How can Boris Johnson get out of trouble?

Absurd as he might see it, and indeed it may well be of little interest to many voters, the questions about who paid for the prime minister’s Downing Street flat refurbishment will not go away. Even if it were the case that it is a matter of universal public indifference, the fact that the Electoral Commission has taken an interest, and suggested an offence or offences may have taken place means that it could be an acute embarrassment for Boris Johnson. In extremis, if he was charged or found guilty of a serious crime, or if he was found to have lied to parliament, his position would be untenable (or so it is assumed). It is the closest thing the British have come to an American-style impeachment. So how can Boris Johnson get out of trouble?

Politically, all he can do is to win in the court of public opinion, and hope that the climate of opinion turns in his favour. On this he has made an excellent start. Given that he has issued so many conflicting explanations all he can do now is turn on his enemies, as he did in true Oxford Union ranting style at prime minister’s questions this week. His lines of attack are obvious: the public care far more about vaccines and the economy; Labour are petty and partisan; his government is getting on with levelling up/building back better/recruiting nurses; Keir Starmer wanted to stay in the European Medicines Agency and mess up the vaccine rollout; and he paid for the refurbishment anyway and it didn’t cost the taxpayer anything. Oh, and Starmer happily served in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, a sin which cannot ever be expunged.

Second off, he does need to sound reasonable and constructive, and so he has agreed graciously to cooperate with the Electoral Commission, because of course in reality he has no choice in the matter, given their statutory powers. He can offer to give them all the information they request about this silly business, because in reality he knows they can get a court order to force him to. Johnson is on track on this one.

Third, he needs to create a competitor narrative to the Electoral Commission. Again, the box has been ticked – the newly appointed “independent” adviser on ministerial standards Christopher (Lord) Geidt, is to “investigate” the matter. The chances are he will be more generous to the PM than the commission, but even if he is not it is still worth a go to muddy the already opaque waters. The more the flat becomes an incomprehensible matter of process and interpretation, the easier it is for the prime minister to get away with it.

On the legal front, he will obviously need a decent brief, and the more the issue heads towards serious investigation, the more the prime minister can say that he can’t answer any more questions about the flat because of the various ongoing investigations – the same tool of evasion he has deployed over the lockdown leak last November.

Legally and politically he does need to make a better job of his cover story, however. If it ever comes to it, a clever lawyer, like, say, Keir Starmer QC, can have great fun going through Johnson’s chaotic and mutually exclusive accounts – such as whether the Conservatives Party paid for it or not (both versions have been issued by Johnson or on his behalf). The established line that it didn’t cost the taxpayer anything (net) can be held satisfactorily (assuming it is true). What is needed is a supplementary line of defence that it doesn’t really matter who paid for it initially or whether it was a loan or whatever, just so long as the cash eventually came from a Johnson bank account at some stage, and was thus “covered” by him.

All the rest can be dismissed as quibbling about the timing of payment of invoices and repayments of short-term loans. The process can be compared to that used by any household faced with a big bill for a refurbishment – it might mean the costs are initially met by a third party, such as a credit card company, and the householder then repays the credit card debt. All perfectly normal, even if, instead of a bank or credit provider your “bank” is a rich Tory donor. With no continuing debt obligation, there can be no conflict of interest or, arguably, breach of the law.

It is also worth subtly using allies to attack the Electoral Commission in order to bully it. The Tories have already made noises about abolishing or radically reforming it and this might usefully intensify. Tory Brexiteers hate it for its supposed bias during and after the 2016 referendum, and they can easily smear the body as a bunch of embittered Remainers out to “get” Mr Brexit himself, Johnson, in an act of spite. There are plenty of Tory backbenchers already on that particular case.

It is not inconceivable that Johnson could survive even if he is found guilty and given a modest fine – such dodgy behaviour might be “priced in” by a section of the electorate who, frankly, don’t expect much better from him, or who can be persuaded that he is the victim of an anti-democratic plot to usurp “the people’s government”, in an act of cold revenge for Brexit. A fudged “apology” to the Commons about misunderstandings might suffice to quieten the few critics in his own party who are brave enough to speak up. In the final analysis, Johnson can only be sacked by his parliamentary party – all the rest about standards, being convicted of a crime and lying to the Commons are matters of convention, and can therefore be ignored if they must be. It would be a very Trumpian saga, but, like Trump, Johnson might get away with it, at least until election day.