Almost exactly a year ago, I was booted out of the House of Commons for calling Boris Johnson a liar.
One year on, and Boris Johnson has been ousted as Prime Minister, for various reasons, but principally among them, specifically lying about what he knew when he appointed Chris Pincher to be his deputy chief whip.
The late great Tony Benn used to say: 'First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.'
In the days following my expulsion from the House of Commons, I was shunned by some in my own party for breaking parliamentary convention. I was told by Conservative MPs that my tone damaged politics. Now, I find myself in the unusual position in which over half of Conservative MPs agree with me that the Prime Minister has broken the rules of engagement. That he is not fit for office.
One of the biggest issues is not Boris Johnson's behaviour - of which he gave us plenty of warning - it is the system which has enabled him to continue on, even though he was showing every sign of being incompetent, or much worse.
He has been empowered and facilitated by his parliamentary colleagues and much of the Tory-backing press, who praised his every move regardless of its effect on the people of this country. It is this circle of privilege and the 'old boys club' mentality that allows people like Johnson to persistently fail upwards.
The other enabling factor is Britain’s weak parliamentary procedures, which rely on those in power behaving honourably. This is the code that made it unacceptable for me to call Johnson 'a liar,' but allowed him to continue in his role even though he was lying.
To explain, in parliamentary terms, all MPs are 'honourable members.' As such, they are expected to follow a largely unwritten code of conduct. As an 'honourable member' you can be mistaken, you can even inadvertently mislead, but you cannot lie. If ministers do speak an untruth, the parliamentary convention is that they come to the House of Commons to correct the record. But conventions and 'gentlemanly' codes of conduct don’t work to limit the actions of someone who doesn't care about them. Johnson felt he was under no authority compelling him to correct his lies, and because there is nothing more stringent in place, MPs have been powerless to act. Indeed, as I found, to call out the lie is considered more offensive than the lie itself.
We are in the absurd position in which the Prime Minister has the power to block investigations into his ministers or himself. And even if the Prime Minister does allow an investigation, he can veto any penalty, as he did with Priti Patel’s alleged bullying of her civil servants. The system is flawed.
So last year, after I was kicked out of parliament, I started a campaign to strengthen the ministerial code, to make the committee on standards responsible for deciding whether alleged breaches should be investigated and determining any breaches, rather than a Prime Minister.
I tabled Early Day Motion 383 on ‘The Ministerial Code and the conduct of the Prime Minister’, calling for this change, was supported by over 100 backbench MPs from eight different parties. Not one single Conservative party member signed. I have had more luck with my back bench business debate application on upholding the ministerial code. I need three more conservative MPs to agree to the debate, in order for it to have a chance of being discussed on the floor of the house.
Boris Johnson may have resigned as Prime Minister, but the problem is deep-rooted in a party that believes it’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Case in point the fact that it could be considered acceptable for him to be allowed to carry on in charge with no oversight or accountability once Parliament goes into recess on the 21st July, or until we appoint a replacement.
The experience of the last three years should teach us to always call out harmful behaviour and to speak truth to power, but just as importantly, we need constitutional change to prevent any future Prime Minister from behaving this way.
It is not just the constitution and procedures that are at risk, it is people’s lives. Too many women and men have been sexually abusedin parliament and had their allegations excused away, or covered up, because some politicians choose to contravene a system which isn't sturdy enough to hold them to account.
