LONDON — On a day of high drama in British politics, former prime minister Boris Johnson was forced to return to the scandals that brought down his premiership and answer to still-irate lawmakers about whether he intentionally misled them about government gatherings that violated pandemic lockdown rules.
Johnson avoided his usual colorful metaphors, his Latin quotes, his clownish shtick. Instead, he was cautious with his language — and defiant. “Hand on heart that I did not lie to the House,” he said at the opening of a hearing in the House of Commons that lasted more than three hours.
The stakes were high for the former prime minister, who was ousted by his own Conservative Party but remains a member of Parliament — and has signaled that he might like another crack at the top job.
In Britain, there are consequences for misleading Parliament. If the House of Commons Privileges Committee finds that Johnson was deliberate and reckless in his accounts about the boozy parties at his Downing Street offices during the height of the pandemic, he could face sanctions or a recall election.
But Johnson and his supporters are also attuned to the court of public opinion. His trust ratings have been at rock bottom. Even though he is known as a charismatic politician who has bounced back many times before, his performance on Wednesday may not have been enough to help his political future.
Johnson began by telling the committee that some gatherings in Downing Street went “past the point where they could be said to be necessary for work purposes.”
“That was wrong. I bitterly regret it. I understand public anger, and I continue to apologize for what happened on my watch and take full responsibility,” he said.
But he insisted that everything he told lawmakers was in “good faith” and that to the extent that he misled them, it was an honest mistake.
The interrogation was paused a few minutes after it started so that lawmakers could vote on a portion of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s new Brexit deal for Northern Ireland, dubbed the “Windsor Framework.” The plan — which aims to give the devolved government in Northern Ireland greater say on how European Union laws apply — passed, with support from the opposition Labour Party. But Johnson helped lead a revolt against it, and his opposition helps legitimize the continuing refusal by the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland to participate in the government there.
That two major storylines coincided on the same day was “not a coincidence,” said Catherine Barnard, a Cambridge University professor who specializes in the European Union. “It was done deliberately to show MPs that Rishi Sunak is having to clear up the mess of Boris Johnson, over Northern Ireland and the mess over the parties.”
Johnson’s grilling also helped draw attention away from those rebelling against Sunak’s deal, she noted.
Sunak further took advantage of the momentary preoccupation with Johnson to release his detailed tax returns, which showed that one of the richest politicians ever to reside at Downing Street had paid more than 1 million pounds ($1.22 million) in taxes over the past three financial years.
Sunak is often viewed as a technocrat prime minister. But on Wednesday, he showed that he knows how to play politics, too.
For his part, Johnson was exposed in ways he rarely has been before. This was not a two-minute interview on the BBC. He was not towering over the despatch box, or bolstered by cheers of approval from his party, like during Prime Minister’s Questions time. Johnson was seated, a lone defendant, facing seven panel members, including three from opposition parties.
Johnson repeatedly talked about how the Downing Street gatherings were “essential for work purposes” — meaning they were exempt from some social distancing provisions.
“I struggle to see how I could have run Number 10, run hundreds of officials, who needed to be thanked and appreciated for their work in very trying circumstances, without having brief farewell events,” he said.
Conservative lawmaker Bernard Jenkins told Johnson: “The guidance does not say you can have a thank you party, and with as many people in the room as you like, because you think it’s very important to thank people, the guidance doesn’t say that.”
Johnson’s argument that farewell drinks were “essential” may not wash with members of the public who had to follow rules set by his government, including restrictions on funerals and hospital visits.
Responding to Johnson’s testimony, one social media user wrote: “Ah yes, November 2020, when I wasn’t allowed to accompany my pregnant wife to any prenatal scans/appointments, and when my daughter was born I was ushered out of the hospital after an hour because I wasn’t allowed onto the ward. But Boris says a leaving do was essential. Got it.”
The committee also zeroed in on whether Johnson corrected the record at the “earliest opportunity,” as he claimed. It took him six months to amend his assertion that lockdown guidelines were followed at all times. On Wednesday, he maintained it had been appropriate to wait until senior civil servant Sue Gray published her final report on Partygate. And he said he was “shocked” when he and others were fined for lockdown violations.
The exchanges on Wednesday were especially testy when he was questioned about why he relied on the assurances of political advisers, not civil servants. In fresh evidence published Wednesday, the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, denied telling Johnson that coronavirus rules and guidance were followed at all times.
The British public and his fellow Tories for a long time gave Johnson a lot of slack, much like evangelicals and the Republican Party have excused former U.S. president Donald Trump. They knew Johnson was a bit of an artful dodger — he wouldn’t say how many children he had, and an American business executive claimed a torrid affair while he was London mayor — but they stuck with him.
The Partygate scandal was another matter. It was one that the general public could easily understand: Did you or did you not party at Downing Street during lockdown? And what about your staff, in parties that involved karaoke, suitcases of wine and drinking to the point of vomiting?
It did not go unnoticed that he began Wednesday’s session by putting his hand on a Bible and swearing an oath to tell the truth. If he is found to have lied, it could not only spell the end of his career, but it could also lead to perjury charges.
