Additional Piece: Boris Johnson and the Consequences of Parliamentary Contempt
Introduction:
The recent report by the House of Commons privileges committee has found Prime Minister Boris Johnson guilty of multiple instances of contempt of parliament during the Partygate scandal. This long-awaited report, resulting from a fourteen-month investigation, has created a political firestorm and raised concerns about the behavior and integrity of MPs. The consequences of this report extend beyond Johnson, as it also highlights the behavior of MPs who criticized the investigation. This article delves deeper into the implications of Johnson’s actions and the broader impact on the privilege system within the UK Parliament.
Exploring the Contempt of Parliament:
The privileges committee investigated whether Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament by making misleading statements about Downing Street parties that occurred during the coronavirus lockdowns. The report concluded that Johnson had committed a number of contempts of parliament, including the act of misleading MPs. This finding raises significant concerns about the accountability and integrity of the highest office in the UK government.
Johnson’s Resignation and Preempting Sanctions:
In a surprising move, Johnson announced his immediate resignation as Conservative MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. By resigning, Johnson preempted potential sanctions recommended by the committee, including suspension from the Commons and a possible by-election. This decision raises questions about whether Johnson’s resignation was an attempt to avoid facing the consequences of the report or a calculated move to maintain some degree of control over the narrative.
Contemptuous Behavior and Insults to Parliament:
One notable aspect of this investigation is Johnson’s alleged contemptuous behavior towards parliament. Johnson’s decision to disclose drafts of the panel’s findings before their official release drew criticism and was deemed contemptuous by those close to the committee. This behavior not only undermines the credibility of the investigation but also demonstrates a lack of respect for the institution of parliament itself.
The Implications for Parliament’s Independence:
The privileges committee plays a crucial role in regulating the affairs of parliament. However, the committee’s inquiry into Boris Johnson’s conduct has raised concerns about the future independence of the privilege system. Conservative MPs Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, both close allies of Johnson, have criticized the committee’s investigation as a “kangaroo court.” These accusations, coupled with Johnson’s own criticisms, highlight the tensions within the UK’s democratic system.
Trust and Responsibility in Public Office:
Former Commons privileges committee member Dominic Grieve emphasized the importance of trust and responsibility in public office. He argued that Johnson’s breach of trust, if proven, would amount to a betrayal of the committee and would leave no room for ambiguity. Johnson, on the other hand, maintains his innocence, stating that he is not guilty of any contempt and that he did not knowingly mislead the Commons. This clash of narratives raises questions about the role and expectations of those in positions of power.
Reactions and Diversionary Tactics:
The report’s impending release triggered a series of reactions from MPs across party lines. Johnson called on Sir Bernard Jenkin, a member of the privileges committee, to resign over allegations that he attended a meeting in parliament during Covid restrictions. This move can be seen as an attempt to divert attention from Johnson’s own conduct and portray the report as part of a political agenda against him. Such diversionary tactics have been criticized for detracting from the main issue at hand – Johnson’s alleged misconduct.
Conclusion:
The privilege system and the investigation into Boris Johnson’s conduct have raised fundamental questions about accountability, trust, and the functioning of democracy in the UK. The privileges committee’s report serves as a reminder that no individual, regardless of their position, is above the law or the scrutiny of parliamentary inquiry. As the findings continue to reverberate through Westminster, it is essential to reflect on the role of elected officials and the expectations placed upon them in upholding the principles of democratic governance.
