Boris Johnson has made a career out of the ‘non-denial denial’

Comments should be delivered in a tone of wounded outrage at your integrity being questioned, garnished with a note of accusation, writes Andrew Woodcock

Johnson has questions to answer regarding the renovation of the Downing St flat (PA)

For the connoisseur of the Westminster art known as the “non-denial denial”, the last few days of politics have been quite a treat.

The tactic involves making an emphatic refutation of something no one is accusing you of, while drawing a veil over the more awkward questions that people would rather like an answer to.

Ideally, the non-denial denial should be delivered in a tone of wounded outrage at your integrity being questioned, garnished with a note of accusation that your opponent should be so mean-minded as to distract you from the far more important issues you want to be focusing on.

Boris Johnson has made a career out of the art form, taking it to rhetorical heights when replying to questions about whether he wanted to be PM not with the words Yes or No, but the formulation that he was “more likely to be reincarnated as an olive”.

But the past week has left some Westminster watchers wondering whether the tactic isn’t reaching the end of its usefulness to him.

Mr Johnson’s response to questions about whether he tried last year to get a wealthy donor to pay for the lavish refurbishment of his flat has been a classic non-denial denial. 

Saying that he has now paid the bill himself – as he did four times in the House of Commons and in multiple TV interviews – is supposed to convey the impression that the issue is closed and everything is above board.

But of course, it doesn’t amount to a denial at all regarding the suggestion from Dominic Cummings that the PM was casting around for a way to get someone else to foot the bill last year, maybe through a trust arrangement that the former aide regarded as “possibly illegal”.

Keir Starmer tried to pre-empt use of the non-denial denial when asking Johnson at PMQs about claims he had said he would rather “let the bodies pile up in their thousands” than order a third lockdown.

Now, given that anyone hearing the phrase – supposedly delivered in mid-rant – is unlikely to have remembered it precisely as it was spoken, the PM may well have felt confident that he could deny saying exactly those words.

So Starmer took the precaution of asking whether he had said them “or remarks to that effect”.

The Labour leader’s careful questioning means that, should a recording ever emerge to confirm the story, Mr Johnson will not be able to wriggle out of the charge he misled parliament by saying: “That wasn’t what I was denying”.

The non-denial denial certainly has its uses in politics. But by doggedly sticking to partial responses this week, the prime minister may have got himself into the position where voters start asking: “If he won’t answer the question he’s asked, what has he got to hide?”

Yours,

Andrew Woodcock

Political editor