10 June 2023
The silence now seems significant: we should have realised something was up.
Earlier this week former Prime Minister Boris Johnson received the draft report of the Privileges Committee.
And then, something did not happen.
We did not have leaks to political journalists that Johnson was going to be “cleared”.
We did not even have “friends” quoted as being “increasingly optimistic” that Johnson was going to escape a recommendation that he be suspended for ten or more days, which could have led ultimately to a by-election.
We had nothing which could be an attempt to either bounce the committee, or the House of Commons, or public opinion.
Instead, we had silence.
*
As is well-known, Johnson has had “top lawyers” – at public expense – to advise him on what is non-legal, parliamentary matter.
(How and why Johnson secured public funding for this is a story for another day.)
But presumably his lawyers told him that the report was unassailable.
They could again send a raft of legalistic objections to the committee but, frankly, the game is up.
You may be old enough to remember Johnson briefing that a previous exercise in legalistic nonsense was “absolutely devastating” to the committee.
Yet in the end the absolute devastation was to Johnson’s current political and parliamentary career.
*
Perhaps without “top lawyers” giving frank and firm advice Johnson may have pressed on – and, if so, some may say the public money was well spent in bring finality to the matter.
Remember, this was a process in which Johnson had many inherent advantages: a Conservative majority on the committee, who could only make a recommendation to the House of Commons anyway; a Conservative majority in the House of Commons – a majority brought about by his leadership at the last general election; and, if a by-election was required, a Conservative majority in his own seat, in a city where he once was a popular and re-elected mayor.
These structural advantages were in addition to expensive “top lawyers” at public expense – and to the immense influence he has over the media narrative.
All these advantages meant that the process was heavily biased: but heavily biased in Johnson’s favour.
And somehow, Johnson still lost.
*
The committee can – and should – publish the report anyway, so that we can see for ourselves whether it corresponds to Johnson’s attack on the integrity of the committee and its report.
By resigning now, rather than in response to a published report or to an adverse parliamentary vote, Johnson had the best chance of “framing the narrative”, and he took it.
This, again, should have been obvious to us when Johnson did not even try to spin the draft report this week.
And we had the sound of silence instead.
*
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
– Silver Blaze, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
***
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.
But when will he actually cease being an MP – will the chancellor be a bit tardy appointing him to a post that disqualifies him? Long enough for a vote to suspend him to happen?
(The Hundreds of Chiltern etc. not getting enough attention these days!)
Yes, the Committee should publish the findings and the recommendations.
What the Commons should do is not so clear.
He’s an MP until the Chancellor signs the letter of appointment. This is traditionally done immediately, but doesn’t have to be.
While he is an MP the normal process should be followed as recently occurred with Ferrier. (And which concentrated the mind wonderfully.)
But when he isn’t the Commons should as a minimum vote to note the report from the Committee. It would be much better to hold some sort of vote on the recommendations: this would have no punitive effect, but the normative declaration would be a useful reminder to others.
My own feeling is that, had he not attacked the committee so viciously, they could say that nothing would be served by publishing it. Draw a line, move on, etc etc.
However, seeing his petulant attacks on all and sundry and questioning the ethics of the committee, I think it’s vital to publish the whole report, otherwise he gets to keep the golden rule of messaging – “a lie can travel the world before the truth gets its boots on”, so often seen in newspaper “apologies”.
The Committee will meet on Monday. The rumoured date for passing it to the Commons/ publishing is midweek. The Chancellor could mislay his quill for that long if he wishes.
Sanctions available after an MP has gone… the Commons has previously used the withdrawal of access to the Parliamentary estate. That sounds to be mostly a token of disapproval, but it could have some effect on lobbying.
I assume that like draft court judgment, the draft report is subject to an embargo. If the judgment embargo is breached contempt proceedings follow. I trust a similar consequence will apply here.
Johnson’s only legacy will be that he lowered the bar on qualities of the future leaders of the Conservative Party. Whether it will reform itself or continue to be yoked to extremists or deluded chancers remains to be seen.
Best summary I’ve read/heard so far, no spin just basic factual assessment. Thank you
With apologies to “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, L Kasdan, 1981:
Person close to Johnson
… I assure you. We have top lawyers working on it right now.
The General Public
Who?
Person close to Johnson
TOP lawyers.
I can’t remember the original quote from the film. Can you remind me?
[Discussing the fate of the Ark]
Maj. Eaton : We have top men working on it right now.
Indiana : Who?
Maj. Eaton : Top… men.
At the end, as the Ark is crated up and disappears into a US Government warehouse to be lost among lots of other forgotten and dusty crates.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/quotes/?item=qt0450553&ref_=ext_shr_lnk
I find some solace in agreeing with your suggestion that the publicly funded ‘top lawyers’, led to a swifter conclusion and resignation.
