Douglas Ross's reasoning for a U-turn on Boris Johnson is not genuine

Ahead of the Scottish Conservative conference in Aberdeen, Douglas Ross has avoided re-opening old wounds with the Prime Minister. By withdrawing his letter, he has neutralised the threat that Tory spats could overshadow the event.

In a statement, the Scottish Conservative leader said: “The middle of an international crisis is not the time to be discussing resignations, unless it’s the removal from office of Vladimir Putin”.

“In light of Russia’s appalling actions, the Government and PM need our backing, and they have mine and the whole Scottish Conservative Party.”

Others have expressed the same sentiment as Douglas Ross – that now is not the time for consequences from partygate.

Still, this U-turn and the reasons given for it seem disingenuous. Of course, during times of crisis politics is, to some extent, put aside. We saw that during the early days of the coronavirus crisis, when the leaders of the four nations worked together on their initial responses. But I’m not convinced that we need to give Boris Johnson a free pass for his bad behaviour to show Putin that the UK is united in disgust at his actions.

We are now being asked to accept that the atrocities committed by Putin’s regime mean that Boris Johnson is suddenly fit for office.

Let’s remember the reason that Douglas Ross and many others called for Boris Johnson’s resignation in the first place. He was shown – through his own deeds and words – to be a liar. He broke the rules he set for others and then he lied about it, repeatedly.

When Douglas Ross accepted praise from across the political spectrum for his tough stance on partygate, did he offer a disclaimer that his moral outrage would only last for as long as the scandal dominated the front pages? I must have missed it.

Before the invasion of Ukraine, the UK was dealing with the ongoing coronavirus crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and the energy crisis.

We are well able to care about more than one thing at a time and it is reductive to suggest otherwise.

Aside from everything else, I fear that we might be overstating Boris Johnson’s influence in this crisis.

The UK response, spearheaded by Boris Johnson, has still been slow and woefully inadequate. His government’s bureaucratic and mean-spirited approach to refugees has made us an outlier in Europe. As other nations throw open their doors and say they’ll worry about the paperwork later, the Home Office has shamefully turned its back on displaced people seeking sanctuary.

If anything, this crisis should highlight the need for a change of leadership. Boris Johnson is not an asset: his well-documented character flaws make him the worst possible person to have in charge at a time of international crisis.

That’s before we even get into the issues of Russian donations to the Conservative Party coffers and the allegation that Boris Johnson ignored warnings from the security services over the peerage of Evgeny Lebedev (below).

We don’t need to excuse and minimise the serious misconduct of our own Prime Minister to show that we are united in horror over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Partygate, for all intents and purposes, is on hold at the moment anyway.

The Met Police is still investigating the many illegal gatherings attended by the Prime Minister, his senior officials and aides. Who knew it took so long to read over a few dozen questionnaires?

The scandal will receive renewed attention only when that investigation is completed, fines are issued and we – finally – see the full, unredacted, Sue Gray report.

When that happens, it will be for Conservative MPs to decide what to do about it.

They might think that the moment of danger for the Prime Minister has passed and the public anger has died down. Some will cite the war in Ukraine as a reason why the Prime Minister cannot be challenged.

It would be a dangerous road to go down.

If it mattered that the Prime Minister broke the rules and lied about it before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it should surely still matter afterwards. Otherwise, they will be asking the public to believe that standards in public life can only be enforced when the Prime Minister of the day has nothing pressing to attend to in their in-tray.

How many of those who previously thought that Boris Johnson was unfit to lead have truly changed their minds and now have full confidence in his abilities?

And how many who previously thought that he was unfit to lead still do, but are making a political calculation based on his chances of survival and are aligning themselves accordingly?

That distinction is important and it is one that will become clear when the partygate scandal is suddenly thrust back onto the front pages.