In the end, he was the Pontius Pilate of Parliament. By washing his hands of the Commons debate and vote on the privileges committee report on Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak not only made a grievous error of judgment but failed a hugely significant test of leadership. His absence from the green benches was as shameful as it was conspicuous.
Since Johnson has already resigned as member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the only practical consequence of the vote was to remove his parliamentary pass. But the symbolism of MPs’ endorsement of the committee’s report — by 354 to seven — and of its original recommendation to suspend him from the Commons for 90 days, was huge.
Only 118 out of 352 Conservative MPs voted to support the committee’s findings and recommendations. Credit is due to the five Cabinet ministers — Penny Mordaunt, Alex Chalk, David TC Davies, Gillian Keegan and Chloe Smith — and four additional ministers who attend Cabinet — Tom Tugendhat, Andrew Mitchell, Victoria Prentis and Simon Hart — who had the integrity to do so.
But this was by far the most serious matter ever to have been addressed by the privileges committee: the deliberate misleading of the Commons by a former PM over breaches of Covid rules at the infamous Downing Street parties. So where were the holders of the great offices of state to defend the fundamental democratic principles of trust and truth-telling in Parliament? The Deputy Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt; Home Secretary, Suella Braverman; and Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly?
Where, above all, was their boss, who less than eight months ago stood in Downing Street and promised a government of “integrity, professionalism, and accountability at every level”? His official excuse — that he was too busy hosting the Swedish prime minister, Ulf Kristersson – was pitiful.
Had the PM wanted to make an initial appearance on the front bench and turn up later to vote, he could easily have found time to do so. His failure to attend reflected a cravenness of spirit precisely when statesmanship was most needed.
There are circumstances in politics when reticence is wise. This was not such a moment; quite the opposite, in fact. Yes, Sunak is temperamentally risk-averse. But sometimes the risk of inaction is greater than the risk of taking a stand. There are moments when a political leader must break decisively with the past; when a bold and explicit statement of differentiation is absolutely required.
In recent days, his allies have claimed that it would be counter-productive to “poke the beast” by antagonising Johnson further. But that is a disastrous strategy, one that will only confirm the former PM’s conviction that he can still intimidate and constrain Sunak whenever the mood seizes him.
True, he is no longer an MP, deserted by many of his former parliamentary supporters, and comprehensively disgraced in an unprecedented parliamentary ruling. Yet he has a new megaphone in his weekly Daily Mail column and knows that the spotlight will swing round to illuminate him when he next chooses to make mischief. Sunak has shown that he remains pathetically fearful of this prospect.
Yet the PM’s absence yesterday was not only politically puny. It was also intrinsically wrong. Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, opened the debate with a clear statement of principle: a defence of “the right not to be misled, the right not to be abused in carrying out our duties”; a denunciation of the lockdown breaches which “grate hard with those who sacrificed so much to keep us all safe”; and a sideswipe at the “debasement of the honours system” — a clear reference to Johnson’s contentious resignation honours list.
Theresa May was also right to say the public wanted to see MPs “coming to a conclusion” on this grotesque scandal; not, in other words, to scurry away from the crucible of the Commons. And Caroline Lucas, the Green Party member for Brighton Pavilion, spoke truth to power when she said the absentees and the abstainers were “guilty not just of cowardice but of complicity”.
Almost a year has passed since Johnson was forced to resign. He left behind the task of democratic repair: to restore trust in politics, to end the culture of impunity and to drain from his party the sense that the rules do not truly apply to them. What we now know is that Rishi Sunak is not equal to the task.