With the referrals relating to Johnson’s diaries also stemming from his reluctance to pay personally, I think we may have obtained greater value for money than expected.
I experienced a chill, on this news, because of something Matt Goodwin wrote, the other day. He said that he couldn’t say too much at present, but that ‘something’ was brewing in regards to the formation of a new right-leaning populist political option for Britain. I hope I’m just being a useless armchair pundit because Johnson is the only ‘political’ figure who makes me nervous.
I’m fairly certain that’s it, but I also think that another right wing party will only split the Tory vote, and that there are simply not enough people to fall for Johnson’s blather now. Goodwin of course, is consistently wrong to the point of invention, so I sincerely hope it’s true.
I don’t know enough about how being an MP works, but I’m surprised Johnson and Dorries didn’t just resign as conservatives to sit as ‘independent’ (whether it be Reform Party, UKIP or whatever) and take a bunch of the Conservative loonies with him.
I also expect his return to Parliament to be in the form of a seat in the House of Lords. Part of the sordid horse-trading he and Sunak have been up to.
As I understand the process was related to him being an MP not a conservative MP.
If he resigned from the party it would make any vote on his conduct more difficult for him.
With a first past the post system, any systematic attempt to split the conservative (with a small “c”) vote would seem to be handing an electoral advantage to opposition parties ?
Not that doing something mind-bogglingly stupid and petty would be out of character for Johnson but presumably any party would need to have backers with deep pockets who’d be expecting something from the new party apart from making life easier for Labour, Lib Dems, SNP etc
But that would split the Tory party vote asunder.
Which can only be a good thing, to be honest.
Honestly, the biggest surprise to me was that Johnson read the report.
No need to be surprised – he almost certainly had one of his people (maybe a top lawyer) condense it for him
“TL:DR summary, Boris… You need snookers”
The Committee will publish its report, having received Johnson’s response, which according to a spokesman has “impugned the integrity of the House”.
I wonder if Trump was advising him how to respond when Johnson recently had dinner with him. The statement has an extraordinarily Trumpian ring to it – down to the “witch hunt” jibe. I doubt that Lord Pannick would have approved.
:)
The coward’s way out. His inability to face the possibility that he might be called to account, or lose, is utterly alien. He could not accept that this, the right course of action, was to take place. He’s special and is entitled to special privilege.
I do fear we have in no way heard the last of this man.
I wonder if he also resigned so quickly before the Whip was withdrawn from him. He got rid of enemies from the party (and Parliament) by withdrawing the whip and then calling an election in which they could not stand as Conservatives.
But you can only withdraw the whip from a sitting MP. So I seriously wonder whether this is the first step in an (albeit probably somewhat desperate) attempt to return to Parliament in Nadine Dorries’ somewhat safer seat?
Also, if such a thing were to occur, I’d be fascinated to know whether any suspension recommended by the Privileges Committee and voted by the Commons would still apply on his return? Would we then have a recall petition and possibly yet another by-election? The saga being extended so far would be a political nightmare for Sunak.
Just in case not all here follow Larry the No. 10 Cat’s twitter account, may I draw your attention to his assessment that Trump and Johnson represent
“two cheeks of the same arse”.
Quite where Mad Nad fits in this somewhat graphic image can only be open to speculation.
A loose thread hanging from the stained and holey underpants that contains them.
She’s the item between the cheeks.
If I may paraphrase something David often observes about illiberal politicians: the Human Rights Act is still here, while yet another politician who made capital out of attacking it is not.
Seems to me that he’s has had the towel, sunglasses or whatever removed from in front of his eyes and, consequently, he’s realised that people can actually see him. However, unlike a certain ravenous creature (and more like Sir Robin), he’s trying to bravely run away.
Oh yes, discretion being the better part of valour, and cowardice the better part of discretion, his actions are, indeed, er, valiant.
DAG wrote “Remember, this was a process in which Johnson had many inherent advantages: a Conservative majority on the committee, who could could only make a recommendation to the House of Commons anyway; a Conservative majority in the House of Commons – a majority brought about by his leadership at the last general election; and, if a by-election was required, a Conservative majority in his own seat”.
Don’t forget that the referral to the Conservative majority Privileges Committee in the first place was passed unopposed by a Conservative majority HoC.
Good point. I’ll bet that hurt him the most.
I really think the general public and the political “elite” have had enough of him now. Now, you’ll just have the noisy fanboys like Pierce of The Mail, Cruddas and David Bannerman still fawning over his every utterance, and the BBC faithfully repeating every news item about him.
I assume what those top lawyers told him was what they presumably told him at the outset; namely, that for all the talk of rule of law, the legal definition of dishonesty, the burden and standard of proof and actual or apparent bias, the Privileges Committee is not a tribunal of law but an internal creature of Parliament.
