Today the privileges committee of the House of Commons published the latest submission of Boris Johnson.
Nobody takes this submission seriously, at least not for its supposed primary purpose – that of being the solemn defence of Johnson against the charge of culpably misleading the House of Commons (and/or not correcting the record in a timely manner).
Nobody, including Johnson himself and the clever wordsmiths who crafted the arguments in the document.
The document, however, may have a number of secondary purposes.
*
First, there is the political and personal strategic purpose of Johnson at the end of the process being able to claim that he has been “cleared” and “exonerated” regardless of whether he is actually cleared or exonerated.
Here Johnson may have already written off the committee report, and he realises some culpability will be found.
And so what Johnson is looking at is how this document can frame what is happening for what then follows, especially any vote of the House of Commons on sanction.
If he can, for example, say that the committee accepted he acted “in good faith” but that he should have corrected the record sooner then he can say he has been “cleared” and “exonerated” even though the committee finds him in breach because of his correction.
As such he is working backwards from the tale he wants to tell after the committee reports.
(If the submission works so that he is not found in breach, then all the better – but he knows the evidence against him is compelling.)
If he makes it as difficult as possible for the privileges committee to land a clean blow against Johnson on “good faith” at the time the House was misled, then he may escape any significant sanction.
Johnson then “wins”.
*
Second, there is the tactical purpose of framing the ongoing narrative of this story on terms favourable to Johnson.
He is sending signals to his media and political supporters, some of whom are happily repeating his talking points and believe Johnson to be some sort of a victim.
This spin maximises his political space for manoeuvre: he retains political support and (somehow) the benefit of the doubt of some who should know better.
This submission helps Johnson in defining the charges against him on his own terms, rather than on the committee’s terms: Is the committee being unfair? Did he act in good faith? Hasn’t he apologised for what was on his watch? And so on.
*
Third, a long submission like this may have the purpose of justifying the considerable amount of public money spent on Johnson’s defence.
If Johnson had one strong basis for defence, a few pages would be enough, perhaps even one page, perhaps even one paragraph.
But as a general rule: the longer the litigation letter, the weaker the case.
This is 52 pages.
*
And fourth (and here I am being playfully ironic), this document is a wonderful example of public art.
The amount of public money spent on this document could have been wasted on some drab statue or earnest mural, but here we have instead a thing of beauty.
Almost every sentence of this submission – almost every sub-clause – is a delight to be cherished, demonstrating real craft.
Take for example:
“the Committee did not identify a single document which suggested that I was informed or warned by anyone that any event at No. 10 was contrary to the Rules or Guidance”
Just take a moment to think about that, just as you would take a moment to ponder a clever detail in a painting or a poem.
And then you have the happy realisation that this could be said by almost any person facing any sanction at any time.
I did not wrong, the accused person could say, because I was not informed or warned that what I was doing was wrong.
Of course, Johnson like the rest of us during the pandemic were expected to know the rules and guidance for themselves – and. if not, we could always listen to the then prime minister Boris Johnson at one of his press conferences telling us about the rules and guidance.
There are many, many more such sentences.
This masterwork of a submission, full of artificial beauty, should not just be a submission to some parliamentary committee.
It should also be submitted to the Turner Prize.
*
Will this submission serve the interests of the greased piglet?
Will it help him in anyway?
Will he be, with one leap, be free from serious sanction – again?
This submission shows how such an escape can happen – as long as you do not take it seriously as an actual defence.
***
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.
Always a pleasure to read your thoughts.
I am reminded of Trafalgar Square on 4th November 1956 and Aneurin Bevan mocking the Prime Minister over his handling of President Nasser and the Suez Canal:
“Sir Anthony Eden has been pretending that he is now invading Egypt in order to strengthen the United Nations. Every burglar of course could say the same thing, he could argue that he was entering the house in order to train the police. So, if Sir Anthony Eden is sincere in what he is saying, and he may be, then he is too stupid to be a Prime Minister.”
Bevan then went on to call on the Prime Minister to resign:
I am reminded of Trafalgar Square on 4th November 1956 and Aneurin Bevan mocking the Prime Minister over his handling of President Nasser and the Suez Canal:
“Sir Anthony Eden has been pretending that he is now invading Egypt in order to strengthen the United Nations. Every burglar of course could say the same thing, he could argue that he was entering the house in order to train the police. So, if Sir Anthony Eden is sincere in what he is saying, and he may be, then he is too stupid to be a Prime Minister.”
This snippet of the speech is what I meant to have posted …
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01b77rk
Wonderful!
I’ve no formal legal training, just what we were told in school as being essential for what ever one ended up doing. No 1 being `”Ignorance of the law is never an excuse”. So the whole of “SUBMISSIONS OF RT HON BORIS JOHNSON MP” is a total charade.
But Johnson went to the ‘best’ schools so that won’t apply to him
If nothing else the artistry of his submission highlights how Johnson learned little from Eton or Oxford on the effectiveness of lame “he made me do it” excuses. On the other hand he did discover the many escape hatches that money & influence can buy and have stood him in good stead, up to now anyway.
“It should also be submitted to the Turner Prize.” But perhaps better delivered to Banksy.
I found it a curiously uneven document, with difference of tone between paragraphs of Johnsonian self-justificatory exposition and other passages that had clearly been drafted with great care by expensive lawyers.
His main contention appears to be that he could not have known that his statements in the house were misleading, and could not correct any of them, until both the Metropolitan Police and Sue Grey had completed their investigations. That is an interesting interpretation of “correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
If this is intended to be his evidence in chief, should there be there statement of truth? Perhaps he should be put on oath.
“… better delivered as if by Banksy to an auction house.”
The BBC is giving plenty of air time for his supporters to embellish the narrative of a “kangaroo court” and how very unfair it all is.
Lord Pannick should hang his head in shame and the bench should dismiss him for making a total mockery of “justice” and truth.
As the old psychiatrist joke goes to the young lady in the chair:
“you’re neither mad nor bad Ms Jones – you’re worth £5000/hour to me”…..
What a wonderful world.
Dropping a 15000 word submission less than 48 hours before a hearing is a stunt and a half in itself.
Any competent lawyer receiving such a document would normally want time to cross reference facts and dates and make additional research about certain of the points raised unless of course he was very confident about his own case beforehand.
The writing style is incredibly self indulgent . With short sentences it could have easily been reduced to 40 pages.
It would be interesting to know what his own Counsel really thinks of this.
I fear the greased piglet will slip away once again but one sanction I wish the Committee could authorise is the removing of “Right Honourable” – what a mockery our politics have become.
Even though even a tame rabbit knows that he lied to the Commons I expect he will be exonerated with a Tory majority on the Committee. Tory MPs will always vote for party and the taxpayer has paid a quarter of a million pounds for Johnson to have the best legal advice to make it equivocal. How far have they and we sunk and how much farther have we yet to sink? It is now perfectly acceptable for a PM, indeed any Minister to knowingly lie to Parliament. Johnson has degraded us all. We are already a banana Monarchy.
I’ve no dog on this race whatsoever, but the real winner is undoubtedly David Pannick KC who has played a blinder – not only for the strategy of deciding to help (defend) Johnson with his submission but for getting, reputedly c. £5000/hr to support Johnson with his ‘masterful’ submission which may yet, as you write David, win the Turner Prize.
Oh, the irony.
Thank you, David, for providing the proper perspective for Johnson’s dossier. The committee will, unfortunately, have to carry on the pretence that it is a serious contribution.
I shall watch the hearings in the (probably vain) hope of the moment when Johnson, like Captain Queeg in ‘The Caine Mutiny’ is forced to admit that he had after all been told that the mess boys had eaten the strawberries.