Partygate Live

Boris Johnson has once again risen his objectively ugly head with the "partygate" saga, by way of the Privileges Committee meeting convened to hear his testimony. I watched the thing in full because this is the sort of fun-loving antics I like to get up to in my spare time*. Let me try and summarise this into the main results of question from the seven different panel members.

* Actually, whenever I watch these longer debates outside of the main Westminster chamber, I'm reassured. These people always ask the same questions I want asked and the debates proceed in a sensible way, quite unlike the bear pit that usually characterises the ones in the main chamber.

First, Harriette Harman's opening statement is a good summary of why this matters. I won't dwell on this but will note two things. One, that it's about lying, not whether the Covid rules were broken or lockdowns were necessary, except in terms of validating statements Boris made to Parliament. Honesty is a fundamental component of the democratic process without which it simply cannot function. Two, the evidence from the Sue Gray report has not been considered by the Committee yet, and won't be until statements of truth are gathered from the witnesses. This may seem strange and perhaps disappointing, but it isn't. Indeed, it has some very interesting consequences, as we'll see.

0) Boris' opening statement

This was the most classically Johnsonian nonsense of the whole three hours. For the rest, he mostly tried to stick to his guns, but in this one he was all over the place.

He began with a weird claim that he thought the Committee had already vindicated him in spite of its interim report all but declaring him to have lied. All the evidence clearly supports him, he said, even though the Committee nonetheless decided that it didn't. He then quickly turned partisan, saying they should publish in full all the evidence so that the public could judge for themselves. He variously made claims that he respected the Committee, accepted their impartiality, but thought they were prejudiced and unfair.

All this is classic Johnsonian have-it-both-ways mentality, which is to say, being mental, because this just isn't possible. It amounts to saying, "I trust you to be fair even though you're clearly unfair." This is best expressed when he said that the Committee couldn't possibly mean to accuse him of lying because no-one really impartial could ever do that, a deplorably circular line of reasoning that implicitly attacks the Committee's credibility from the outset.

He then moved on to more specific claims, including rubbish about there being an official photographer but not explaining why (a) these photographs were not seen until the story broke (b) these photographs are crappy and anyone with a phone could easily frame a better shot and (c) why this matters. To the last point, he similarly claimed that there were so many people present, if it was so "obvious" that the rule were broken, someone must have realised this and would have raised a warning if it were so. It's a classic "so many people can't be wrong or stupid !" fallacy, coupled weirdly with the fact that "so many people" and "Covid guidance" make for awfully strange bedfellows. This also ignores the fact that many people are known to have raised objections.

Boris did at least concede that the guidance was indeed not followed at all times, that this would have been impossible. And this is actually fair enough, but is beside the point, which is that he repeatedly claimed that it was followed perfectly.

Johnson also noted that the police agreed that the attendance was in compliance with the rules because most people at most of these gatherings were not fined. And when they did issue fines, they only did so - with one obvious exception - after he had left. Well ! First, the police didn't investigate every single person at every single gathering. Second, if fixed penalty notices (FPNs) are the measure of morality, then claiming that he didn't understand why he himself received one is very Schrodinger.

Finally he made the stupid point that his claims about the assurances he received about adherence to the rules and guidance were only in relation to specific gatherings. This is dumb, because he shouldn't be relying on such narrow guidance and anyway he himself was present at some of them. Again, more later. He also repeated the erroneous claims about the UK's supposedly world-beating response to the pandemic, which is just another lie so far as I'm concerned.

1) Sir Bernard Jenkins

Sir Bernard began with a picture of Johnson raising a glass to a group of staff with many bottles of wine on the table. Boris didn't accept that people weren't making an effort to social distance, okay maybe not just at that particular moment, but in general they definitely were. It was just an impromptu meeting to thank staff, no FPN was issued (Jenkins later corrected him on this point, actually at least one was), and it just didn't occur to him it would have breached rules or guidance.

