Yesterday evening I shared some thoughts about Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list. A Prime Minister can recommend people for honours when they resign from the job. Even as I was writing, Johnson was resigning again, this time as an MP.
The reason for Johnson’s resignation was that he had seen the draft outcome of a report from the privileges and standards committee into his behaviour concerning #partygate. The committee were answering the question “Did Boris Johnson mislead the House of Commons” when he claimed there had not been illegal activities at number 10 Downing Street. If they have decided that he did, then they could recommend his suspension from Parliament. A suspension of more than 10 days would have led to a possible “recall” vote where his constituents could demand a by-election.
Johnson saw the report and instead of responding by reiterating his case, chose to resign and to attack the committee and its chairperson, Harriet Harman, accusing them of bias, of refusing to accept the real evidence, of predetermining the outcome and of being engaged in a personal witch hunt. According to Johnson and his allies this is all part of some terrible plot to reverse Brexit.
It is worth noting a couple of things before commenting further. First, that the committee make up included 4 Conservative MPs, I would be cautious about throwing accusations about witch hunts around. Secondly, that although it is claimed that he would have had no opportunity to appeal, whilst he could not get the verdict overturned, the sanctions would be voted on bt MPs, where his own party had a majority. He then would have had the opportunity in effect to appeal to his constituents in the recall ballot, his local party if the recall ballot was lost to determine if he would be reselected and finally the public again via a by-election. Johnson chose not to make his case at any of those opportunities.
It is no good thing when a person responds to being subject to challenge, scrutiny and censure by lashing out at the institutions responsible for holding them to account. The aim there is to reduce confidence in the institution. This doesn’t mean that an institution is perfect or that they will always get their verdicts right. The system may well need reforming but lashing out when you don’t get your way does not indicate a desire to reform and points more to petulance. People in public life should demonstrate a willingness to be genuinely accountable and to show accountability.
I would also add that Johnson put himself in the position where he was subjected to scrutiny. It is possible that people were looking for an opportunity to get political revenge on him, to drive him out of parliament and to reverse Brexit. However, he was the one who gave them the opportunity. Did Boris knowingly break the COVID laws and intentionally mislead Parliament? I’m still not sure that we can say for certain. It is possible that he thought the parties were within the exceptions and that therefore he wasn’t intentionally misleading parliament when he said “no rules were broken.” However, it should have been obvious to him that the parties could potentially be seen as a breach of rules and so first of all, that should have given him pause for thought when the parties happened. A wiser Prime Minister would have stopped them, not participated in them. A wiser, humbler man would have conceded that whilst he didn’t think the rules were broken, there were questions to answer. It wasn’t for him to determine legality.
What we saw was someone happy to act recklessly and to respond to challenge with bombast. We saw someone willing to sail close to the edge when it came to truth and the Law. That is not the kind of integrity that is suited to public office. I am reminded of the story of the man who wanted to hire a chauffeur. He got two drivers to take his Jaguar for a drive. One showed off his impressive driving skills by taking the car along a winding, mountain top dirt track at speed. The other, drove slowly and cautiously on a straight road. Surprisingly he chose the latter. The first may have appeared the more impressive driver but the second showed greater concern for his passengers’ safety.
Finally, it is striking that neither man who was put forward by the main parties as a suitable Prime Minister in 2019 now sits as a representative of their party. Whilst Johnson has resigned as an MP, Jeremy Corbyn had the whip removed. Many of us said back in 2019 that we could not vote for either man. The reasons were in Johnson’s case serious questions over his integrity and in Corbyn’s case significant concerns around his failure to deal with antisemitism. It is telling that those two reasons are the exact reasons why both are where they are today. Yet as I have frequently stated, it was not a surprise in either case. We knew exactly who the two men were and their track record. This means that there remain serious questions to answer for those who gave us that choice.
Faithroots 