Boris Johnson is more vulnerable now than he was a week ago – unlike the standards watchdog

Editorial: The bungled attempt to ‘reform’ the existing procedures in upholding standards was partly intended to make the commissioner’s position untenable – but it failed miserably

Friday 05 November 2021 21:30 GMT
Comments
‘It is thought Mr Johnson lives in fear of Kathryn Stone poking around in his ‘private’ affairs’
‘It is thought Mr Johnson lives in fear of Kathryn Stone poking around in his ‘private’ affairs’ (Reuters)

Sadly, even with an effective majority of 85 in the House of Commons, Boris Johnson cannot repeal the law of unintended consequences – a piece of legislation that has given him considerable grief during his premiership.

The latest (inadvertent) consequence of his decisions is that the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, is less – rather than more – likely to be forced out of her job.

She is, therefore, in a stronger – rather than weaker – position when it comes to reviewing the various irregularities in the prime minister’s own affairs: who pays for his holidays, and who paid for the refurbishment of his flat.

It is thought Mr Johnson lives in fear of her poking around in his “private” affairs, and it is certainly true that she has unflinchingly criticised him on numerous occasions in the past.

A worst-case scenario would be an eventual sanction similar to that imposed on Owen Paterson – a long suspension that might prompt a by-election in the prime minister’s own constituency of Uxbridge. In short, more Johnsonian chaos, but on an unprecedented scale.

All of that may be far-fetched, but the prime minister is certainly more vulnerable than he was a week ago. The bungled attempt to “reform” (ie weaken) the existing procedures in upholding standards was partly intended to make the commissioner’s position untenable.

Yet it failed so miserably that she is now safer than ever, protected by the effective veto that ministers have had to hand to the Labour Party over the way the commissioner and the standards committee go about their work.

Many backbench Conservatives are also annoyed that they have been made to look foolish, or worse. This all matters because of the potential embarrassment that an inquiry by Ms Stone into the lavish flat redecoration, and his recent holidays, will cause Mr Johnson.

The issue of the flat has already been looked into by the adviser on ministerial conduct, Lord Geidt – and another review, by the Electoral Commission, has now been provisionally completed and is with the Conservative Party, which must respond to any claims that rules on donations were broken.

In any case, Ms Stone may start her own inquiry, and she may agree to Labour requests to open another into the free holiday provided to the prime minister and his wife by Zac, now Lord, Goldsmith. The additional twist is that it may not be so much about who paid for what and when, but rather whether Johnson has been entirely open and honest in his past explanations to his independent adviser, Lord Geidt, as well as to the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, and to the Electoral Commission.

According to a tweet by his former adviser Dominic Cummings (no love lost there), Mr Johnson has much to hide.

Mr Johnson and his allies are arguing that the matter of the flat has already been looked into by Lord Geidt and the Electoral Commission, and therefore that Stone has no need to repeat the exercise; but Stone has her own independent remit, and reports to the cross-party Committee on Standards, which includes independent and lay members.

If she decides to go ahead and look further into the flat – and/or the free holidays – then the prime minister will either have to try to resist, and sit on evidence, which would seem evasive, or else he will have to face down the revelations that will inevitably follow, and try to tough it out.

In the end, as ever, Mr Johnson’s survival will depend on how seriously his MPs, the activists and the general public take the misbehaviour, if such there has been. In the past they haven’t cared very much about what the PM derides as “arguments about wallpaper”, but neither do they like sleaze.

His MPs are also disgruntled after the fiasco of the last few days. It might get unpredictable…

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in