Unravelling: The lies catch up to you in the end, Prime Minister
Let it serve as a tombstone.
Before we begin…
Whenever the corruption scandal came to the fore and the public were outraged by the way in which the Conservatives would protect Owen Paterson, there was something always bittersweet about the coverage.
Bittersweet because - despite everything that opposition to the Conservatives have encountered over the last 2 years, this, apparently, was the hill the Conservative Party were going to die on.
Instead, it seems, that COVID - or rather the government's response to it - was 'what got him in the end.'
And rightly so.
On Tuesday and going into Wednesday, I’d already laid out the basis for two articles.
One was going to address the issue of the Kabul evacuation - specifically, Raphael Marshall, the FCDO whistleblower working for the foreign office that revealed the chaos behind the scenes as Kabul was taken by the Taliban back in August.
The second, which will probably appear at a later date, possibly, depending on the gravity of the current situation and consequences for the Prime Minister, focused on the role of Carrie Johnson (née Symonds) the Prime Minister’s wife.
How both stories related was by the way of the Kabul evacuation.
In Symonds’ case, her direct involvement in ensuring Nowzad staff and animals were evacuated from Kabul; despite his complete denial of involvement.
And both stories were equally damning - in a way.
But then the video of Allegra Stratton, the Downing St. spokesperson came to light and the approach was, ‘calm down there; Carrie Symonds might not even be the first lady by the end of next week.’
Why it matters
Credit where it is due to ITV’s Paul Brand who revealed the story - and Pippa Crerar from the Daily Mirror, who opened the pandora’s box.
Brand deserves this - one suspects it was deliberate on the part of ITV to let Brand ‘have’ the story.
Brand’s input on the historicity of the charges against the Prime Minister - and broadly the Conservatives - stretches back to the release of elderly residents into care homes.
His reporting and the reporting of Pippa Cerar is commendable.
Actually, Brand’s tweets and articles formed the basis of a large part of my article examining the ‘Lessons Learnt’ report back in October - and although it might sound self-indulgent, I would strongly recommend you read it, because fundamentally this is why it matters.
I would also reflect on the words of Lindsay Jackson from the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group who spoke on Sky News following the release of the Stratton video.
Ultimately, as a process of understanding why this still matters.
The morning after
You can deduce from the reaction within the Conservative party itself on Wednesday that nobody was keen to jump to the Prime Minister’s defence - least of all by the fact nobody on the morning following the release of the video wanted to appear on the news to defend it.
Because they couldn’t. This is seemingly indefensible, although I did point towards some ham-fisted and obscure defence in my previous article - and here, too, by barrister Matthew Scott, discussing exemption to the rules for those occupying Crown properties.
But even this seems tenuous - an explainer [once again] in a thread by barrister Adam Wagner that is worth a read:
The best they could do for the ‘morning after’ - no, seriously - was roll out former health secretary Matt Hancock who said, “I don’t know anything about the party. I wasn’t invited” after both Good Morning Britain, Sky News and BBC News' empty-chaired Sajid Javid who was set to appear and commemorate the anniversary of the vaccine rollout.
Ministers before - like Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid, Kit Malthouse, and others such as Rishi Sunak, Maggie Throup, Oliver Dowden, George Freeman - were either quick to toe the party line or offer dichotomous and often contradictory accounts.
Numerous MPs [such as Lucy Allan MP] came to the defence of the government when previously there was no visible or compelling evidence to suggest the alleged Downing Street party had even occurred.
Even though many parties occurred.
[Even despite the Met saying the now-resigned Stratton’s video wasn’t compelling evidence - and even in spite of the fact that Justice secretary Dominic Raab admitted that any formal party would have ‘broken the rules’]
Each of them - and Boris Johnson - potentially in breach of the ministerial code for having misled the public.
But there was a notable silence - and it was deafening, from the government, and lamentably certain portions of the media, too.
Where it wasn’t silent, however, was from the back-benchers and MPs within the Conservatives themselves, with various unnamed MPs telling the media how angry both they and their constituents were, and on-record comments from Chatham MP Tracey Crouch who said:
An apology, as asked for by leader of the opposition Sir Keir Starmer, did not not suffice, as we saw at Prime Minister’s Questions.
The polls continued to drop; the outrage from the general public increased - with every obfuscation; with every lie; with every contradiction.
And the decision to implement a curiously sketched out Plan B after it was brought forward to supposedly distract the news cycle from discussing the numerous Christmas parties seemingly did not work for Downing St, either.
Actually, it appeared to add fuel to the fire. As noted by Conservative MP William Wragg who said:
“Few will be distracted by this diversionary tactic.”
