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.
World
US announces it will increase steps to limit revenue of Venezuelan president Maduro – as he begins third term
The US has announced it has increased its reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
In a statement on Friday, the US treasury said up to $25m is being offered for information leading to the arrest of Mr Maduro and his named interior minister Diosdado Cabello.
Up to $15m is also being offered for information on the incoming defence minister Vladimir Padrino. Further sanctions have also been introduced against the South American country’s state-owned oil company and airline.
The reward was announced as Mr Maduro was sworn in for a third successive term as the Venezuelan president, following a disputed election win last year.
Sanctions from the US, UK and EU came as Maduro was sworn in for a third term as president. Pic: Reuters
Elvis Amoroso, head of the National Electoral Council, said at the time Mr Maduro had secured 51% of the vote, beating his opponent Edmundo Gonzalez, who won 44%.
But while Venezuela’s electoral authority and top court declared him the winner, tallies confirming Mr Maduro’s win were never released. The country’s opposition also insists that ballot box level tallies show Mr Gonzalez won in a landslide.
Nationwide protests broke out over the dispute, with a brawl erupting in the capital Caracas when dozens of police in riot gear blocked the demonstrations and officers used tear gas to disperse them.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
From July 2024: Protests after Venezuela election results
More than 2,000 demonstrators were arrested, and Mr Gonzalez fled to Spain to seek asylum in September.
While being sworn in at the national assembly, Mr Maduro said: “May this new presidential term be a period of peace, of prosperity, of equality and the new democracy.”
He also accused the opposition of attempting to turn the inauguration into a “world war,” adding: “I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America.”
Lammy: Election ‘neither free nor fair’
The UK and EU have also introduced new sanctions against Venezuelan officials – including the president of Venezuela’s supreme court Caryslia Beatriz Rodriguez Rodriguez and the director of its criminal investigations department Asdrubal Jose Brito Hernandez.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Mr Maduro’s “claim to power is fraudulent” and that last year’s election “was neither free nor fair”.
“The UK will not stand by as Maduro continues to oppress, undermine democracy, and commit appalling human rights violations,” he added.
Read more:
Opposition dreams crushed by Maduro’s ‘system’
Venezuela arrests six over ‘assassination plot’
Mr Maduro and his government have always rejected international sanctions as illegitimate measures that amount to an “economic war” designed to cripple Venezuela.
Those targeted by the UK’s sanctions will face travel bans and asset freezes, preventing them from entering the country and holding funds or economic resources.
World
Donald Trump says he’s ‘totally innocent’ and thanks judge moments before no-penalty sentence in hush money case
Donald Trump has been handed a no-penalty sentence following his conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
The incoming US president has received an unconditional discharge – meaning he will not face jail time, probation or a fine.
Manhattan Judge Juan M Merchan could have jailed him for up to four years.
The sentencing in Manhattan comes just 10 days before the 78-year-old is due to be inaugurated as US president for a second time on 20 January.
Trump appeared at the hearing by video link and addressed the court before he was sentenced, telling the judge the case had been a “very terrible experience” for him.
He claimed it was handled inappropriately and by someone connected with his political opponents – referring to Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg.
As it happened:
Trump sentenced in Manhattan court
Trump said: “It was done to damage my reputation so I would lose the election.
“This has been a political witch hunt.
“I am totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”
Concluding his statement, he said: “I was treated very unfairly and I thank you very much.”
The judge then told the court it was up to him to “decide what is a just conclusion with a verdict of guilty”.
He said: “Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances.
“This has been a truly extraordinary case.”
He added that the “trial was a bit of a paradox” because “once the doors closed it was not unique”.
Pic: Reuters
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass had earlier argued in court that Trump “engaged in a campaign to undermine the rule of law” during the trial.
“He’s been unrelenting in his attacks against this court, prosecutors and their family,” Mr Steinglass said.
“His dangerous rhetoric and unconstitutional conduct has been a direct attack on the rule of law and he has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors.”
Mr Steinglass said this behaviour was “designed to have a chilling effect and to intimidate”.
