Uncovering the truth: did Johnson mislead parliament?

Uncovering the truth: did Johnson mislead parliament?

Aug 12, 2022 | News

Privileges committee inquiry aims to uncover the truth of whether Johnson misled parliament – and is being met with considerable pushback

Sue Wilson MBEby Sue Wilson MBE

Ever since the partygate scandal first reared its ugly head, Boris Johnson has been dismissing any suggestions that he broke his own Covid laws. Whether giving evidence to the Met Police, Sue Gray or parliament, the prime minister has been keen to deny or deflect, and has attempted to avoid any, if not all, scrutiny. He may have hoped that, with his impending exit from Number 10, his misdeeds would be forgiven, if not forgotten. The forthcoming House of Commons privileges committee inquiry intends to ensure that is not the case and that the truth will out.

The inquiry, which is likely to take several months, will investigate whether or not Johnson lied to parliament. That’s assuming, of course, that the incoming PM doesn’t dismiss the inquiry altogether.

The investigation into whether Johnson misled parliament

The privileges committee – who play a key role in maintaining parliamentary standards and accountability – have been mandated by parliament to investigate the situation. Back in July, the committee published a 39-page report following an earlier call for evidence. The report detailed the “proposed conduct of inquiry” and outlined the committee’s intentions.  They will hear oral evidence – including from Johnson – in the autumn, and have pledged to protect the identities of “anonymous whistle-blowers” who might be unwilling to give evidence if their identities were made public.

It will be for the committee and the House to “determine whether a contempt (of parliament) has occurred”. The committee will also determine whether or not any penalties, or “the severity of those penalties” are imposed. Those penalties could include Johnson’s suspension from the Commons and a recall petition, which would trigger a by-election in his Uxbridge seat.

A “witch hunt”

Johnson loyalists in both houses of parliament have been questioning the motives of committee members and the legitimacy of the inquiry itself. Unsurprisingly, one of Johnson’s most loyal cabinet supporters – the culture secretary Nadine Dorries – did not hold back. She described the inquiry as a “witch hunt” and the “most egregious abuse of power witnessed in Westminster”. Dorries asserted that the inquiry would cast “serious doubt” on the reputation of the committee members, as well as on the “processes of Parliament and democracy itself”.

Zac Goldsmith – who was elevated to the House of Lords by Johnson in 2019, following the loss of his seat in Richmond – has also been keen to defend his political ally. Goldsmith described the inquiry as “an obscene abuse of power” and accused the committee members of being “highly partisan, vengeful and vindictive”. He added that the inquiry was “clearly rigged”.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss – currently favourite to replace Johnson as PM – drew condemnation when she suggested she would vote to shut down the inquiry, given the opportunity. However, Truss was keen to downplay her comments, saying the inquiry would go ahead.

Not only is Truss proving her willingness to turn a blind eye to government deception but she’s demonstrating her own lack of principles. Lying to parliament while running the country is apparently not a problem, especially perhaps, if your intention is to carry on in the same vein.

A “terrorist campaign”

Committee member and staunch Brexiter, Sir Bernard Jenkin, was quick to respond to criticism of the committee and the inquiry. Jenkin, one of four Conservative members on the committee of seven, pledged that the inquiry would continue as long as it had the support of parliament. He described the plot to discredit the committee as a “terrorist campaign”. He said that the committee would discharge their duty, and any criticism should be made in writing directly to the committee.

In response to the comments made by Truss, deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said Truss was “aiding and abetting” Johnson’s attempts to “dodge scrutiny”. The PM had “created a rotten culture” at the heart of Downing Street, Rayner said, and had “toxified the Tory party from top to bottom”. Not only had Truss enabled Johnson but she would “continue to follow his lead” if she became PM.

Rayner insisted Truss must confirm “in no uncertain terms” that she would not undermine the committee and that she would appoint an ethics chief on day one of her leadership.

We may never fully understand the justification behind the Tory attack on the committee and their inquiry. However, a recent article in the Telegraph may hold a clue. The article confirms that three former Downing Street staffers are set to give evidence to the committee. It is claimed they intend to affirm that Johnson misled parliament and failed to deliver a full account.

Whether their evidence will confirm the wrongdoing of Johnson alone, or of the PM and others, remains to be seen. But perhaps it explains why Johnson’s supporters are so keen to shut the inquiry down.

