Having been fined by the Metropolitan Police for attending a surprise birthday party on 19 June in the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister has been found in breach of Covid restrictions. Should he resign as a matter of honour, bringing disgrace to the office he holds, and is that in the interests of the UK? If not for that reason, should he resign because he lied to Parliament, assuming he did? Or should he resign at least because he has lost the trust of the British public and has no moral authority? Further fines from further gatherings may also be in the offing. But are fines really the point?
IF HE LIED, HE MUST GO
The Prime Minister has always maintained that he thought the gatherings he attended were legal and obeyed guidelines, as they were at his workplace and he considered them to be work events: perhaps the crunch is whether that is a true representation of what he thought, and, if he did, was it reasonable or at least understandable for him to do so. The Sherbhert article CAN THE PM SURVIVE THE LAST CHANCE SALOON? of 21 December 2021, was clear that if he was lying on that matter, he should resign; also, that if he is totally incompetent and out of control then he should resign, and perhaps if he has lost public confidence. It will be relevant to know what advice or assurances he received from senior personnel as to observance of Covid regulations in Downing Street, which assurances he has from time to time referred to, or has he made those up? Presumably his evidence to Sue Gray and his “sworn” evidence to the Police will match up, and the former will perhaps become public with her report. If that confirms his belief in his compliance, will it be relevant to his guilt?
The clearest basis for resignation is that the PM lied to parliament, but it is the hardest to prove: it is quite possible he did not give the issue of these gatherings and his comments about them as much thought as he should have. Mere assertion that he lied, no matter by how many people, is not relevant though it may affect public opinion. In one sense the number of fines he gets is irrelevant if his premise was truly that his attendance at such gatherings and the gatherings themselves were legal. Opponents convinced he is a liar on this topic have spotted this possibility, and it is mooted that one or more MPs may seek a Commons vote that there should be an enquiry as to whether he misled Parliament, presumably deliberately. The Inquiry it is said could be done by the Privileges Committee. However, it is hard to see how a committee of a few MPs could comply with natural justice and be unbiased, as likely most if not all have made up their minds on his guilt or innocence already. The Chairman of that Committee, Chris Bryant MP, has been vociferous in condemnation and so would surely be barred. The PM should certainly go in ignominy if he deliberately deceived Parliament and the public, but a kangaroo court is not the way to decide that.
IF HE HAS LOST PUBLIC TRUST, HE SHOULD GO
If he has truly lost the trust of the public, his electorate, or his Party, then surely, he must go. Establishing the loss of confidence by his party will be a vote by Conservative MPs, if they choose, having accounted for the views of their constituents. Pressure from May elections, if very bad from their viewpoint, could sway them, but many will know that mid-term elections often firmly put any government in its place to sharpen them up. As to loss of public trust, perhaps enough negative polls over a long enough period will establish that. However, the results of polls, such as on the popularity of Prime Ministers or voting intentions, change from week to week, and as the latest events are accounted for. Time also heals. Maybe “wartime” success will eventually outweigh immediate anger. Polls depend too on the question asked: for example, a question on which politician the public want to handle the Ukrainian crisis may get a different answer to who would be better at solving the energy crisis? Future events are unknown, and if the last three years teach anything, it is that circumstances, fortunes and opinions change very quickly and unpredictably. A snapshot poll or two can tell a very short and maybe wrong story, as events unfold.
DOES BEING FINED DISHONOUR THE OFFICE AND REQUIRE RESIGNATION?
It is reasonable to assert that merely getting a fine for being found to break Covid law requires resignation. Even if he did not do so deliberately. Others may argue that such a penalty is disproportionate, and not in the UK’s interests. The Covid law is unusual, and its special nature is clear from the fact that paying a fine does not create a criminal record. The enforcement of Covid law was inconsistent at the least see Sherbhert article IS IT PEOPLE AT THE GATHERINGS OR THEIR JUDGES WHO ARE POISONING JUSTICE? of 29th January 2022, and that is because the restrictions were hard to understand and interpret. For example, what was a reasonable excuse for leaving home might be one thing to a policeman and another to a citizen having to judge for themselves. The exemptions for the working place have an element of subjectivity.
Much more emotionally potent for the public is the concept that the Whitehall behaviour towards gatherings was insulting, and demonstrated a disdain for the public generally, and reinforces the “one law for them” idea. The head of steam that idea really has is hard to judge despite its promotion by the media – perhaps in any event the view of many people of politicians generally is so low, that some of the Whitehall ill-judged gatherings are just more of the same. On the resignation issue, perhaps the UK divides into camps, some of which are clear and constant, others more dynamic or pragmatic, all driven by different priorities, or even an indifference to political manoeuvrings and self-righteousness.
THE “HANG HIM” CAMPS, AND THE REST
There are perhaps three camps which will seek the Prime Minister’s resignation whenever the opportunity presents itself. Despite that, they could also objectively be right that he should resign now due to his behaviour over the gatherings or “partygate”, especially if he lied to Parliament.
JOHNSON IS MORALLY VOID – this camp, whether politicians, journalists, commentators or members of the public, considers Boris Johnson a man without values, a serial liar to avoid situations or advance his cause, a man with form not fit for office. Right or wrong, and while including people outraged by his behaviour due to his attitudes in office this camp has largely required his downfall since he was elected, and so are passionate about him resigning.
ANTI-BREXIT – this camp does not forgive Boris Johnson for promoting and then implementing Brexit and may overlap with the first camp. They see the world very much through a Brexit lens and so consider him unfit for office. Again, their passion for Europe may not detract from their genuine view that the Prime Minister lied over the Downing Street gatherings.
ANTI-CONSERVATIVES – again some overlap with camps one and two. As passionate supporters of other Parties, this group will wish to see the Government brought down and the demise of Boris Johnson will assist that. They may well however also have the best interests of the UK at heart, as indeed may camps one and two, and genuinely want a greater level of moral probity at the top than they see in the PM.
THE REST – The rest of the population perhaps are not necessarily inclined to anti Boris Johnson sentiments, but a proportion of them will be outraged by a perceived wanton disregard for the rules in Whitehall: the sheer volume of gatherings can be enough for an all-damning conclusion. The “one rule for them” outlook will prevail with some.
There will be a number of people who are simply not interested in the news, but whose primary concern is getting on with life, and managing their own affairs. Some will shrug their shoulders at “partygate” excitement. There is a natural inclination for some to simply say let’s move on as the world has more to worry about than whether the Prime Minister erred about Covid, breathing a sigh of relief that the pandemic is at least in abeyance and may be past its worst.
Boris Johnson has an attraction for some who like the fact he gets into scrapes, makes gaffs, and mistakes, and shuns the traditional liberal elite – traits many people can empathise with from experience: his popularity may wax and wane but when he achieves success, such as the vaccine programme, or leading on the Ukraine war as President Zelensky certainly testifies to, that may then outweigh too the negatives. And some will simply think the Covid rules were broken so often by so many, or even that they were absurd or unjust restrictions on freedom, and so Downing Street mistakes are small beer. There is a narrative too that the pressures in Government to handle a pandemic where so much was an unknown, and all was really “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”, that a Dunkirk spirit may have led to indiscreet and regrettable behaviours. That may or not be forgivable.
Finally, some will support Boris Johnson, admiring how well he has, in their view, got Brexit done, or made a good fist of some big decisions on Covid, or his commitment to net zero on climate change or his apparent leading role to help Ukraine and try to defeat Putin.
With so many potential variable attitudes among the public – and the above is a very incomplete attempt at highlighting some combinations – who can say what is the real consensus without a general election: of course, all this Covid hype may lead there eventually.
THE BALL IN THE COURT OF CONSERVATIVE MPs
With their huge majority in the Commons, the immediate future leadership decision rests with Conservative MPs. Boris Johnson’s popular appeal is arguably the key factor for their election success. If they perceive that to be gone, perhaps they will want change. A decision either to remove him as is clear from the above or to maintain the status quo can both be rationalised. First, is there really any other person who stands out in their party to handle the current big issues of the day (some may ask is there any leader in any party who has the charisma, nerve and judgement to do that). Some will point to Boris Johnson’s successes, even accounting for his perceived poor attention span, or to detail: he may be chaotic, but perhaps aides and advisers and Ministers can create some order. Has there perhaps been an improvement in the running of Downing Street since the shambles of the gatherings scandal and new appointments to run the shop? See Sherbhert article CAN FIXING THE DOWNING STREET SHIP TRIGGER WIDER TRANSFORMATION? of 11th February 2022. Not everyone sees a bad amoral man.
More than one Tory MP has expressed some sympathy for the fact that no Prime Minister since WWII has had to manage so much stressful successive crises of epic proportions. They will say Brexit was hard enough; Covid was like a war footing and its social and financial consequences without peacetime precedent; knocking on into global supply problems and uncontrollable inflation; the existential threat of climate change and the almost no-win decision making it requires; Russia and China challenging the world order, bent on diminishing the West and democracy; culminating in the Ukraine invasion by a destructive nuclear armed Putin and the threat of WWIII. How has he handled these massive issues and the pressure they involve? Some will say not badly, despite messes such as sleaze attacks and mistakes. Some will consider his tenure so far, a betrayal of Conservativism or a mess where nobody knows what this Government stands for. Already voices are sounding “now is not the time “for the distraction of an internal Tory election, and perhaps a resultant general election. For others, their view of his lack of probity will override.
On the other hand, it is very possible that constituents’ pressure and a poor May local election outcome, coupled with the hard-line Tory camp which wants more classic Conservative, low tax decisions, rather than big State will combine and press the Tory self-destruct button. But in any case, can Conservative pragmatism win through?
ATTRITION
It is hard to believe Boris Johnson will last as Prime Minister. He will try to hang on by his fingernails, believing in his own abilities and agendas. His position improves if the Cabinet stand with him. Also, if war and related issues continue to dominate; if people accept that the cost of living cannot be solved by state intervention as energy and other prices are so out of local control; and that the Government coffers are close to breaking point, he may remain the people’s choice, especially when the alternatives are considered. But, unless he can show some real winning action on policy and take risks, it is likely he will be forced out. For example, could a real overhaul of NHS financing and health structures be a winning ticket? His opponents, and much of the media, with a campaign of wearing down his public goodwill, could prove overwhelming. If it is established that he lied to Parliament, he surely must resign. Perhaps, however, if he did not, it is in the interests of the UK that he stays as PM. That is even if he is not a winning card in any general election.
Whatever the case, it is vital that a man or woman emerges with real leadership qualities who can command respect, make tough decisions and hold to a long term vision and deal with the biggest issues, of which there are so many, working with other nations to preserve what is good, change what is bad, and prevent uncontrollable meltdowns.
