Alasdair Galloway

As with John and Stewart I think no fair-minded person could possibly excuse Margaret Ferrier’s conduct of travelling by train back to Glasgow, having been informed of a positive finding from a COVID test taken a few days before.

Stewart’s piece helpfully takes us inside the Select Committee report, and that in particular there was considerable push back on 30 days suspension, and that it should be replaced by 9 days which would not bring the possibility of a by election. This was supported not just by Alan Dorrans (SNP) but by Alberto Costa and one of his other Tory colleagues.

Why would they do this? Do for instance they have the hots for Margaret Ferrier. If you think that ridiculous recall these 4 words – Major, Edwina, John and Curry. Surely there must be a more significant reason which prompts us to consider the COVID inspired difficulties of a former PM who still hopes to be so again after Sunak is found out.

 Johnson not only was issued with a fixed penalty notice for behaving contrary to regulations, but repeated his ‘ah didnae ken’ excuse to the Select Committee, as well as on several occasions in the House.

 Not only was Johnson Prime Minister at the time, but during partygate he was working with the most senior civil servants and the Minister for Health would be in and out of Downing Street on a regular basis, though he had his own unusual grasp of social distancing. Are we to believe no one, no one at all (other than a couple of media wonks) told him that more respect needed to be shown for the regs.

There is though no certainty that Johnson will be suspended from the Commons. The focus is on whether he lied to the House on this matter. For Mr Johnson, and the manner in which events were dragged out from him, it must be clear that keeping his job, though confirming his reputation matter more than the truth. As a former colleague was quoted by the BBC “The problem is that it’s becoming clearer that the PM treats facts like he treats all his relationships – utterly disposable once inconvenient”.

This can be costly and not only to himself as his publicly funded legal advice in defending himself against the allegations stand at £220,000 and are expected to rise.

 Margaret Ferrier made a mistake. So did Boris Johnson, and allowed others around him to do so. Like Ferrier he paid the legal penalty, but unlike Boris Johnson Margaret Ferrier never lied nor cost the country a vast sum of money to justify a claim that she didn’t lie in the forlorn hope of saving her political career.

Does the action of the Select Committee on Standards seem consistent in these two cases? Does it seem proportionate?

Or does it seem more likely to be driven by political interest? For instance the prospect of blood in the water clearly motivates Iain Murray. How much was the Tory pushback on 30 days suspension driven more by bojo’s interests than Alberto Costa’s sense of chivalry.

Punishment is justified in Ferrier’s case, but punishment should be consistent across all cases. Can we really say this in this case? Ferrier shouldn’t have travelled back (though like Gibson she had no London address) but when found out took her punishment. With Johnson we are mired in layers of sophistry about whether he lied, or intended mislead. Johnson hopes to be PM again, while politically, Ferrier is finished.

Should these not be comparable or at least proportionate?