To the Bulk of Tory MPs Regarding Boris Johnson

 

Boris Johnson giving his Statement on the Sue Gray report in the HoC, 25.5.22

On Wednesday 25th May 2022, the Sue Gray report was finally published. Boris Johnson's defence in the House of Commons that afternoon amounted to -

When I said repeatedly to the House at the despatch box that there were no parties and no covid rules were broken, I did not mislead the House because the parties it has now been proved beyond dispute I attended were not parties during the time I attended them, but only became parties - each and every one - after I had left.

This is preposterous, at once labyrinthine and flimsy. That Johnson has misled the House repeatedly is a fact for anyone who wants to see it. This is attested to by the brave Tory MPs who have publicly called for the Prime Minister to resign and/or submitted letters of no confidence to Sir Graham Brady. At the time of writing I think there are 23 of them, including Tobias Ellwood, David Davis, Sir Roger Gale, Nick Gibb, Steve Baker, John Baron, Sir Bob Neill - all highly experienced parliamentarians. These 23 are courageous souls who can see that lying to the House is an absolute red line, and that the House must enforce its rules to stop our democracy being debased. In our system - whether it is a good or a bad thing - it is not the job of the Met Police to remove the Prime Minister, it is not the job of a civil servant such as Sue Gray, it is the responsibility of Tory MPs and the bulk of them are avoiding their duty in this matter.

This bulk of Tory MPs are postponing their point of final judgement again and again. Before, it was after the Council elections, then after the Sue Gray report is published: now, it is after the upcoming by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton on 23rd of June, after the Committee of Privileges reports . . . There is probably a psychological term for what they are doing, but I don't know it: however, what they are doing is because they don't want to take the action that the fact requires, they are refusing to admit the fact i.e. that Johnson misled the House, and therefore has to resign, and if he won't resign he has to be voted out, and they have to do the voting. All other considerations, such as the claim that there is no obvious alternative, are irrelevant and are rationalisations for inaction.

In his review of Hallam's Constitutional History, Macaulay wrote the following about Henry VIII:

"A King, whose character may be best described by saying that he was despotism itself personified ..."

I often think of that quote in relation to Boris Johnson, except for 'despotism' I substitute 'effrontery'.

To illustrate that, here is Johnson's press conference in full from the 25th May, if you can stand it: