Brian Taylor: Boris Johnson will, ultimately, be judged by his peers – and by the people

The Prime Minister opined: “What can be said about my Right Honourable, Gallant, Learned, Reverend and Noble friend?”

Fiction, of course. Yet I remember those honorifics being deployed when I was a Commons lobby correspondent back in the Middle Ages. Some are still in use.

The Gilbertian traditions of the Houses of Parliament – the Commons and “another place” – can sometimes beguile even the most seemingly radical populist.

Read more by Brian Taylor: Not interested in politics, eh? How about schools, bins and public transport? These elections matter

Others find the language and the customs to be tedious, macho nonsense, designed to entrench the class system and keep the people at a distance.

However, one appellation which could not be used, then or now, is “liar”. An honourable member should not impugn the honesty of another, no matter the provocation.

This probably arises from chivalry. In days of yore, such an insult would result in a duel. No doubt why the Government front bench is two sword lengths apart from the Opposition.

Winston Churchill contrived to get round the rules by describing one comment as “a terminological inexactitude”. Took so long to work out, he got away with it.

This week, though, the Commons dispensed, temporarily, with this linguistic ruling. The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was openly branded a liar.

Ian Blackford, of the SNP, used that precise word as the House debated whether to hold a committee inquiry into the PM’s variegated explanations of Downing Street parties.

Labour’s Keir Starmer said the core focus was on honesty, or otherwise. For the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey said the PM had taken the British public for fools.

The Prime Minister was not present in person to hear these accusations. In pursuit of his determination to get on with the day job, he was four thousand miles away, on a trade mission to India.

Read more by Brian Taylor: The cold calculation by Tory MPs that surely awaits a damaged, mortified PM

In pursuit of the truth, the mischievous media followed him. He had, he said, nothing to hide but was anxious to move on.

It would seem that trouble is decidedly mounting for Mr Johnson. The Conservative Whips would have crushed this demand for a further, Parliamentary inquiry. If they could.

On the morning of the expected vote, there was talk of deferring the entire issue until after the Metropolitan Police have finished their seemingly exhaustive inquiries – and Sue Gray has delivered her civil service verdict.

But such talk evaporated as it became plain that Tory discontent was extensive. Not just from those who spoke out, and spoke powerfully. Equally influential were those backbenchers who told the Whips, quietly but firmly, that their support for the PM was conditional at best.

So, the motion was nodded through and now there is to be an inquiry into Partygate – or, more precisely, into what the PM told the Commons about sundry jollity, during Covid lockdown.

He stated, if you recall, that no rules had been broken. Police fines suggest the opposite. Sue Gray is likely to arrive at a comparable conclusion. Which is where we are.

The Commons committee can recommend sanctions, if they find that the PM misled the House. These range from admonishment to expulsion.

The final decision would be taken by the Commons as a whole. Which means that partisan politics will inevitably intervene, once again. Expect the Tory Whips to be busy: firstly, if they can, with committee members, but then, if it comes to it, with the entire Parliamentary party.

All of which has led some to suggest that there should be a more open, more independent means of judging the behaviour of a sitting Prime Minister.

Thursday’s debate coincided with the 96th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen.

Strictly, the PM is selected by the Sovereign; albeit, in practice, from a shortlist of one. Should Her Majesty be able to exercise more discretion? Utterly unthinkable, in these democratic times.

How about the Ministerial Code then? As it stands, the Prime Minister has the discretion to decide whether and how any supposed breach of the code is investigated.

Yes, there are independent advisers who will examine the facts. But the PM retains the final say.

Remember that Sir Alex Allan resigned as an independent adviser on the code when Boris Johnson disagreed with his view that Priti Patel had broken the rules.

In the Scottish Parliament, Ministers are also bound by a distinct code. You may recall that Nicola Sturgeon referred herself to an independent adviser to examine her actions in dealing with Alex Salmond and complaints of harassment.

Crucially, she was exonerated. It remains the case, however, that the First Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister.

Reverting to Westminster, should the independent advisers be given more clout. Should their rulings be final, to be obeyed by Ministers?

I hear some voices advocating just that. Nevertheless, I dissent. I have respect for the current incumbents, north and south of the Border.

However, I fear that giving them the final say would be a mistake. One, it is theoretically open to manipulation. Two, it would circumvent the power of the Commons – and, thus, popular choice.

For similar reasons, I would not advocate a system of impeachment, as they have in the United States. The Prime Minister is primus inter pares, arising from the Houses of Parliament – which means, in these more enlightened times, the Commons.

There is no separation of powers. Any criticism attaching to the Prime Minister has collateral impact upon his fellow Tory MPs.

Just ask Douglas Ross who was told by Keir Starmer this week that he had been “rendered pathetic”. Nicola Sturgeon advised the Scottish Tory leader that he sounded ridiculous.

Certainly, Mr Ross has vacillated over the PM. One can sympathise, to some extent. Boris Johnson has tried the patience of many others.

In our Parliamentary system, a leader can only survive by commanding the support of the elected. And that means, ultimately, the support of the electorate. As it should be. Verdict and sentence deferred.