Would I Lie to You?': Boris Johnson and Lying in the House of Commons
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Political Quarterly
‘Would I Lie to You?’: Boris Johnson and Lying
in the House of Commons
DAVID JUDGE
Abstract
A prerequisite of ministerial accountability in the UK is the provision of accurate information by
ministers and the Prime Minister to Parliament. This form of ‘informatory accountability’, and
the expectation that ministers and the Prime Minister will not lie to Parliament, is at the core of
parliamentary government. Yet, Boris Johnson’s premiership, characterised by a general propen-
sity to mislead, to misinform, to tell untruths and to lie openly, has led to growing concern within
Westminster at the PM’s proclivity to speak untruths in the Commons with seeming impunity.
A study of the period from July 2019 to December 2021 examines the paradoxes and procedural
problems that arise when the presumption that a Prime Minister will not lie or utter deliberate
falsehoods in Westminster is upended.
Keywords: UK Parliament, accountability, parliamentary government, Boris Johnson, Prime
Minister
Introduction While Oborne willingly acknowledged that
Johnson’s immediate predecessors were all
A BASIC PREMISE of the BBC’s long-running ‘capable of being devious’, nonetheless, they
TV programme Would I Lie to You? is that con- shared a redeeming grace of respecting ‘a com-
testants are rewarded for lying successfully. mon standard of factual accuracy’.
Similarly, commentators and colleagues have The purpose of this article is not to add to the
identified Boris Johnson’s rise to leader of the litany of exposés and critiques of Johnson’s
Conservative Party and Prime Minister as uneasy relationship with the truth in his profes-
reward for lying successfully. In an article head-
sional and personal life. Nor is it to chronicle
lined ‘What is the PM’s relationship with the
the repeated infractions of ethical standards
truth?’, the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenss-
associated with the PM’s handling of various
berg, affirmed that Johnson’s ‘reputation and
accusations of ‘Tory sleaze’ within Westminster
popularity is certainly not based on the view
(most notably surrounding the breach of lobby-
that he tells the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing rules by then MP Owen Paterson) and his
ing but’.1 A former ministerial colleague of
Johnson, Rory Stewart, endorsed this view and response to ‘partygate’ (and alleged infringe-
adjudged him to be ‘the most accomplished liar ments of Covid restrictions within Downing
in public office—perhaps the best liar ever to Street). Instead, its purpose is to examine how
serve as prime minister’.2 A former journalist the PM’s noxious relationship with untruth is
colleague and former fan of Johnson, Peter seemingly abated when he enters the chamber
Oborne, somewhat apocalyptically, went so far at Westminster: a place where he, and his parlia-
as to argue that ‘[s]tandards of truth telling … mentary colleagues, are deemed to be incapable
collapsed at the precise moment that Boris John- of intentional lying. In essence, the default pre-
son and his associates entered Downing Street’.3 mise of parliamentary procedure is that PMs,
and MPs alike, are deemed to tell the truth.
1
L. Kuenssberg, ‘What is the PM’s relationship with Accusations voiced in the chamber that MPs
the truth?’, BBC News, 2 May 2021.
2
R. Stewart, ‘Lord of misrule: an amoral figure for a 3
P. Oborne, The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson,
bleak, coarse culture’, Times Literary Supplement, iss. Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Bar-
6136, 6 November 2020. barism, London, Simon and Schuster, 2021, p. 3.
© 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC). 1
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.are liars or tellers of untruths are treated as of respondents to answer ‘no’. In April 2021, for
‘unparliamentary language’ and likely to be example, only 23 per cent of Ipsos MORI’s
met, in the arcane but intimidatory phraseology respondents trusted MPs to tell the truth, little
of Erskine May, with ‘interventions from the changed from 2004 when 27 per cent expressed
Chair’.4 The paradox of such interventions is, the same view.8 Predictably, such findings have
as Dawn Butler (Labour MP, Brent Central) been used as evidence of discontentment with,
points out, that ‘we get in trouble in [Westmin- and public scepticism of, Westminster parlia-
ster] for calling out the lie rather than for lying’.5 mentarians and the UK’s political system more
An examination of this paradox, however, generally. Following from these findings, the
reveals further related paradoxes: of public specific question to be considered here is: while
attitudes and trust; parliamentary rules and voters’ attitudes towards MPs might display an
norms, and regulation of ministerial propriety. element of political ‘pricing in’ of dishonesty, in
Importantly, this nesting of paradox within the sense that they expect MPs not to tell the
further paradox goes to the heart of ‘a central truth, does this necessarily lead to public acqui-
aspect of the British constitution: namely the escence of MPs lying in Parliament?
