London
CNN
—
One of Boris Johnson’s most uncomfortable afternoons as a politician is over. The former UK prime minister faced more than three hours of grilling before a parliamentary committee investigating whether he knowingly misled parliament over breaches of indoor Covid-19 guidelines and rules of 10 Downing Street when he ruled the country.
The question asked was not whether he misled Parliament: we know he did and he accepts it. The question is not whether the rules have been broken: we know they have been, after more than 100 police fines people working in Downing Street for attending rallies who broke the rules. And we know that after a detailed report from a senior official, Johnson accepted full responsibility for what went wrong under his watch.
He told the committee: ‘I wasn’t trying to cover up or cover up anything. I said what I said in good faith based on what I honestly knew and what I reasonably believed,” he said, admitting that “it didn’t mean I believed the social distancing was fully respected.
Committee lawmakers pushed back against Johnson’s innocence, telling him it “must have been obvious to you at the time, and even more obvious upon reflection as it all broke around you, that it was in violation of workplace guidelines”. as curator Bernard Jenkin said.
The question is whether or not Johnson knew at the time he was making a false statement to Parliament when he said in December 2021 that the guidelines and rules had been followed “at all times”.
In his opening remarks to the committee on Wednesday, Johnson asked members to remember that statement was made before the release of the police investigation or public service report into the “Partygate” scandal. His suggestion, it seems, was that hindsight is a wonderful thing, so it was only after these investigations that it became clear that Johnson’s statement was incorrect.
The center point of Johnson’s defense is three-pronged.
First, he said it was ‘illogical’ that he could have known at the time that the rules or guidelines had been broken, as much of the photographic evidence released by the committee was taken by the official photographer of Downing Street. Why, Johnson asked, would he ask a photographer to document events he thought were illegal?
Second, Johnson presented a detailed understanding of the guidelines. In response to the same photographs, which show Johnson delivering a speech at a rally where social distancing is clearly not being observed, the ex-prime minister makes a technical argument. He said councils recognize that social distancing is not always possible.
The advice, as Johnson said, “was followed to the best of our abilities, given the circumstances…we couldn’t have an electrified force field around every individual.” In other words, the guidelines allow you to not follow the guidelines to the letter.
Finally, Johnson said his advisers told him at the time that he would be right to say the advice was followed at the time. Several advisers denied ever giving him such assurances.
Johnson’s testimony received a chilling reception from committee members – even those from his own Conservative party. He was reprimanded for his rambling answers and, during the hearing, was ridiculed for perceived logical inconsistencies in his defence. At one point, a senior Conservative lawmaker even joked about Johnson’s irony in relying on evidence in a report he had previously criticized as partisan.
The heated exchanges between Johnson and the members of the committee are important, because it is these seven MPs – four of whom are Tories – who will decide whether Johnson knowingly misled Parliament and what punishment he should receive. At the bottom of the scale, a humiliating apology might suffice. On the other, he could be forced to face a recall election which he could easily lose.
It should be noted that some of the toughest questions were asked by Tory MPs. It could be because they want to be seen as impartial on a cross-party committee, but it could also be because so many Tories are furious with Johnson for lowering the party’s poll ratings and destroying trust in governance. conservative.
Even though Johnson’s political career is over, he is still capable of causing divisions within the ruling party in the UK.
People in the committee room laughed at the absurdity of what was happening – a photo of Johnson receiving a birthday cake and confirming that his interior designer was present at the event, to give one example among many others.
But some of Johnson’s most loyal supporters were also present, seething at the interrogations and glaring at those who apparently enjoyed watching the former leader squirm.
The longer this lasted, the angrier he seemed to be treated like a punching bag.
Johnson’s job on Wednesday was to provide sufficient doubt that he had lied to Parliament. He had to provide a plausible account that when he told Parliament that no rules or guidelines had been broken he genuinely believed that was the case and it was only later evidence that made him realize that he was wrong.
Clearly, Johnson told the committee: ‘I apologize for inadvertently misleading this house, but to say I did so recklessly or deliberately is completely untrue, as the evidence shows. However wrong we are, I think those responsible for Number 10 and the Cabinet Office and indeed all departments in Whitehall should be immensely proud of their efforts to protect this country from a disgusting disease.
The significance of all of this in the larger context of the Partygate scandal, confidence in politics and Johnson’s integrity is another matter altogether.
Poll after poll shows the public thinks Johnson broke Covid rules. Even members of his own party, according to a poll published by the most influential conservative publication, Conservative Home, say most believe he broke the rules and should not return as prime minister.
Beyond what this loss of popularity means for Johnson personally, it’s worth remembering why this scandal has affected people so much. Many Britons genuinely believe that while they were cooped up at home, doing their best to stop the spread of a deadly disease and unable to say goodbye to deceased loved ones, Johnson and his team in Downing Street were celebrating as if they were above the rules. No one’s skin is thick enough to get rid of it.
The evidence against Johnson is undeniably more important than the evidence in his defense.
But the question posed to the committee is both extremely narrow and precise, but also opaque. And it is, to some extent, impossible to answer with confidence by anyone other than Johnson himself.
Which brings us back to the subject of Wednesday’s hearing. In his opening statement, Johnson said he wanted all the evidence made public so that “Parliament and the public can decide for themselves.”
That’s what it really boiled down to: whether or not the committee and the general public believe that Johnson is an honest and trustworthy person or whether he’s lying to spare his reputation further damage. In the eyes of the vast majority of the British public, this question has already been answered.
