Jenkingate: Why the Tories are the Bud Light of the next election
“It is for the people of this country to decide who sits in parliament, not Harriet Harman.” That payoff line from an angry Boris Johnson struck at the heart of the vindictive and hypocritical report condemning him by the House of Commons Privileges Committee, while highlighting the political agenda that lies behind it.
This report is so discreditable to its authors that it can only aggravate the public perception of the House of Commons as extravagantly entitled, a cockpit of fear and loathing, divorced from the views and concerns of the country. Boris Johnson, innocent or guilty, deserved justice by due process and that is something he has not had. His denunciations of the Privileges Committee as a “kangaroo court” are impossible for any objective observer to refute.
The composition of the committee ensured Johnson could not get a fair hearing. Sir Chris Bryant, the chairman, recused himself on the grounds he had already made his views on “Partygate” known. Instead, Harriet Harman chaired the investigation, despite her notorious animus against Johnson and her anti-Brexit stance. Tweets from Harman, in response to the police fines imposed on Downing Street and Whitehall offenders, demonstrated that bias: “These were laws to save lives that they broke!” and “What’s with those who say PM ‘knowingly lied’ but don’t think he should quit. Are our standards so low?”
That does not sound like a neutral judge about to bring an open mind to an investigation. Protests from the committee’s apologists that it must have been fair because it had a majority of Conservative members is beyond disingenuous, in the light of the fratricidal strife that has fractured the Tory Party in recent years. The Westminster maxim that those sitting opposite in the Commons chamber are the Opposition, but those sitting behind are the Enemy, has never rung more true than today.
Sir Charles Walker, a Tory committee member, was open in his dislike of Boris. He told the Daily Mail: “If people want to suggest I’m biased against Boris, biased for Boris – people can say what they like. The great advantage I have over most candidates is that I’m leaving at the next election. I’m really beyond their reach.” From the start, there was a question mark over the composition of the committee.
But the biggest question mark hangs over Sir Bernard Jenkin, deputy chairman of the committee and its senior Conservative member. The Guido Fawkes website has published claims that Sir Bernard, on 8 December 2020, when London was in Tier 2 lockdown, attended a birthday party for his wife, Baroness Jenkin, at the House of Commons. It was allegedly hosted by Dame Eleanor Laing, Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.
Guido Fawkes spoke to Eleanor Laing and she conceded she held a “business meeting” that evening, while making much of a “two metre ruler” she had for social distancing. Asked if drinks were served, she replied: “I don’t know. I will have to check.” Sir Bernard Jenkin told Guido: “I did not attend any drinks parties during lockdown.” That is good to know; now, if he would just be kind enough to repeat that denial formally, before the whole House of Commons…
Guido claims he then asked, “It was your wife’s birthday celebration, are you saying you did not have anything to drink?” to which Jenkin responded: “I don’t recall.” Guido Fawkes claims there was a party for Anne Jenkin’s 65th birthday that day, people were invited by WhatsApp for “drinks”, there was food, a cake and nibbles had been bought in advance. He also says that his informants claim other MPs attended, including some of the 2019 intake and Maria Miller. Guido added: “A co-conspirator says there was ‘loads of drink’ and that they specifically remember Bernard Jenkin with drink in hand at a jolly affair.”
Of course, all this could be an outrageous defamation of Sir Bernard Jenkin, in which case his lawyers will no doubt spring into action. Meantime, clarification remains elusive due to Sir Bernard’s Trappist-like silence – a virtue he has not previously conspicuously cultivated.
The Mail on Sunday, however, on 17 June, followed up the story with revelations that a WhatsApp message had been sent out by Baroness Jenkin, for “birthday drinks”, to which she invited “a few of our favourite people next Wednesday 8th 6.30 to 7.30 in Eleanor Laing’s conference room in Commons”. The Mail on Sunday revealed that “this newspaper has been told that at least ten people were in the room throughout, preventing effective social distancing”. The Mail on Sunday account suggested that Sir Bernard Jenkin was claiming to have attended a work event.
