Analyzing Key Findings of the “Partygate” Report Related to Boris Johnson

Below are the significant findings from the investigation into partygate.

Ninety-day Suspension

The privileges committee determined that if Boris Johnson had not resigned as an MP, he would have faced a 90-day suspension. This unprecedented penalty would have triggered a recall petition, leading to a by-election in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat. The committee explained that the severity of the sanction was influenced by Mr Johnson’s derogatory remarks about the committee, referring to it as a “kangaroo court.” Furthermore, the punishment was more substantial in comparison to SNP MP Margaret Ferrier’s because of Johnson’s former role as prime minister.

Revocation of Commons Pass

In light of Boris Johnson’s deception of Parliament, the committee decided that he should have his Commons pass revoked. Since he has resigned as an MP, he cannot be suspended, which justifies the additional sanction. Former MPs are typically granted Commons passes, allowing them to socialize in Parliament’s bars and restaurants even after leaving politics. Consequently, taking away this pass is a highly unusual measure. The committee’s report stated, “Considering Mr Johnson is no longer a Member, we recommend denying him a former Member’s pass.”

Six Rule-Breaking Events

The report identifies six occasions at Downing Street where lockdown rules were disregarded. It concludes that there is no reasonable belief that these events were “essential for work purposes.” The report highlights Johnson’s refusal to confirm that he would have advised the public that work events solely intended to boost morale complied with lockdown regulations. The MPs stated that it is “unlikely, based on the available evidence, that Mr Johnson genuinely believed the Rules or Guidance were being adhered to.”

Deliberate Intent to Mislead

The privileges committee not only found that Boris Johnson misled the House but also that he did so intentionally. They outlined several instances where he was “disingenuous” during the inquiry, suggesting a deliberate or at least reckless disdain for the truth. The MPs found it highly improbable that Johnson genuinely believed the statements he made to the House at the time, and even less likely that he continues to believe them today. In their conclusion, they asserted that “someone who repeatedly exhibits recklessness and denies what is obvious demonstrates intent.” The committee deemed many aspects of Johnson’s defense as lacking credibility, providing a sufficient basis to conclude that he intended to mislead.

Note: This story is continuously being updated.