Review of the week: cornered Boris – dangerous Boris
In recent years and months, British politics has become accustomed to deviations. But when the door to Grimond’s room closed for the last time on Wednesday afternoon, the happy witnesses had no doubt that something remarkable had just happened. The former prime minister, who was sacked by his party just months ago, has been asked to testify under oath before a committee of MPs, risking potential prosecution for perjury in the process. Had Johnson not been kicked out last July, or had he defied the odds and returned in October, we would have faced the prospect of the Prime Minister being ousted by a recall petition and a by-election. To call it Britain’s Watergate would be an understatement.
Over Johnson’s right shoulder sat Lord Panick in the committee room, supported by Johnson’s £220,000 taxpayer-funded war chest. The lead attorney could barely contain his surprise as Johnson huffed and puffed in front of the grinning killers, led by Harriet Harmon. His client flushed, panting, and sullen, he saw that his formidable attempt to turn Johnson into a serious defendant had been severely tested. After a political career defined by boosterism, the boot camp could only demand so many concessions before the hearings. Caught on tape in a moment of fleeting existentialism, Pannik rolled his eyes in front of the nation.
While fiddling with folders filled with commentaries from collection to collection, Johnson was given strict guidelines (for lack of a better word) to follow. But even though his brow furrowed more seriously than usual, the strategy itself was familiar: create a cloud of confusion, avoid specifics, and make careless insinuations that you’d rather be somewhere else.
A quick breakdown, if you will:
Time to change the tune, warns BASC RSPB
Canadian legislation on assistance in dying
Procedurally, Johnson argued that the committee was prejudiced by Harmon’s past remarks and that it exceeded its authority by focusing on “guidance” rather than just regulations. The committee was “investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury,” Johnson insisted. Such objections were designed to play up to his supporters in Parliament, some of whom could be seen offering moral support to Johnson’s left.
Of course, the committee was most interested in substantive arguments. In this regard, Johnson argued that blocking by leaving drinks was essential; he insisted that he had not deliberately lied to Parliament because of assurances from party apparatchiks; and, in any case, Downing Street is too tight-lipped and cramped for social distancing. Number 10 had Plexiglas screens and one-way systems in some rooms, but officials were fighting a losing battle against the 18th-century architecture.
The complexity of Johnson’s arguments, supplemented by the bias of the juicer, did little to convince the members of the committee. The cross-party panel’s questions were composed, nimble and ultimately extremely skeptical.
Sir Bernard Jenkin, a veteran Brexit campaigner and former defender of Johnson’s conduct, said: “I have to say that if I were accused of breaking the law and I had to give an undertaking to the House of Commons – of all places – that I had not broken the law , I would like the advice of a lawyer. I would like the advice of a truly independent and capable person.” And you, Bernard?
The former prime minister simply came to a fork in the road. But even more than that, some believe Johnson’s career ended with the hearings: a fittingly traumatic end to a career built on misrepresentation.
That assumption appears to have been confirmed by another major political development on Wednesday: vote on the Treaty of Windsor. In the middle of the hearing, Johnson, sent to the lobby for a vote, joined 21 other conservative colleagues in saying “No” to Rishi Sunak’s decision on the record. It was a far cry from the violent rebellion he had intended. On Wednesday morning, Iain Duncan Smith and Liz Truss’ announcement of the “big beast” failed to generate the necessary political momentum to force the Prime Minister to rely on opposition votes.
So, with his legacy clearly under such deep strain, has Johnson’s circus finally come to an end? To properly answer this, we must examine the political facts which did no changes in the last week.
First, Boris and Brexit are still inextricably linked, meaning the ex-prime minister’s rants on the subject will inspire posts inches into the future – despite the framework fiasco. His link with the ERG faction also appears to be stronger than ever, giving him core support within the party. And bolstered by a new narrative of treason over Brexit and the Union, his claim to be the standard-bearer of the Conservative right looks ever more impeccable.
Of course, 22 doesn’t sound like a large fraction compared to the 515 who backed Sunak’s Brexit proposals. But within the Conservative Party, such a clique can become a violent clumsy group seeking key concessions at the expense of votes. The number 22 also does not tell the number of Johnson allies, such as Connor Burns, who for one reason or another abstained from voting.
But most importantly, the recent vote on the Windsor Treaty highlights that a cornered Boris is sticking to his most obvious political motives and stepping up his activism against Sunak.
Since his failed comeback tour in October, Johnson’s strategic gambit has been to lie in wait, plot secretly, and in turn fuel rumors of a restoration. But the former prime minister’s vote on the Windsor agenda shows his bogus war strategy has changed significantly. Johnson knows that with his back against the wall, the time for holding back attacks is over.
Crucially, Johnson will find an excellent opportunity to further test this new strategy as a result of any sanctions from the privileges committee.
The committee itself does not have the power to take punitive action, and MPs will ultimately decide whether to accept the report’s findings. Crucially, the Prime Minister has already confirmed that this vote will not be dramatic, which could set the stage for a cabinet split.
Sunak knows that some members of his best team, such as James Cleverley, Ben Wallace and Chris Heaton-Harris, have backed Johnson’s return in October. This latest test of loyalty could also turn into other issues – including the question of a future leadership contest.
Sunak’s would-be heirs would have taken a serious political risk in voting against Johnson, the massive favorite, knowing that any “yes” vote on the committee report could be used against them down the road. And if leaders of the factions, such as Suella Braverman, support Boris, they will undoubtedly be followed by a number of MPs.
It is also quite reasonable that the Privileges could recommend that Johnson be suspended from Parliament for 10 days, a sanction that would automatically trigger a by-election. In that case, the Conservative Party would be forced to focus resources on a key battleground, sending cabinet members to Johnson’s defense. For the prime minister, this would be a very problematic, win-win scenario.
Indeed, if Johnson had held Uxbridge, his supporters would have said the victory proved he was still the winner of the election. He returned — after paying his political debts and pretending to be sorry — with serious political momentum. He could put this unfortunate party business behind him and allocate more time to maneuvering against Sunak.
Had he lost (which would have been Johnson’s first election loss since 1997), the former prime minister would have been martyred: the true champion of the Conservatives would have succumbed to Sunak’s poor polling. It would open up new lines of division in the grassroots and even prepare the ground for Johnson relaunch in 2024 for Uxbridge or perhaps somewhere safer.
One way or another, the political trajectory points to a resumption of the Boris circus even at this apparent low point in the former prime minister’s fortunes. Cornered by Brexit and partygate, don’t expect Johnson to fade into obscurity. He is far from finished.
