0:02

This is a global player original

0:04

podcast. For a man

0:06

whose relationship with the truth,

0:09

has been strained and very

0:11

well documented. This

0:13

was quite a moment when the

0:16

committee clerk held a copy

0:18

of the King James

0:19

Bible, and Boris Johnson,

0:21

former prime minister, put his hand

0:24

on it.

0:25

When you take the vial. And

0:28

we got the terms of the air. Yes. I swear

0:30

by a mighty god, that the evidence I shall

0:32

give for this committee to be truth,

0:34

the whole

0:35

truth, and nothing but the truth. So

0:37

have

0:37

we got it. Thank you very much.

0:40

There are critics who

0:42

will tell you that everything Boris

0:44

Johnson touches turns

0:46

toxic. So right now,

0:48

imagine Christians everywhere, slightly

0:51

alarmed by the proximity of

0:53

that King James Bible. To

0:55

Boris Johnson's hand. Welcome

0:58

to the newsagents. The

1:03

newsagents.

1:05

It's John. It's Emily. And it's Lewis. And

1:07

we are in the studio because

1:10

the House of Commons is taking a break from the

1:12

Privileges Committee hearing into

1:14

whether Boris Johnson willfully intentionally

1:17

recklessly misled parliament.

1:19

And this carries with it

1:22

quite some jeopardy

1:24

for the former prime minister because it could end

1:26

his political career. Actually,

1:28

if he's found to have lied, it could lead

1:30

to perjury charges following that

1:32

declaration on the oath of the bible

1:34

that he would tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing

1:37

but the truth. There's lot being said about this

1:39

committee, but just one thing worth pointing out.

1:41

Yes, there is a labor chair, Harriet

1:43

Harmon, but it has a conservative

1:46

majority. Four conservative MPs, two

1:48

labor, one SNP. It

1:50

actually has to have a labor

1:53

head because that is how parliamentary

1:56

committees work. You have to have an opposition

1:58

leader, was Chris Bryant. He recused

2:00

himself. And now it is Harriet Harmon,

2:02

who is, as we know, a Labour Grande, but

2:05

it's important to recognize that

2:07

the inquisitor in chief so

2:09

far, and we're talking at twenty past three

2:11

now where the committee's been going probably just

2:13

over an hour. Has been Bernard Jenkins.

2:16

And don't forget that Bernard Jenkins is a

2:18

fellow conservative, a long standing

2:20

parliamentarian, a Brexiteer who

2:22

has had no quibble with the

2:25

leadership of Boris Johnson or

2:27

his party for many years and

2:29

yet is doing a pretty forensic job.

2:32

And why we started, think it's important

2:34

to say, with the King James bible

2:36

and with the swearing of the oath

2:38

is because fundamentally. This is not

2:40

really about parties. This is not really

2:43

about lockdown. This is about

2:45

truth. And it's about whether there

2:48

was a willful attempt,

2:50

an intention to mislead

2:53

the house because Boris Johnson don't

2:55

forget when he was asked about it,

2:57

was categoric that

2:59

all guidance and rules had

3:01

been followed at the time. He

3:03

didn't stop and say, I think that's right.

3:06

Let me check. He didn't stop and say,

3:08

I've been advised that most of

3:10

the time it was fine. He didn't seem to have

3:12

any qualms about it. He told

3:14

us. He told the house. He told the country

3:17

that rules and guidance had

3:19

been followed at all

3:21

times. Yeah. And it is again, we should

3:23

just rewind a bit. It's more than just

3:25

Johnson. And and like, I can totally understand I've

3:27

spoken to, you know, people plenty, you know, in over the

3:29

last few weeks, months, whatever,

3:31

he's like, well, we're still talking about party

3:33

again. God aren't the more important things. But

3:36

as Emily said, this isn't really about party anymore.

3:38

It is about actually, and Harriet Harmon

3:40

referenced this at the very our system

3:42

of accountability in our democracy because

3:44

you've got to remember and take step back. Which

3:47

is that for months and months and months,

3:49

I sat in on some of those meetings. Number

3:51

ten, told journalists the media

3:53

and then the public, not just Boris Johnson, the

3:56

whole number ten machine, that these events,

3:58

these gatherings, these rule breaking gatherings

4:00

that we know for fact happened because the

4:02

police told us unless you'd find that

4:05

they were rule breaking. Never even took

4:07

place. It wasn't just a case that,

4:09

oh well, you know, we're not sure maybe there were some

4:11

gray

4:11

areas. They told us they never even

4:13

took place. The media was lied to and

4:15

the public were lied to as well.

4:18

And listening to Boris Johnson's opening

4:20

statement, to the committee where he's allowed

4:22

to speak uninterrupted. You

4:24

kind of sensed that from him, there

4:26

was a bristled with

4:28

anger and indignation that how

4:31

dare you. Question my

4:33

truthfulness. And it was

4:35

kind of corollitous going before the plebs.

4:38

You know, kind of I shouldn't have to be

4:40

doing

4:40

this, and

4:41

yet he did. And a lot of you

4:43

know, that made us feel really big.

4:46

And I just I just thought that there was something

4:48

in the way Johnson

4:50

was defending himself, that just

4:53

he felt contempt for having to

4:55

be there, and this is him protesting

4:57

his innocence. I am here to say

5:00

to you, hand on heart, that I

5:02

did not lie to the house. When

5:04

those statements were made, they were made

5:07

in good faith. And on the basis

5:09

of what I honestly knew and believed

5:12

at the time. When this inquiry

5:14

was set up, I was completely confident

5:17

that you would find nothing to show

5:19

I knew or believed anything else.

