Boris Johnson: Conservative MPs divided over Partygate voteon June 15, 2023 at 5:57 pm

Conservative MPs are split over whether or not to approve a report condemning Boris Johnson for misleading Parliament over Covid rule-breaking.

The former PM has branded the Privileges Committee’s findings “deranged” – and his most loyal supporters are set to vote against it.

But other Tory MPs are torn about what to do, as Mr Johnson remains popular with many party members.

No 10 has not said if Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will attend Monday’s vote.

“He hasn’t yet had time to fully consider the report. He does intend to take the time to do that,” said the PM’s official spokesman.

If Mr Johnson had still been in Parliament, MPs would be voting on whether to suspend him for 90 days, which would have triggered a by-election to replace him.

But Mr Johnson has already stood down, with a by-election set for 20 July in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency.

So the main punishment available is stripping him of the parliamentary pass former MPs are normally entitled to hold.

Nevertheless, many Conservatives face a dilemma. Voting against the report’s recommendations risks alienating those local party activists who want Mr Johnson gone, but voting for it risks angering fans of Mr Johnson, who believe he has been unfairly hounded out of Parliament.

Many, as a result, may well choose to abstain to keep their distance from the vote.

One former government minister told the BBC they were planning to vote for the report on Monday, but in a sign of the febrile mood did not want to say so publicly yet in case “something happens” over the weekend.

Another said: “I think I’m hovering between voting for the report and abstaining, the latter solely because voting for it will rile members.”

One senior party figure said: “The report speaks for itself.” They described the 90-day suspension as “a bit tough, but hey-ho”.

Tim Loughton, MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, told the BBC he was likely to support the report, describing the committee as “legitimate” and their conclusions “damning”.

Asked if most Conservatives would also vote in favour, he said: “I think so – there may be some who will want to abstain, there will be some of his dwindling band of loyalists who want to repeat some of the barbs he has thrown at the committee, but I’d be really surprised if this doesn’t go through very easily next week.”

So far 12 Conservatives have publicly criticised the committee with Johnson-ally Nadine Dorries suggesting Tories who vote for the report should be kicked out of the party.

Sir Simon Clarke said he was “amazed at the harshness” of the committee, while Sir James Duddridge tweeted: “Why not go the full way, put Boris in the stocks and provide rotten food to throw at him?”

Jacob Rees-Mogg said he would “probably” vote against the report, but added that MPs as a whole would be likely to vote in favour. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP are all expected to support the committee’s findings.

MPs will be able to amend the motion approving the report, when it comes before the House of Commons on 19 June, which is also Mr Johnson’s 59th birthday.

Following a year-long investigation, the seven-person Privileges Committee’s report found Mr Johnson had “personal knowledge” of Covid-rule breaches in Downing Street but had repeatedly failed to “pro-actively investigate” the facts.

The committee said officials had not advised Mr Johnson that social distancing guidelines were followed at all times – contrary to what he said in the House of Commons at the time.

The report said the initial proposed sanction was increased “in light of Mr Johnson’s conduct” in the past few days – including breaching confidentiality rules and “being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee”.

Mr Johnson announced he would resign last Friday after receiving the report. He used his resignation letter to strongly attack the committee, accusing the chair, Labour MP Harriet Harman, of bias.

The committee said the statement was “completely unacceptable”.