From London
On the eve of the publication of the report that can decide the fate of Boris Johnson at the head of the British government, the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, Keir Starmerthey met in the traditional PMQ (Prime Minister Question Time) Every Wednesday at noon. In these sessions, the leader of the opposition questions the Prime Minister for about 15 minutes about any national or international issue (the Malvinas was at the time). The event is chaired by a speaker that he arbitrates so that the exchanges respect the parliamentary rules of the game and that in extreme cases he can kick a disputed rebel out of the sessions. The event is followed live and direct on TV, radio and the portals of the main newspapers and has a theatrical landscape. There is the stage itself -the Chamber-, the role of the direct spectators of this duel -the deputies-, the turns of each one to speak and in what way: the one who makes use of the word authorized by the speaker he stands up and his opponent listens to him sitting down. When he finishes speaking he immediately sits down and his rival stands up while the direct spectators –the deputies– remain seated. Exchanges are synthetic. They are not speeches: they are question and answer. They don’t last more than two or three minutes.
As for the content, this Wednesday could not be other than the party scandal and if the prime minister had lied in the broad sense of the term mislead (lying, deliberately deceiving, telling half-truths to confuse, etc.) be it to society, to the media and, above all -a matter of almost automatic resignation- to Parliament. With an investigation about to reveal the results of him, with another by the police announced on Wednesday with even more dramatic consequences, Johnson tried to beat around the bush while Starmer tried to corner him on whether or not he was going to resign. But more than telling indirectly, this chronicler will reproduce his words translated with a few parentheses to contextualize.
A couple of clarifications about the venue. It does not have the shape of a hemicycle: the official and opposition benches are facing each other and during the debate they intervene as fans: they encourage, applaud, boo, laugh or point their fingers at their rivals. Despite this football atmosphere, the confrontation – especially yesterday’s or the debates with the big issues of the day – synthesizes with admirable precision what is at stake and yesterday was no exception. Johnson will be BJ in the dialogue and Starmer, Leader of the Labor Opposition, will be KS. This is how it started:
KS: (…begins by thanking the Mr Speaker give way to address the prime minister….) Thank you, Mr Speaker. The code of ministers says that ministers who knowingly deceive must resign from their positions (….mislead….) to Parliament. Does the prime minister think this code applies to him as well?
BJ: (addressing first to the speakeras he will often do during the debate and then to Keir Starmer) Mister Speaker, of course. But let me tell the whole House that what you’re asking me to do is comment on an ongoing investigation, something that, as you know, Mr Speaker, I can not do because it is prohibited by law. And this basic rule he (….Johnson points a finger at Starmer…) as a lawyer should know more than anyone. Therefore I am going to continue with what I have done and it is my task, to continue creating the fastest economic recovery in Europe in times of covid, to provide the fastest third dose of vaccination and to follow an economic policy that has given work to many more people than before. And besides, tomorrow we will launch a fantastic program so that half a million people who collect unemployment have a job (… ovation from the conservative caucus for a prime minister who is obviously trying to divert the focus of the scandal and put it on his alleged achievements at the government level , incidentally launching an ad that covers the crisis a little more…)
KS: (….the leader of the opposition begins to respond when the wave of shouting from the Conservative caucus subsides. With typical English irony, he points to the attempt to divert the focus of the question to another issue….) I suppose then that the prime minister he said he thinks the parliamentary code applies to him and therefore he should resign. On December 1 the Prime Minister told this House of Commons in relation to the holidays that all protocols had been met. On December 8 the Prime Minister told this House that he had been repeatedly assured since these allegations were made that there had been no party. This is critical. He said that. Given that he himself believes that the code of parliamentary conduct applies to his post, is he going to resign? (…. applause from the Labor caucus mixed with weaker cries of protest from the Conservatives).