Jenkins responded that Boris hadn't claimed the guidance was followed "as well as we could", but much more categorically that everything was complied with perfectly at all times. Here Boris elaborated on perhaps his only tenable claim in all this, that it's just not possible to follow all the guidance perfectly 100% of the time in Downing Street, and that, more importantly, that's why they had a testing procedure in place as well, which at the time wasn't so common in other workplaces. Couple this with perspex screens, attempts to be socially distanced as much as possible (including using Zoom), and the situation looks rather better. 

Not much better mind you, especially as everyone else was doing mostly similar stuff, and more because all those bottles of wine are quite something for an "impromptu" meeting. Others went to considerably greater lengths to avoid such clearly celebratory meetings. And Sir Bernard wasn't fooled. If Boris thought things were looking up when the senior Tory said that "if you'd said all that at the time, you might not be here", then he was about to be disappointed. 

Jenkins asked where the screens were. The answer : the next room. Well, the guidance doesn't say you can have a thank-you meeting because you think it's important, said Jenkins, it said that you should avoid such meetings. So why gather in a different room where it's not possible to be Covid safe ? This is just where everyone would gather quickly, apparently, but it seems to me that is exactly what you're supposed to avoid. Getting everyone together for socialising even for work purposes is precisely what you were supposed not to do.

Johnson didn't really have an answer here. He stuck to the line that this meeting was necessary for work and it just never occurred to him for an instant that it wouldn't be. Harman interjected to discuss the guidance allowing for 1m separation; the upshot seemed to be that there had to be other mitigations and it should still be avoided and kept to 2m if at all possible, which this "meeting" clearly doesn't qualify for. Jenkins asked if Johnson would have told other people at the time that such meetings were acceptable. Johnson gave a rambling answer saying basically "yes", but then quickly backtracked to say he meant "follow the guidance", which wasn't much of an answer at all. Especially since people were fined for many similar events to this.

The rest of the session with Jenkins had some more convoluted thinking from Johnson that would cause Schrodinger's Cat to give up in despair, invent a whole new theory of quantum mechanics and keep the box firmly shut. The once-unquestionable Sue Gray report, which vindicated Johnson entirely despite being absolutely damming as far as everyone else was concerned, then disregarded as a left-wing stitch up, is now back to being beyond reproach so the Committee should use all these stuff right away. I mean, sure, they're going to. But how in the world he expects that to help his case is absolutely beyond me. The other main point, raised by everyone else again and again, was that it must have been obvious that the rules were being broken.

2) The Ginger Lady

Whoever she was, she raised the point that other meetings clearly included people who shouldn't have been there if they were work meetings : his wife and son and interior designer of all people. Was this really necessary for work purposes ?

Yes, said Boris. Those photos just show me in between meetings and aren't representative. And then, with a truly perverse flourish of logic, he reasoned that because he never realised any of this was a problem, that just self-evidently demonstrates how un-obvious it was that none of this was a problem. 

This is just torturous in the extreme. The Ginger Lady quoted the guidance Boris himself had told the nation not a week before the garden party, but he just didn't get it. Okay, it's true that (as he stated) it's a peculiarity of Downing Street that as both workplace and residence, occasionally you'll get family members moving around the place. That doesn't for one moment explain their presence in government meetings, for God's sake. It certainly doesn't explain why his interior designer was there at all, and it's one heck of a coincidence that his wife was in the garden party with all that wine around.

3) The Scottish Man

This guy again continued to press the the point that the breaches must have been obvious and brings up the alcohol on the tables. Boris insisted this was all necessary for work purposes and no, it wasn't obvious this was contrary to the rules or guidance. It was absolutely essential to have these events to thank staff, he said, despite the rest of the country cancelling such events - something which was reported routinely in the press at the time. 

The Scottish Man also asked about one particular party which Boris isn't known to have attended, but occurred in Downing Street just a few metres away from the private flat with direct line of sight between the two. Did Boris witness anything ? No, definitely not, he says, in an utterly implausible "deny everything" strategy that makes as much sense as claiming this much wine is legitimately necessary for "work purposes". Definitely nobody said anything to him whatsoever, and no suggestion ever entered his brain, that anything was improper until the story broke.

