IN politics, time and space are often a great minimiser of trouble. The longer governments can string things out, the better the chances are that people’s attention will be diverted and the negative impact will not be so bad.
Yesterday morning, Boris Johnson adopted this traditional long-grass strategy against Labour’s call for a parliamentary probe into whether he had lied to MPs over partygate.
Nadhim Zahawi was dispatched to say Keir Starmer’s plan was pure “petty politics” and the UK Government was against it. Rather, he argued, it would be much better to wait for Scotland Yard to complete its investigations and for Sue Gray’s full report to be published before MPs decided on whether the Commons Privileges Committee should undertake its own inquiry. So, a Government amendment was tagged onto the Labour motion to this effect.
When it was put to England’s Education Secretary that Labour’s motion itself called for the parliamentary probe to begin after the police investigation and the publication of the Gray report, he stuck rigidly by the Government’s amendment, insisting: “That is the right way to follow due process; that’s what I’ll be voting for.”
There was a subtle but key difference.
Labour’s motion would swiftly set up the inquiry but then introduce a delay to its proceedings, the Government amendment would simply delay the vote on whether or not to have an inquiry at all.
Concentrating Conservative minds was how the Privileges Committee could demand partygate documents and, perhaps more crucially, photographs; maybe even before the local elections on May 5. Should any of these leak before people voted, then the expected Tory drubbing could become a total disaster.
No doubt, Downing St strategists were thinking, if the Government amendment passed, by the time we got to MPs deciding if there should be a third probe months down the line, the argument would be: the public want to move on; we don’t need yet another inquiry.
However, there was a problem.
Despite the party’s working majority of 75, Tory whips realised not only were there not enough colleagues prepared to vote down the Labour motion but there were also not enough to back the Government amendment.
The first hint of trouble came on Wednesday night when Andrew Mitchell, the former Cabinet minister, pointed out how he and many of his Conservative chums were heading back to their constituencies and noted presciently: “I don't think there will be a vote tomorrow. The House of Commons will agree to refer it to the Privileges Committee.”
Ahead of the partygate debate, Sir Charles Walker, Vice-Chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, argued against a vote, telling MPs the PM could “make the case to the Privileges Committee directly without having this House divide and yet more poison pumped into public life”.
Intriguingly, Mark Spencer, the Chief Whip, made clear the Government was listening. A clear hint something was afoot.
Signalling the climbdown, Johnson told reporters, en route to India, how he was prepared to accept a formal Commons investigation into whether he had lied to MPs, declaring he was “very keen for every possible form of scrutiny” but any parliamentary probe should happen once the police investigation was over.
Sure enough minutes later, it was announced the Conservative whip was being removed and the Government amendment abandoned. So, Tory MPs could simply go home. By late afternoon, the Labour motion was nodded through without a vote.
But just imagine for a moment, how Zahawi must have felt. Ordered onto the airwaves to delicately defend the Government amendment, accusing Labour of “petty politics,” only to find out two hours later his boss had reversed ferret for the umpteenth time and made a fool of him by conceding to Labour’s proposal.
It all indicates just how weak Johnson’s position has become.
This was underlined later in the afternoon when, during the partygate debate, Steve Baker, the ex-Brexit Minister, involved in ousting Theresa May, declared Johnson “should be long gone,” noting: “Really, the Prime Minister should just know the gig’s up.”
In Ahmedabad, the PM insisted he had “absolutely nothing, frankly, to hide” and expressed confidence he would lead his party into the 2024 general election.
Happily for him, the Met Police announced, while its partygate inquiry would continue, it would postpone further announcements of fines ahead of the May local elections due to “restrictions around communicating before the May local elections”.
But hold on. The “purdah” convention – that Government should not make announcements likely to advantage a political party ahead of a poll – doesn’t refer to the police. Number 10 said if the PM was fined again, they would announce it. But, given its approach, Scotland Yard will now presumably simply withhold such information from Downing St until after May 5.
The police decision also means publication of the full Gray report will remain in the long grass for longer.
Following the local elections, to add to Conservative jitters, there is the forthcoming Wakefield by-election, triggered after the sitting Tory MP was convicted of sexual assault. Imran Ahmad Khan had a 3,358 majority in the “red wall” seat.
Labour look certain to take it back. Rumours abound Ed Balls, the former Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in the Gordon Brown Government, might become Labour’s candidate.
While the psychodrama of partygate continues to transfix the media, the country is trying to learn to live with Covid and the tragedy of Putin’s war drags on, it is the cost-of-living crisis that remains in the forefront of ordinary people’s minds.
This week, energy bosses told MPs that as many as four in 10 people in Britain could fall into fuel poverty when the price cap rises again this autumn. They urged the Government to provide more support for vulnerable households facing a “truly horrific” winter.
So, if Boris somehow manages to drag himself through the quagmire of partygate, it is the cost-of-living crisis that will finally sink him. But, chances are, he won’t make it through the summer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel