The lockdown laws were unprecedented and were imposed by the Prime Minister himself. “Look her in the eye,” warned a government poster showing a woman on a respirator, “and tell her you never break the rules.” Millions lost their funerals, births and precious time with their families. “The rules have been obeyed at all times,” was only one misleading statement Johnson made in Parliament. When Matt Hancock resigned as health secretary after violating not laws but instructions, the prime minister took credit for his departure. Asked if Hancock’s behavior had undermined public health messages, Johnson said: “That’s right, and that’s why when I saw the story on Friday, we had a new Secretary of Health on Saturday.” There is no case for the prime minister to do the honorary one. He has spent a career sitting out of crises and waiting for something else to appear. In this case, he hopes that the war in Ukraine – in which he must be said to have succeeded – will save him. And Conservative MPs, apart from the period when the Commons are at a break, are uncertain about what to do. But yesterday someone predicted: “It will stick and destroy the house like Samson knocking down the walls of the temple.” If Johnson does not resign, it is up to the cabinet and Conservative MPs to decide his fate. But for now both are reluctant to act. Johnson’s supporters will continue to defend him, with many lawmakers awaiting the final list of revelations: the prime minister has been fined for holding a birthday party in the cabinet, but police have not yet decided on other events to attend, in particular in Downing Street District. Other MPs know enough that they want to move against him, but will wait to choose their moment to maximize their chances of success. Among them, many are pessimistic and even contemptuous of the weakness, as they see it, of their colleagues. Many arguments are swirling as believers try to blur the waters. Few stand the test. We can not change the prime minister, they say, in time of war. But Britain is not at war. Indeed, when we were, during the two world wars and the first Gulf War, we changed prime ministers. And anyway, under any other Tory leader, British policy in Ukraine would continue unchanged. Nor is it true that the fine can be compared to a speeding ticket, or previous cases where ministers did not resign after the fine was imposed. The Prime Minister imposed these extraordinary laws, asked us to comply with them, violated them himself and then lied that he did. Nor is it right to argue that the fine does not confirm guilt: when it pays the fine and does not challenge it, the prime minister accepts the police verdict. There are all sorts of calculations for the Tory MPs, about the upcoming local elections, who can replace Johnson and what agenda he should follow. But sooner rather than later these MPs will have to deal with the only calculation that matters. Is it right for the country to be led by a man who has broken laws he imposed on others and then lied that he did? To this question, in all honesty, there can be only one answer.
