6 2GM Wednesday January 19 2022 | the times
News
Quentin Letts
Brought low by the
Cummings virus —
and there’s no cure
M
asked and muffled,
flattened by his
nemesis Cummings,
Boris Johnson gave
an extraordinary TV
news interview in which he said he
was “heartily, heartily sorry” for
the Downing Street Covid drinksparty. The mask got in the way but
that first “heartily” definitely
cracked.
The prime minister’s voice was
dry. He kept shaking his head,
sighing in despair and closing his
eyes. He looked completely done in
by it all.
Sky’s Beth Rigby was
interrogating him at a community
diagnostics hub in north London. It
was the first time he had been seen
after returning from a bout of Covid
isolation. Behind Johnson was the
usual paraphernalia of a hospitalPolitical Sketch
Plots against Boris Johnson’s leadership
from the newest intake of Conservative
MPs burst into the open yesterday
when analysis by The Times revealed
that at least 58 Tories had criticised the
prime minister and his team in messa-
ges to their constituents.
Johnson’s first public appearance in
almost a week did little to quell unrest
in the Conservative ranks at his hand-
ling of Downing Street parties during
lockdown, but instead seemed to inten-
sify questions about his survival.
A group of 20 MPs from the 2019 in-
take, who were swept into the Com-
mons as part of Johnson’s landslide, met
yesterday to discuss whether to act
against his leadership. A similar meet-
ing took place the day before.
Conservative whips have accused
three MPs of being the ringleaders:
Chris Loder, the MP for West Dorset;
Gary Sambrook, the MP for Birming-
ham Northfield, and Alicia Kearns, the
MP for Rutland & Melton. Kearns’s con-
stituency, which includes Melton Mow-
bray, led one senior Tory to describe the
uprising as the “pork pie putsch”.
If 54 MPs submit letters of no confi-
dence to Sir Graham Brady, chairman
of the 1922 Committee of Tory back-
benchers, Johnson would face a confi-
dence vote. In that vote, a secret ballot,
he would need a simple majority of the
360 MPs to survive. But there are
moves afoot to debate rule changes that
would make Johnson’s situation even
more perilous. Under present rules, if
he achieves a majority he cannot be
challenged for another year. However,
MPs are expected to discuss an amend-
ment that would reduce that period.
Last night one minister said: “Events
are suddenly very volatile. We’re wor-
ried that a lot of the 2019ers have just
turned.” One MP from the intake said:
“If I thought there was a good northern
candidate in with a chance, my letter
would be in already. I’m sick of this. I’m
pretty close anyway. Sue Gray [the civil
servant investigating the parties] is just
kicking the can down the road — realis-
tically she’s not going to say anything
we didn’t already know.”
Another member of the 2019 intakeTory MPs plotting
to oust Johnson in
‘pork pie putsch’
accused the whips of “deciding to put
out the stuff about meetings in order to
flush people out”, adding: “It backfired.”
Others were exasperated by John-
son’s downbeat interview with Sky
News in which he denied being warned
by Dominic Cummings that a Downing
Street party he attended in May 2020
was in breach of lockdown rules. “The
Old Etonian arrogance of the man is
astounding,” one MP said.
An analysis of Conservatives’ Face-
book pages, websites and emails to
constituents has found instances of 58
criticising Johnson or his operation
since his initial apology last week.
Though in broadcast appearances
many Tory MPs are urging patience
while Gray investigates, in messages to
constituents many go further. Among
the group are 16 members of the 2019
intake. They include Ben Spencer, the
MP for Runnymede & Weybridge, who
wrote on Facebook that he “struggled”
with Johnson’s explanation that he
believed the party was a work event. He
wrote: “Clearly if it is found that the
prime minister has intentionally misled
parliament or knowingly broke the law
his position would be untenable.”
The anger is not confined to the 2019
intake. Jeremy Wright, a former attor-
ney-general, wrote on his website that
“questions about the prime minister’s
ability to stay in office are legitimate”.
