Boris Johnson must not be allowed to move on from Partygate

Editorial: Delays and distractions are assumed by the prime minister to work in his favour

(Dave Brown)

There are two ways for Partygate to end. Either Boris Johnson resigns, at some point; or the various inquiries, investigations, media and political processes eventually grind to an exhausted halt in the sands of ambiguity, ridicule and time. Hence the jokes about cake and the pleas to await the results of an inquiry which is neither independent nor entirely trusted. That is the context into which the latest argument, about the timing of the publication of Sue Gray’s investigation and the Metropolitan Police intervention, must be placed.

At the moment, the prime minister is keen to show no signs of vulnerability. After a brief and uncharacteristic display of contrition (real or otherwise), he has reverted to his usual bullish, boosterish self, for good or ill. He likes the commentary about him “coming out fighting”. He has been reminding his party of how he won the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2019 general election, and many of his MPs that they owe their seats and their ministerial abilities to his unique gifts, the flip side of his flaws.

He has used the additional time afforded by the Sue Gray investigation and subsequent delays to launch new “red meat” initiatives (albeit to mixed reviews), to set up a shadow whipping and Operation Save Big Dog initiative, to charm and strong-arm his critics, and start to look for fresh routes out of his problems. The tensions in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis are used to shore up his position. Soon he may cancel the scheduled increase in national insurance contributions to appease his backbenchers.

Delays and distractions, even of his own making (such as the latest indications that he approved the pet evacuation from Kabul) are assumed by the prime minister to work in his favour. The more the public gets tired of Partygate, so it is calculated, the more chance they will start to forget what it is really about – corruption, hypocrisy and a despicable “one rule for us, another rule for everyone else” culture. The caravan of press and restive MPs will move on.

There is something in this, but it leaves one central and devastating fact unaltered. Sooner or later it is perfectly possible, if not likely, that the prime minister, a serving prime minister, will be found to have broken the very laws he promulgated, and which were approved of in the very cabinet room where at least one of the lockdown parties took place.

This will still be a damning verdict in itself, and hard to argue against, even if it is a fixed penalty notice. No doubt the prime minister will joke about it, and his allies trivialise it as no worse than a parking ticket; but the shameful reality is that Boris Johnson did the wrong thing. He will not be exonerated.

The fixed penalty notice, with its fine of £100, also carries another consequence. It is a powerful indication that the prime minister misled parliament, a resigning matter under the ministerial code. The full text of the code, signed by the prime minister himself, shows how exacting its requirements are: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister [...] Ministers should be as open as possible with parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter by clicking here

Of course the question then arises, because the code was not designed to deal with a wayward premier, who will decide if the prime minister had lied or misled the House of Commons? Usually the issue is clear-cut, and the guilty MP apologises to the house and/or resigns in disgrace, as in the famous example of John Profumo.

Mr Johnson is not the type to go quietly in the party or national interest. A faction of loyalist MPs might sustain him even if he was to suffer a poor showing in an internal Tory confidence vote, winning by a handful of votes. It may be that, in those circumstances, his own party, with the speaker and the opposition, will have to find a parliamentary mechanism short of inadvertently provoking a general election to remove the prime minister from office.

What started with cheese and wine has turned into a national scandal, then an investigation, joined by a police inquiry and, before long, will reach a crescendo in a full-blown constitutional crisis stress-testing once again the British political system. It won’t be boring, but it will be bloody.