essential ability of Parliament to acquire accu- It appears that the answer to this question
rate information about government, even is: no. Despite public expectations that MPs
(or perhaps especially) when the government do not tell the truth, there is a basic accep-
does not want to give it’.6 This mode of ‘infor- tance that politicians who tell lies should
matory accountability’—the requirement for suffer some punitive consequences. Just such
ministers to keep Parliament informed—is a a sentiment was evident in a survey con-
key element of the convention of ministerial ducted on behalf of Electoral Calculus in
responsibility.7 As such, Tomkins was in no April 2021, where 86 per cent of respondents
doubt that ‘not lying to Parliament’ was of agreed with the statement that ‘politicians
‘the utmost importance’ in sustaining the con- who lie should lose office’ (with 55 per cent
vention. What this article seeks to discover, strongly agreeing).9 More generally, a Delta-
therefore, is whether, in a supposedly ‘post- poll survey for the Committee on Standards
truth era’, this remains the case. This paradox in Public Life, found that ‘[a]lthough there is
is examined by studying the period from July cynicism and resignation, the public clearly
2019 to December 2021, the first years of Boris believe that MPs and ministers should abide
Johnson’s premiership and years characterised by ethical standards and … that if unethical
by growing concerns within Westminster at behaviour, however minor, goes unchal-
the PM’s proclivity to speak untruths with lenged, this will set a dangerous prece-
seeming impunity in the House of Commons. dent’.10 This sentiment was also supported
by 133,021 signatories to a public petition,
submitted to the UK Parliament and Gov-
Who cares about lying? ernment petitions website in April 2021, pro-
posing that ‘lying in the House of Commons
Historically, MPs in general have tended to be should be made a criminal offence’.11 This
distrusted rather than trusted by the British
public. When citizens are asked whether they 8
Ipsos Mori, Political Monitor, April 2021, p. 21.
trust MPs in general to tell the truth, the pattern 9
Electoral Calculus, MPs Standards Poll, April 2021;
in recent decades has been for some 70 per cent https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_
mpstandards_20210422.html (accessed 2 February
4
Erskine May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceed- 2022).
ings and Usage of Parliament, (25th edn.), 2019, para. 10
Deltapoll, A Research Report from Deltapoll for the
21.24; https://erskinemay.parliament.uk (accessed Committee on Standards in Public Life, September
2 February 2022). 2021, p. 5; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
5
House of Commons Debates, 22 July 2021, vol. 699, uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
col 1216. attachment_data/file/1029914/Deltapoll_
6
A. Tomkins, ‘A right to mislead Parliament?’, Legal Research_Report.pdf (accessed 2 February 2022).
Studies, 1996, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 63–83, at p. 63. 11
UK Government and Parliament, Petitions, ‘Make
7
D. Woodhouse, Ministers and Parliament: Account- lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence’,
ability in Theory and Practice, Oxford, Clarendon closed 14 October 2021; https://petition.parliament.
Press, 1994, p. 29. uk/petitions/576886 (accessed 2 February 2022).
2 DAVID JUDGE
The Political Quarterly © 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).was one of nine petitions submitted to the and might be termed ‘casual lying’, as indiffer-
petitions website on this issue in 2021 alone. ence to, or unconcern with, veracity matched
with a desultory and offhand style of delivery.
Stylistically, Johnson has mastered the deploy-
Types of lying: deliberate, casual ment of rapid-fire casual misrepresentations,
and drive-by conflations and deceptions to promote his
self-serving ‘boosterism’. In this sense, his
Lying is often defined in relation to notions of technique is akin to ‘drive-by lying’: firing off
intentionality and conscious deception; its a false or misleading assertion and then discur-
essence is ‘the deliberate assertion of what sively moving on speedily before the untruth-
the liar believes to be false, with the intention fulness can be registered and formally
of creating a false belief in others’.12 Beyond challenged.
manifest falsehoods and outright lies, how-
ever, is an extensive hinterland of discursive
manipulation and misrepresentation. This hin- Lying in the Commons
terland is peopled not only by ‘real liars’ but
also ‘ordinary liars’ and ‘bullshitters’. ‘Real Paul Seaward neatly captures the paradox of
liars’ are people who tell lies because they lying in the House of Commons: ‘The member
want you ‘to believe something false because who has made the accusation [of lying] is
it is false’.13 ‘Ordinary liars’ are people who called on to withdraw, or rephrase, the allega-
have ‘the goal of asserting something not tion; whereas it is rare that anything is done to
because it is false, but because asserting that reprove the member who is alleged to have
particular thing serves their purposes, regard- lied’.16 Seaward traces the origins of this para-
less of its truth-value’.14 ‘Bullshitters’ are peo- dox back to the sixteenth century and to gen-
ple who do not care about the truth of what tlemanly codes of conduct wherein the
they are saying and ignore the need to ground charge of lying was a potential trigger for ‘gen-
their statements in evidence—to the extent of tlemanly violence’, otherwise known as duel-
speaking gobbledegook, claptrap or pseudo- ling. Whilst the prospect of such violence has
poppycock.15 Much thought and great energy disappeared, it remains the case that the
has been devoted by philosophers, psycholo- charge of ‘uttering a deliberate falsehood’
gists and linguistic scholars to understanding made by an MP in respect of another Member,
these forms of ‘insincere speech’ and to analys- is still ‘regarded with particular seriousness’
ing the differences and overlaps between and and generally leads ‘to prompt intervention
amongst them. from the chair’.17 ‘Intervention’ may result in
The objective here, however, is not to the offending Member being asked to with-
engage with this extensive literature, but draw the accusation; or to pursue the critical
rather to use it to introduce the possibility that charge by tabling a substantive motion for
the insincerity of Johnson’s parliamentary decision by the House; or, in the event of
speech may not necessarily be characterised refusal to withdraw the imputation, suspen-
as a mode of intentional deception but, sion of the Member. Speakers of the House of
instead, may mark a basic indifference to Commons have been particularly assiduous
truthfulness. In this sense, it may be charac- in asking for withdrawal or correction when
terised as a variant of ‘ordinary lying’ (above), PMs have been accused of deliberately or
intentionally lying or misleading the House.
Correspondingly, those MPs who have been
12
S. Hansson and S. Kröger, ‘How a lack of truthful-
asked to make withdrawals, have often been
ness can undermine democratic representation: the
case of post-referendum Brexit discourses’, British equally assiduous to make sure that their
Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 23,
no. 4, 2021, pp. 609–626, at p. 612. 16
P. Seaward, ‘Lies, personalities and unparliamen-
13
A. Stokke, Lying and Insincerity, Oxford, Oxford tary expressions’, History of Parliament Blog;
University Press, 2018, p. 163. https://historyofparliamentblog.wordpress.com/
14
Ibid., p. 166. 2021/04/29/lies-personalities-and-
15
C. Heffer, All Bullshit and Lies? Insincerity, Irrespon- unparliamentary-expressions/ (accessed 2 Febru-
sibility, and the Judgement of Untruthfulness, Oxford, ary 2022).
17
Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 195–202. Erskine May, Treatise on the Law, para. 21.24.
BORIS JOHNSON AND LYING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 3
© 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political The Political Quarterly
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).withdrawal or correction still conveyed the willingness to ‘repeatedly utter falsehoods’,
essence of their initial charge. Indeed, cali- and to make ‘demonstrably untruthful claims
brated retraction has become something of a to Parliament over and over and over again’,
political art form at Westminster.18 he was adjudged to be the diametric opposite
In recent history, the cycle of accusation, of his immediate prime ministerial predeces-
intervention and retraction was notably pro- sors.21 This was an assessment widely shared
nounced during the premiership of Margaret within Westminster, with the parliamentary
Thatcher between 1979 and 1990. On sixteen leaders of six opposition parties signing a joint
occasions, Mrs Thatcher was accused of either letter to Speaker Hoyle in April 2021 to express
deliberately lying to the House or of being a their ‘deep concern that the standing and rep-
liar; yet only on four occasions, when MPs utation of the House is being endangered by
refused to withdraw accusations of intentional the lack of truthfulness in statements by the
lying by the PM, was the cycle broken. On each Prime Minister … This is not a question of
of these occasions the recalcitrant member was occasional inaccuracies or the misleading use
suspended from the Commons. However, of figures: it is a consistent failure to be honest
after Mrs Thatcher demitted office, explicit with the facts’.22
charges against Prime Ministers of intentional This ‘consistent failure’ was quantifiable in
lying decreased markedly, with John Major recorded instances in Hansard Online of the
subject to only two such charges and his proximate connection of the words ‘lying’,
Labour successor, Tony Blair, facing just five ‘liar’, and ‘Prime Minister’. In the first thirty
direct allegations. Nevertheless, the cycle of months of Johnson’s premiership, eighteen such
contrition continued, with accusations made, instances were recorded, whereas in the preced-
but then withdrawn or corrected on each occa- ing forty years only twenty-three instances in
sion. Thinly veiled euphemisms were offered total were recorded.23 Notably, the quasi-
as replacement. If PMs were deemed incapable ritualistic cycle of accusation, intervention and
of lying deliberately, they were, nonetheless, withdrawal noted above, became almost for-
still capable of being ‘economical with the mulaic after 2019. On several occasions, MPs
truth’ or ‘inadvertently [giving] credence to sought to circumvent the strictures regulating
an untruth’.19 After Blair left office, his three ‘unparliamentary language’ with reference to
immediate successors—Gordon Brown, David Johnston’s earlier career—‘remember the Prime
Cameron and Theresa May—had no explicit Minister has been sacked not once but twice for
charges of intentional lying or of being a liar lying’—as evidence that ‘he is clearly a person
recorded against their names in Hansard. The we cannot trust’.24 When the Speaker sought
simple reason for this, according to John Ber- clarification that such statements referred
cow, who served as Speaker across their pre-
mierships, was that neither Brown, Cameron 21
nor May were ‘ever guilty of lying to the Ibid.
22
House of Commons’.20 C. Lucas, I. Blackford, E. Davey, L. Saville-Roberts,
C. Eastwood, and S. Farry, ‘Letter to the Speaker
All of this changed, however, upon Boris
about PM’s lies’, 18 August 2021, https://www.
