he had heard. Technically, he has not said ‘no rules were broken’ but that someone told him they weren’t.
Of course, the message that is conveyed is that no rules were broken and that there were no parties, but can he not argue that he was merely passing on heresay?
It is a ruse he has employed many times as have Gove, Hannan and others of this clique of dissemblers. I am no lawyer but would love to know what the facts are from someone who is, David.
Nah, sorry but the “gentleman” stated in PMQs that there were “no parties” which is patently untrue. He attended some of them and his pretence that they were somehow not parties (no red balloons, one of his underlings claimed!) strains credulity beyond the breaking point. Even if we go along the lines DAG is supposing, Bojo has known for months that parties took place and, ergo, that the guidelines were not followed “at all times”, so his “subsequently”boat has long since sailed. To my recollection (and I have not been following this with baited breath), I don’t believe he has ever specifically apologised for the parties (that he claimed didn’t happen), just for falling short of what the public expects – again, an out and out sham since the public plainly expects that the executive will not be partying when they have ordered them from refraining from doing so.
He likes oven analogies: his goose is cooked!
To give you a counterpoint…
The problem is that, thanks to the lack of a system of checks and balances, the PM’s goose would appear to be of the self-basting, self-roasting variety. Put another way, unless he lights the over, climbs in and pulls the door closed behind himself, he is not going to get cooked.
My calculus as follows:-
1. HM Opposition are completely ineffectual. Starmer continues to allow himself to be pulled in to gutter fights by Johnson. The latter has no shame and the decision to engage robs Starmer of respectability.
2. Johnson appears to be popular, cult-of-personality-stlye, with rank-and-file members of the party and Tory voters in general. For all who are outraged at the duplicity, there are three whose response is, “Meh! Politicians…”
3. The longer this goes on, the easier it will be for Johnson to avoid accountability.
Impossible to know how things will play out, but I wouldn’t put it past the Met to hold off handing down any more FPNs until the House breaks for summer recess.
The opposition is always ineffectual when faced with a large majority. There is little they can do to stop or amend government legislation in the Commons and were additionally hampered by the need to support government actions over the pandemic. However in recent weeks Starmer has been very effective in pinning Johnson down and the inquiry over partygate lies could well be the beginning of the end for Johnson. Starmer has cut down on the calm inquisitatorial style and become Mr Angry.
Johnson’s popularity has taken a huge knock over partygate and other issues of trust. Tory MPs now know he isn’t electoral magic any more. He wasn’t really that in 2019 had he not had Brexit to hitch his wagon too.
I always wonder about what exactly could be meant by “mislead”. I suspect that very few actually believed Johnson. If they didn’t believe the four statements and, so, were not lead to believe that no parties took place etc., then we’re they mislead? Can you be *mis*lead if not lead at all?
Does Johnson have a “no reasonable person would rely on a word I say” defence? (Entirely hypothetical, as the statement in inverted commas is true and, so, Johnson is incapable of uttering it.)
Clearly the PM was being very specific in his “full” apology, as the description he used only applies to the one event he is known to have had a fine for, his surprise birthday party. Thus he can claim that he did not believe that “a gathering in the Cabinet Room just before a vital meeting on covid strategy could amount to a breach of the rules.” Clearly any gathering as described was and is a perfectly legal one. However under covid rules as soon as the booze and cake turned up he should have realised it was no longer legal and called a halt to it.
This leaves all his other misleading statements to the house about partygate unaccounted for and not acknowledged as being in error. However he can subsequently claim, as he did at PMQs, that he had apologised to the house in full. Although it was still not actually an apology for his behaviour. He had apologised for the Met having found his behaviour to be illegal. Typical Johnsonian deflection and mendacity (© Greased Piglet Productions).
It seems improbable that he did not obtain legal advice at some point between his initial statements and finding out he had a FPN.
Several of his statements have signs of careful drafting untypical of his own work.