Summary:
The House of Commons privileges committee has released its long-awaited report on Boris Johnson’s conduct during the Partygate scandal. The report concludes that Johnson committed multiple contempts of parliament, including misleading MPs about Downing Street parties held during the Covid-19 lockdowns. Johnson’s decision to immediately resign as a Conservative MP preempted potential sanctions recommended by the committee. However, his behavior, including disclosing drafts of the report, has been deemed contemptuous. The report’s implications extend beyond Johnson, highlighting concerns about the behavior of MPs and the future independence of the privilege system. The clash of narratives between Johnson and those who accuse him of misconduct raises significant questions about trust, responsibility, and the functioning of democracy. The report’s release triggered reactions and diversionary tactics from MPs, further complicating the political landscape. This investigation serves as a reminder that no individual is above the law or immune to parliamentary scrutiny. The privileges committee’s report has far-reaching implications and demands reflection on the principles of democratic governance.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Boris Johnson is found to have committed “multiple” contempt of parliament in a report by MPs on his conduct as prime minister during the Partygate scandal, according to people familiar with the inquiry.
The House of Commons privileges committee is due to release its long-awaited report on Johnson on Thursday morning after a 14-month investigation.
The report concluded Johnson had made ‘a number of contempts’ of parliament, including misleading MPs in statements he made in the House of Commons about Downing Street parties held during the coronavirus lockdowns, two people said close to the committee.
While the committee’s main focus will be on Johnson, it will also censure the behavior of MPs who have criticized his probe but will stop short of naming them, these people added.
The committee investigated whether Johnson deliberately misled parliament after he claimed, while prime minister, that Covid-19 rules were being followed at all times following media reports of 10 meetings held during the pandemic’s restrictions.
Johnson announced Friday that he was immediately resign as Conservative MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip – after accusing the cross-party committee of behaving like a “kangaroo court” engaged in “political blockbuster work” against him.
While the committee has the power to recommend sanctions against MPs, including suspension from the Commons which can lead to a by-election, Johnson’s decision to resign preempted that outcome.
One of those close to the committee said Johnson’s decision to disclose some drafts of the panel’s findings last Friday was deemed contemptuous.
This person added, “There is a reference [in the report] to other matters than just contempt of parliament in what [Johnson] said to the [Commons] shipping box [about Downing Street parties].
“Revealing the outcome of the inquiry is in itself an insult to parliament. Of course, it does not require further investigation.
This discovery by the panel was anticipated by others who knew how it worked.
Dominic Grieve, a former Commons privileges committee member and former Tory attorney general, said Johnson would be having regard to the draft report in confidence before talking about its content.
“If he breached that trust, then he was acting in defiance of the committee,” he added. “I don’t think there is a gray area.”
Johnson said in a statement: “I am not guilty of any contempt of parliament and have not knowingly or willfully misled the Commons.”
The committee report is also set to raise concerns about MPs who have ridiculed the jury but are not expected to identify them by name.
Conservative MPs Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, both close allies of Johnson, have called the committee’s inquiry a “kangaroo court”.
One of the people close to the commission said: “Parliament regulates its own affairs. The courts are not involved. If it cannot do so in a reasonable way, there is a question mark over the future independence of the privilege system”.
Johnson on Wednesday called on a member of the privileges committee to resign over reports that the MP had attended a meeting in parliament during the Covid restrictions.
Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin attended a drinks event in parliament in December 2020 when London was under so-called level 2 restrictions and gatherings of more than six people were not permitted inside, according to Guido’s website Fawkes.
Johnson said it was “outrageous and a complete contempt of parliament” if true, adding that Jenkin “has no choice but to explain his actions to his own committee, for his colleagues to investigate and then resign.”
Jenkin was contacted for comment.
Other lawmakers accused Johnson of stealing the Jenkin report in an attempt to divert attention from his own conduct.
Former Tory cabinet minister David Davis said: “The difficulty for Boris is that, if you’re in a court case, that’s not a valid excuse to say ‘One of the jury is flawed’, even if it is true and may not be … It’s a distraction from the real issue: that he is guilty of misleading the House.
Daisy Cooper, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “This is a typical Boris Johnson distraction tactic which doesn’t change the fact that he broke the law and lied about it.”
https://www.ft.com/content/602315b0-2080-4eea-b6bd-5e9f16c2651c
—————————————————-