Johnson’s entry into Number Ten. In his carolinelucas.com/latest/letter-to-the-speaker-
about-pms-lies (accessed 2 February 2022).
23
A basic search of Hansard Online for the period
18
Just to take one example: Denis Skinner (Labour 4 May 1979 to 16 December 2021 results in 564 hits
MP, North-East Derbyshire), when asked to retract when the words ‘lying’ (494) and ‘liar’ (70) are com-
an accusation that Margaret Thatcher had lied in bined separately with the words ‘Prime Minister’.
the Commons, proudly noted that he ‘had got away The 41 instances recorded in this article, however,
with’ the use instead of the statement ‘that the Prime are for direct connections only and exclude, there-
Minister would not recognise the truth if it were fore, false positives (for example, ‘lying low’, ‘lying
sprayed on her eyeballs’, HC Deb., 13 February down’, and so on) and indirect accusations (for
1985: vol. 73, col 344. example, repeating accusations of lying made by
19
M. Mowlam, HC Deb., 24 June 1994, vol. 245, col third persons or in media reports, and so on).
24
499. J. Bercow, HC Deb., 5 November 2003, HC Deb., 29 June 2021, vol. 698, col 124; HC Deb.,
vol. 412, col 809. 4 September 2019, vol. 664, col 313; HC Deb., 23
20
D. Butler and J. Bercow, ‘Order! MPs must be able October 2019, vol. 666, col 964; HC Deb.,
to call out liars’, Times Red Box, 26 July 2021. 4 September 2019, vol. 664, col 312.
4 DAVID JUDGE
The Political Quarterly © 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).simply to the PM’s former career rather than dramaturgic context for Johnson’s casual
intended as allegations about the conduct of lying, as it provides for short, compressed,
the PM in the Commons, Johnson’s critics fast-paced weekly interchanges between PM
tended to plead the former and deny the lat- and MPs, most particularly the Leader of the
ter. Ian Blackford (SNP Ross, Skye and Opposition. As a mix of ‘Punch and Judy poli-
Lochaber) was particularly astute at convey- tics’ and ‘asymmetric warfare’, PMQs under
ing his opinion that Johnson was a liar with- Johnson centred upon his often verbose, hast-
out incurring sanction by the Speaker.25 One ily delivered and jumbled answers which
example will suffice: ‘Parliamentary rules entangled facts and pertinent information
stop me from saying that the Prime Minister with falsehoods and inaccuracies.29 And it
has repeatedly lied … but may I ask the ques- was precisely this modus operandi that gave rise
tion: are you a liar, Prime Minister?’.26 In this to the ‘deep concern’ within Westminster
instance the Speaker ruled that Blackford’s (noted above).
comments, although not constituting unpar-
liamentary language, were ‘unsavoury and
not what we would expect’. A direct accusa- ‘Getting away with it’
tion that the PM had spent his time in office
Dawn Butler, when reflecting upon her sus-
‘misleading the House and the country and
pension from the Commons, was convinced
… [of having] lied to this House and the
that Johnson would ‘continue to lie because
country over and over again’ was still
he gets away with it’.30 She was particularly
deemed, nevertheless, to constitute unpar-
frustrated that there appeared to be few
liamentary language.27 Dawn Butler was
enforceable sanctions or corrective processes
suspended from the House for making this
to dissuade the PM from misleading or misin-
allegation, without apology; and she
forming the House (whether intentional or
remained adamant that ‘Somebody needs to
not). Notably, the sanctions and corrective
tell the truth in this House that the Prime
processes that do exist are largely based upon
Minister has lied’.
constitutional convention and principle.
Butler’s belief that Johnson was a habitual
The first principle is simply that correction
liar was shared by many of her parliamentary
will be made ‘at the earliest opportunity’,
colleagues. The PM’s propensity for casual
where an ‘inadvertent error’ in the provision
lying and his indifference to untruth was iden-
of information to Parliament is made by the
tified as a hallmark of his premiership in obser-
PM (or other ministers). This expectation is
vations of his ‘cavalier attitude in …
inhered in the Ministerial Code which, when
misleading the House’, or his ‘consistent fail-
updated in 2019, included a foreword signed
ure to be honest with the facts’.28 In this
by Johnson pledging to uphold the very high-
regard, casual lying extended far beyond the
est standards of propriety. In large part, Dawn
deliberate proffering of misleading statements
Butler’s exasperation arose from the repeated
in the House to include the elisions, the mis-
failure of Johnson to adhere to the Ministerial
representations and the ‘culpable ignorance’
Code and its principles. In her words, the PM
displayed by Johnson. Indeed, Prime Minis-
‘didn’t have the decency to come to Parliament
ter’s Question Time (PMQs) provided
and correct the record’. Repeated complaints
by MPs about the failure of the PM to make
25 such correction led the Speaker to remind the
Blackford did, however, incur the displeasure of
the Speaker shortly after the period under study House that: ‘All Members should correct the
here. He refused, in the debate on Sue Gray’s update
on her investigation into ‘alleged gatherings’ in 29
A. Hazarika and T. Hamilton, Punch & Judy Poli-
Whitehall, to withdraw repeated statements that tics: An Insiders’ Guide to Prime Minister’s Questions,
Johnson had ‘misled’ the House and ‘cannot be London, Biteback, 2018, p. 16, p. 66; see for example
trusted to tell the truth’. HC Deb. 31 January 2022, HC Deb., 10 February 2021, vol. 689, col 323.
vol. 708., cols. 27-29. 30
D. Butler, ‘We need to insist MPs tell the truth’,
26
HC Deb., 28 April 2021, vol. 693, col 370. Naked Politics, 13 November 2021, https://
27
HC Deb., 22 July 2021, vol. 699, col 1216. nakedpolitics.co.uk/2021/11/13/dawn-butler-we-
28
HC Deb., 17 March 2021, vol. 691, col 443; Lucas need-to-insist-that-mps-tell-the-truth/ (accessed 2
et al., ‘Letter to the Speaker’. February 2022).
BORIS JOHNSON AND LYING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 5
© 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political The Political Quarterly
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).record if they make an inaccurate statement to What can be done?
the House. They can do so by raising a point of
order or in debate, or, in the case of Ministers, Context: uniqueness
they can make a statement or issue a written If the problem is seen to be uniquely associated
ministerial statement. … It is not dishonour- with Johnson, in that there is ‘no doubt what-
able to make a mistake, but to seek to avoid soever that [he] is in a league of his own’, then
admitting one is a different matter’. Pointedly, the answer to the question ‘what can be done’
he went on to emphasise that ‘the Govern- is simple: get the PM to stop lying.35 However,
ment’s own ministerial code could not be as his friends and foes alike attest, his personal
clearer about what is expected of Ministers’.31 and professional history provides little hope or
A second principle, also specified in the expectation that he is willing or capable of
Ministerial Code, is that ‘Ministers who know- resetting his indifference to truth. An alterna-
ingly mislead Parliament will be expected to tive simple solution, therefore, is to recognise
offer their resignation to the Prime Minister’. that Johnson is indeed a liar—whether inten-
However, there is no provision as to what tional or casual—and that his indifference to
should happen if the PM is the person know- truthfulness should be allowed to be ‘called
ingly misleading Parliament. Although John- out’ by MPs in the House. This would require
son professed to the Commons’ Liaison a fundamental reset of the conventions and
Committee that he was bound by the code, courtesies of the Commons in relation to the
he was not convinced that infringement of use of unparliamentary language. These con-
the code by ministers—and by logical exten- ventions are based upon the presumptions
sion, therefore, by himself—should necessar- that ‘every member of the public has the right
ily lead to resignation.32 Expectation of to expect that his or her Member of Parliament
resignation following deliberate ministerial will behave with civility [and] with the highest
misleading of Parliament was undermined level of probity and with integrity’; and that
further by an absence of criteria in the code ‘Members should be mindful of the impact of
as to how intentionality was to be deter- what they say’.36 In their combination, pro-
mined and by whom. If intentionality was bity, integrity and mindfulness of impact
to be determined in Parliament, then a underpin the assumption that MPs are ‘hon-
Catch-22 conundrum would arise from the ourable’ and hence would not utter deliberate
Speaker’s insistence that: ‘We must be very falsehoods in the House. Accusations to the
careful about the word “misleading”. I am contrary, therefore, should not be made by
sure that no Member of this House would MPs and, if made, should be withdrawn
ever mislead anybody’.33 Seemingly, the immediately.37 Of course, the withdrawal of
only way of breaking out of this conundrum an accusation of intentional lying makes sense
would be for a Prime Minister to confess to in the context of a House populated by stead-
having made a deliberately misleading state- fastly righteous members; but the issue raised
ment in Parliament. Such an admission of by Johnson’s exceptional deployment of casual
impropriety, however unlikely, might then lying is whether the context has changed.
be treated by the Commons as a contempt.34 Context matters: Erskine May leaves no
However, sanction for contempt is also doubt that what constitutes unparliamentary
unlikely, as the House has been notably language ‘is subject to the context in which a
restrained in dealing with matters of con- word or phrase is used’. The significance of
tempt, to the extent that many such acts have context is similarly reinforced in The Rules of
simply been ‘overlooked’, resolved infor- Behaviour and Courtesies issued by Speaker
mally, or left unpunished. Hoyle in September 2021. The changed
35
Butler and Bercow, ‘Order!’.
36
Speaker Bercow, HC Deb., 8 May 2013, vol. 563,
31
HC Deb., 11 March 2021, vol. 690, col 1001. col 2; Speaker Hoyle, HC Deb., 19 December 2019,
32
HC 835, Oral Evidence from the Prime Minister, vol. 669, col 28.
