Partygate inquiry unlikely to drive stake through the heart of Boris Johnson’s political career
Love him or hate him, everyone knows that Boris Johnson thrives on being the centre of attention.
Next Wednesday afternoon from 2pm the former prime minister will be back in the spotlight at Westminster for a high stakes appearance, which is bound to be a popcorn moment for spectators.
Live on television, members of the cross-party privileges committee will question Mr Johnson for up to four hours on whether he deliberately lied when he told the House of Commons that he had no knowledge of rule-breaking parties in Number 10 during the COVID emergency period.
If the MPs conclude that he is guilty, they will recommend punishment which could lead to him losing his parliamentary seat representing Uxbridge – a calamity which would surely end the political career of a man who would be prime minister again.
Technically the MPs have to decide whether Mr Johnson committed contempt of the House by lying to it about the parties, and not correcting his words subsequently.
It is a trial by his peers.
First, the seven MPs on the privileges committee. Then, if punishment is recommended, the whole House of Commons will say whether to implement it.
The committee’s work has already caused ructions at Westminster.
Chris Bryant, the senior Labour MP who chaired it, stood aside, or rather “recused” himself as the jargon has it, because of previous outspoken criticisms of Mr Johnson.
MPs were reluctant to let the ranking Tory, the maverick Brexiteer Sir Bernard Jenkin take over, so Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader was co-opted to take the chair.
Meanwhile two Conservatives on the committee, first time MP Andy Carter and Alberto Costa, quit minor posts in government to keep their place on it. The other members are Allan Dorans (SNP), Yvonne Fovargue (Labour), and Sir Charles Walker (Conservative). Four Conservatives gives them the majority on the seven member committee.
Taxpayers are paying for Mr Johnson to hire his own lawyers on behalf of the government.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky’s political correspondent Liz Bates explains everything you need to know about the partygate inquiry
Strong circumstantial case against Mr Johnson
David Pannick, an independent member of the House of Lords, duly produced opinions that the committee’s actions are “very unsatisfactory” and “fundamentally flawed”.
His main argument was that the crux should be not whether Mr Johnson misled the House but whether there was “intention to mislead”.
Lord Pannick KC’s other clients include Sir Philip Green, Shamima Begum and Manchester City FC.
MPs are lawmakers who regulate their own affairs and they set aside Lord Pannick’s argument.
Boris Johnson pictured toasting staff in Downing Street during lockdown
Boris Johnson at a gathering on 14 January 2021
Nonetheless, Mr Johnson’s intentions in making the statements he did will be flashpoints during his grilling next week.
There is a strong circumstantial case against Mr Johnson. He repeatedly denied any knowledge of parties and rule breaking during the COVID restriction periods in 2020 and 2021, even though he had announced many of the regulations himself.
He subsequently accepted a fixed penalty notice from the Metropolitan Police, and paid a fine for attending a party on his birthday.
Like the Sue Gray report into partygate before it, the pre-hearing interim report from the privileges committee this month cites “evidence that a culture of drinking in the workplace in some parts of No 10 continued after the COVID restrictions began” including “birthday parties and leaving parties for officials”.
The committee’s report contains photographs which show more booze and crowding than the pictures released by Ms Gray.
Read more:
Boris Johnson re-selected to run in Uxbridge at next general election after suggestions of safer seat
Top civil servant warned Boris Johnson was ‘distrusted figure’ during COVID pandemic
Yet when Mr Johnson was questioned about the parties in the Commons after the stories broke in the media in the closing months of 2021 he repeatedly denied them.
On 1 December 2021 he told the House: “All guidance was followed completely in Number 10.”
On 8 December he stated: “The guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times… I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and no COVID rules were broken.”
Committee wants answers on four points
The committee’s interim report amounts to a rap sheet he will face.
The committee wants answers on four points.
Did Mr Johnson mislead, i.e. lie, when he said “No rules were broken” and that he had “no knowledge of gatherings”?
Was he truthful when he said he needed to rely on assurances of officials that no rules had been broken and that he needed to wait for Sue Gray’s report to find out whether rule-breaking parties had taken place?
The committee has taken written evidence from 23 people involved and has already concluded “breaches of [COVID] guidance would have been obvious to Mr Johnson at the time he was at the gatherings”.