6 A video clip of a five-year-old girl ex-
plaining to her grandparents why John-
son had to go to the “naughty centre” to
explain his involvement in the party
scandal has been viewed more than
55,000 times online. Layla Somani,
from Leicester, says in the clip: “Boris
Johnson told everyone to stay at home,
but in lockdown he just went down to a
party, in the lockdown. He’s been
naughty, so he had to go to the naughty
centre to tell everyone he’s sorry.”
A PM without integrity imperils
democracy, Daniel Finkelstein, page 23Henry Zeffman
Chief Political Correspondent
George Grylls, Mhari Aurora
What the rules are
The ministerial code makes clear
that a member of the government
who “knowingly” misleads
parliament is “expected to offer
their resignation to the prime
minister”. There is no explicit
reference to what happens if a
prime minister is found to have
“knowingly” misled parliament, but
it is accepted they would have to
resign. Yet who judges whether an
offence has been committed — or
whether it should be investigated —
is less clear.
If it were a minister, the prime
minister would refer them to be
investigated by Lord Geidt, the
adviser on ministerial standards. But
it would be for the prime minister
alone to decide whether the code
had been breached, and he is not
obliged to accept the views of his
adviser, as in the Priti Patel case.
If Sue Gray’s inquiry concludes
Johnson did not mislead parliament,
the matter is probably closed. If she
concludes he did, he would have to
resign. Yet if it is inconclusive we will
be in uncharted waters. Geidt
acknowledged this when he called
for more powers. Until he can
unilaterally launch investigations,
who calls out the prime minister for
wrongdoing is distinctly ambiguous.Friends not
foes now
the threat
Analysis
T
he irony will not
be lost on Boris
Johnson that the
greatest threat
to his leadership
now comes from those
who owe their political
careers to the prime
minister (Oliver Wright
writes). And the danger
they present should not
be underestimated.
This time last week the
prevailing view among
the 2019 intake — and
Tory MPs more broadly
— was that Johnson had
bought himself enough
time to await the verdict
of Sue Gray’s inquiry
But the emotive storiesof lockdown-breaking
parties on the eve of the
Duke of Edinburgh’s
socially-distanced funeral
and Dominic Cummings’s
latest salvo have changed
the mood — and the
calculations — of MPs.
Some genuinely share
their constituents’ anger
that they were dutifully
following the rules which
appeared to be entirely
optional in Johnson’s
Downing Street. Others
are fearful about their
own futures if Johnson
remains in office.
Perhaps unwisely, Tory
whips decided that the
best way to avoid plotting
in Westminster last week
was to send MPs back to
their constituencies on a
one-line whip on
Wednesday. The move
backfired, giving MPs a
full four days to see first-
hand the anger of voters
and local Tory members
at the time when more
unsavoury revelationswere coming to light.
There is also a view
that Johnson’s plea to
wait for Gray is
increasingly irrelevant.
Some think her inquiry is
likely to be inconclusive.
Her terms of reference
are limited and do not
require her to pass
judgment or determine
who is telling the truth. It
does not even mandate
her to search Downing
Street emails or
WhatsApp messages in
her quest for evidence.
It may be that she
simply lays out the facts
and makes no attempt to
answer the central vexed
question of the difference
between a party and a
work event.
The MPs who are
plotting know that most
of their constituents have
already made up their
minds and do not believe
Johnson is telling the
truth. For that reason,
waiting for Gray could bepointless. But the hurdles
faced in getting rid of
Johnson — if he doesn’t
fall on his sword — are
significant.
As one MP put it: it is
easy to find two dozen
MPs who would happily
send in letters calling for
Johnson to quit. It is
harder to find 40 and
much harder still to find
the necessary 54.
And even if 54 were
reached, Johnson could
choose to fight another
day, and it would take a
majority to oust him.
Those voting against
would have to be certain
that whoever took his
place would be more
appealing to the
electorate in 2024. Many
would argue that it is too
soon for that decision.
Nevertheless, Johnson’s
leadership today is in
more doubt than ever
before. He may get
through it — but it is not
a foregone conclusion.Boris Johnson resurfaced at a hospital in north London yesterday; Rishi SunakNews Politics