37
Liaison Committee, 17 November 2021, Q. 6. House of Commons, Rules of Behaviour and Courte-
33
HC Deb., 11 June 2020, vol. 677, col 406. sies in the House of Commons, issued by the Speaker
34
Erskine May, Treatise on the Law, para. 15.27. and Deputy Speakers, September 2021.
6 DAVID JUDGE
The Political Quarterly © 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).circumstances of a government led by a PM adjudicating on matters of ‘truth and accu-
with a general indifference to truthfulness racy’.41 In their opinion, such matters are best
might be propitious, therefore, for recognition left to external fact checking or to internal deter-
of the term ‘casual lying’ as defined above. mination within the rules of Parliament.
Yet, this remains unlikely given the Speaker’s Externally, Johnson’s inaccuracies and
rigid adherence to the procedural fiction that untruths have been subject to frequent outside
no MP, and certainly no PM, would deliber- ‘fact checking’, and forensic correction, for
ately speak an ‘untruth’ or a ‘mistruth’.38 example by the BBC’s Reality Check, Channel
While Speaker Hoyle has countenanced the 4’s FactCheck, by campaigning organisations
possibility that the ‘right information’ might such as Full Fact and the Good Law Project, as
not have been provided by the PM on occa- well as by official agencies including the Office
sion, nonetheless, he has refused to be for Statistics Regulation and the Children’s
‘dragged into arguments about whether a Commissioner. Internally, the rules of Parlia-
statement is inaccurate or not’.39 ment already determine that ministers are under
an obligation to ‘correct any inadvertent error at
the earliest opportunity’.42 Ministerial correc-
Factual (in)accuracy: fact checking and tions are recorded, and cross-referenced with
correction the original wording, in a distinct section of the
daily Hansard and published online at the earli-
If procedural convention and political sensitiv- est opportunity. The online search function for
ity prevent the Speaker from questioning the contributions of each minister also lists the
intentionality, or adjudicating upon veracity, total number of corrections made by that indi-
then the onus falls upon others to challenge vidual. In the case of Boris Johnson, five correc-
the ‘rightness’ of the information provided tions were made when he was Foreign
by the PM to MPs. Within Westminster, the Secretary, but no corrections were made by
Commons’ Procedure Committee was disin- him in the first thirty months of his premiership.
clined in 2021 to review the rules governing As PM, therefore, Johnson appeared to be indif-
the accuracy of MPs’ statements and direct dis- ferent to the obligations and imperatives of the
honesty in Parliament. The chair of the commit- Ministerial Code and the House’s resolution for
tee, Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire immediate correction of inaccurate information.
Moorlands), while willing to countenance that This seeming insouciance might be chal-
improvements might be made to ‘the visibility lenged, however, if the process for recording
and transparency of corrections’, and that evi- prime-ministerial, and ministerial, corrections
dence on this matter could be taken as part of was to be amended to enable non-ministerial
the committee’s ongoing work, maintained, MPs to request correction, with the request
nonetheless, that the way to uphold the princi- and the ministerial response then recorded in
ple that ministers are responsible for the accu- a distinct correction section of Hansard. The
racy of the information they provide was incentive for the PM both to make meaningful
through the use of existing procedures and the responses to such requests and to reduce the
‘persistence and initiative’ of MPs them- need for correction, might well be maximised
selves.40 Similarly, both the independent Parlia- if a cumulative list of corrections was pub-
mentary Commissioner for Standards and the lished to enable comparison of the frequency
Committee on Standards expressed the view of ministerial corrections across government.43
that it would be ‘impracticable’ to devise an
internal system for investigating ‘accusations
of direct, deliberate dishonesty’ or of 41
HC 270, Review of the Code of Conduct: Proposals for
Consultation, House of Commons Committee on
Standards, 29 November 2021, paras. 46, 49.
38 42
HC Deb., 28 January 2021, vol. 688, col 547. HC Deb.,19 March 1997, vol. 292, col 1047.
39 43
HC Deb., 11 March 2021, vol. 690, col 1001. The Scottish Parliament has a dedicated webpage,
40
Letter from K. Bradley, chair of Procedure Com- ‘Corrections and changes to the Official Report’,
mittee, to C. Lucas MP, 14 June 2021; https:// which provides a cumulative list of corrections.
committees.parliament.uk/publications/6304/ Notably, corrections can only be made by the MSP
documents/69420/default/ (accessed 2 February who provided the inaccurate information recorded
2022). in the Official Report.