Lying is a very delicate subject at Westminster. Many members of the public may think it is what politicians do all the time. But accusations of lying are officially designated “unparliamentary language”, and no MP is allowed to directly accuse another of doing so.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
The assumption is that no “honourable or right honourable” member would lie and that if they inadvertently tell a falsehood, they will correct the official record.
In recent times, government ministers have corrected their statements in Hansard more than one hundred times a year.
Former PM will be playing to the dwindling band of Boris-loyalist politicians
No one knows how tough the questioning will be on Wednesday or how Mr Johnson will react to it.
His lifelong tactic when in a tight spot is to flatter his audience and try to make a performative joke of it.
As his admiring father Stanley reminisced it worked in the school play at Eton: “Boris was playing the title role. It was fairly obvious that he hadn’t learnt the part, but he winged it splendidly, inventing on the hoof a sequence of nearly perfect Shakespearean pentameters.”
Mr Johnson’s appearances before more demanding audiences have gone less well.
Asked if he was a habitual liar, he could only bluster “I don’t agree with that conclusion”.
He was forced to stand down as prime minister last summer shortly after a member of the Liaison Committee of MPs told him bluntly “the game is up”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Boris Johnson faces a political battle over partygate as MPs said evidence suggests breaches over COVID rules would have been obvious to the then prime minister
Sir Max Hastings, who boosted Mr Johnson when he was working for him at The Daily Telegraph now abominates him.
He has remarked: “Those who know Boris best like him least.”
Mr Johnson has never been “a House of Commons man” but MPs cannot fail to know him well by now.
However he is treated by the committee, Mr Johnson will be playing to the dwindling band of Boris-loyalist politicians and party members and his champions in the Tory media, who are already claiming that he was brought down unjustly by a partisan left-wing conspiracy.
Unlike Mr Johnson, who catastrophically tried to use the whip on his MPs to save his friend Owen Patterson from a 30-day suspension for corruption, Rishi Sunak has said he will not interfere.
Mr Johnson’s fate may well hang on which way Conservative MPs jump, on the committee and afterwards in the whole House.
The psephologist Peter Kellner has a single word of advice for those Conservatives hankering to bring back Boris: “don’t” – in their own interest.
Inquiry unlikely drive the stake through the heart of Mr Johnson’s political career
Analysing an opinion poll by Delta, Mr Kellner points out that Mr Johnson is more unpopular with the public than either Mr Sunak or Sir Keir Starmer, and just as disliked as the lowly ranked Conservative Party, meaning he would bring no bounce with him.
All the same, the chances must be low that the lying inquiry will finally drive the stake through the heart of Mr Johnson’s political career via the Recall of MPs Act, which was introduced by David Cameron.
First the committee would have to recommend a suspension of more than 10 sitting days as punishment, then it would need to be endorsed by a majority in the House. Only then would a recall petition have to take place in his constituency. Next, 10% of the electorate in Uxbridge would have to sign it, to kick him out and force a by-election.
That sequence is a tall order.
The betting has to be that “the greased piglet”, as David Cameron called him, will slip past his political slaughtermen again and carry on drawing attention to himself.
Israel has received the bodies of two more hostages from the Red Cross, the Israeli prime minister’s office has confirmed.
Shortly after 10pm UK time on Saturday, Israel’s military said Hamas handed over “two coffins of deceased hostages”.
There has been no identification of the bodies yet.
The news came as tensions were beginning to rise over the closure of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.
Benjamin Netanyahu‘s office had said earlier on Saturday evening that it would stay closed “until further notice” – as the deadline for Hamas to return the bodies of the hostages had passed with no confirmation.
Mr Netanyahu had warned that its reopening would depend on how Hamas fulfilled its role in returning the remains of all 28 dead hostages.
The handover brings the count of returned bodies to 12 hostages, up from 10, according to Israel’s tally. Another 16 deceased hostages would then still have to be returned.
All 28 were supposed to have been handed over by last Monday.
The handover of remains is among key points – along with aid deliveries into Gaza and the devastated territory’s future – in the ceasefire process meant to end two years of war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Rafah crossing to remain closed
Israel’s foreign ministry had originally said the Rafah crossing would likely reopen on Sunday – another step in the fragile ceasefire. This has now been revised to being closed “until further notice”.
