If ministers “knowingly mislead parliament” they are “expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister”, according to the ministerial code. But what if the prime minister himself lies to parliament? It has happened once, demonstrably, in modern history, when Anthony Eden told the House of Commons in 1956 “there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt” in the dispute over Suez. He never accepted that he had misled parliament, but he resigned three weeks later, ostensibly because he was ill. The real reason was that he had lost the confidence of Conservative MPs.
Something similar may be about to happen to Boris Johnson. There has been much sound and fury about claims that he has misled parliament, but if he goes it will be because Tory MPs have voted him out.
Many of the prime minister’s very online opponents accuse him of lying routinely, and say that he is a far worse offender than other recent prime ministers – even though it is widely but wrongly believed that Tony Blair knowingly misled parliament in making the case for military action in Iraq.
In my view, and I looked at 10 of the commonly cited examples last year, Johnson is careless with facts and often loose and contradictory in his language, but it is impossible to pin down an untrue statement by which he definitely intended to mislead people. Since then, he has been accused of misleading parliament about lockdown gatherings in Downing Street, although again when his words are looked at closely it is unclear whether they were “knowingly misleading”, as Full Fact, the independent fact-checking organisation, found.
While we wait for the outcome of inquiries by Sue Gray, a civil servant, and the Metropolitan Police, it has been suggested that the accuracy of ministers’ statements in the Commons ought to be policed by an independent body. Some MPs have called on Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, to require ministers to correct inaccurate statements; others think a new body is needed, as Sir Lindsay is understandably reluctant to adjudicate on matters of fact.
Personally, I am sceptical about the idea of either the speaker or a new body trying to police facts and enforce corrections. I think it is more important to strengthen the existing machinery. Civil servants are already under an obligation to ensure that ministers’ statements are accurate, and ministers below the level of prime minister do quite often come to the Commons to correct factual errors. The UK Statistics Authority has also been assertive in pointing out when it thinks ministers have misused its figures. Above all, I think watchful journalists and independent organisations such as Full Fact have a critical role to play.
Ultimately, though, if Johnson is going to fall, it will be because his MPs have lost confidence in him, rather than as a result of textual analysis of Hansard.
I shall be here to answer your questions on Friday 25 February. If you have a question – about anything, but particularly about how to police truth in politics, submit it now in the comments, or when I join you live at 1pm on Friday for the “Ask Me Anything” event.
To get involved all you have to do is register to submit your question in the comments below.
If you’re not already a member, click “sign up” in the comments box to leave your question. Don’t worry if you can’t see your question – they may be hidden until I join the conversation to answer them. Then join us live on this page at 1pm as I tackle as many questions as I can.
