15th June 2023
*
Words! Words! Words! I’m so sick of words!
I get words all day through;
First from him, now from you!
Is that all you blighters can do?
– Eliza Doolittle
*
Words, words, words.
So many words – strong words, vivid words, striking words.
Words like “…a kangaroo court…skewed…sole political objective of finding me guilty…prejudicial…not be tolerated in a normal legal process…incredulous…time-wasting procedural stunt…puzzling…This is rubbish…It is a lie…this deranged conclusion…patently absurd…transparently wrong…Complete tripe…a load of complete tripe…ludicrous…a rehash of their previous non-points…nothing new of substance to say…preposterous…totally ignored…How on earth do these clairvoyants know exactly what was going on at 21.58…It is a measure of the Committee’s desperation that they are trying incompetently and absurdly to tie me to an illicit event…utterly incredible…artifice…Charade…This report is a charade…I was wrong to believe in the Committee or its good faith…The terrible truth is that it is not I who has twisted the truth to suit my purposes…This is a dreadful day for MPs and for democracy…vendetta…trumped up charges”.
All these words, words, words are from this morning’s statement from Boris Johnson.
But sometimes words – even colourful and extreme words – can make no difference.
For against such any sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity, are the twin deadly enemies of the populist and charlatan: process and evidence.
And in this way, today’s Privileges Committee Report has wings that are like a shield of steel.
Words, words, words, will all bounce off.
Each of the findings of the committee is based on stated evidence, and each of the conclusion rests on the findings.
And at key stages the committee has been at pains to ensure Johnson (and his lawyers) had an opportunity to respond to any potentially adverse findings and conclusions.
Try as he may, with ever-stronger words, there is nothing Johnson can do to dislodge the evidence and the findings and the conclusions.
They shall squat there, over him, and they do not care about Johnson’s fierce words.
As such, the privileges committee report complements the federal indictment of Trump.
There, similarly, a calm reasoned, evidenced and through document will be hard for Donald Trump to derail or discredit.
*
Alas, however, the soft and malleable politics of the populists will not be defeated only by process and evidence.
It is only at extremes that process and evidence can be invoked to tame the unruly and untruthful.
The challenge is to defeat populists like Johnson and Trump not with exceptional proceedings where they cannot lie their way through, but in the day-to-day bustle of practical politics.
Unfortunately it is not possible to make every politician sign a statement of truth, under a plausible pain of perjury, for everything they say.
Yes, there will be times where the likes of Johnson and Trump will hit the limits of what they can get away with.
But what those opposed to the likes of Johnson and Trump need to do is find ways of defeating them without resort to processes and evidence.
Process and evidence have their valuable place within any polity, but they are not enough.
The likes of Johnson and Trump need to be defeated politically too.
***
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.
Excellent words words words. Sometimes I feel it’s just me suffering from the tripe that surrounds us and then I read your wise words and all the nonsense turns into common sense. Thank you.
They must be absolutely, beyond any doubt, routed politically.
Yes, I worry that the obituaries for Johnson could be premature and the report could generate a backlash and energize support for him to stand for a new party. Hope I’m proved wrong, or that his desire for money outweighs his desire for power.
I do wish the media would learn from the past and pay less attention to him.
I hope you’re right! At least while we have FPTP any far right populist party will split the right wing vote and we’ll never see the likes of Johnson again – at least if the BBC start to limit the oxygen of publicity to these types.
I know there’ll always be people who are fooled by populists but I have faith in the majority of British voters. I can’t see them storming HoP to overturn a vote they – or least their “leaders” – don’t like.
If he stands for another party he may find an unexpected obstacle – since the committee’s sanctions have been approved by the House, he seems to fall into case 1 (4) of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 and therefore would be subject to immediate recall if elected. There does not seem to be any time limit on how long before the recall that the suspension must be ordered (and note that it is the ordering of the suspension that counts – not the serving of it). It’s also possible that he would be subject to immediate suspension as the Act does not specify that suspensions must be served immediately.
And, of course, the most serious difficulty he would face is finding a constituency stupid enough to elect him after all the revelations of how he has behaved.