5:21

As indeed, you have not.

5:24

I was confident not because there's been

5:26

some kind of cover up. I was confident

5:29

because I knew that is what I

5:31

believed. And that is why

5:33

I said

5:34

it. He hates it. He

5:36

hates being there. You can absolutely see This is

5:38

a man who's a prime minister a few months ago.

5:40

He absolutely loads it. He

5:43

is convinced that

5:45

look, we can get to the nuts and bolts of his defense

5:47

in a minute. But he has been doing everything

5:49

he can, and his outriders and allies have

5:51

been doing everything they can over the past few days, and

5:53

he was doing it again in the committee this

5:55

afternoon. To try and

5:57

denigrate the integrity and the probity

6:00

of the committee. And there were just little

6:02

hints there. We talked about Trump yesterday There

6:04

was a little bit John, when we were watching

6:05

it, we turned to each other, and there was a little bit

6:07

random. January sixth committees, the way,

6:09

normally, these hot committees are very dry, and

6:11

they're not very good. Getting to the truth. He talked

6:13

about it yesterday, MPs often Grandstand. So

6:16

far, a, that hasn't been the case, but b,

6:18

they have been very effective in laying

6:20

out that evidence before him. Showing him

6:22

the clips as he sits there, great

6:24

television, and the public have to watch his

6:26

reaction as he sees what he unequivocally

6:29

told the comments about those

6:31

parted. Following the guidance and the rules.

6:34

As millions of people were locked down

6:37

last year, it was a Christmas

6:39

party thrown in Downing Street for

6:41

dozens of people on December the eighteenth.

6:44

Look for this stuff.

6:49

Mister speaker, what

6:51

I could tell the right honorable gentleman

6:53

is that is that

6:55

all guidance was followed completely

6:58

during number ten. But I repeat,

7:01

mister speaker, that I have been repeatedly

7:04

assured since these allegations

7:06

emerged. That there was no

7:08

party and that and

7:11

that no COVID rules were

7:13

broken. And that is what I have been

7:15

repeatedly assured. I

7:18

apologize. I apologize for

7:21

for the impression that has been given

7:24

that stop and die as we take this

7:26

less than

7:27

seriously. I'm I'm I'm

7:29

sick and myself and furious about

7:31

that.

7:31

But I

7:33

I repeat what I have said to him that

7:36

the that the that I've been

7:38

repeatedly assured that

7:40

the rules So the rules order.

7:43

Order.

7:43

The prime minister has been caught red

7:46

handed. Why doesn't he end the investigation

7:48

right now by just admitting it?

7:53

Because mister speaker, I've been repeatedly

7:55

assured that no rules were

7:58

broken. And I think there's one reason

8:00

why this hasn't been dry because

8:02

they can be technical. They can be quite formulaic.

8:04

They can be difficult to follow. But I think

8:06

this hasn't been dry because everyone

8:09

listen to that and everyone in the country

8:11

can tell you about their own sacrifices,

8:14

their own trauma, their own trials,

8:16

their own memories of exactly what

8:19

they were going through when the

8:21

prime minister was explaining why

8:24

it was so fundamental that he

8:26

held leaving gatherings. I think

8:28

you've referred them one stage as rapid

8:30

gatherings. The

8:31

best sort of gatherings. The best sort of gatherings. It

8:33

was essential for work purposes, quote

8:36

unquote, from Boris Johnson that

8:38

there was a it should be a party, and it was so

8:40

impromptu that everyone had glasses of wine

8:42

in their hand. They managed to get the booze in. They managed to

8:44

get the wine glasses.

8:45

Right. Essential. And everyone

8:47

will be able to tell you the things that they

8:49

canceled because they didn't

8:52

think they were that essential. And I

8:54

think this is the rub of Bernard

8:56

Jenkins' question. When he takes

8:58

us back to those press conferences,

9:00

those very socially distanced

9:03

televised press conferences and says,

9:05

What have you been asked this?

9:07

So if you've been asked at a press conference with

9:09

your podium saying hands, face space,

9:12

whether it was okay for organizations to hold

9:14

unsophory farewell gatherings in the workplace.

9:16

What would you have said? I would have

9:18

said that it's up to organizations as

9:21

the guidance To decide how

9:24

and they are going to implement

9:26

the guidance amongst which

9:29

is, of course, social distance. Where

9:31

they can't do social distancing perfectly.

9:34

They can't maintain two meters or one meters.

9:36

Then they're entitled to have mitigations.

9:38

And That's what the guidance And

9:40

we did indeed have plenty of mitigation.

9:43

The thing that struck me listening

9:45

to

9:46

that question. You know, so often politicians

9:49

would say, well, that's a hypothetical question. I'm not going to

9:51

answer it. Boris Johnson did try to answer it and

9:53

got himself in knots. Because everyone

9:55

in the room where we were sitting just

9:56

said,

9:57

no way. That's not very stronger

9:59

than me. Yeah. Okay. Maybe a bit stronger.

10:01

Because that's not what anyone thought at the

10:03

time that it would have been okay to have

10:05

a party in those

10:06

circumstances. It

10:07

would specifically not have

10:09

been okay. We canceled those

10:12

part.

10:12

That was a guided missile from

10:14

Bernard Jenkins to ask that question in that

10:16

way. Boris Johnson engaged with it and found

10:18

himself in Sunflower. Can you imagine Matt

10:20

Hancock at this time when we watch those press conferences?

10:22

Can you imagine Matt Hancock? And this is

10:24

part of his personal problems on all of this as well.

10:26

Can you imagine know when they used to ask at the very

10:28

beginning of the press conferences because they wanted to throw

10:31

some shit on the

10:31

journalist, say the public are more important. So they took

10:33

a couple of video questions. And

10:35

the Zoom never worked. And the Zoom never really worked,

10:37

but, you know, Could you imagine if there'd been some business

10:39

owner popped up on that? So, yeah, secretary of state, prime

10:41

minister. Yeah. I was just I've got

10:43

some great staff here. They're doing some great work.

10:45

I'd love to be able to say goodbye to them thinking about couple

10:48

of bottles of champagne. That's dead. Would that be okay? Is that

10:50

within the guidance? Could you imagine, man,

10:52

god. Or Johnson being like,

10:53

mean, I'll just I'll just look at that.

10:55

Yeah. Do your best to maintain yeah.

10:57

Do your best to maintain distancing, but

10:59

if you can, but if not, like, in a way.

11:02

No way. Wait. But

11:03

the defense has been very interesting because

11:05

it has been about measurements and

11:07

screens. And the corridors are plentiful

11:10

and force fields and the corridors and

11:12

why it was so difficult to work at Downing Street.

11:14

Forgive

11:15

me, I bet there were harder places

11:17

to do your job. Physically than

11:19

downing

11:20

street signs.

11:21

Right. Hospitals. Hospitals. Hospitals.

11:24

You name it, and yet he keeps on talking

11:26

us through the and equated corridors

11:28

of downing

11:29

The Georgiantown House. And when he was asked if

11:31

it ever occurred to him to cancel these

11:33

leaving dues, he said no, not

11:35

for a moment. Because he sees himself

11:38

as the banker in chief, as

11:40

so fundamentally important to that role.

11:43

To say goodbye to his staff, not not to

11:45

thank nurses not to thank doctors, not

11:47

to go around the country sort of thanking people

11:49

who are saving lives to thank his own staff

11:51

in brackets who are

11:52

leaving. I expected, as we

11:54

said yesterday, all ops of people below

11:56

Johnson to get blamed

11:58

from a great height to that. didn't expect number

12:00

ten itself, the building of number ten,

12:03

the layout of number ten to turn out to be the

12:05

great

12:05

villain. The Johnson was I know you beat Honestly,

12:07

god, that building. It was in my head.

12:10

Was based on my understanding of the rules

12:13

and the guidance. That did

12:15

not mean that I believed

12:17

that social distance was

12:19

complied with perfectly. That

12:22

is because I and others in the building did

12:24

not believe it was necessary or possible to

12:27

have a two meter or one meter

12:29

after June the twenty fourth twenty twenty electrified

12:32

force field around every

12:34

human being. Indeed, that is

12:36

emphatically not what

12:39

the guidance prescribed. It

12:42

specifically says that social distancing

12:45

should be maintained where possible, having

12:48

regard to the work environment. It

12:50

is clear that in number ten, we had real

12:52

difficulties in both working efficiently

12:55

and at speed and in maintaining perfect

12:57

social distancing. It's a cramped,

13:00

narrow, eighteenth century townhouse.

13:02

But

13:03

also, look, let's understand

13:05

it. Central to Boris Johnson's defense

13:08

is that he said

13:10

that he was giving information to

13:12

the House of Commons on the basis of

13:14

the advice from individuals,

13:17

and that was the best to his knowledge, and

13:19

he was always faithfully giving

13:21

that to the comments. And yet in the

13:23

testimony published today, from

13:25

Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, where

13:28

he was asked, did this meet all the

13:30

standards, no? Did Boris Johnson ever ask

13:32

whether it met all the standards, no? And

13:34

you saw a gaping hole

13:37

put in Boris Johnson's defense by

13:39

the cabinet

13:39

secretary. Not just one gaping hole, but

13:42

a couple more. Martin Reynolds, who was

13:44

Johnson's principal private secretary

13:47

at the time said that he advised

13:49

him not to say that

13:51

all guidance had been followed at all times.

13:54

Martin Reynolds said it was not a

13:56

realistic position. And from what

13:58

we understand, this is the testament of

14:00

Martin Reynolds, Johnson

14:02

then deleted that. He

14:04

agreed to delete that line from

14:07

his speech in the

14:07

comments, but he didn't. He went

14:09

ahead and said it. We should just sort of break

14:12

down exactly what Johnson is saying his defenses.

14:14

We sort of knew this from yesterday from his written

14:16

statement. But essentially,

14:18

what he's relying on is partly what you've just

14:20

said John, which is the as prime minister, he

14:23

acted on advice at all times, while

14:25

we know, from these documents that there's

14:27

a massive question mark about that. He keeps

14:29

talking about using this phrase, the

14:32

guidance as I understood it or the

14:34

guidance to me which

14:36

again is problematic because the

14:38

guidance was the guidance was the guidance. There was

14:40

always an element of interpretation, but

14:42

ultimately as the ultimate arbiter

14:44

of that, of the prime minister. It seems very hard

14:47

to sort of rest on that subjectivity.