Thanks to Johnson, the country and the Tory party are now unrecognisable. When in doubt, they use misdirection, lie, blame others, deny. It’s the Johnson way, and his most loyal followers don’t have the capacity or inclination to do any different. If they believe Johnson can be saved then they are as deluded as the PM himself. Some rats, it seems, are too foolish even to leave the ship when it’s sinking.

Johnson taught Truss everything she doesn’t know

Johnson taught Truss everything she doesn’t know

Aug 7, 2022 | Bylines, News

Break the rules, lie about it, get caught lying, change your story, double down – as PM, Truss looks likely to follow in Johnson’s footsteps, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

It’ll be no surprise to anyone following the trajectory of Liz Truss’s career – or to anyone trying to avoid it – that Truss used to be a Remainer. In the run up to the Brexit referendum in 2016, Truss was an ardent, and very visible, pro-EU campaigner. She would now have us believe that her Brexit position was equivocal and that she was firmly sat ‘on the fence’.

 

A Brexit point to prove

Truss may have started out as a Remainer, but she is demonstrating the zeal of a true convert. At a recent hustings in the leadership race, Truss claimed that she only supported Remain because she was “concerned about some of the disruption”. She has now changed her mind, she insists, as “that disruption didn’t happen”. That’ll be news to businesses, economists, farmers, fishermen and tourists alike, not least those stuck for hours at Dover.

It seems that, in order to prove the strongest Brexit credentials – as required by any Tory prime minister – you need to follow the Boris Johnson playbook. All that is required is to don the Brexit blindfold, be able to U-turn on a sixpence, and lie through your teeth.

 

Showing her true colours?

Rishi Sunak, the only remaining competitor for the top job, has been keen to point out Truss’s former position on Brexit. Claiming himself to be the only true Brexit believer, he recently said Truss’s “true Remainer colours” were starting to show.

A spokesperson for Sunak’s campaign said that Truss, “blames Brexit and fails to see the opportunities from it to help farmers and food production”. Sunak also drew attention to the fact that Truss neglected to mention it was her own trade deals causing many of the problems British farmers are facing. But never fear, Truss swears she will “back our farmers” as they should be “getting on with farming, not having to fill in forms”.

Truss has also pledged to expand the visa scheme to allow more seasonal workers to pick fruit and vegetables. “I know it’s difficult for farmers at the moment”, she said, without any recognition of her part in their current difficulties.

Don’t like my policies? Just wait five minutes

An ability to abandon a proposed policy at the drop of a hat has long been a feature of recent Conservative prime ministers. If Theresa May was the ‘flip-flop’ queen, then Johnson was the U-turn king. Any policy proposal that failed to receive the required adulation, or that immediately provoked a bad public reaction, must be dropped immediately.

But it’s one thing to have a change of heart following public pressure; quite another to claim that the proposed offensive policy was never your policy in the first place.

You might expect that a leader, or even a potential leader, would have any proposal properly researched and assessed before launch. Not in Truss’s case. In fact, not only was her proposal – that public sector pay be reduced outside of London – cancelled within 24 hours, but she claimed it was never her policy in the first place. Her policy had been “wilfully misrepresented” and she had “never had any intention of changing the terms and conditions of teachers and nurses”, despite what was said in the previous day’s press release. Johnson, if he could be bothered to take notice, would be very proud.

If in doubt, double-down

A leaked email has this week seen Truss facing allegations of failing to declare thousands of pounds spent on ‘schmoozing’ fellow Tory MPs.

A champagne dinner labelled ‘Fizz with Liz’ was held at an exclusive London club last year. Although the event was paid for by the club owner, the function should have been declared in the Commons register. Seen as an early bid to succeed Johnson, Truss was described as being “on manoeuvres”. Truss denied any responsibility in organising the event, claiming she was merely one of the guests. That’s despite having sent out invitations personally by email.

If you aren’t starting to recognise a pattern here – break the rules, lie about it, get caught lying, change your story – then you haven’t been paying attention.

Our next PM?

The decision on who will be the next prime minister is being made by just 160,000 Tory party members. That membership is predominantly over 60, white and male, with many seemingly holding similarly right-wing views to the influential ERG group. The grandstanding displayed by both contestants is clearly aimed at these audiences alone. Never mind what the country might want or desperately need.

At the moment, Truss is the favourite. The sheer number of ministers and MPs now throwing their support behind her is clear evidence of who the party expects to win. It’s not just the candidates whose opinions and policies are disposable. Anything goes if the reward is a Cabinet post, it seems.