BORIS JOHNSON AND LYING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 7
© 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political The Political Quarterly
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).In the absence of such a simple change to reply to my letters. I have also tabled written
the correction process, which would undoubt- parliamentary questions asking when he will
edly be procedurally problematic as well reply to my letters and have been told that it
as politically contentious to effect, other will be ‘in due course’. I tabled other written
established procedures will continue to be parliamentary questions just today, asking
again when I will get the courtesy of a
used to highlight the indifference of the response. I also raised a point of order [and]
PM to factual accuracy. Indeed, the Speaker informed the Prime Minister that I was doing
(and Deputies), along with the House so. With the matter still unresolved, I was
authorities have not been averse to providing advised to apply for this Adjournment debate,
advice—both publicly and privately to which was kindly granted by Mr Speaker. This
MPs—as to the appropriate procedures is the very first time in 16 years as a Member of
through which ministerial acknowledgement Parliament—having been in the House with
and correction of inaccuracies in the provision five different Prime Ministers—that I have
of information to the House might be sought. needed to take such a prolonged course of
These include points of order, Early Day action to try to correct the record.45
Motions (EDMs) and debates on urgent ques-
tions, adjournment, or a substantive motion. Debates on a substantive motion, ending in
Points of order have been used to ask the a vote, enable matters relating to the conduct
Speaker to use his ‘good offices to get the of MPs, including that of the PM, to be raised
Prime Minister to return to the House to cor- in the House, and allow for ‘critical language
rect the record’. While there is little expecta- of a kind which would not [normally] be
tion that the PM can be compelled to take allowed in speeches’. This provision enabled
such action, there is hope that a point of order the SNP to use one of its Opposition Day
will draw attention to the charge of inaccuracy debates on 30 November 2021 to censure
and the need for prime ministerial correction. Johnson for lack of probity generally and for
Similarly, EDMs, such as the one sponsored untruthfulness specifically. In this context,
by Dawn Butler on the conduct of the PM in the Deputy Speaker acknowledged that ‘the
September 2021, may draw attention to the specific and particular motion’ tabled by the
issue. Moreover, MPs may apply for a debate SNP meant that it was within the rules for
on an urgent question, or on adjournment, to the PM to be called ‘a liar’ and a ‘peddler of
pursue specific instances where the PM has untruths’, even if it remained ‘preferable that
misled the House. Former Speaker Bercow such words should not be used in this
was firmly of the opinion that: ‘if every time place’.46 Opposition MPs took full advantage
the prime minister fibs, he is required to of the provisions of this motion to spotlight
answer urgent question after urgent question the untruths and lies of the Prime Minister;
or to stay to deal with a torrent of points of while 321 Conservative MPs took full advan-
order about that dishonesty, it might start to tage of the motion to record their support for
concentrate his mind’.44 Yet, Johnson’s past the PM through their votes at the end of the
record reveals a consistent unwillingness to debate.
answer urgent questions in person or respond
to requests raised in points of order. The PM’s
obduracy was graphically illustrated by Dame
Political will
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston Upon Hull) For all the ‘persistence and initiative’ of MPs in
in an adjournment debate on funding for deploying existing procedures to try to hold
Transport for the North (TfN). In querying the PM to account for his casual lying, it
the factual accuracy of the PM’s answer on remained the case in the first thirty months of
cuts to TfN she noted: his premiership that Johnson continued to lie
and continued to refuse to correct his untruths.
Since my exchange with the Prime Minister Calls for Parliament to react because it had ‘the
[at PMQs], I have written to him twice … to power to do so’, or for ‘MPs of all parties who
request that he corrects his statement. He has care for the truth … to get off their bums and
yet to do so, and I have received no substantive
45
HC Deb., 17 March 2021, vol. 691, col 443.
44
Butler and Bercow, ‘Order!’. 46
HC Deb., 30 November 2021, vol. 704, col 840.
8 DAVID JUDGE
The Political Quarterly © 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).demand change’, miss the point.47 The basic, his capacity to speed away from any single
but elemental, point of UK parliamentary life untruth without becoming grid-locked in unre-
is that Parliament, as an institution, has little lenting scrutiny and challenge to that untruth.