14:49

And also, again, as we've already said,

14:52

a crux of his defense for why he

14:54

didn't, miss Lee parliament, is

14:56

because he is saying that

14:59

it didn't even occur to him that any

15:01

of these events might not be

15:03

reasonably necessary for work. Now

15:05

all three of those things, as we've said,

15:08

and that as they're talking about in the committee right

15:09

now, are looking extremely shaky. And

15:12

that is the question that Bernard Jenkins has

15:14

been lasering in on about

15:17

kind of what did you understand, not

15:19

whether it was justified, but how could

15:21

you possibly report to the commons

15:24

this when that had happened

15:26

inside? Well,

15:27

I'm asking about the guidance at the moment.

15:29

Yes. So I'm telling you that I believe the guidance

15:31

is was a so what what you've

15:34

got to understand. When I looked at that group,

15:37

it did not for one second occur to

15:39

me. That we were in breach of

15:41

the guidance given the logistical

15:43

difficulties we faced in number ten

15:46

and the need have urgent meetings

15:48

such as this. It's fair to say

15:51

that you didn't say that

15:53

we did every effort to comply with the

15:55

guidance, the House

15:55

of Commons. And you didn't say that

15:57

-- No. -- I'm saying that it's followed guidance completely.

16:00

Because you can't you okay. That

16:02

will come to this you you can't

16:05

you can't expect human

16:08

beings in an environment like number

16:10

ten. To have

16:12

as it were a invisible

16:16

electrified fence around

16:18

them. They would occasionally drift into each other's

16:21

orbit. When I saw

16:23

that, it did not

16:25

mean to me that we had breached the

16:27

guidance. It means it meant it meant

16:30

that we were following the guidance to

16:32

the best of our

16:33

ability, which was what the guidance provided

16:36

for. I'm gonna throw one bit of shade into

16:38

this, which is a point that Boris Johnson makes,

16:40

which I do think is valid or at least needs

16:42

consideration. And that is about

16:44

the official photographer because

16:46

he keeps on telling us that if he

16:48

had for any moment, for any reason

16:51

doubted that those gatherings were

16:53

not kosher. Why would you have had an

16:55

official photographer

16:56

there? And I'm really excited to

16:58

see what the commons, what that inquiry

17:00

does with that. Well, let me just kind of give a

17:02

quick answer. Yes, the official photographer

17:05

was there to record Swears

17:07

any of those photos ever

17:09

put up contemporaneously on

17:11

the Downing Street website, which is

17:13

where the official photographers work goes,

17:16

not a bit of it. They didn't put up one photo

17:18

of a party taking place at the

17:20

time because they knew it would be

17:22

so

17:23

tough. But in addition to that, you can also say,

17:25

Why was the official photographer there? Why

17:27

does any work gathering event? If it's reasonably

17:30

necessary work, do you really prompt you gathering? Do

17:32

you really need the official photographer there?

17:34

And this goes to the whole point of this, which is

17:36

there was clearly a way there is a thought

17:39

lurking orbiting around all of this,

17:41

which is just frankly, and what the prime

17:43

minister is still trying to deflect from.

17:45

The number ten was extremely,

17:47

as we said yesterday, Luch, was

17:50

not particularly effective at implementing

17:52

its own

17:53

rules. And that is why you end up with the official

17:55

photographer there because no one is thinking Actually,

17:57

do we really need the official? Some people were.

17:59

That's the point. Some people were thinking that

18:01

they were saying it out loud. They were advising

18:03

him not to go as strongly in his

18:05

defense. As he then went. We're gonna

18:08

take a break, not least, because we've run out

18:10

of breath, but also because Boris

18:12

Johnson is back giving evidence to the

18:13

committee, and we're gonna listen him for a bit and then

18:16

come back. More in a

18:16

second. This

18:26

is the newsagents.

18:31

Welcome back. And what's happening at the committee

18:33

now is that every MP is

18:35

getting a go of going through

18:37

a couple of the parties, not parties

18:40

essential work events. Rapid gatherings.

18:42

Rapid gatherings in prompt you things where there was

18:44

wine, cheese, beer, all

18:46

the rest of it. And tried to go through,

18:48

well, what did you know about these? And

18:50

when you said that they were socially distant, did

18:53

you really mean that? No. Not so much.

18:55

One of the interesting ironies that I have loved

18:57

so far is Boris Johnson

18:59

leaning heavily on Sue

19:02

Grey's report to kind of get him

19:04

out of trouble. That's the same

19:06

suit grade that Boris Johnson was saying

19:08

could not be relied on because she might have

19:10

taken a job with Kirstana. But because

19:12

the committee's report has been so much harsher

19:15

than her report, he say, sue gray

19:17

and praying her in

19:19

aid, deck help him get out, Trish? We see

19:21

nothing exactly the same thing in Prime Minister's questions.

19:23

Starmer made a quip about his

19:25

getting a fine, and he said, Oh,

19:27

well, Sue Gray exonerated me. She said

19:29

that I didn't know it was gonna be event. But by

19:31

the

19:31

way, I don't really trust anything about that because,

19:33

you know, she's gonna advise you. This inquiry

19:36

is staying away from super They have put

19:38

a block between the super

19:40

report and what they're doing now.

19:42

Slightly because they do not want to

19:44

incite accusations of partisanship.