Of the many terrible legacies that Johnson leaves behind, Truss appears determined to repeat his mistakes, only with bigger bells, whistles and lies. Whatever vandalism has been committed by Johnson on the British state and the British public, Truss will try to outdo it.

Johnson broke Britain. He destroyed our reputation abroad, collapsed the economy, caused untold deaths, destroyed our democracy and all while expecting to be applauded for it. Truss has the ambition, and a willingness to sink to new depths of destruction in order to gain power. It looks likely she’ll succeed in her goal, too. But that’s all there is. She has no charisma, no policies founded on anything like need, intelligence or honesty, and she’s easily led.

The ERG are going to have a field day with their latest puppet. Labour, meanwhile, can’t believe their luck. Johnson has hung on just long enough to beat May’s record in office – she made it three years and 12 days; coincidentally Johnson has been in office for three years and 12 days today. Truss, if she succeeds, seems destined to serve less time than either of them.

Bremainers Ask – Jane Morrice

Bremainers Ask – Jane Morrice

Aug 1, 2022 | Bremainers Ask, News

Born in Belfast, and a teenager during the “troubles”, Jane Morrice built a career on peace building, journalism, Europe and equality. A founder member of the NI Women’s Coalition, she authored the line on integrated education in the Good Friday Agreement. She was elected to the first NI Assembly in 1998 and became Deputy Speaker in 2000. She was EC representative to NI during the ceasefires and, as a member of the Delors Task Force, set up the first EU PEACE Programme.

Previously a BBC Belfast reporter, she also served as Deputy Chief NI Equality Commissioner. She represented NI on the Brussels-based Civic Forum (EESC) and as Vice President in 2013. In 2021, she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Hillary Clinton, Vice Chancellor of Queens University Belfast.

She currently serves as Director of the Integrated Education Fund, Member of the Brussels branch of Women in International Security (WIIS), Co-Chair of the Museum of the Troubles and Honorary President of the European Movement NI. Jane is now campaigning to have Northern Ireland granted Honorary EU Association as a European Place of Global peace-building.

John Moffett: It’s been said that most mainland Britons learnt more about the GFA in the last episode of Derry Girls! As someone closely involved with the creation of the GFA, could you briefly explain the incredible transformation because of the agreement on NI society, culture and business, and how Brexit tore so much of that apart?

The Good Friday Agreement was designed to bring an end to political violence in Northern Ireland. In the years following the GFA implementation in 1998, NI has experienced relative peace but reconciliation between the two main communities is still a long way off. By marking the beginning of the end of 30 years of violent conflict, the GFA was a truly ‘titanic’ achievement, but few could have predicted the iceberg that was Brexit looming on the horizon. In true British tradition, unionists were reluctant Europeans, while nationalists mainly supported the EU. The positive effect of UK and Irish EU membership helped blur the dividing lines between the two communities. The ‘four’ freedoms meant people and trade flowed freely, political leaders met frequently in Brussels and the EU PEACE Programme supported cross-community and cross border initiatives and helped pave the way for the GFA. By permitting NI citizens to be British, Irish or both, the GFA provided an ingenious solution to the identity question that has bedevilled NI since its inception. Brexit has driven a wedge between the two communities, which ‘Derry Girls’, using humour, has helped expose to a much wider audience.

 

David Eldridge: Once the EU referendum result emerged, there were many prophesies about an independent Scotland and United Ireland. Do you foresee a border poll in NI and, if so, what might be the result?

It is my conviction that Scotland holds the key to the future constitutional position of both the UK and Ireland. Those supporting Irish unification would be wise to await the result of a second Scottish independence referendum, proposed for 2023, before embarking on a detailed plan for a border poll. If Scotland votes for independence, heralding the break-up of the UK, the unionist position in Northern Ireland will become more tenuous. Scotland’s links with Northern Ireland are not only based on geography and history but also the strength of the cultural connection. Given the Ulster-Scot’s heritage, NI people, particularly unionists, feel closer links with Scotland than England or Wales. Scottish independence may pave the way for a rethink of the Irish question and could eventually bring both UK nations which voted Remain back into the EU fold.

 

Sue Scarrott: The NI Protocol was designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland and is clearly helping NI business to weather the Brexit economic storm better than the rest of the UK, bar London, yet the Tories are politicising it to pick a fight with the EU. How do you see that playing out over the coming months/years?