Is it believable that at no point in those conversations with multiple legal experts was he advised that his initial understanding that the guidance had been followed at all times might have been wrong?
Wouldn’t the very act of not asking or offering the answer to that most basic and central question point to the fact that he already knew the answer?
Many of the comments here raise interesting points on exactly what it means to ‘mislead the house’. Is it simply a typically coy Westminster euphemism for telling a direct lie? Or does it include all other statements that may be literally true but are nonetheless designed to give a false impression with a view to misleading the listener. Examples of the latter include half-truths, answering a different question to the one that was asked, heavily ‘lawyered’ statements, and all sorts of other evasions that are obstacles to honest debate but are nonetheless the stock in trade of politicians.
It would be a good start if the archaic pantomime that pervades our parliamentary process used more straightforward language. They should stop being mealy-mouthed, and call a lie a lie.
This article
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg?fbclid=IwAR0tZ15l02q-REnESZZxMgHa9ORuLioQPEBH87Ef-Slds79G5iV0drsG3S8
about Johnson’s time in the Oxford Union makes it clear that for him, as for many others, there has been a seamless continuity between that institution and the floor of the House of Commons. When he is on his feet in that Chamber, leading his baying hounds, the conventions and constraints of the court-room are an irrelevance . The oaths of office sworn by M.P.s and Privy Counsellors do not include an undertaking to speak, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
However the latter’s oath, while it only covers proceedings in Council, does include:
” You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; ”
Those last two words are Johnson’s get-out clause, since they presume he has one. So arguably the accusation of lying to the Queen over prorogation falls at that fence.
“Something rotten in the stare of Denmark”.
It is not just the lies of a PM that are the totality of the problem. The ministers and spox who dissemble the truth on the news daily. The Orwellian use of language – everything the UK does is apparently world-leading/beating/historic! Manifesto pledges/promises that can mean anything (no top down reorganisation of the NHS. Ready oven deals!) The deliberate slurring of people’s characters. Tax rises for middle/lower incomes because that solves all financial problems! Really?
Parliament should investigate every single MP , their spox, media links, influencers, and media contacts.
“There is no such thing as society” may now be true because we’ve been forced into (winning and losing) tribes. We’re told to hate asylum seekers because they are “illegal”, immigrants want our jobs…but we have vacancies, mask wearers v non wearers, JC is apparently the most anti-semitic person on the planet, and Rich people have earned their tax breaks. (Others can produce better lists)
The PM is both a problem and a symptom of a more deep seated problem. (In my humble opinion)
Quite agree… In my personal experience, the rot (Institutional Corruption of Daniel Morgan fame) you describe permeates all the way down through Parliament, Ombudsman, Local Government to Parish Council level; is it just that we have just got the Politicians we deserve?
Unfortunately, BJ’s attitude it typical of the ex-Public School Oxbridge ‘elite’; a self-serving, Old-boy network, Anti-oiks club attitude that seems to pervade politics (to some extent) on both sides of the House – out of touch with ‘real people’ – whoever they are…
Coupled with the dubious Public School educational practices of: “Don’t worry about learning all those nasty facts, you don’t need to know that to pass the exam… I’ll speak to the Dean if it all goes wrong…”, a real toxic mix.
But how to change…..?
Viva la revolution!
Ignorance of the law is no defense.
(Most especially when one just added said law to the statute).
But, David, being a stickler for a point of law, there is the 1984 Public Health (Control of Disease) Act which excludes Crown property, and Downing Street is regarded as Crown property. Of course, not a good look if the PM tried to pull such a line but he may have, technically, been exempt.
I think that was floated but debunked.
“Or subsequently” is quite aggressive language, and I noticed it when he said it. The way I hear it, he’s saying “Yes, I know, the police and others have concluded that crimes were committed; but I still contend that I told the truth.”
He’s saying that those he charged with (and thanked for) conducting the investigation are simply wrong.
Cameron’s epithet “greased piglet” becomes more apt with the passage of time.