Here's a summary of this relatively brief video (not quite 18 minutes).

The House of Commons Committee of Privileges recently released a lengthy report on Boris Johnson that among other things alleges that he lied to the Committee and by criticizing them is in "contempt of Parliament." There will be a vote on whether he should be subjected to a 90-day suspension from the H of C.

There's a number of reasons why this is problematic. First of all, as Alexander points out (who's never made any bones about disliking Johnson), there are many good reasons to be angry at him, but this report is nonsense because normally such conduct as he's (rightly) accused of is handled through the political process - the opposition would make hay of it and call Johnson a hypocrite, etc. and Johnson would lose votes in subsequent elections, i.e., it would be decided by the electorate.

The Committee is headed by Labour MP Harriet Harman, who's close to Keir Starmer and very antagonistic toward Johnson. There's a Conservative majority in this committee but it's hand-picked by the government, i.e., Rishi Sunak.

The "contempt of Parliament" is serious and Alexander says he can't recall it ever being applied to someone who merely criticized a Parliamentary committee. Further, they're alleging that his allies among the Conservative MPs who also criticized the committee were also guilty of contempt, opening the possibility of some disciplinary action against them as well.

If I'm understanding correctly, the criticisms that Johnson and the Conservative MPs leveled at the Committee were made within the House of Commons. My conclusion is based on Alexander's explanation about what "privilege" means vis-a-vis an MP and what the implications are for this Committee's actions:

The British tradition is that anything an MP says in the H of C is covered by privilege. MPs are free to say anything they wish and anything they think. Not any longer, it would seem.

The political class is (now) able to control what they say just as they try to control what everybody else outside Parliament says. (paraphrasing) If you think this isn't related to Kit Klarenburg's recent detention at Heathrow under anti-terrorist laws, I have a bridge to sell you.

Alex thinks they're using this Boris Johnson report as an excuse to centralize and take more power, just as is happening in to Trump in the US using lawfare.

These actions in the UK establish precedents of control and shuts down political debate.

Every MP now knows that if they step out of line, say the wrong thing, they're not just going to face their electors, who might choose to vote them out, which is democracy, but they might face allegations of contempt of Parliament because they've somehow infringed against the privileges committee. It starts with the privileges committee but then extends to every single part of the governmental machine connected in some way to the H of C, you're not allowed to criticize what they do or how they go about their business or their findings. It's a very sinister step.

It's one committee but before long we're going to have lots of others, it's going to be a developing thing. It's going to be sold as "restoring standards to public life" but it's taking away the ability of MPs to function as MPs. There's supposed to be a vote on this in the H of C but they'll vote to support it, taking away more of their own freedoms and becoming even more controlled than they were.

They'll support it because they want people driven out of the political system like Corbyn, Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg - who's apparently one of the MPs who's now going to be investigated; I don't like him but I don't think these people should be purged and disciplined in this fashion.

Eventually they could find that they've empowered something that can turn against them, but I don't think they have the political imagination to understand that. I think that most of them assume they'll always be able to control this machinery they're creating.

It's also a sign of the extreme insecurity of the political class that they have to resort to these methods and the fact that they sense there isn't a great deal of support for them outside the inner ring. Putting aside all personal feelings about Johnson, he's a personality who can win elections, he's shown he can do this repeatedly. They're terrified that if he's allowed to continue his political career, he may find some way of getting back into power because so many people in Britain are unhappy. So they're doing this to stop that from happening.

And, of course, when they start to behave like that the entire legitimacy of the system starts to fall apart because you're no longer in a straightforward Parliamentary democracy.