It comes after the US Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch attempt by Trump to delay sentencing in the case on Thursday.
Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence used during the trial violated last summer’s Supreme Court ruling giving Trump broad immunity from prosecution over acts he took as president.
Read more
A guide to Trump’s inauguration
Trump refuses to rule out military force over Panama Canal
Trump appeared via videolink with his attorney Todd Blanche. Pic: Reuters
Trump’s hush money conviction in May 2024 means he will become the first person convicted of a felony to assume the US presidency.
He was found guilty in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to payments made to Ms Daniels, an adult film actor, before he won the 2016 US election.
Prosecutors claimed he had paid her $130,000 (£105,300) in hush money to not reveal details of what Ms Daniels said was a sexual relationship in 2006.
Trump has denied any liaison with Ms Daniels or any wrongdoing.
The trial made headlines around the world but the details of the case or Trump’s conviction didn’t deter American voters from picking him as president for a second time.
Trump appears in court during his trial. Pic: AP
What is an unconditional discharge?
Under New York state law, an unconditional discharge is a sentence imposed “without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision”.
The sentence is handed down when a judge is “of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release”, according to the law.
It means Trump’s hush money case has been resolved without any punishment that could interfere with his return to the White House.
Unconditional discharges have been handed down in previous cases where, like Trump, people have been convicted of falsifying business records.
They have also been applied in relation to low-level offences such as speeding, trespassing and marijuana-related convictions.
World
Family of Leicester City chairman killed in football stadium helicopter crash sue manufacturer for £2bn
Leicester City’s owners have launched a landmark lawsuit against a helicopter manufacturer following the club chairman’s death in a crash in 2018.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha’s family are suing Italian company Leonardo SpA for £2.15bn after the 60-year-old chairman and four others were killed when their helicopter crashed just outside the King Power Stadium in October 2018.
The lawsuit is the largest fatal accident claim in English history, according to the family’s lawyers. They are asking for compensation for the loss of earnings and other damages, as a result of the billionaire’s death.
The legal action comes more than six years after the fatal crash and as an inquest into the death of the 60-year-old chairman and his fellow passengers is set to begin on Monday.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha celebrating after Leicester City won the Premier League in 2016. Pic: AP
Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s son Khun Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha, who took over as the club’s chairman, said: “My family feels the loss of my father as much today as we ever have done.
“That my own children, and their cousins will never know their grandfather compounds our suffering… My father trusted Leonardo when he bought that helicopter but the conclusions of the report into his death show that his trust was fatally misplaced. I hold them wholly responsible for his death.”
The late Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s company, King Power, was earning more than £2.5bn in revenue per year, according to his family’s lawyers. The lawsuit claims “that success was driven by Khun Vichai’s vision, drive, relationships, entrepreneurism, ingenuity and reputation.”
“All of this was lost with his death,” it adds.
The fatal crash took place shortly after the helicopter took off from Leicester’s ground following a 1-1 draw against West Ham on 27 October 2018.
The aircraft landed on a concrete step and four of the five occupants survived the initial impact, but all subsequently died in the fuel fire that engulfed the helicopter within a minute.
Thousands of tributes were left outside the ground in the wake of the tragedy. Pic: James Wilson/Sportimage
The other victims were two of Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s staff, Nursara Suknamai and Kaveporn Punpare, pilot Eric Swaffer and Mr Swaffer’s girlfriend Izabela Roza Lechowicz, a fellow pilot.
Investigators found the pilot’s pedals became disconnected from the tail rotor – resulting in the aircraft making a sharp right turn which was “impossible” to control, before the helicopter spun quickly, approximately five times.
More from Sky News:
Police search for missing sisters
UK gas storage levels ‘concerningly low’
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch described this as “a catastrophic failure” and concluded the pilot was unable to prevent the crash.
The lawsuit alleges the crash was the result of ‘multiple failures’ in Leonardo’s design process. It also alleges that the manufacturer failed to warn customers or regulators about the risk.
Sky News has contacted helicopter manufacturer Leonardo for comment.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports9 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 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
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway