22nd March, the Commons Privileges Comittee investigation into Partygate

[DuncinToffee]

Live on BBC Parliament 2-6pm

Some background information

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62009458

https://news.sky.com/story/partygate-inquiry-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-investigation-into-boris-johnson-12805474

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/privileges-committee-investigation-boris-johnson

And that he had no idea the guidance were broken because he knew nothing about the detail of his government's guidance. Plus he has a very rare eye condition called party blindness, which means he can't recognise a party even when he is at one.

I admit, I have a problem.

I remember being on @DuncinToffee threads when Trumps impeachment trial for the Capitol riots. Ooof, those were long days 😁

Then he’s even more delusional than I thought. Charles Walker has been one of his biggest critics for some time. He hasn’t done the most basic of homework.

To me the picture of them all sat on the garden in chairs with Carrie with him is evidence enough on its own- that's a party- he was there and he knew fully well it was going on as he was there

I on the other hand had 5 friends around at one point on my garden- all sat about 8 feet away from other and shouting to each other - most odd - I needn't have bothered!!

Yes i know that about Charles Walker. Which is why I think he thinks he'll be fine. However, whether that's the case or not.

Is he is a total liar and thinks we are all **s or is he just the loveable bafoon he wants us to think he is?? I'm sure if he was still playing nice with DC we would not know most of this has happened. I just feel sorry for all the people who died without loved ones because decent law abiding citizens put the country before their own pathetic needs.

Worth reading this thread from Adam Wagner -

My summary view of Johnson's evidence is the same as it was before he started: his case that the guidance allowed boozy non-socially distanced drinks events with no work being done is absurd and he's either lying that he thought it did or was reckless for asserting it.

twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1638591592306024467?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

He thinks they believe him and that he's done nothing wrong.
I was listening and his tone of voice changes were interesting. At one point he sounded like a tiddler, with chocolate all over their face denying they'd eaten the cake. That petulant whine, fervent denial and relief when you ask if they are sure, do they want to change their story.

I hope that the committee see through the act, the half truths and desperation. They certainly gave him enough rope to hang himself, he couldn't keep his story straight and deflected any attempt to ask questions outside his prepared answers.

It certainly made the gym easier- the hardest part was trying not to comment out loud.

Really interesting thread.

Especially the bit about still not admitting now that these events/gatherings/parties were against the rules.

I couldn't understand why, when asked, if he has changed his mind and if he recognises these events didn't follow the rules/guidance, he refused and stuck by his story that he still believes they did follow rules/ guidance.

It astounds me because a huge amount of FPNs have been issued, so surely that should give him a clue the events did not follow rules/guidance.

Adam Wagner explains it better than I can:
The reason he could not correct the record at the end is because there is a logical fallacy in his argument.

If he accepted guidance wasn’t followed now he would be asked why. He would have to give reasons and those should have been obvious at the time or shortly afterwards.

Is Johmson losing it again with Jenkins?

Sorry, I am relying on twitter and this thread at rhe moment

He thought it was important part of his leadership that there were these parties. But not an important part of his leadership that he should set an example to his staff (and, of course, the country) to curb the partying.

From the BBC

What happens next?

After more than two hours in total of taking evidence from Boris Johnson, the Privileges Committee will now consider the former prime minister's testimony as well as the other evidence it's reviewed over the course of the inquiry.

The committee is expected to publish its verdict on Johnson by the summer.

Its findings will conclude whether or not Johnson "deliberately or recklessly" misled the House of Commons and if so whether this was a contempt.

If the committee finds against Johnson it will recommend what it considers to be the appropriate sanction.

Then, the whole House of Commons will debate the report and decide whether to accept or reject it before MPs have a free vote on the matter.

Yep. He started to raise his voice, finger pointing and saying "this is nonesense"

Then there was a couple of Boris supporters in the gallery who started making lots of noise

"He's not worth it Boris" - okay they didn't say that exactly 😁

But they were starting to talk loudly and getting cross at Jenkins

Thank you all so much for this thread. I've been exhausted trying to watch it, never mind process the Boris Blabber.

Strong for you heroic commentators.

Guardian calls it for reckless. I think so.

Ultimately I think he comes out of badly because he was so irresponsible as to not care. But it seems hard to say he was deliberate- he just couldn't be bothered or concerned enough to do anything either in No 10 or then meet his duty to the Commons.

As a serious politician he is finished

It’s just not credible that his sincere belief was that he followed the rules. He knew exactly what was going on up and down the country, he couldn’t not, and this idea that he believed his actions were in line with either the guidance or the rules is completely bogus. Can the committee find that they just don’t believe him? And therefore that he did indeed mislead everyone?

As a serious politician he is finished

As a serious politician he never started.

@Blossomtoes - true but a lot of people did take him seriously. This performance was for his supporters really because direct lying is real electoral poison. The Committee can never find that but of course in practice, the public think it.

This is a very good way of putting it.

And I think the smarter right wingers understand that letting Johnson off isn't really in their interests either. Not just because it means he'll continue to try and undermine Sunak with a view to getting back in, but also because we're soon going to have a Labour government with a substantial majority. Quite possibly so substantial that meaningful opposition becomes very difficult. In that situation, the system and people sticking to it rather than always acting on partisan lines really matter. The Tories will be much more vulnerable to all kinds of shitting on public life principles in the not very far off future, if this isn't nipped in the bud now. They'd be wise to consider that.

He's convinced himself that he's totally innocent and will be exonerated. Just like he's convinced himself that Brexit is a raging success

I've been trying and failing to keep an eye on whats happening in between meetings. Extra fail when Sunak threw in his summary of his tax return in there as an attempted distraction. So I'm grateful for the thread so I can try and catch up a bit.

I wonder if they will land on reckless, because a) he did not seek proper advice before stating no rules had been broken and b) it is implausible in a workplace of more than 2 people to state that for certain, because you do not know what the other people were doing.

Thing is - to find him not guilty of deliberately misleading the house.

You have to basically say he had no understanding of the rules and guidance he read out from the lecture daily to the public.

Which means to have to say he's totally incompetent.

So whatever the Tory line it'll be very hard to convince all but his avid supporters towards him being ok to be re elected. 🤞

You just have to believe

Reckless feels safer, iyswim. Easier to prove.