British PM’s next test is bigger than Sue Gray

Before the House of Commons debate over Sue Gray’s long-awaited Partygate report was even close to being concluded, the Tory benches in Parliament had half-emptied out — like at a one-sided football match. But that doesn’t mean Partygate is over for Boris Johnson or his MPs.
Two things ensure that Partygate sticks to Johnson like a red-wine stain. The first is that there is yet another inquiry to come — one that will be harder for MPs to ignore than the verdict of an unelected civil servant appointed by Johnson.
The Committee on Privileges will consider whether the prime minister deliberately lied to parliament. The Committee consists of four Conservative MPs, two Labour MPs and a Scottish National Party MP; that imbalance is hopeful for Johnson but doesn’t guarantee an exoneration. Committee chair Chris Bryant (a Labour MP) has been so outspoken about Johnson’s Partygate antics that he has recused himself and will presumably be replaced by another senior Labour MP.
The ministerial code is clear that a minister who “knowingly misleads Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation.” The Committee has plenty of examples of statements that seem to fit that bill.
When asked by a Labour MP whether he would tell the House if there was a party in Downing Street Johnson replied, “No. But I’m sure whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.” The Gray report features a leaving party in which Johnson is photographed with a tipple. And since penalty notices were given for that event, it was clearly in contravention of the guidance at the time.
So, it would seem, every part of his categorical answer to Parliament was completely wrong. But was it willfully wrong? That’s a high bar, of course. The PM may seek to argue that his “no” was a refusal to answer the question, not a negative answer to the question, but that’s not how it sounded to most right-thinking people. When he was asked about the Christmas party held on December 18, 2020, Johnson told Parliament that “all guidance was followed completely in Number 10.” Again, he’s not exactly hedging there. And since we now know that more than 120 fines were issued to government officials, including for that event, his statement was again clearly wrong. The guidance at the time stated that exemptions for work purposes existed but not for a party “that is primarily a social activity.”
On January 12, Johnson told Parliament that he had gone into the garden for 25 minutes in May 2020, during a “socially distanced drink” affair, to thank staff and “believed implicitly that this was a work event.” He may argue he was misled, but Johnson’s former adviser, Dominic Cummings, has claimed that the prime minister was warned it was against the rules.
Johnson will have to give oral evidence to the committee, as presumably will Sue Gray. There is nothing written in stone that says he’d have to resign even if he was found in contempt of the House. Still, that kind of verdict would present Johnson’s party with a very different question.
It’s one thing to tolerate bad behavior in government. But ignoring contempt would be tantamount to accepting a mockery of convention and common understanding of the rules; it would undermine the standing of the venerable House of Commons itself. That will be harder to rationalise and will certainly be thrown back at the Tories in a general election.

—Bloomberg