The NI Protocol is generally supported by nationalists but rejected by those unionists who claim it separates NI from GB by placing a border in the Irish Sea and serves to dilute their British identity. My proposal is to extend the Protocol to Scotland. This could offer several solutions. First it would take the political toxicity out of the NI debate by moving the border from the Irish Sea to the Scottish/English border. In Scotland, for those supporting independence, it could be seen as a ‘waiting room’ for EU membership. For those not in support of independence, it could offer the best of both worlds in the UK and in the EU Single Market. For London, it could be a compromise to keep Scotland as part of the UK. ‘Brussels’, however, may not support such a proposal. Given the ‘special’ circumstances regarding the peace process, the Protocol was intended to avoid a hard border in Ireland and accommodate the many thousands of European citizens in NI whose rights are EU protected. Extending it to Scotland may help resolve the unionist question but could set a precedent for regions in Spain, France or elsewhere demanding similar arrangements.

Val Chaplin: The easiest and best solution to the NI Protocol would be for the whole of the UK to rejoin the SM and CU. Do you ever envisage that happening and given the importance of unity and cooperation in Europe in light of the war in Ukraine, do you ever foresee the UK rejoining the EU?

There is little doubt that the economic benefits of the NI Protocol have exposed the harmful effects of Brexit on the rest of the UK. The powerful images of lorries lined up at Channel ports in Southern England are just the start of stormy waters ahead. Proposing to rejoin the SM and CU may help business overcome these immediate problems but the EU is much more than a marketplace. It is a meeting of minds, young and old, through programmes such as ERASMUS and Horizon in which information is shared, experiences exchanged and respect for others is encouraged. The only solution is for the UK to rejoin the EU. As I have often said: Brexit is not a divorce, it is a trial separation, allowing both sides to settle their differences and eventually get back together for the sake of the children.

 

Lisa Burton: Less than 10% of students in Northern Ireland attend an integrated school as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant school. Considering the first integrated school was established 40 years ago now, in your view, what is holding integration back?

As a Director of the Integrated Education Fund and author of the line in the Good Friday Agreement proposing a ‘culture of tolerance’ by ‘encouraging and facilitating integrated education’, I am convinced that Protestant and Catholic children studying together will help break down barriers between the two communities. Since the first integrated school was set up forty years ago, the movement has been campaigning to little avail. This is basically because of the strength of the lobby from both the Catholic Church and the State Grammar Schools, mainly Protestant, seeking to protect their ethos. Even attempts by the cross-community Alliance Party to have one single mixed teacher training college did not succeed. Things are changing, however, with the recent Assembly motion to provide greater support for integrated schools. This is likely to lead to an increase in schools transforming to integrated status and a greater understanding and respect among children, parents and teachers for the history, culture, identity and political aspiration of people from British, Irish and other communities in Northern Ireland.

 

Michael Soffe : Do you believe you will see a “united” Ireland as a member of the EU in your lifetime?

It has been said that peace can take as long to achieve as conflict takes to end. If that is the case, our 30-year conflict can only be matched by 30 years of peace. That would bring us to the 30th anniversary of the GFA in April 2028. This, I believe, would be an appropriate moment to begin the serious process of rethinking the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Consultation should begin well in advance and include citizens, North and South of the border. The best forum for such consultation is that which was proposed by my party, the NI Women’s Coalition, in the GFA for the creation of a Civic Forum to support the legislative process of the NI Assembly. Similar to the Brussels-based European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of which I was a NI Member for 15 years, this Forum would gather experts from business, trade unions and others to give advice to the legislators. Ireland has had very successful consultations leading to historic changes to important legislation, but it is my firm belief that the only way to get unionist participation in these consultations is that they take place within the NI Civic Forum.

To conclude, in spite of the horror I witnessed growing up during the troubles, I have always had a genuine love for Northern Ireland. I see it as a very special place which has a great deal to teach the world about the need for tolerance, respect and how peace can be achieved against the odds.

As a European unionist, I would therefore like to see Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland becoming the Northern BENELUX of the EU. In response to the question (will I see a United Ireland in my lifetime?) – I am no spring chicken, so I believe not.

In our August newsletter, Bremainers Ask will be featuring Otto English, a.k.a. journalist and author Andrew Scott. He is a regular writer for Byline Times and Politico, and is the author of “Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World”. If you would like to submit a question for Otto for consideration, please email enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Tuesday 9 August.

