Greased piglet Johnson roasted over misleading MPs

Boris Johnson’s political career hangs in the balance after a gruelling ordeal in front of the privileges committee today in which he insisted, “hand on heart”, that he did not lie to Parliament over Downing Street parties, writes Mattie Brignal.

In the tetchy hearing, Johnson suggested that “unsocially distanced farewell gatherings” were allowed at work, and dismissed the evidence of his former adviser Dominic Cummings who, he said, “had every motive to lie”. It comes after Cabinet Secretary Simon Case denied telling Johnson that Covid rules were always followed in Downing Street.

For once, Johnson was taking things seriously. He was flanked at the cross-party committee meeting by his trio of renowned lawyers – Lord Pannick KC, Jason Pobjoy and Nick Vamos (yes, their names are real) – who had subjected the former PM to between 20 and 30 hours of mock questions to prepare him, according to The Telegraph.

(A reminder that Johnson’s legal bills – estimated at over £220,000 – are being paid by you, the taxpayer. Johnson earned £1m over six weeks between December and January.)

The session was less a grilling, more a slow roast of a greased piglet over an open fire. Johnson’s eyes darted left and right as he fielded a barrage of questions, led by a professional and forensic Harriet Harman, the Labour grandee and committee chair, and a cold and faintly mocking Sir Bernard Jenkin, Tory MP for Harwich and North Essex.

(Proceedings were interrupted after just a few minutes by a vote in the Commons on Rishi Sunak’s Brexit bill, which passed easily – by 515 votes to 29 – despite a Tory rebellion headed by the European Research Group. Johnson also voted against.)

Johnson’s argument to the committee was, in essence, that while he did mislead the Commons, this was unintentional and based on the information he had at the time from his aides — and that there is no evidence to the contrary.

As the hours dragged on, the shakier his defence looked. The Times’ Steve Swinford points out that Jenkins got to the heart of the matter in a sharp exchange with Johnson over whether leaving drinks were “necessary” for work purposes. “I don’t think we agree with you on your interpretation of the guidance,” Jenkins said. This is at the heart of allegations he misled the Commons.

The crucial question for the committee is whether any misleading statement Johnson made to Parliament was “reckless or intentional.”

If the committee concludes it was, and recommends a sanction – which could include a written apology, docking of salary or suspension from the Commons for a specific period – MPs would then vote in favour or against, with a simple majority deciding Johnson’s fate. Sunak has said MPs would have a free vote on the matter.  

Johnson secured the backing of over 100 Tory MPs during the summer leadership race, but there is a risk that a Commons vote could open old wounds and expose the party yet again to the charge that it has deep-rooted problems with parliamentary standards.  

While the committee recommending a suspension of less than 10 days would be serious on paper, the former PM would probably be thrilled. A suspension of more than 10 days, however – considered the nuclear option – could prove politically fatal. It would automatically trigger a recall petition, allowing voters in Johnson’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency to trigger a by-election if 10% of them call for one.

Johnson would need to defend his seat in what would be an extremely difficult contest. After today’s performance, this could well be how one of the most impressive and divisive careers in modern British politics ends.