collective identity or few collective preferences The unrelenting criticism of Johnson’s handling
other than as the sum of disparate other insti- of allegations of ‘Tory sleaze’ and ‘partygate’ in
tutional identities and priorities—constellated the closing months of 2021 tested both contin-
primarily around roles and representative gent factors: first, by a precipitous drop in the
practices associated with party and govern- Conservative Party’s polling figures; and sec-
ment.48 Notions of a unified, cohesive ‘politi- ond, by Conservative MPs acknowledging that
cal will’ in Westminster thus tend to splinter the PM had become ‘traffic-jammed’, in a con-
when confronted by parliamentary parties, gestion of his own making, by persistently
differentiated by their own allegiances and making misleading and untruthful responses
preferences, and by the overriding fealty of to these allegations. As one former minister
majority party MPs to their Prime Minister. observed, these responses were ‘lies. No one
In these circumstances, as the leaders of six believed him. Ministers didn’t believe him …
parties made clear in correspondence with we were constantly misled’.50 Significantly,
the chair of the Procedure Committee, ‘when prominent Conservative members also began
the government of the day has a substantial to place political markers to remind the PM that
majority … the influence of the Whips … ren- deliberately misleading the Commons ‘would
ders [existing parliamentary] mechanisms be a resignation matter’.51
unlikely to either result in objective consider-
ation of the facts or to stand any significant
chance of delivering genuine accountability’.49 In the grand scheme of things
If the adversarial context of Westminster Boris Johnson’s propensity to mislead, to misin-
serves to dissipate collective ‘political will’ to form, to tell untruths and to lie openly has been
hold the PM accountable for his untruths, then a characteristic of his premiership; whether in
a more expedient unilateral ‘political will’ relation to mishandling the UK’s ‘world lead-
needs to be identified. At first glance the Con- ing’ response to Covid; misleading the Queen
servative parliamentary party would appear over the reasons for proroguing Parliament;
to hold most potential for the embodiment of dealing with ‘Tory sleaze’ (in various guises
just such a will. Yet, since 2019, Conservative of ‘cronyism’ and ‘wallpapergate’) or, more
MPs have either felt beholden, cowed, or spectacularly in early 2022, responding to ‘par-
seduced by Johnson’s manifest popular and tygate’. Indeed, the political maelstrom of ‘par-
electoral appeal. In these circumstances, they tygate’ revealed just how gridlocked Johnson
have largely been complicit in Johnson’s casual had become by his own ‘obfuscation, prevari-
untruthfulness, and acquiescent to his drive-by cation, and evasion’—with serial investigations
style of lying, in the belief that any particular lie by the Cabinet Office (headed by civil servant
would rapidly fade from public view as he Sue Gray) and the Metropolitan Police into
veered towards the next misleading statement. the discovery, chronicling and prosecution of
But such acceptance was contingent both upon wrongdoing related to breaches of Covid
Johnson’s continuing electoral allure, and upon restrictions in Downing Street and Whitehall;
with seemingly mercenary and transactional
47
calculation by Conservative MPs of the contin-
Former PM, J. Major, Interview, Today, BBC Radio gency of their continued support for their party
4, 6 November 2021; Butler and Bercow, ‘Order!’.
leader when set against the electoral fallout
48
See D. Judge and C. Leston-Bandeira, ‘The institu-
tional representation of Parliament’, Political Studies,
vol. 66, no. 1, 2018, pp. 154–172.
49
C. Lucas, I. Blackford, E. Davey, L. Saville-Roberts, 50
Quoted in J. Elgot, ‘“No one believed him”: Tory
C. Eastwood, and S. Farry, ‘Further correspondence MPs mutinous over Johnson’s actions’, The Guard-
from Caroline Lucas MPs and other MPs relating to ian, 8 December 2021.
51
ministerial accountability’, Procedure Committee, R. Gale MP, quoted in R. Mason and A. Allegretti,
3 June 2021; https://committees.parliament.uk/ ‘No. 10 faces Tory and public backlash over Christ-
publications/6303/documents/69419/default/ mas party video’, The Guardian, 8 December 2021;
(accessed 2 February 2022). D. Ross MP, BBC News Scotland, 8 December 2021.
BORIS JOHNSON AND LYING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 9
© 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political The Political Quarterly
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).attendant upon his actions; and with a harden- ministerial, responsibility, then not lying to
ing of public opinion in favour of the resigna- Parliament is a foundational principle of par-
tion of the PM over this issue.52 liamentary government in the UK. This basic
Allegations of wrongdoing and lying had principle is not to be dismissed as some
shadowed Johnson throughout his premier- peripheral matter: in itself, it is integral to
ship. Yet, what distinguished ‘partygate’ in ‘the grand scheme of things’. It matters. It mat-
late 2021 and early 2022 was the intense ‘pub- tered twenty-five years ago when Tomkins
licness’ in which these allegations were pur- concluded: ‘This is a live issue at the moment
sued: in terms of sheer weight of publicity, … the misleading of Parliament is a pressing
the scale of public investigation, and the extent concern which requires not only recognition,
of public recoil at events. When set alongside but appropriate regulation as well’.53 It mat-
‘partygate’, therefore, findings that the PM ters still: it remains a live issue, its malignancy
was directly accused of lying in the House of has been increasingly recognised during John-
Commons on eighteen occasions across the son’s premiership, and, correspondingly, the
preceding thirty months and of failing to cor- need for ‘appropriate regulation’ is ever more
rect manifest untruths in the House might not pressing.
be regarded as a big deal. Yet, if ‘informatory
accountability’—the simple provision of accu- David Judge is Emeritus Professor of Politics,
rate information to Parliament—is a prerequi- School of Government and Public Policy, Uni-
site of ministerial, and especially prime versity of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
52
T. Loughton, Conservative MP for East Worthing
and Shoreham, Facebook, 15 January 2022; https://
www.facebook.com/TimLoughtonEWAS/posts/
3172178959731855; 63 per cent of respondents to a
YouGov/Times survey, conducted on 12/13 January
2022, thought that Johnson should resign; https://
docs.cdn.yougov.com/sdo586qdkp/TheTimes_
No10Party_220113.pdf (both accessed 2 February
2022). 53
Tomkins, ‘A right to mislead Parliament’, p. 83.
10 DAVID JUDGE
The Political Quarterly © 2022 The Author. The Political Quarterly published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Political
Quarterly Publishing Co (PQPC).You can also read
