Why did the cross party Privileges Committee of the House of Commons take so long questioning Boris Johnson. They had all they needed to know from the numerous photographic evidence of the various events in breach of the current law together with the numbers of fines issued by the Metropolitan Police in respect of those events. Was it to allow Mr Johnson to explain himself out of fairness? Was it a matter of innocence until proven otherwise? Was it the expectation of some deus ex machina phenomenon? What took so long?
His excuse amounted to the claim that all these events were related to essential work and to thank people for the difficult job they were doing in the face of the covid crisis. What was the difficulty they were facing in Number 10 Downing Street? Were they key National Health workers? Were they nurses, doctors or paramedics on call? Did they have so much more administrative work then ever before? Was it a hardship sitting in an office making and receiving phone calls? Was it a hardship chasing up PPE providers and placing orders? (which was a cock up in the event) Was it typing up documents or leaflets informing the citizenry about the new rules and guidance relating to the covid crisis?
I would really like to know what hardships were faced by the staff at Downing Street, whilst the whole of the National Health Service and Scientists stepped up to save the country from serious calamity. Were the hardships really so great that they had to relax over a drink, or rather several drinks and let their hair down? Was that part of the job description? I don’t get it.
According to Mr Johnson, everything that went on in No: 10 was work related and essential. We of course know this because the official photographer was there to record the event showing the PM in action. Mr Johnson thrives on photo opportunities. His whole premiership has been one photo op after another, riding bulldozers, tractors, wearing a hard hat all over the shop. To Mr Johnson being Prime Minister is a full time PR exercise, showing the troops his face in action, toasting and patting the workers on the back, wishing them luck, the most essential and crucial part of his job he would have you believe.
He actually believes that, and he no doubt, managed to con the police into only issuing the one fine. They clearly swallowed the essential work excuse. On top of that he claimed he did not understand why he was fined in the first place. The arrogance of the man is beyond question. He really doesn’t get it. He really thought it was the sort of activity he could gain credit for and so he was the one who had the official photographer take the pictures. He did not see how it could possibly rebound on him. Like Mr Nixon with his tape recordings, so Mr Johnson with his photo opportunities. He is so blind and insensitive to the reality of what he has done, that he truly believes it’s OK to say what he did to the House of Commons. So much so that he expects the Committee to accept his belief is so strong that he did not intentionally or recklessly mislead Parliament. According to him there is no mens rea?
The same is being said by his loyal supporters who are equally blind to the consequences of what he has done. The proposition of “What would the man on the Clapham omnibus think?” is completely lost on them. The mere fact that when Fiona Bruce asked her question time audience if they believed Mr Johnson, not one person raised their hand, must tell them something.
Mr Johnson and his followers will never be able to understand why people are so discontented or outraged by their behaviour. They won’t because of their deep rooted belief in their own superiority and are perplexed why ordinary people look at them with disbelief and shake their heads. “What’s the problem?” they say. They will never get it.
What is more than tragic is that the “British” public have a tendency to overlook their behaviour, and I wouldn’t put it past the Committee to excuse Mr Johnson or merely find him reckless, in the absence of a clear admission of intent. The point is that his avowed intent to be world king is his constant intent to say whatever he thinks he can get away with. Of course it was intentional, after all who is to question the god given rights of a king.
Jonathan Freedland's piece in the Friday Guardian is worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/24/boris-johnson-populist-enablers-trump-netanyahu
Apparently one of the essential work events was a drinks do to say farewell to a staff member. That employee in question didn’t leave for another month. So under oath Johnson lied. Part of the problem is that parliament has coined many weasel words for lying. From “terminal inexactitude” to being “economical with the truth”. Until Erskine May is revised and lying can be called out for what it is, lying to the country will always be a political party game.
ReplyDelete