So I don’t think the prime minister is likely to resign and I don’t think he will be forced to do so. But should he? My view remains that he should. Ministers set the law and breaking the law is a resigning matter.
The strongest argument against him resigning is that it would be disproportionate. But it is not an argument I can accept. There are three serious failings of which the prime minister has now been found guilty. He has broken the law himself. He has presided over widespread lawbreaking among his staff. And he has not told parliament the truth about this lawbreaking. To argue that all this is unimportant is completely unacceptable.
Among other things, it involves suggesting that breaking the Covid laws was something that did not matter very much. But that is quite wrong. They were put in place because breaking them could result in someone dying. Which the prime minister knows because he caught Covid and almost did die.
I would completely understand if the chancellor felt a sense of injustice at being called to a meeting by someone else and arrived to find others there socialising, but the rules, which his government set, were the same for everyone. And in any case, the prime minister does not have this defence for the management of his staff or his attendance at other events. Or for what he told the Commons.
Parliament relies on ministers diligently taking trouble to inform themselves of the facts and then telling the truth to parliament about it. At least one part of that did not happen. If parliament decides that this does not matter, a line will have been crossed.
Along with the argument about disproportionality is the one about timing: the suggestion that it would be wrong to remove Johnson during the war in Ukraine. I do not accept this, either. I believe Johnson’s conduct of policy towards Ukraine has been commendable. There have been lacunae — the policy on refugees in particular — but overall he has been clear-thinking and brave and has shown leadership internationally. However, his policy is that of his government and of parliament. Not just of him. He is prime minister, not president.
Nor is this just some abstract, constitutional point. I do not believe that Britain changing its prime minister would make the slightest difference to the conduct or outcome of the war in Ukraine. I am confident that an alternative Conservative prime minister would carry on the policy of the government with exactly the same panache and effectiveness. In any case, the struggle with Russia is likely to go on for years. Suggesting we cannot change prime minister while it proceeds will prove impractical.
And the argument that Johnson’s downfall would give succour to Putin? There seem to me two objections to this. The first is that it grants the Russian dictator a say in British politics which I am unwilling to accord him. I don’t care what does or doesn’t please him. The other objection is that our battle with Putin is precisely over the rule of law and the defence of democracy. It would be an odd thing if we failed to adhere to that at home in order to advance the case for it abroad.