A satellite image shows the back-up of aid trucks at the border from the air. Pic: ©2025 Vantor/Reuters
A fully reopened crossing would make it easier for Gazans to seek medical treatment, travel internationally or visit family in Egypt, which is home to tens of thousands of Palestinians.
It is unclear who will operate the crossing’s heavily damaged Gaza side once the war ends.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Meanwhile, Gaza’s ruins were being scoured for the dead, over a week into a ceasefire. Newly recovered bodies brought the Palestinian toll above 68,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Read more:
Watch: Evidence of Israeli support for Gaza militia
Gaza health authorities struggling to identify bodies
Violence that plagues Gaza
The ministry, part of the Hamas-run government, does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count. But the ministry maintains detailed casualty records that are seen as generally reliable by UN agencies and independent experts.
Famine declared
Israel has disputed them without providing its own toll.
Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted 251 people in the attack on southern Israel that sparked the war on October 7 2023.
Gaza’s more than two million people are hoping the ceasefire will bring relief from the humanitarian disaster caused by Israel’s offensive. Throughout the war, Israel restricted aid entry to Gaza – sometimes halting it altogether.
Famine was declared in Gaza City, and the UN says it has verified more than 400 people who died of malnutrition-related causes, including more than 100 children.
Officials in Israel say they have let in enough food, accusing Hamas of stealing much of it. The UN and other aid agencies deny this claim.
World
Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes ‘Putin is afraid’ that Donald Trump could still supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not ruled out the possibility that he can secure long-range Tomahawk missiles from the US, adding that he believes “Putin is afraid” of the consequences.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News’s Meet the Press, Ukraine’s president discussed some of the details of his two-hour meeting with Donald Trump on Friday, including his desire for the weapons after three years of war with Russia.
“It’s good that President Trump didn’t say ‘no’, but for today, didn’t say ‘yes’,” he said about the supply of the missiles, as part of a discussion which will air on Sunday.
Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy proposes ‘drone for Tomahawk’
He admitted the US president was concerned about a potential escalation with Russia, but Mr Zelenskyy told NBC, Sky News’s US partner, that the weapons are a genuine concern for Vladimir Putin.
“I think that Putin [is] afraid that United States will deliver us Tomahawks. And I think that he [is] really afraid that we will use them,” he said.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy still hopes the US will supply Tomahawks. Pic: Meet the Press/NBC News
The weapons have a significantly longer range than any other missiles in Ukraine’s armoury and have the potential to be a game-changer in the war against Russia.
While Mr Trump did not rule out providing the Tomahawk missiles, he appeared cool to the prospect as he looked ahead to a meeting with the Russian president in Hungary in the coming weeks.
‘US doesn’t want escalation’
Following the meeting with Mr Trump, who held a phone call with Mr Putin on Thursday, Mr Zelenskyy told reporters: “We spoke about long-range (missiles) of course. And I do not want to make statements about it.”
But he added: “We don’t speak about it because… United States doesn’t want this escalation”.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to secure new missiles had worried Russia. Pic: Reuters
Later in a post on X, Mr Zelenskyy said he was counting on President Trump to “bring this war closer to an end”.
“We discussed all key issues – our positions on the battlefield, long-range capabilities and air defence, and, of course, diplomatic prospects,” he said.
“Russia must end the aggression it started and continues to deliberately prolong. We count on the United States’ pressure.”
In a roundtable with journalists following the meeting, Mr Trump confirmed that hitting targets deep inside Russian territory would be an “escalation”.
Donald Trump said hitting targets deep inside Russian territory would be an ‘escalation’. Pic: Reuters
He also said he was hesitant to tap into the US’ supply of Tomahawks, saying: “I have an obligation also to make sure that we’re completely stocked up as a country, because you never know what’s going to happen in war and peace.
“We’d much rather have them not need Tomahawks. We’d much rather have the war be over to be honest.”
At Mr Trump and Mr Putin’s last meeting in Alaska in August, there were hopes that the conflict may finally be coming to an end.
But the US president was unable to pressure the Russian leader into accepting a ceasefire or a one-on-one meeting with Mr Zelenskyy.
Read more from Sky News:
Putin’s challenge ahead of summit
Was Putin forced back to talks?