As a constitutional lawyer I hope you are somewhat comforted that this small part of our checks and balances against a rogue unscrupulous PM or other politician in the HofC can be addressed. The Committee did the job demanded of it by the Commons; despite a majority Tory membership (with two avowed Brexiters) they produced a unanimous report condemning Johnson. We await the vote on Monday.
Brilliant gathering together of Johnson’s villainous verbiage.
He forgot to say ‘Pyramid of piffle’.
I have now read the report of the privileges committee. I suspect that this puts me in a relatively small group of people (which does not include some “prominent” conservative MPs).
A few observations.
1. What were the Met Police doing ? Any attempt to discern consistency in their fixed penalty notices is futile.
2. The two ex Daily Mail journalists (Doyle and Slack) were simply “line to take” guys. Just say “I have been assured …”. Sadly for Johnson the Committee asked by whom and about what. They were unconvinced.
3. Ms Dines has an imperfect recollection of events. Mmm – ever thought of taking notes?
4. Cabinet Office briefing for PMQs on 8/12/2021 can’t be found. (No seriously!)
5. (Para 168) Johnson cannot name official who advised rules & guidance were followed. Even privately after a hearing.
6. Para 170 Rules and Guidance are different things. Apparently Johnson could not grasp the distinction.
7. Para 176 My notes just say “ha, ha, ha” – hat tip Private Eye Front cover.
8. Para 178 Doyle and Slack were not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
9. Para 182. A brilliant put down.
10. Para 224. Johnson insincere (surely not).
Overall a very careful and thoughtful analysis by the Privileges Committee. Johnson tried his usual tactic of bluster but the Committee’s forensic approach nailed him.
Well done to the Privileges Committee. Forensic and searching – but crucially scrupulously fair.
Despite the Committee’s remit, which was simply to determine whether Johnson deliberately misled Parliament, I get the impression that a large section of the public has long regarded answer to that as hardly worth stating and that their outrage is reserved for the fact that Johnson partied while their family members died alone. If anything will bring him down it will be this, and the current Inquiry into Covid will I suspect be of no help to him at all.
“the Committee’s remit, which was simply to determine whether Johnson deliberately misled Parliament” – this is not quite correct. There was no doubt about this. The question for the committee was whether parliament was misled in such a way that it constituted contempt.
Indeed, and I stand corrected.
I very much doubt Johnson really wants to return to Parliament, let alone power. It’s far too much like hard work for him and he now knows how difficult it can be to successfully exercise power.
He’ll be able to earn millions on the lecture circuit, especially in the USA where the truth about him is less well known.
I hope Tory MPs call the bluff of their local associations and vote for the committee. They know what a despicable individual he is and they’ll be well rid if him if his pass is revoked too.
Why on earth should ex-MPs retain access to Parliament, especially those who leave in disgrace.
I would like to believe that Sunak has the power, de facto if not de jure (i.e. as laid down in party rules), to suspend a local association which threatens to de-select its Member, and govern its affairs directly from Central Office.
I would also like to believe that provision has already been made by Sunak’s loyal apparatchiks against such a threat.
Sunak seems fairly powerless these days. I’ve no idea whether Central Office can overrule a local association. But the threat appeared real until Johnson asked MPs not to vote against the committee recommendation. We shall see.
I suppose we should distinguish between the powers theortically available to him and the power of his personality.
Shame used to be such a powerful thing (cf Profumo). Not not so much. Always staggered by the brassneckery of Johnson and his Praetorian guard. But hoping process and evidence in Standards Part II, investigating the attacks on the Committee, may do for them too.
I for one appreciate the Batfink reference there….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1G4Ij4RHH6M
I would be more optimistic. Process and evidence do win against populists. Republicans have begun to condemn Trump publicly. The growing chorus from heavyweights like Barr and Christie is beginning to drown out people like Rubio and above all MGT. Finally the dam broke and non-Trumpista Reps have found their voice again.
The same is happening with Johnson. While diehards are still fighting, his behaviour and the report have seriously undermined what popular support he had. He rains the capacity for mischief but an increasing number of Tory MPs and voters seem to be appalled by his backstabbing and self-centred rants. The incomprehensible claims by Dorries only add to that.