Jenkin, though a fellow Brexiteer, was the most hostile interrogator of Boris Johnson at committee sessions. Guido cherry-picked some of Sir Bernard’s more severe remarks: “The rules were clear, they were there for everyone, and no one is above the law…” “The lockdown was a time of sacrifice and hardship for many; it’s only right that those in power should lead by example…” “The public trust in our institution is paramount. Any breach, however minor, is a serious matter…” “It is not just about following the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. We, as public servants, should be the first to adhere to this.”
And so on, like a cross between Savonarola and Torquemada, culminating with: “Transparency is key in these matters. Any attempt to hide or downplay breaches only serves to undermine public trust.” If it should transpire that any of those sanctimonious homilies were uttered through a mouthful of birthday cake, Sir Bernard Jenkin’s position would be untenable, not just as a member of the Privileges Committee, but as an MP.
Jenkin has apparently no intention of resigning from the Committee of Privileges, which is now moving to concoct a further report and sanctions against MPs who have dared to criticise its shameless findings. Who do these clowns think they are – the French revolutionary Committee of Public Safety? The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?
Its report on Johnson stated: “From the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly coordinated, to undermine the committee’s credibility and, more worryingly, that of those members serving on it.” People might ask who has done a better job in that respect than Sir Bernard Jenkin. “The house must have a committee to defend its rights and privileges…” the Entitled Ones prosed on. That is the familiar vocabulary we heard, night after night, as the House of Commons strove to reverse the verdict of a national referendum: “the privileges of this House, blah, blah.”
Have we not been taught by our parliamentary masters that privilege is bad, something we are supposed to “check”? Apparently, however, privilege is not bad when exercised by the privileged – with a dedicated committee to uphold their prerogatives.
The public has watched while a prime minister elected by 13.9 million people was first removed from office by 148 Tory MPs, then excluded from Parliament by seven cross-party MPs. His successor Liz Truss was elected by 81,000 Conservative Party members, beating Rishi Sunak with 60,000 votes; just 49 days later, Truss was deposed by the 1922 Committee and the defeated candidate, Rishi Sunak, having reached the magic total of 100 MPs supporting him, was elected prime minister unopposed.
If you are asked by a foreign tourist to explain why the man who gained 13.9 million votes is excluded even from the Palace of Westminster, while the man with 100 votes is Prime Minister, the only logical answer is that it is the quality of the votes that counts: that 100 votes from people protected by a Privileges Committee outweighs 13.9 million ballots cast by Proles.
Boris Johnson is now in the invidious position where he could enter the Ukrainian parliament at any time and receive a standing ovation, while being barred from entering the British parliament which, as recently as a year ago, he routinely addressed as Prime Minister. What will the world think of this exhibition of partisan malevolence? Such extremism, implausibly masked as parliamentary process, is gravely destabilising to our constitution.
This process of disruption began during the Brexit controversy, when Parliament audaciously attempted to cancel the wishes of the electorate. The defenestration of Johnson is its culmination and it must have consequences. Clearly, the Privileges Committee is not fit for purpose. So egregious is its disregard for natural justice that a mere reshuffle of personnel will not meet the need for reform: it should be abolished and replaced by an alternative system of parliamentary discipline, possibly involving external authorities. Why should the House of commons be trusted to police itself, after this massive abuse of power?
But there is an ultimate sanction, more powerful than the Privileges Committee, whose members it can exclude from Parliament as summarily as Boris Johnson: the coming general election. The Tory Party has left no stone unturned in betraying, insulting and alienating its former supporters. The closest parallel to its contemptuous treatment of its natural constituency is the provocative woke advertising of Bud Light beer in the United States, where a boycott by customers has dethroned it as America’s best-selling beer. At the next election, the Tories will find themselves cast as the Bud Light of British politics, with similar existential consequences and no road back.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life