Resign now. Just resign. Go. Leave. Just Leave.
2 reports; 1 Prime Minister - and a Conservative Party in Paralysis
The Conservative Party “policy blitz” this week and into the foreseeable future is nonsense.
When you woke up on Monday morning you’d have been subject to the most tragic waste of paper in the form of the Daily Express and Daily Mail.
This is ‘Operation Fightback’ in full force and probably not the last pathetic attempt we’ll see the Prime Minister clutch at straws after the success of ‘Operation Red Meat’ and ‘Operation Save Big Dog’ .
The idea, of course, is to distract the general public with meaningless and superficial policy while anger continues - not just among the general populace at the lack of a full and unredacted Sue Gray report, but also the impending cost-of-living crisis and myriad of screeching u-turns the government is about to perform seamlessly to apparently ‘deal’ with it.
Most Prime Ministers would have simply resigned by now.
In the case of the Conservatives, you have Boris Johnson that spends his entire political career chasing the role of Prime Minister only to have no clue what to do with it when he catches it, and when he finally does, refuses to let go - even if what he has clenched in his jaws is 4 times the size of him and prevents him from entering any building without destroying it.
An article I referred to yesterday was an interview with Dominic Cummings - and it’s an interesting one because like with any interview with Cummings, it begs the question ‘what did he see in him in the first place?’
Was it a fundamental weakness in Johnson’s personality?
Did Cummings really envision himself being this Grima Wormtongue-like figure whispering into the ear of King Theoden on ‘what nefarious thing to do next to consolidate power’ as though the country - fresh from sticking the finger to unelected bureaucrats - emplaced one in Downing St?
Of course, Cummings revealed last year that immediately following Johnson’s election, he and others plotted to oust the Prime Minister but was unsuccessful.
Later, plots became unrealised. In part, Cummings says, because:
“Carrie’s in his ear, saying to him: ‘All the media is portraying you as a puppet, you’re the one who won the election, you should be the one who seems in charge. It’s all very damaging that you’re seen as a sort of buffoon who Cummings boots around.’ She wanted rid of me, and I also didn’t want to stay in that kind of dysfunctional environment. So, the whole thing just kind of snowballed.”
Revealing, above all else, the envy - maybe even the astonishment; embittered that the Prime Minister would choose to listen to his wife rather than his special adviser that, twice, created pathways to 10 Downing St for Boris Johnson.
Cummings knows, too, that there is almost no way out for Johnson this time - for the Conservatives if they ‘stand by their man’ - and his policy blitz is a superficial and trivial thing that insults the intelligence of those who voted for him in 2019.
‘The B-Word’ - Ignore this chapter
As the Daily Express and Daily Mail show, the Conservatives are attempting to shift the dialogue back to when they were at their strongest - or: immediately following the 2019 election when ‘things could only get better’, the character of “Boris” was riding high in the polls and the January 31, 2020 “big ben bong” was preparing itself to chime for our departure from the EU.
Indeed, the government set out a white-paper that listed the so-called ‘benefits’ of Brexit.
You can read all about the so-called ‘Benefits of Brexit’ here
The problem is that much of what is written in the paper is not so much a plan of what ‘will’ happen but rather [broadly] a wish-list of items of things that ‘could’ happen [if people “just believed, man”] combined with incidental filler - much of which we could actually do before we’d even left the EU.
Remember when we were in the EU and could only ask for a 568ml glass of Stella Artois in the pub, for example?
Nope, me neither, but it’s a benefit of Brexit that we can finally go back to ordering in pints, apparently - complete with the ‘crown stamp’ on the glass, even though the EU never said we couldn’t have it.
Remember when we were in the EU and had no say [not even a veto] on reforms to the aviation industry to aid net zero?
Nope, me neither, but it’s a benefit of Brexit that we can finally do it - provided we don’t scupper our chances of aiding net zero by reducing domestic air passenger duty, eh?
The entire paper is crammed full of trite little snippets like this.
Meanwhile, who dares to speak critically or objectively can easily be dismissed as ‘Remoaners’ - even if the government’s most staunch supporters haven’t read it themselves and often cannot themselves list benefits without acknowledging costs.
But when have facts ever mattered when it came to Brexit?
They speak of putting ‘red tape’ on a bonfire for example, as part of the so-called ‘Brexit Freedoms Bill - and yet since we left the EU, we have been inundated with nothing ‘but’ red tape.
On a clear week day, perhaps from the top of Chrishall Common in Essex or Botley Hill in Surrey, you can cast your eyes to the horizon and see the queues of lorries on the M20 going into Dover.
That’s just one thing I could speak about but ultimately choose not to. Because it’s a total distraction. Ignore this chapter of this article.
To pay attention is to play the government tune, and yet if you have a look into the ‘priorities’ of most people, as Conservative focus groups do:
There you will understand that there is no delineation between Leave and Remain voters any more. It is merely ‘the voting public’.
And ‘the voting public’ should - against all odds - be able to tell when the Prime Minister is gaslighting them in a febrile attempt to change the subject when we’re trying to have a reasonable discussion about his suitability for the role of Prime Minister.
This article is not about Brexit.
The Sue Gray Report: “I get it and I will fix it”
You can read the short but nonetheless insightful document here.
There are some aspects of it that are worth reading and understanding:
The police are investigating 12 gatherings BUT [pg. 5] - “No conclusions should be drawn, or inferences made from this other than it is now for the police to consider the relevant material in relation to those incidents.”
Of those 12, they are set to investigate 8 of them for crimes where they may have been committed.