Boris Johnson clings on to power: a long and expensive six weeks

Boris Johnson clings on to power: a long and expensive six weeks

Jul 25, 2022 | Bylines, News

The prime minister is approaching his final six weeks in much the same way as he’s approached his entire term of office, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On 7July 2022, less than three years after winning a landslide election, Boris Johnson resigned as prime minister. Well, sort of. Having lost the confidence of the Conservative Party – long after losing the confidence of the country – he delivered his resignation speech outside No.10 Downing Street.

Although he didn’t actually say the words ‘I resign’, he announced his intention to do so, sparking a bitter leadership race that won’t be resolved until September. In the meantime, especially now that parliament is in summer recess, what can we expect from Johnson and his government? If the last two weeks is anything to go by, then more of the same, but with expensive knobs on!

Missing in action

One of the first plans Johnson announced after his ‘resignation’ was a wedding party at Chequers, previously postponed due to the pandemic. Following considerable outrage, it appeared that the prime minister had reconsidered, and would hold the party elsewhere, and not paid for via the public purse.

Yet within a few days, Johnson decided to host a leaving party, again at Chequers, and possibly with the exact same guest list as the wedding party. To add insult to injury, the leaving do was Johnson’s excuse for failing to attend an emergency Cobra meeting, to discuss the imminent heatwave.

Of course, Johnson has form for missing emergency Cobra meetings, having missed five such meetings during the pandemic. Not so much fiddling while Rome burns, as fiddling expenses while London burns.

PM play days

We’ve become accustomed to seeing Johnson play dress up. There can’t be many uniforms he hasn’t donned during his premiership and if the last few days are anything to go by, we can expect many more fancy dress fantasies, all at our expense.

Johnson’s latest dressing up play series started on board a Typhoon jet. While performing a dangerous – and highly skilled – refuelling exercise, Johnson was supposedly at the controls of the jet. Few believed any jet pilot would we foolish enough, or authorised, to allow this ridiculous manoeuvre by an inexperienced passenger. But then, anything is possible. After all, this particular passenger has been at the controls of the country for almost three years, and still is.

Switching from one armed service to another, Johnson’s next play date was with the army. Happily back in camouflage and playing with weapons – hopefully not loaded! – Johnson was again proving that he has never really grown up. The man-child seems determined to play with as many toys and wear as many uniforms as possible during his last few weeks as PM. No doubt he is having a ball staying as far away from his duties as possible, and of course, as we’ve come to expect, all paid for by someone else. In this case, us.

Deluded to the end

Against all the evidence, Johnson still sees himself as a winner, a success story, someone to be revered and respected. That’s despite the country and his party, turning against him for his failures, dishonesty and style.

The child that wanted to be king of the world still, against all reason, believes he can be. Not only that but that the world should be grateful for his service. A “well sourced” former aide and “freelance C/conservative pundit”, Tim Montgomerie, even claims that “Boris is telling aides he’ll be PM again” next year. Which rather puts a different spin on his final words at his final PMQs last week – “hasta la vista, baby”.

Five claims, five lies

Johnson has always claimed his leadership a great success, with frequent declarations about non-existent accomplishments. It was therefore no surprise that his closing statement, published on 21 July, was entitled “Government delivery”. The 2,500+ word statement was full of exaggeration, delusion and downright dishonesty.

Johnson started by explaining why the British public “were right to place their trust in me”. We were then treated to a list of all Johnson’s achievements.

The first, unsurprisingly, was that “we got Brexit done”. We have, apparently, taken back control of our borders and “have been seizing the opportunities that come with this new freedom”. Johnson went on to say that it was because of that new border control that we had been able to act swiftly in Afghanistan and Ukraine and develop the relationship with Rwanda on immigration. No mention of chaos at Dover, or the fact that France – a member of the EU – was successfully demonstrating its own border controls.

Second on Johnson’s list was guiding “the country through its greatest challenge since the Second World War”. He was referring, of course, to the pandemic. Apparently we had “more powerful new drugs … than any of our neighbours” and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe – though in reality, Brexit severely hampered that rollout beyond the initial burst.

His third claim was on levelling up. In order to distribute opportunity equally across the country, Johnson said, this meant “bringing down crime, strengthening our health system, sorting out social care and improving our schools”.  The government, he claimed, has “acted on every front”:

  • “Our streets are safer” thanks to more police officers (unless you discount those relieved of duty before the counting started, and of course you also have to ignore the fact that recorded crime has been increasing, particularly sexual offences, violence and fraud).
  • “Our NHS is on a surer footing” thanks again to more recruitment, and again ignoring the earlier loss of jobs. Not to mention the chronic underfunding, the steady privatisation going on behind the scenes, the record-breaking waiting lists.
  • “Our broken social care system is finally being fixed” though unsurprisingly, this section was light on achievements and long on future “opportunities”.
  • “Our schools are better” – more funding apparently, and more promises of future improvements.

 

Johnson´s fourth claim was on how well he had, presumably single-handedly, “secured the fastest economic growth in the G7 last year”. No mention of being 19th out of the G20 countries, with only Russia’s economy performing worse than the UK. This was followed by his regularly touted lie of the “lowest unemployment rate in almost 50 years”.

The fifth and final claim was regarding the UK’s standing on the global stage. This included “embracing the freedom we now have to chart our own course”, (whatever that means), and ”driving action on climate change”

A long and expensive six weeks

Unsurprisingly, Johnson rounded off his statement with his war stories on Ukraine. Having “brought the G7 and NATO together” he also boasted of his visa scheme for Ukrainian refugees, while obviously failing to mention that other European countries had removed any visa requirements.

In his final paragraph, Johnson said he was “proud of our record in office since 2019”. He added that he remained “determined that we continue to deliver in our final weeks”.

It’s quite possible he actually believes his own hype. After all, he’s spent his life doing what he wants, when he wants, and regardless of the consequences.

Johnson believes he is better than the rest of us. He’s not. He’s the worst, most devious, most mendacious prime minister this country has ever known, and he’s not done yet. Plenty of time left for dressing-up, wasting our money and destroying our reputation.

It’s going to be a very long and very expensive six weeks!

 

The race to be prime minister

The race to be prime minister

Jul 12, 2022 | Bylines, News

Each leadership candidate has been part of a governing party that has presided over – and in most cases caused – the problems we now face, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Despite what you might have read or heard, for the foreseeable future Boris Johnson is our prime minister. He hasn’t as yet resigned, though he has said that he will. Bizarrely, despite his record, most people seem to believe him for once.

His potential replacements are falling over each other trying to present themselves as a fresh start for the party and the country. So far, they have each failed spectacularly to convince anyone that they, or the Conservative Party, have given pause for thought or considered a change of direction.

The runners and riders in the race to be prime minister

The ever-growing list of contenders includes two former and one current chancellor – Rishi Sunak, Savid Javid and Nadhim Zahawi. Each should, in theory, understand how to manage the country’s finances but if the state of the UK economy is anything to go by, they clearly don’t.

Other candidates holding cabinet positions are Attorney General Suella Braverman, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps and Trade Secretary Penny Mordaunt. So far, so law-breaking, yawn-making. That list is expected to soon include Home Secretary Priti Patel, who will presumably outdo the lot of them on the far-right swing-o-meter.

They are joined by former cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt (isn’t fox hunting marvellous!) and back-benchers Tom ‘I fought for my country’ Tugendhat, and Rehman Chishti (have you heard of him?).

A recent Times poll asked both Conservative Party members and the general public “who would be the best replacement?” for Johnson. The clear favourite was Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, who has ruled himself out from standing – proving he certainly was the better candidate.

The British public were quite clear who they would choose from the above list – 30% of them voted for ‘none of the above’ with ‘don’t know’ coming in a close second. Clearly the country is spoiled for choice.

More of the same, but worse

Those on the increasingly long list of runners and riders have a great deal in common. Firstly, they have all been part of a governing party that has presided over – and in most cases directly caused – all the problems the country is now facing.

The government’s appalling performance on Brexit, Covid, the cost-of-living crisis, inflation, the NHS etc., has happened on their watch. Not only have the candidates enabled the damage, they’ve accepted no responsibility for it.

Strangely, I can’t recall any one of them speaking out against government plans, or even against Johnson’s behaviour. Until the last minute, of course, when they all jumped on the ‘get Johnson done’ bandwagon when they smelt blood in the water.

Secondly, their proposals for the future direction of the country are practically indistinguishable. What we need, apparently, is more of the same, but on steroids, and with massive tax cuts! They’ll throw in a dollop of added trust and integrity, just to prove they aren’t Johnson.

Yet, despite all of that, they all now claim to possess a magic wand that will mysteriously solve all the country’s problems. Except they really do have nothing up their sleeves. Or in their heads.

As Peter Stefanovic commented on Twitter, after listening to all the hype “it’s impossible to conclude anything other than the whole lot are completely insane”.

 

Crisis? What crisis?

The party faithful might be swayed by the uber self-promotion, but there are serious issues that the candidates are avoiding like the plague. Not only are they all unable, it seems, to fully explain how their tax-cutting, inflation-boosting plans will be paid for, but they are not mentioning the most crucial issues of the day.

It should be no surprise that Brexit has hardly earned a mention, but what of the cost-of-living crisis? Or the serious problems facing the NHS? As for informing us of how they might deal with the Ukraine war or Putin, it seems it’s all hush-hush, on a need-to-know basis.

Not a single candidate has spoken out against the appalling, and likely illegal Rwanda deportation plan, or dared to speak on the subject of immigration or human rights. As for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, it seems our next PM aims to continue with Johnson’s plan to break international law. So much for ‘global’ Britain.

We can only assume that the omission of comment on the important matters of the day is deliberate. After all, a U-turn on a policy that they voted for and vocally supported might need more explanation than any of them can muster.

The gloves are off

The Conservative Party has long had a reputation as the ‘nasty party’. Theresa May acknowledged this in 2010 when she said:

“There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us — the Nasty Party”.

 

With so many candidates fighting for the keys to Number 10, perhaps it was inevitable that the fight for the top job was going to get dirty. Or perhaps, I should say, dirtier.

Where the policies are largely interchangeable, the private lives of the candidates are not. Cue allegations of tax avoidance, financial irregularities, sex scandals or whatever dirt they can unearth about each other. We might have expected the media to be doing the digging into the candidates’ background, but it seems the candidates themselves are the ones with the biggest spades and the strongest motivation.

Beggars can’t be choosers

The next prime minister, like the last two, will be decided first by Tory MPs, then when we are down to the final two, the party membership. The candidates may demonstrate some diversity – their policies excepted – but the membership does not. So, once again, the view of a group of largely older, white men will choose the next leader of the country. Those suffering the worst thanks to Tory party policies, will have no say in the future PM or the direction he/she takes the country in.

We never expected prospective candidates to come out in favour of a softer Brexit, an increase in taxes, or an improvement in public spending. Heaven forbid! Wrong party, wrong membership. However, what would be refreshing would be a willingness to speak out against right-wing extremism, international law-breaking, and a complete lack of compassion for the less fortunate. But they won’t. They will continue with Johnson’s toxic, damaging legacy, and damn the consequences. The new leader, whoever it may be, will continue down the same nationalistic path that has already cost the party three leaders.

The next prime minister is not looking to clear up the mess Johnson leaves behind. They are, just like Johnson before them, only interested in furthering their own careers, no matter the cost. By caring only about the votes of a small, unrepresentative audience, they are distancing themselves from the wider voting public. It will cost them the next election.

Meanwhile, as the talentless, egocentric candidates squabble like kids in a playground, another very important question remains unanswered. Who, if anyone, is actually governing the country right now? Please don’t tell me it’s Boris Johnson!

Johnson’s ‘resignation’ exposes a wider lack of integrity in his party

Johnson’s ‘resignation’ exposes a wider lack of integrity in his party

Jul 8, 2022 | Bylines, News

Those attempting to distance themselves from Johnson’s lack of integrity should take a closer look in the mirror and examine their own, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

When Health Secretary Sajid Javid resigned from Cabinet on Tuesday evening, shortly followed by the Chancellor Rishi Sunak, it started a chain reaction. Cue everyone, or at least a significant number of Conservative ministers, talking openly about trust issues, lack of confidence in their leader, and integrity. For many, it was Boris Johnson’s integrity that was finally being challenged. For others, it was their own.

Cabinet cowardice

Just 36 hours, and over 50 resignations later, Johnson was forced to agree to stand down. In their resignation letters, the majority of Tory ministers expressed their gratitude to Johnson for his ‘accomplishments’ while condemning him for the very personality traits that they had previously tolerated, if not lauded.

In his own resignation letter, Brandon Lewis had said that, “a decent Government relies on honesty, integrity and mutual respect”. He added that it was a matter of profound personal regret that he no longer believed those values are being upheld. A view that was commonly shared by others but which rather begs the question, when were those values ever upheld under Johnson’s watch?

When the newly appointed Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi joined the ranks of Cabinet ministers telling Johnson to resign, the PM finally accepted defeat.

None so blind

The 50+ resignations letters submitted in the 36 hours prior to Johnson’s resignation were full of references to the PM’s supposed achievements and his lack of integrity. The resignations had been triggered by the latest sleaze scandal involving Deputy Chief Whip Chris Pincher. Although many possible final straws had presented themselves over the last few months – not least the damaging partygate scandal – number 10’s preposterous handling of the Pincher scandal was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back.

Seemingly without a hint of irony, MPs such as Robert Halfon complained about a “loss of integrity” in their resignation letters. MP Stuart Andrew wrote, “there comes a time when you have to look at your own personal integrity and that time is now”. Really? Surely that time is every day, when you are a public servant. Jo Gideon said, “I believe we must demonstrate integrity in our actions and send a message that standards in public life matters”. Well quite, but that was as true today as it was any time over the last three years.

It’s not as if Johnson’s character had previously been a closely guarded secret or that he’d suddenly changed his style or approach. The party was perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to his shocking behaviour when it was good for their own careers. They knew exactly who he was and what he was capable of, but they supported him anyway. As long as he was popular.

Now they are scurrying around desperately trying to distance themselves from the Johnson brand and trying not to be tarred with the same, dirty, toxic brush. Too late for that, I’m afraid.

Setting the scene for Johnson’s demise

At prime minister’s questions (PMQs) on Wednesday – just a day before Johnson’s resignation – Keir Starmer was on the attack. He challenged Johnson on his own behaviour and on the actions of his ministers, whom he described as “sinking ships fleeing the rat”. He pointed out that any Tory minister quitting now hadn’t “a shred of integrity”. The Conservative Party had known all along who this prime minister was, he said, and had therefore been complicit every step of the way.

Later the same day, a few final nails were hammered into Johnson’s coffin when he appeared before the House of Commons Liaison Committee. An hour of the meeting was dedicated to the subject of ‘integrity in politics’. Normally these meetings are a polite, sometimes almost deferential affair, but not this time.

When Johnson suggested that the public wanted him to concentrate on getting on with the job, Chris Bryant, chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, dismissed this suggestion. The public, Bryant insisted, also wanted the government “to focus on honesty, and decency, and propriety, and standards in public life”

Johnson’s legacy

It seems like just yesterday that Johnson was bragging about wanting to stay in power until 2030. We assumed he meant the year, but perhaps he was referring to the time of day. Instead, it looks as though he’ll be out of office without even outlasting Theresa May’s short tenure.

Johnson’s formerly loyal supporters have been keen to praise Johnson for “getting Brexit done”, except it is far from done. They happily cheered when he lied about the economy, about police numbers, about the NHS and all the hospitals he supposedly built. They rallied behind every attempt to blame the country’s ills on anyone other than the himself or his party. If they now believe the public will forget and forgive every time they backed his lies and broken promises, or the toxic policies, they have made a serious error in judgement.

 

The country will be counting the cost of Johnson’s government for a very long time. His legacy will include the highest inflation for 40 years, high levels of taxation, lower wages, reduced worker rights, the lowest performing economy in the G20 (apart from Russia) and the most appalling record on Covid. Not to mention the increasingly obvious damage of Brexit or the ruined reputation of the UK abroad.

Johnson is largely responsible, but he didn’t damage the country all on his own. He had the full support of his party. Until he didn’t. Much as ministers and MPs might try to distance themselves, the stain of association will be hard to scrub off.

Integrity as a fleeting concept: claiming ignorance won’t wash

Whether due to loyalty, self-interest, or cowardice, Tory ministers ignored for too long what was blatantly obvious to the rest of us. Johnson was the wrong person for the job. With their failure to criticise and their willingness to enjoy the Johnson ride, the party enabled his wrongdoing. Try as they might, they cannot now distance themselves from the havoc he wrought and claim blissful ignorance.

Johnson may have been the best candidate to win an election. But he was never the right person to run the country. What’s worse, his party has always known that. Yet they backed him anyway for the sake of their own careers and keeping the party in power. Only when those careers were threatened by his toxic brand of conservatism, were they willing to act.

Those attempting to distance themselves may have complained, quite rightly, about Johnson’s character and his lack of integrity. Maybe it’s high time they took a closer look in the mirror and examined their own.