19:47

Well,

19:47

and they can get even better evidence. We

19:49

shouldn't forget Sue Gray was a civil servant doing

19:52

What was in essence a quite informal

19:54

inquiry in some ways? This is a full

19:57

fully fledged parliamentary inquiry

19:59

into whether or not the prime minister

20:01

committed contempt and misled the

20:03

house. They can get whatever they want and they have

20:05

got all sorts of evidence from people who

20:07

worked in number ten, from people who were around

20:10

Simon

20:10

Case, the cabinet secretary and down, so

20:12

it's comprehensive. And a lot of those

20:14

lines that we are now familiar with

20:17

have come up in the second half

20:19

of the inquiry, particularly the ones

20:21

that Boris Johnson is now saying,

20:23

he doesn't remember saying Bena

20:25

Jenkins asked him if he remarked

20:28

that it was the most unsausually distance

20:31

gathering in the UK. I think the

20:33

word was probably and that was

20:35

put to him straight away. And Bose Johnson has now

20:37

said I don't

20:38

remember, but it seems unlikely, but

20:40

I did make other observations about

20:43

social distancing that I could do remember

20:45

just what this Purpose of this inquiry is not

20:47

to reopen so called party

20:49

gate. It is to discover whether or

20:51

not I lied to parliament, wittingly

20:54

misled colleagues and the country

20:57

about what I knew and believed

20:59

about those gatherings when I said

21:01

that the rules and the

21:02

guidance. This committee hearing started at two o'clock,

21:05

and three hours in, you start

21:07

to hear how irascible and

21:09

quite frankly grumpy and frustrated

21:12

Boris Johnson is getting.

21:14

So sorry. The

21:16

the the answer is quite simply

21:19

that over the and I've I've

21:21

tried to describe what I felt

21:23

about these events as they were happening.

21:26

Nobody raised with me or

21:29

had any concern before I stood up

21:32

on on on December

21:34

the first. Got it. About those events. You

21:36

did notice. Oh, I asked them because

21:38

I did let's see. This is gonna complete nonsense.

21:41

I mean, complete nonsense. I asked

21:44

the relevant people. They were senior

21:46

people. They've been working very hard. They

21:48

gave Jack Dole gave me a clear account

21:50

of what about the cabinet secretary. The how

21:52

was the cabinet secretary? Wasn't that? Sorry.

21:54

Here you're wrong because I did ask the cabinet secretary.

21:57

And I I thought I did ask the candidates actually

21:59

to conduct an inquiry on the seventh

22:01

of December.

22:02

Not about whether you are undertaking to the House of Commerce

22:05

were correct. But

22:06

of course, that was what he was thinking about. And

22:09

he keeps returning to this defense,

22:11

which is nobody told me

22:13

And I think that's having the adverse

22:16

impact that he thinks it is because

22:18

he sounds weak. He keeps on

22:20

saying he wasn't advised any rules have

22:22

been broken. He had a constant emphasis that

22:24

wasn't what he'd been told. Just think

22:26

for a moment how weak that argument is.

22:29

He made the rules. He extolled the rules. He publicized

22:31

the rules. Now he's telling us he didn't

22:33

have the judgment to decide for himself

22:36

if he and others in Downing Street

22:38

were following those same rules.

22:41

I think that clip is actually really revealing

22:43

for where this is all going because what

22:45

you could see there, you're just simply

22:47

seeing disbelief from

22:50

members of parliament from the different committee

22:52

members that this version of events

22:54

where the prime minister had been such

22:56

a different frame of mind to the rest of the

22:58

country. About his own guidance. That

22:59

is what this will all come down to, the

23:01

incredulity of those MPs.

23:03

Well, there's another degree of incredulity I

23:06

have over having listened to

23:08

the evidence being given over the past

23:10

couple of hours that obviously Boris

23:12

Johnson's argument is that these parties

23:15

were essential work events because I had to thank

23:17

the hardworking staff they had put in

23:19

so many hours, etcetera, etcetera. So

23:21

this is me being a leader

23:24

of my team. At the same time,

23:26

are saying that any member of staff

23:28

who has given evidence to your committee that

23:30

has in any way contradicted me,

23:32

he has thrown them under the bus with

23:35

alacrity and without a seconds

23:37

hesitation. So Jack Doyle,

23:40

who was the press secretary a tree.

23:42

He's not having a great

23:42

afternoon, Jack. Is he? No. Well, Jack is

23:45

absolutely Boris has run

23:47

the bus over him and then put the bus to

23:49

reverse and reverse back over here. But I don't think

23:51

that matters because Jack Doyle's

23:53

statement, which the committee

23:55

has and released, was I

23:58

don't think I advised him to

24:00

say the rules were followed at all

24:02

times. So Jack Doyle,

24:05

has already become part of that

24:07

small but very effective number

24:09

of advisers, Simon Case,

24:11

Martin Reynolds, who've said Actually,

24:14

we didn't send him out there equipped

24:16

with a

24:17

lie. He must have chosen that himself.

24:19

You know, the thing I keep thinking about watching this

24:21

today. Is that, you know what?

24:24

This is one of the main reasons he's no longer

24:26

a prime minister. I don't mean that in the obvious way

24:28

about the scandal over party gate. keep

24:30

going back to that feathered

24:32

weird period when, you know, the letters were

24:35

going in early summer last year.

24:37

And something that can sell to MPs was say,

24:39

even in those three MPs who really didn't want to put

24:41

in that letter. They were talking about this inquiry.

24:44

They knew that this were coming. Imagine if Johnson

24:46

was still Prime Minister now, we would actually

24:48

have over this committee right now. The stakes

24:50

feel high as it is because this could be the end his

24:53

career. This could have led to the

24:55

actual destruction of a sitting prime

24:57

minister, that would be the instability

25:00

currently hanging over, not just the conservative

25:02

party and the cabinet, and the government

25:04

and the country. And for all those people

25:06

who say this was this big witch hunt to

25:08

get rid of Boris Johnson from office, they couldn't forgive

25:10

him for Brexit, it was elites establishment, whatever.