As such, at the business end of this is politics not law. It reduces, as in all politics, to a single question: do you have the votes?
The votes on the committee to soften the report; the votes in the commons to soften the sanction; the votes in the constituency to prevent a recall petition; and, if not, to win a by-election. A victory for Johnson on any one of those would have been a complete vindication for him.
To throw in the towel now must mean Johnson felt he didn’t have the votes at any step of the way. That feels a stark and salutary conclusion that is quite hard for him to spin.
Interesting point about the appointment of Johnson to the Crown Steward / Chiltern Hundreds until after the Report is submitted and voted upon by the HoC. No doubt Johnson would absent himself, being the craven that he is, but it seems proper that the HoC / Privileges Committee procedures should be followed. My understanding is that death, disqualification and expulsion are the only methods by which a sitting Member can immediately resign. Disqualification and expulsion would be preferable than appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds. Can, in fact, either Johnson or Dorries “resign with immediate effect” without going through the appropriate processes?
It seems that maybe the worm is turning: the resignation of Johnson following proper procedures of the HoC, Committees, indictment of Trump on criminal Federal charges which could see him locked up for many years, the even widerspread revulsion against Putin after blowing up the dam, even the discovery of the four indigenous children in Colombia.
The “Honours” system remains a stain on the English (largely English) body politic. I wonder that anyone of any real honour would still accept one now that they reek not of the flower of noblility but the stench of corruption.
Other Crown offices are available! And so far it’s looking as if three will be needed.
Yep. And counting. But the Chancellor presumably does not have to grant them the Crown Office immediately? He can make them wait, especially Johnson, until after a vote in the Commons may censure / expel him?0
According to Erskine May the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds has been not only delayed but actually refused…
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5412/chiltern-hundreds-and-manor-of-northstead?highlight=Chiltern#footnote-item-6
If Sunak comes to the conclusion that Johnson et al are trying to screw the Govt, perhaps he and the Chancellor will say “No, face the Commons, which will have not only the Privileges Committee report / recommendations but also your contemptuous statement. See what they think. Perhaps they’ll expel you instead.”
I’m not tip-top with all of the intricacies of Parliamenentary procedure and its utterly arcane conventions. I had thought that for any MP to resign then (for reasons completely unknown to me) they had to apply for “The Office of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds” or “The Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead”. Have such applications ever been refused? Might they ever be refused?
How on Earth has this situation come to be? I cannot make head nor tail of it. Given current circumstances, will Johnson have to apply for one and Dorries for the other? What would happen (if, as I’ve seen surmised elsewhere) that Priti Patel was also intending resignation? For what would she apply?
It all seems to be completely screwy to me.
David, may I suggest that a post of your thoughts in elucidation will likely prove to be both enlightening and also tend to lighten the gravity of the current political situation.
FWIW, it does also appear to me to be at the intersection of law and lore from my rather amateurish perspective.
I thank you for your regular and informative posts.
Priti Patel could come and work with me on minimum wage in HMRC, if the two sinecures are taken already
I usually feel that MPs who resign should fund the cost of the by-election but in the cases of Johnson and Dorries I wouldn’t want to risk them changing their minds!
Smart move. For Boris his £85k salary is chicken feed and parliament a bit of a drag for the next year or so. No worries, speaking engagements bring in plenty and that loan – probably not being called in.
Interesting times, a right wing newspaper going begging, a right wing political group in need of a voice and Boris an unprincipled scribbler at the ready. If I were Boris this might be a time to broach a bottle and consider what is best for Boris and call up a few chums.
Now a Tory strategist might think election 2024 is one to lose and leave Labour to break its back and credibility heaving the ship around. A few nudges from one’s friends in the finance world might steer Labour in the right direction. A 5 year term is not long and with luck trouble can be sown in the Labour ranks to avoid any unfortunate ‘improvements’.
Meanwhile consider what the landscape is likely to be come 2029 and how that landscape might be made more Tory favourable. Starmer seems a worthy but dull chap and will face formidable problems and I can’t see the Tories keeping Sunak on. Something daring like a full blooded return to Europe looks unlikely – which imho is a pity. More of the same would suit the Tory party nicely.
Which begs the question – would the Tories be better off veering to the left or the right. If Starmer fails to control the economy then labour unrest for 5 years could be very good for a Tory right wing. We will be in deeper mess than now, time for harsh but profitable medicine. Flog the NHS for starters. If however Starmer does manage to shore up the economy then the fruit will be ripe for picking by a less right wing Tory party. So hedge your bets Boris but keep in the game somehow.
Whatever hell or high water may come I am thoroughly enjoying my relief at this resignation.