24th March 2023
Yesterday’s post on the appearance of Boris Johnson before the committee of privileges was supposed to the last on that topic…
…but.
It is really such a delicious constitutional moment – the legislature holding the former head of the executive to account with contested views of whether there should be a judicial process is a heady concoction of the supposed separation of powers.
And so here is a further thought, brought about by the lethal questioning of Johnson by the Conservative backbencher Alberto Costa on exactly what advice Johnson had taken, and from whom.
Johnson admitted that he did not taken legal or any other official advice before telling the House of Commons that he had been advised that the applicable rules and guidance had been followed.
It seems the advice was merely from a political adviser.
Well.
Johnson has certainly taken a lot of legal advice since.
If only he had taken legal advice at the right time, then he would have been saved having to take all this legal advice afterwards.
A stitch in time saves the need for any stitch-up later.
Have a good weekend.
***
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Thank you for this. A suitably jocular way to end the week, whilst reflecting on the whole range of issues you have flagged up.
Alberto was a highlight for sure. Not a man whose politics I generally admire, but he was absolutely faithful to his brief. Of course, he’s Scottish. There was a definite hint of Helena Kennedy’s douce Morningsayd, which always seems to help the knife slip in.
Leftie lawyer hater gets lawyered up for free. One rule for them…
In stitches
And it would saved me (taxpayer) a very large amount of money.
Alberto Costa was fabulous. Über scrupulous in his mannerly and deferential approach as he dug huge bear traps Johnson could not avoid falling into without very obviously perjuring himself. Lawyering himself up to the max (at the taxpayers’ expense) might be viewed by some as an indication, I won’t say of guilt, but at the least of the depth of the trouble Johnson knew himself to be in. For once, he was interrogated on the consequences of his actions. But as with all pathological narcissists, his “truth” is the “truth” no matter how much at variance to the verité it is.
Why did he need legal advice for a political process?
Why did he get taxpayers’ money for it?
Perhaps you should add a qualifying word such as ‘independent’ or ‘credible’ to your suggestion that Johnson should have taken legal advice before facing questions in Parliament on Partygate.
The Attorney General of the time, Suella Braverman, was reportedly summoned to Number 10 the morning before he updated the Commons on 8th December 2021.
We don’t know what was discussed, but if Partygate was on the agenda, then any advice she may have given him on the matter would appear to have been partisan and/or duff.
Alberto Costa was excellent. Another estimable Glasgow Scot, and untainted by holding ministerial office under the last four PMs.
Johnson didn’t seek independent legal advice because then he wouldn’t have been able to go to the HoC and say he had been assured all the rules and guidance had been followed. Instead he was careful to seek ‘advice’ from other rule-breakers and toadies who could be trusted to collude in constructing an edifice of lies.
Or alternatively just too lazy to bother to do things properly.
“Taken advice” is almost certainly the wrong phrasing with Johnson. “Listened to advice” would be slightly more credible. “Was in the same room when advice was given” would be even better.
“Didn’t take any advice at all and blithely lied” might be the best.
One shouldn’t need a lawyer for advice on such a question – it should be sufficient for someone to find and read the rules.
Which, presumably, Johnson trusted his adviser had done.
If the rules are unclear enough that legal advice is required, then that’s the fault of whoever wrote the rules, not Johnson
Instead of Johnson stitching us up let’s hope he is now stitched up himself. In a large bag and rolled into the ditch he once boasted of.
It’s typical of Johnson wasting public time and money by acting recklessly.
Actually, all Johnson had to do was (1) tell the truth and (2) if something he said in the House turned out to be incorrect then have the parliamentary record corrected.
A schoolboy would have known that covid requirements were broken in Downing Street even if the schoolboy could not details.
None of this is rocket science requiring expensive legal advice at every turn. Why are lawyers trying to make it so ?
“Why are lawyers trying to make it so ?”
Do not blame the lawyers for their client.