25:13

No. It was this. This was a

25:15

huge factor in lots of conservative

25:17

MPs at the time, just thinking, party

25:20

gate is never gonna end. And we can't have

25:22

its resolution come, which is this, not

25:24

the matte, not super gray, but this,

25:26

have that come when Johnson is still

25:28

an incumbent

25:29

PM. Well, actually, it's not just party gate. It

25:31

goes back to that central issue of trust

25:34

and truth because when

25:36

the party finally rebelled against the prime

25:38

minister. It was over his

25:40

lie about Chris Pincher. He

25:42

pretended that he knew nothing about

25:45

Chris Pincher's former record of

25:47

allegations of sexual abuse. Once

25:50

again, it's the instability of

25:52

having somebody at your home that

25:54

you basically don't trust, and I'm really

25:56

fascinated to see how many MPs

25:59

because there is a free vote now. They are not being

26:01

whipped Rishi Sunek has been completely hands

26:03

off as he would be in this kind

26:05

of non party scenario. How

26:07

many MPs will follow Boris Johnson out

26:10

the door because I think it also takes us

26:12

to another

26:13

narrative, another story happening

26:15

today. Which is when we heard

26:17

this bell.

26:18

And it must have been obvious to others

26:20

in the building, including the current prime

26:22

minister. Order order.

26:25

We will now suspend the sitting well to

26:27

the House of Commons code and we will

26:29

reconvene in fifteen minutes.

26:31

Thank you. And that's

26:34

a division bell, which means that MPs have

26:36

to go vote and Harry at hand and had to suspend

26:38

the sitting to allow MPs to go vote.

26:41

And Boris Johnson scuttled downstairs

26:43

from the committee corridor into the division

26:45

lobbies to vote against

26:47

the government. And again, Going

26:49

back to Lewis' point of the power shift

26:51

and fading power, Boris

26:54

Johnson was leading a rebellion against

26:56

the Windsor framework saying it was

26:59

not satisfactory and there weren't enough guarantees

27:01

and that Rishi Sunak needed to be more belligerent.

27:04

With the result, that a total

27:06

of twenty nine Tori's

27:08

and members of the DUP voted

27:11

against the Windsor

27:12

Framework, but it was overwhelmingly carried

27:14

because all

27:15

twenty nine, we should say, is nothing. It

27:17

is tiny. It was a majority of four hundred

27:19

and eighty six. So there you have Boris

27:22

Johnson and Liz Truss voting against

27:24

it. Two prime ministers leading the

27:26

charge against the current prime minister,

27:28

and all they could muster was

27:31

this rag tag little army.

27:33

Twenty nine people to vote against

27:35

it. I think Rishi Sunak would have seen the numbers

27:37

for that

27:38

vote. I would have been high fiving his staff.

27:40

Yeah. I think it's interesting that even Jeffrey Donaldson

27:42

even the leader of the DUP is

27:45

not questioning Rishi Sunak's motivation

27:48

in trying to make improvements. Nobody

27:51

is sticking up for the old version of Boris

27:53

Johnson's protocol. Don't forget, they are literally

27:56

voting in favor of ripping

27:58

up the bit of the Brexit mess

28:00

in Northern Ireland. That he left his party

28:03

with. Even Jeffrey Donaldson is not questioning

28:05

the motivation. He's just saying, yeah, we've got to

28:07

get it right. Maybe he wants more concessions. Maybe he

28:09

wants something else. But twenty nine

28:11

is nothing. Rishi Sunak has got this

28:13

build through with the support of labor,

28:15

the opposition, which is not the strongest

28:18

look. But actually, he

28:20

has got so few rebels now, the

28:22

ERG, that great force

28:24

of sort of insurgent that used

28:27

to be so dominant in the Tory

28:29

party. Now it looks pretty flaky.

28:31

Even Steve Baker. Man,

28:33

we used to call Brexit hard

28:35

man. For some really weird

28:37

overmatcha reason. Said this.

28:40

So, really, both of them should be backing

28:43

backing the Windsor framework today what I would

28:45

say is they're both better than this.