As yesterday progressed, and not noted in the report, 3 others were added to the list of parties to be investigated: a Cabinet Office gathering on 18 June 2020; another two No. 10 private secretary ‘leaving dos’ on 14 January 2021.
Of those parties, the Prime Minister is said to have attended 4 - remember, the sole purpose of the investigation was to establish the facts surrounding something the Prime Minister was "not aware of".
However, away from the report itself, the police later confirmed that they had been handed, “well over 500 pieces of paper, about a ream and a half, and over 300 photographs” relating to the allegations.
One of the parties that the Police are investigating took place on November 13, 2020 at [pg. 3] - “a gathering in No. 10 Downing Street flat”
Annex B: Timeline of Regulations mentions second national lockdown and respective regulations that applied to the above party [5 November, 2020/pg. 10].
The above contradicts the statement made by Boris Johnson to the House of Commons on 8/12/2021 where he explicitly denied any party taking place on that date.
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister” - according to the Ministerial Code.
This page will do its patriotic duty and provide Lord Christopher Geidt with all the evidence he needs to proceed with an investigation into whether the Prime Minister denied any party taking place on November 13, 2020.
There were some interesting quotes, too:
“...the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify.”
“...a serious failure to observe…the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government.”
“The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time.”
“the garden was also used for gatherings without clear authorisation or oversight.”
“Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so.” [this page reflects on several allegations - including, but not limited to, pressure on staff from Downing St to delete WhatsApp messages/Culture of bullying]
But the key part is here:
Conscious of hyperbole, no Prime Minister would be expected to survive this kind of judgment.
This was further reiterated by former Prime Minister Theresa May during an excoriating exchange with the Prime Minister before taking her seat and throwing daggers at his back.
The rancour from his backbenchers was staggering.
There was Conservative MP Aaron Bell who asked Boris Johnson - in a particularly emotional exchange - if he was a fool for following the rules when Boris Johnson could not.
Bell was later reported as having submitted a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson.
Or perhaps Sir Bernard Jenkin when he made an implicit threat and implored Boris Johnson to remind Sir Keir Starmer [after his speech] that the Conservative Party:
“…did not need reminding on how to dispose of failing leaders.”
There was Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory international development secretary, who said that he had supported Johnson since he played a pivotal role in getting him on the Conservative party’s candidates list 30 years ago. But now he could no longer support him. He later said on BBC Radio 4 that Boris Johnson’s leadership was:
"like battery acid corroding the Conservative party"
Even Priti Patel couldn't keep her head out of her hands.
It became so embarrassing for the Prime Minister that for 40 straight minutes into the urgent question, there was silence from the Conservatives and not a single government backbencher stood up to support him.
The day culminated in a smattering of cheers from the 1922 Committee after Boris Johnson assured them that because he “nearly died” from Covid, and therefore he took it seriously.
While Conservative MP for Guildford Angela Richardson resigned her cabinet position in despair, and the most supportive voice the government felt acceptable to send out to bat in the Prime Minister's defence was, of course, a crazed Nadine Dorries.
Contrition Was Needed
Yesterday morning, it felt like Boris Johnson was walking carefree between the raindrops into another week of typical business.
There was a trip to Ukraine on the cards [which later materialised as his escape pod from the rancour]; the 'Benefits of Brexit' for those interested enough to read and then casually throw into the recycling bin.
Then, come afternoon, the Sue Gray report came out in a heavily redacted and very limited form, and there was uncertainty - the Prime Minister was wobbling.
But then the moment he opened his mouth, it was - to say the least - shocking, perhaps deliberately so, and the Prime Minister was on Deathwatch waiting to be hoisted away by the famed 'Men in Grey Suits.'
Lacking in contrition, the Prime Minister could have approached the despatch box with a humble apology.
Instead, as a nation watched, in the most unedifying display, he humiliated himself by repeating a discredited far-right smear associating the leader of the opposition with having failed to investigate Jimmy Savile, and accused the opposition frontbench of being on drugs while chuntering on about no one policy in particular.
It was, without hyperbole or exaggeration, perhaps the single worst and both shameful and shameless speech of any Prime Minister. Ever.
Alas, more than several Conservative MPs must have asked the question, ‘what can we do about him?’
Their answer is on these very pages; nothing - theirs is a paralysis of their own making and it is up to them alone to make this decision on his future, as Sir Keir Starmer points out in his speech here that is worth every minute of your time.
We can wait for Sue Grey to ‘update’ her account - which may indicate that if this has been awful for the Prime Minister [even if the report is very limited in its current form], it will only get worse from here.
We can also wait for the outcome of any police investigation - which could take “weeks” but Boris Johnson has pledged to his backbenchers that the full Sue Gray report will be published after the Met have concluded their investigation.
We can also wait to see if Lord Christopher Geidt investigates whether Boris Johnson has breached the ministerial code by deliberately misleading Parliament over the denial of a party taking place on November 13, 2020.
Again, to establish whether there was a party on November 13, 2020 that the Prime Minister attended will require evidence - damning evidence - that the police [as per Sue Gray report] are [hopefully, hopefully!] collating as we speak; though this is optimism.
The Prime Minister can always come back to the House and correct the record, of course - but then why would he? He perceives apologies as weaknesses, mistakes as never having occurred - destined to be repeated - as patterns are dictated among many a narcissist.
And whatever Boris Johnson offers from now will in no way compensate for the loss experienced by so many, or placate voters who simply want him to resign.
Right now.
Now.