Listen: Trump-Putin – Friends reunited?
Following Friday’s meeting at the White House, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed he had called Mr Zelenskyy to reiterate his support.
Ukraine has UK’s ‘resolute support’
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister spoke to the president of Ukraine, European leaders and the NATO secretary general this evening following President Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House today.
“The leaders reiterated their unwavering commitment to Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. A just and lasting peace for Ukraine was the only way to stop the killing for good, they agreed.
“Further discussions about how they could support Ukraine in the lead up to, and following, a ceasefire would continue this week, including in a Coalition of the Willing call on Friday, the leaders agreed.
“Following the call with world leaders this evening, the prime minister then spoke to President Zelenskyy bilaterally to underscore the United Kingdom’s resolute support for Ukraine.”
Before Donald Trump met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he hosted one of his favourite singers, Andrea Bocelli, in the Oval Office.
The Italian tenor serenaded him with the signature track Time To Say Goodbye, a song about hope and new beginnings.
But the next event on his agenda suggested antipathy between Trump and the Ukrainian president are firmly lodged in the past.
On the key issue of whether Vladimir Putin actually wants peace, the pair continue to fundamentally disagree.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What happened at the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting?
Trump repeated several times his belief that Putin is committed to ending the war, which may come as a surprise to the people of eastern Ukraine, being pummeled by an expanded Russian offensive in the past few months.
Trump also spoke about “bad blood on both sides”, again inferring equal blame on Zelenskyy, whose sovereign nation was invaded, and Putin, who is doing the invading.
It’s in Putin’s gift to stop the fighting immediately, but that was glossed over.
Zelenskyy, clearly contorted by a need to put the record straight but not anger the famously mercurial man on the other side of the table, fired back that it is the Ukrainians who are committed to a ceasefire, a trilateral meeting and ultimately, an end to this war.
Ukraine war: Zelenskyy proposes ‘drone for Tomahawk’ deal
Relations between Zelenskyy and Trump have, obviously, improved from February when the Ukrainian president was berated and left the White House early.
On that occasion, he was mocked for wearing a T-shirt and so, the next two visits, he has sported an all black suit. He has also learned that Trump responds to flattery and, accordingly, he peppered the president with compliments.
Zelenskyy, pictured following his meeting with Trump, has learned that the president responds to flattery. Pic: AP
He credited him with “managing the ceasefire in the Middle East”, and said he believes he has a “chance” to do the same in Ukraine.
Trump came into the meeting buoyed by the diplomatic success of the past fortnight in the Middle East, intoxicated by the praise he has received from all sides for brokering the hostage deal. But the war, he said he could solve in 24 hours, is proving a tougher nut to crack, and he’s growing frustrated with everyone involved.
That much could be gleaned from his Truth Social post after the meeting, which implored Putin and Zelenskyy to end the war along its current lines. “Let both claim Victory, let History decide!” he wrote.
Read more from Sky News:
Zelenskyy on US ‘long-range’ weapons
Putin faces difficult trip to summit
Trump’s ‘game of diplomatic chess’
It was a marked shift from less than a month ago, when Trump, at that point more angered by Putin, suggested Ukraine could potentially win back all its territory.
As recently as Sunday, he was threatening to send long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine but he made clear after their meeting that he wouldn’t be doing that right now. It’s likely he will wait until at least after his trailed meeting with Putin in Budapest.
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
I was in Alaska in August when Trump hosted Putin and laid out the literal and metaphorical red carpet for him.
The US president went in with two aims: to broker a ceasefire and a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy. He left with neither and there is no public sign that Putin has shifted from his maximalist aims in Ukraine.
Trump greets Putin on the red carpet in Alaska in August. Pic: AP
Even by Trump’s own measurement, the summit was a failure.
Yet he seems determined to take the Russian president at his word, granting him first a phone call ahead of the Zelenskyy visit to Washington DC and now another meeting.
Putin was first successful in getting Trump to hold off on more severe sanctions on Russia, which were crippling economically. Now he has, seemingly, played a role in persuading Trump to hold off on sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
The US president was asked by a journalist whether it was possible he was being played by Putin. He admitted it was possible but said he usually comes out of these things pretty well. Time will tell.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024