28:47

We're partly we've reached this point thanks to

28:49

Lids trough setting the process in train,

28:52

and today's measures are

28:54

better of course than the protocol that Boris Johnson

28:56

put in place. A protocol of

28:59

which he spoke about and those things he said turned

29:01

out not to be accurate. So you

29:03

know, he's got a choice. He can be remembered for

29:05

the great acts of statecraft that

29:07

he achieved, or he can risk

29:09

looking like a pan shot Nigel Faraj. And

29:11

I hope choose to choose us to be remembered as

29:13

a

29:13

statesman. I mean, as soon as we should say, it doesn't

29:16

mean that that overwhelming victory doesn't

29:18

mean that the politics around the framework are

29:20

stable. There was lots of Tory MPs who

29:22

did abstain. This was just about

29:24

one element of the framework,

29:26

the Stormman Brake. But it does

29:28

show I think John's absolutely right. It does show

29:31

the shifting tectonic plates

29:33

within the conservative party. And these two things

29:35

aren't unrelated. Right? Again, The

29:37

fact that Johnson is so implicated in

29:39

this. The fact that he is being so damaged

29:41

by this event even taking place,

29:44

just makes it so much harder to try and

29:46

quarrel any real sort of resistance

29:48

to the Tsunab

29:49

premiership, plan and plot any

29:51

kind of reentry point a moment

29:53

to destabilizing because again, this is just

29:55

hanging all over. Yeah. The other thing from Rishi Tsunak's

29:57

point of view is that his fingerprints aren't

30:00

anywhere any of this issue, so Although

30:02

theprivacy keeps mentioning him as many times as

30:04

he possibly can. Yeah. But theprivileges committee

30:06

is just a committee of the house Rishi

30:08

Sunak's not implicated. He's saying MP

30:11

should have a free vote on it. He's not trying

30:13

to whip his MPs in one direction or

30:15

the other. He's standing back and

30:17

realizing that this is the

30:19

moment probably when you say if

30:21

there was a tipping point where Boris Johnson

30:24

ceased to be a figure of importance

30:26

in British politics. Now that, you know, you never

30:28

count Boris Johnson out just like you never count Donald

30:30

Trump out, but it looks like that this

30:32

kind of feels like the end of the road

30:34

Boris Johnson. He may carry on in parliament for longer.

30:36

He may not get recalled. Who knows what is gonna happen

30:39

at the end of this process?

30:40

But it does seem like Rishi Tsunaki

30:43

is having a marvelous stay. I

30:44

don't know whether you boys have noticed it, but

30:46

I always hear it. Boy,

30:47

I love it. You little boys

30:50

when Boris Johnson says that

30:52

he accepts total responsibility for

30:54

something. He always says that in the house,

30:56

but he never actually does.

30:59

And I keep returning to that early

31:01

school report written by his

31:04

Ethan Housemaster, which describes

31:06

Johnson as being free of the network

31:09

of obligation that binds

31:11

everyone else. If there is

31:13

a bus and you work for him

31:15

or close to him, you'll probably be

31:17

under it. If there are rules,

31:19

you'll probably be following them, he won't.

31:22

If there is an excuse, he'll

31:24

be confusing you, tying you in nuts, they'll

31:26

be bluster. But he'll think that

31:28

none of that applies to him. And it's something

31:31

that has sort of stayed with him in

31:33

his life like the stick of

31:34

rock. That whatever everyone else is

31:36

thinking they have to do. He's not obliged

31:38

to do that. Thing is well, though. The other thing keep thinking

31:41

is, it goes back to what we were saying

31:43

a little bit earlier. If Downing

31:45

Street could approach this scandal and these set

31:47

of stories differently from the

31:49

beginning. I remain convinced that perhaps

31:51

Boris Johnson, maybe he would have lost the premise

31:54

but he certainly wouldn't be where he is now.

31:57

Because if they had said from much earlier

31:59

point, look, we've looked into this and I think

32:01

actually,

32:02

yes.

32:02

There were events that it appears they could have at

32:05

least broken the guidance. He would never have gone

32:07

to the House of Commons and made these assurances. He

32:09

could have just stuck to that line. It was the

32:11

mandateity and the dishonesty from the beginning.

32:13

Emily, you and I had experience at this time when

32:15

we heard stories about various things from

32:17

different people that may or may not have happened. We go

32:19

to Downing Street about it. We get point

32:21

blank, denials from some of the people

32:23

involved who we now know completely knew

32:26

what was going on. There was James

32:28

Bible. Well, on the King James Bible know

32:30

this, there was the way and in a

32:32

way this is Boris Johnson's personality catching

32:34

up with him. Because if this had been handled in

32:36

different way from the beginning, as I say, maybe

32:38

the politics would have got out of control because of the public

32:40

end up, maybe Johnson would have ended up leaving

32:43

office, but he certainly wouldn't be on contempt

32:45

of parliament charges right

32:46

now. Of course, we might be hearing something

32:49

that the rest of the committee is not hearing.

32:51

This story could take a whole different turn,

32:54

and it could be that when

32:56

the rest of the MPs go to the thousand vote,

32:58

they actually think he made a pretty good case

33:00

for himself, and he has sought

33:03

to establish why it was so important

33:05

for him to attend these work, rapid

33:07

gatherings, all the rest of it. There

33:10

is a chance that they will not vote

33:12

that he has misled parliament and

33:14

they will not remove him and they will not

33:17

be a bilection. But one little

33:19

fact, which might tell us about Boris

33:21

Johnson's frame of mind, I understand

33:23

he has just bought a house in Oxfordshire within

33:26

the constituency of

33:27

Henley, which he knows well.

33:29

So there is a plan b somewhere

33:32

in place? There's always a plan b. The interesting

33:34

question would be to go to the people who voted

33:37

on a conservative home poll

33:39

yesterday Swears they came out and said, look,

33:41

we don't think Boris is lied. We think he's fundamentally

33:43

honest. We don't understand what this is all about.

33:46

This is all something about nothing. But

33:48

they also said at the same time in

33:50

this poll, we don't believe that Boris

33:52

Johnson should be coming back as prime minister.

33:55

I wonder whether any of the people listening

33:57

today who think he's fundamentally honest,

34:00

I suspect we'll still think Has anyone changed

34:02

their mind? Has anyone changed their mind? We'll

34:04

be back in a moment. This

34:13

is the newsagents. Welcome

34:18

back. Just worth going through

34:21

what happens when the committee ends its

34:23

hearing later today. One is it could

34:25

still call Boris Johnson back to give more

34:27

evidence Secondly, it's unlikely

34:30

that there will be a recommendation of

34:32

vote by the committee for some weeks to

34:34

come, certainly not this side of Easter.