4) Andy Carter

Carter pressed the issue that Boris himself should have known the rules were broken and not have had to rely on assurances from others. This discussion got a bit bogged down in the difference between rules and the guidance, but one of Boris' points was that he didn't think it would matter, and if he used one of the terms incorrectly (he did) it was because he misremembered a line intended for the media. For the same reason, he didn't feel it necessary to correct the record, since there was no distinction in the public eye between the rules and guidance - but to my mind this makes things much worse, since the guidance was always stricter than the rules.

Carter also raised the important point that the story persisted for some time. Eventually it must have become obvious that there was a problem. So why not mention these gatherings when it became clear there was a problem ? And finally we got a straight answer from Johnson, that he probably should have done. If he'd explained what went on in full detail (if we accept for the sake of it his version of events), then perhaps there wouldn't have been quite such a problem later.

This discussion became somewhat forensic. Cater asked about the advice from Martin Reynolds to change the wording of a statement at PMQs, but Johnson thought he was just being overly-cautious and didn't really think there was any problem. He said that Reynolds was only concerned about imperfect social distancing, not breaking the guidance more generally. He claimed he could prove this but his answer degenerated into pure waffle, and disguises the main point : people had raised the issue with him to the extent he cannot have avoided the central issue. Likewise, when the Allegra Stratton fake interview came up, Johnson did commission an inquiry, but didn't feel the need to correct the record. It was just that difficult for him to tell the difference between a party and a work meeting, apparently.

Harman interjected here to note from the evidence that people were passing drinks to each other. Yes, said Johnson, it's true the guidance wasn't followed perfectly. Riiight, so they were oh-so-careful and didn't use each others pens, but did pass drinks around ? That's just dumb. 

5) Alberto Coster

Coster pressed heavily on the need for Johnson to have sought legal advice rather than relying on political communication directors. Johnson admitted that he hadn't done this and have never claimed to have done so. Nor did he have advice from any senior civil servants or hear a single voice telling him the rules or guidance were breached.

Coster asked why didn't use a lawyer, of which there are a great many employed by the government. Johnson said it was because he asked people who had been at the events themselves, which is an awful lot like saying, "I prefer to ask the alleged criminal instead of a barrister". Coster pressed the point that it must have become obvious that the rules or guidance might have been breached, if not at the moment of the events themselves, then it must have done so when the story broke.

Johnson retorted that Martin Reynolds is a lawyer. Well, he might be qualified as one, but that's not the same as actually being employed and - crucially - independent. And he did ask a senior civil servant, Simon Case... but only to start the inquiry, which is completely different from asking him at the time whether the guidance was followed !

Coster noted that the statements Johnson issued were initially developed as lines to the media and nothing more. Johnson agreed, but said he had to rely on the advice of such people. Yet, Coster pointed out, these same people clearly had doubts about compliance, but Boris insisted that they never raised any of these issues with him, and any doubts that they had were in relation to events were him and they were not present. Coster again said the breaches were obvious, to which Boris muttered "nonsense".

Coster here ended his questions and there began a short impromptu session with Jenkins and Harman. Harman said she was dismayed that these assurances only covered one single gathering, covered the rules and not the guidance, and were from political communicators and not senior servants or lawyers. She also raised the very obvious but absolutely necessary point that he shouldn't have needed assurances at all for meetings he himself attended, making the analogy that someone caught speeding doesn't need anyone else to tell them this. She said the assurances are flimsy, and don't amount to the face value everyone in the House took them for. Johnson responded that it's surely enough for him to rely on advisors.

Harman took the view that if you're relying on people who themselves clearly had doubts, this is inherently not good enough. That they didn't express those doubts demonstrates that they are inadequate to the task, hence you'd expect to rely on civil servants and lawyers, not spin doctors. 

Jenkins raised what I think was an excellent point. Johnson was being accused of breaking the law, and therefore should be expected to have consulted a lawyer. The ministerial code says they should take "due care" and in this case seeking legal advice seems like an unavoidable necessity. Johnson retorted that he wasn't being accused of law-breaking (in PMQs it's true Starmer didn't say this directly, but he didn't need to : the rules were the law), and didn't even think Starmer would bother with the story (!). He reverted back to the line that it had just never occurred to him any of these meetings were a problem, so he saw no need to seek further advice. Jenkins objected, at which Johnson became properly angry, saying it was all nonsense and that he did ask the relevant people.

