theprof: I don't know in what way I've "confirmed your view", you might have to be more specific. If you mean in terms of the "kangaroo court", I don't think this is a kangaroo court, or could be described as one, and it's disappointing that Johnson's statements in his written and oral evidence to the effect of "I'll accept the verdict was reached impartially only if it clears me" are, in effect, so wholeheartedly endorsed. There are still factual questions to be assessed, and they don't have anything to do with how effective he was as a leader during Covid.
// I would suggest to you that losing a by-election may not be as detrimental to his parliamentary future as you assert. //
I only said it would be affected, which would obviously be true. I'm not even convinced that he'd *lose* such a by-election, if it comes to that, but yes, maybe he gets parachuted in to some safe seat, and resumes his career that way. Still, as a matter of course PMs can only lead if their party is behind them, and in multiple ways it's clear that Johnson as a leader didn't inspire his Party at all. A great campaigner, but not a great leader -- not of MPs, at any rate, but they are the ones who matter the most!
As for the // Parliamentarians mislead parliament every day //, well, maybe, but firstly we shouldn't really tolerate *that* either, and secondly Ministers, and particularly Prime Ministers, must surely have an additional responsibility to the truth in a sense by virtue of being in Government. Their "lies", or their mistakes, are that much more impactful by virtue of their extra power. This is why they're obliged to correct the record as soon as possible when they make a mistake. In this case, as I'm sure you know, part of Johnson's defence is that he *did* correct the record at the earliest opportunity, that being after the Sue Gray report was completed (and, in turn, after the Met investigation).
These are questions about conduct in Parliament, and I'm not sure why Johnson should be defended just because they are (allegedly) all at it to some extent. We shouldn't really tolerate any of this. Also, for what it's worth, I don't think that these are "deliberate lies", I'm happy to accept Johnson's defence to the extent that he genuinely didn't think that rules/guidance had been broken at any of the events he was part of. The question of whether this was "reckless", though, revolves around whether he *should* have known this, or should have taken more care over who he consulted before offering this, ultimately incorrect, assurance.