34:37

Don't expect that there's gonna be a swift resolution

34:39

of this tonight. And thirdly,

34:41

whatever the recommendation is

34:44

It has to be voted on by the House

34:46

of Commons if the House of Commons recommends that

34:48

he should be expelled from the

34:50

for more than ten days then fourthly,

34:53

that could trigger a recall petition

34:55

in his constituency, which could lead

34:57

to

34:57

him, you know, a reelection there. I missed anything

34:59

out? No. That's completely it. I shall just I was

35:01

talking to in parliament, I was talking

35:03

to an MP. Just in terms of thinking about,

35:06

like, how the committee may

35:08

see this. And they were saying, look, having spoken

35:10

to quite a few people on there, and obviously, they're being very

35:12

confidential about their deliberations. But

35:15

their impression was that something

35:17

that they will at least be weighing up, and

35:19

if not that they should be, is

35:21

this goes beyond just Boris Johnson. Their

35:23

conclusions about this goes beyond Boris Johnson.

35:25

In a sense that what is that stake here in

35:27

the most vivid way possible, is that

35:30

fundamental rule of

35:32

our parliamentary democracy and

35:34

constitution, you know, we have a number in constitution,

35:36

but there is one sort of really really big rule

35:38

in terms of how works, which is you don't mislead

35:40

parliament. Mhmm. And if

35:42

in these circumstances they were saying, the committee

35:45

came back and said, well, you know, there

35:47

are big question marks, but we can't be exactly

35:49

sure what was in Boris Johnson's head, then

35:51

what you would essentially be saying. And this is basically

35:53

Johnson's argument is that you can never really prove

35:56

beyond reasonable doubt that someone has misled

35:58

parliament unless there is an email or document

36:00

which says, I Boris Johnson, I'm gonna go in this

36:02

lead parliament later today. Because there is such

36:04

a wealth of evidence stacked

36:06

against him that if they don't in some way

36:08

recognize that, then it leaves that core

36:11

principle of our democracy that

36:13

you don't mislead parliament under any circumstances or

36:15

knowingly do

36:15

so, and you must correct the record as early as possible.

36:18

In tatters. Yeah. And I think it's about the integrity

36:20

of all their jobs so you will hear

36:22

Tory MPs and Labour MPs all

36:25

say we cannot afford to fall

36:27

lower in the public's estimation. Because

36:30

of this accusation of lying. So I

36:32

think that is fundamental. It's also

36:34

interesting if we end where we started

36:36

with the King James bible. It

36:39

is I'm being told by Hannah White to the Institute

36:41

of Government. Unusual. Very

36:43

unusual to find somebody swearing an

36:45

oath at the beginning, but it's not unheard

36:47

of. And she thinks it's to do with the fact

36:49

they've gone to great lengths not to

36:51

rely on sue Gray's evidence because

36:54

of all the reasons we talk about. And they've

36:56

sought sworn versions of statements,

36:59

so they are applying the same standards

37:01

to oral evidence. That is

37:03

why the stakes are so high here

37:06

And when you said he would deny if

37:08

he could. He can't deny that

37:10

his razors, most probably because he

37:12

does know he's taken an oath

37:14

and it is an oath that could leave to perjury

37:17

if it's

37:17

broken. Before we go, just worth

37:19

reflecting on a couple of other things that

37:21

have been happening today, which of course have been

37:24

absolutely squeezed out by the whole

37:26

sort of Johnson Theatre show that we've

37:28

all been watching. Inflation figures,

37:30

worse, inflation going up,

37:33

not coming down, although I noticed that Rishi Sunak

37:35

saying in the comments, you know, we're gonna have inflation.

37:37

We're not failing to mention that the latest figures

37:40

that came out that morning had gone

37:41

up. Only country in the g seven

37:43

now in double digits over ten percent.

37:45

No one expected. Economists did not expect

37:47

that, and it's rattle butt. Taxes, Rishi

37:50

Sunak's tax return just landed.

37:53

I wonder why they chose today.

37:55

To publish his tax returns,

37:57

which showed that he

37:59

made one point nine

38:03

million pounds in the last

38:05

tax year. Now a tenth of that

38:07

came from his workers and m p

38:09

as prime minister. So, you know, a government

38:11

employee. An additional one hundred

38:13

and seventy two thousand came in

38:15

dividends and one point six million

38:18

in capital gains because either he must have sold

38:20

a whole pile of shares or he sold a property,

38:22

we don't know what, but that is what the tax

38:24

returns shows. So Rishi

38:26

Sunak taking in one point nine million,

38:29

which I've calculated on the back of

38:31

an envelope has been roughly sixty

38:33

times

38:35

the average national wage in the

38:37

UK has just lagged you.

38:38

Yeah. The day job as PM is just

38:41

one tenth of what you're actually taking out.

38:43

Good day too. Very bad

38:44

news. Someone once said. As someone once said over

38:47

something else.

38:47

We would never do that in a Of course, on the news,

38:49

isn't it? Yeah. But all cracked. Oh, it's good

38:51

news here. Famedously. Famedously

38:53

upbeat. We'll be back tomorrow.

38:55

We'll be trying to assess the fallout. And I

38:58

think mister Luis Goodall will

39:00

be in Paris where there

39:02

is a bit of

39:03

writing on the streets. Everybody yeah. Exactly.

39:05

So it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.

39:07

A city of love

39:09

and rubbish on the streets. Yeah. Gotta love

39:11

Paris in the springtime. Have fun.

39:13

See you tomorrow.

39:14

Bye. Bye. Bye bye. This has

39:16

been a global player original podcast

39:18

and a personfonica production.