BJ: No. Mr Speaker (i.e. I am not resigning) but since he asked about restrictions during covid, let me remind this House and the country that he has been constantly opportunistic, changing his position on the pandemic. He would have locked us up in the summer and Christmas and it was because we didn’t listen to this Captain hindsihgt (hindsight: retrospective look or understanding, the one who thinks with the Monday newspaper) that we have the fastest growing economy of the G7, Mr. Speaker, and we have all the calls right (and we have made all the decisions that had to be made well) (conservative bench applause)
KS: To think you said hindsight and at the time he didn’t even realize he was at a party (laughter from the Labor caucus at this allusion to what Johnson said in Parliament two weeks ago: that he had thought the garden party at 10 Downing Street ” It was a work meeting”). So let me clarify and spell out the significance and importance of what happened yesterday. And don’t shout (he tells the conservative caucus) that he is going to have to defend this absurd argument from the prime minister. Sue Gray gave the police the information about what happened because it is a potential specific crime, a matter (not only political but) police. Prime Minister, if you do not understand the significance of what happened yesterday, it would be desperate because the police, upon seeing the material, subjected it to a test to determine if it could constitute one of the most flagrant violations of the confinement rules during the pandemic. The police made it clear that there was a violation of the rules and that those who committed it were aware that it was a crime and that there was no justification… (shouting from the conservative caucus against what Starmer says and intervention of the speaker to bring order to the room with a new English irony)
speaker: If Conservative MPs don’t want to hear what the Labor leader is saying, please leave the House. You will be very surprised but those who elected you are very interested in hearing what is said. Please Mr Starmer.
KS: (continues where he left off) The police spelled out the seriousness of the material they had passed to him. Does the prime minister not understand the damage he is causing to the country and the disbelief in politics he is generating?
B.J.: Mr Speakeralthough the subject that this Right Honorable Gentlemen you are dealing with is important, you should know, as a lawyer, that I cannot comment on this. But what I can tell you is that in the cabinet we are talking about the most serious issue facing the nation and the world. It seems that he was unaware that there is a crisis on the Ukrainian border. And this government is uniting the entire West to agree on the toughest possible measures to prevent President Putin from launching a catastrophic invasion. This is what the government is doing. He, as leader of the opposition, should have more height. (new shouting, new intervention of the Mr. Speaker)
speaker: Everyone has to stop with this yelling because the electorate wants to listen and understand what is happening. so pleaseLet’s give voters the respect they deserve. I wouldn’t want to do it, but the next time you interrupt, you’re out of the debate.
KS: Mr Speaker, this is the prime minister who went into hiding for five days to say nothing about the scandal allegations. And now he does not want to confirm whether the entire report or just its conclusions will be published.
A pause and conclusion
Let’s interrupt here, approximately at minute 8 of the duel between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition that can be heard in full on YouTube. In the following six minutes, the same themes and accusations are reiterated in broad strokes, adding details and evidence and, of course, shouting. The atmosphere continues to be that mixture of Shakespearean theater from the days of “The Globe” with the deputies in the role of a bellicose and participatory audience, with tones of turbulent, but solemn and polite English school, with the director (the speaker) in charge of putting order. And while it may, thanks to English humor, sound like a comedy, it is a crucial and tragic chapter in the context of the pandemic of what may be the beginning of the end of the government of Boris Johnson.
The Gray report is presented this Thursday. If it is lapidary, the second act of the political outcome will be launched. The president of the 1922 committee (government deputies without a government position), Graham Brady, should receive a total of 54 letters from the MPs in which they express that they no longer have confidence in Johnson as a party leader. With this number, a first conservative internal electoral round is opened in which more than half plus one of the deputies (about 180) will have to give their support to Johnson if he wants to stay in the car. If he does not get this support (and today it seems quite difficult for him to get it), he will step aside hoping that in the following internal electoral rounds the Conservative deputies will choose a leader among the different candidates. Once elected, this leader will automatically become Prime Minister.
The whole process takes three weeks at most. So it was with Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May: the male Boris Johnson will not have a crown, he will not be the exception.
In memory of my half-brother Juan Florencio Justo and my brother-in-law Guillermo Núñez who passed away this fateful January.
.