The only "nonsense" here is obviously from Johnson. Being as charitable as possible, let's assume his story is correct and he was just absolutely thick. In this case he could have just totally forgot about the meetings... initially. There's still no way at all that he can't have realised after the story broke that there might have been very serious problems. He had many, many opportunities to both correct the record (there was no need to wait for the Sue Gray report) and volunteer that other similar meetings had happened, but simply didn't bother.

6) Sir Charles Walker

Walker's questions were about political legitimacy and the wider context. He quotes the left-wing "stitch-up" alleged by Johnson's supporters regarding the Sue Gray report. He also notes that it's misleading when some claim that most Tories didn't oppose this Committee because in fact absolutely nobody did at all.

Here I think Johnson was at his worst. He reiterated that his concerns about fairness are all in his written submission but said he was sure the Committee would be impartial. Walker said he was concerned that Johnson supporters (not the man himself) were trying to have it both ways, to hope that the Committee would exonerate him but preparing to play the illegitimacy card if it didn't. Johnson said his presence showed how seriously he took the processes, saying (quite strongly, and out of context actually expressing things very well) that this was indeed how things are done, that this is the procedure that must be followed... but then that he doesn't believe he could possibly be found guilty. Which is missing the whole point of the system.

Walker returned to statements of Johnson's supporters : witch hunt, kangaroo court and the like. He asked if Boris regretted these. His response was initially promising, but degenerated into a non-answer. Of course, he said, he doesn't endorse any insults or intimidation or bullying, but refused to say that he outright disapproves of the statements made, and that he was convinced the Committee would exonerate him. Coster interjected at this point to ask if it was at least possible in principle the Committee could be fair and wrong rather than a witch hunt. Boris said that if it found him in contempt it would be insane and wrong.

Walker moved back to the assurances, making the point that they couldn't have known if the guidance was always followed so carefully given that Downing Street is such a large (and crowded !) building. Johnson admitted it wasn't possible to be omniscient but there was no alternative. Okay, so any employer could have just turned a blind eye to whole thing by that argument. Walker said that 126 (!) FPNs were issued showed the limitations of this, but Johnson decided this was just such good evidence for how incredibly un-obvious it was to everyone that the rules were being broken.

 

Summary

I despise Boris Johnson. The other thing I find worse than his fascist-level sense of entitlement is the current government's blatantly racist, morally abhorrent "stop the boats" policy.

Boris's best argument, which to his credit he tried very hard to stick to, was that he just didn't realise anything was amiss, so yes, he misled Parliament, but not intentionally. The trouble is that even this, "I'm just really stupid" argument falls apart at a moment's scrutiny. Meetings where wine was flowing freely ? Completely normal work events. Loud parties down the hallway ? Didn't hear anything. Colleagues relied on for advice who are on record as having doubts ? Never expressed them to me. Didn't consult the proper lawyers ? Didn't see the need to, no, not even after it was obvious the allegations were of law-breaking.

Pretty much all of this was expressed by the Committee. The one point I don't think they picked up on (and it's not always easy to do this during a meeting) was the inconsistency level that would make Schrodinger blush. The Sue Gray report was deemed to be useless but now essential. FPNs were deemed to be clear evidence of wrongdoing expect for Boris himself. The fact that rules were broken was not evidence of corruption but of how palpably innocent everyone must be. The Committee was the right and proper system to judge him but couldn't possibly believe he was lying simply because of all the evidence demonstrating that he was lying.

Johnson is a fascist through and through. If the essence of liberalism is, "what's it to you ?", then that of fascism is surely, "because it's me". Fascism isn't a system of government but a cult : I must lead because it's self-evident that I deserve to. It is pure personality in place of procedure. To be as charitable as I possibly can, Boris Johnson's sense of entitlement is so extraordinary I wonder if he might even genuinely believe it, to really, deeply believe that he's not one of the little people and just not realise (rather than not care) that he's a massive, ugly, snivelling prick that passes for a human being. 

Not that it makes any difference in the end since the effect is the same. For us non-fascists, all we can do is wait and see what the Committee decides.