Sajid Javid, meanwhile, returned to the chamber and gave an update to MPs on the new, rudimentary “diversionary” restrictions to the heckles of backbenchers calling for his resignation - perhaps over the Christmas parties from last year although most likely, his u-turn after the fanfare of ‘Freedom Day’ and the decision to implement new restrictions.
Reversibly so.
Things were quite obviously beginning to unravel.
Case, Simon Case… is on the Case. Or not?
Cabinet secretary Simon Case was then drafted in to investigate the gatherings - to the confusion of some like BBC’s Vicki Young who noted that Boris Johnson couldn’t confirm whether or not Case had actually attended any of the parties that are alleged to have taken place.
Did Case attend the one alleged in Carrie Johnson’s flat on November 13 following the sacking of Dominic Cummings?
Did Case attend the one alleged to have taken place on November 27 when Boris Johnson was alleged to have given a speech at a leaving-do for Downing St. staffer Cleo Watson?
Did Case attend the one alleged to have been held by former Department for Education secretary Gavin Williamson on December 10?
Did Case attend the one causing the most concern right now in Downing St that was alleged to have taken place on December 18?
Sub-question - was Case given any awards at the party during a
fake/joke awards ceremony
- also dated December 18 - where Boris Johnson's director of communications Jack Doyle made a thank you speech and handed out awards those in attendance?
Did Case attend the “raucous” party alleged to have been held by CCHQ in their party headquarter’s basement, and organised by Shaun Bailey’s mayoral campaign team?
Of course, the issue with Simon Case is not whether he attended the parties himself [still half-confirmed-although-not-really] but which party he was supposed to be investigating that “didn’t” occur.
An implicit admission that one or more parties did occur otherwise they’d be appointing Simon Case to investigate nothing, if you think about it.
Initially, it was only going to be the December 18 party.
Later, it was expanded to include three parties; including November 27 and December 10, but crucially, not the one held after Dominic Cummings’ departure on November 13 2020 - which Cummings feels is obviously significantly more important than the second party in November because, of course, it involves him.
Stranger still, is that the November 13 party was widely reported in the Metro and the Daily Mail, which is even more staggering when during Prime Minister’s Questions - in an exchange with Labour’s Catherine West - Johnson denied it.
Thus raising the question of whether or not the Prime Minister is either a liar [at the despatch box] or incompetent.
[NATB note: or both]
The former, under normal circumstances, would result in far more severe consequences. The ministerial code states:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”
Once again, paraphrasing Nixon, but then if the Prime Minister does it, then it is not illegal.
The outcome?
People who subscribe to this page know my views on Boris Johnson’s resignation - insofar as it will not be sufficient punishment.
The supposition made by this page is that Johnson relishes the possibility of leaving the role so that he can enrich himself and, ‘rake it in like Blair’; with historical and varying accounts that discuss his disdain for role of Prime Minister and his envy of others; disdain that is based purely on his own abject finances brought about by his own repeated extra-marital transgressions.
But any punitive measures the Prime Minister may face [malfeasance, for example] or the Conservatives in general - however severe, will ultimately not suffice those who suffered such tragic losses; and, as we saw, were literally laughed at.
In light of the recent revelations that Johnson misled an investigation into a donation for refurbishments to his Downing Street flat after the Electoral Commission fined the Tories £17,800, ‘justice’ - in some form - may come rather swift and for wholly different reasons.
This is a rather important story people should be paying attention to, by the way.
Any investigation, however, appears compounded by the fact that whatever “compelling evidence” Simon Case might find has already been dismissed by the Metropolitan Police anyway, raising further questions - though without any convincing answers - on just why that might be [note: ‘Omerta’].
Dead Cat
There’s some contention over whether this story - on the lockdown/tier-system parties are some enormous ‘dead cat’ - or ‘distraction’.
What are they a distraction from?
Two ‘illiberal’ matters spring to mind; the Policing Bill and the Borders Bill that are both being pushed through Parliament among all of this.
It’s perfectly feasible, of course, that the government can do many awful things all at the same time - and on a more hopeful note, policies such as those can be repealed and changed by different governments as obviously, Prime Ministers can be changed, too.
If one can remove a Prime Minister on the basis of ‘public mood’ to story X, one can eventually vote for another to repeal policy Y for example - and remember, too, the stifling though necessary process that bills have to go through to be given Royal Assent and become an Act of Parliament.
We aren’t on the precipice of total authoritarianism. Yet. In this sense, it is benign.
Most people are ignorant to more important stories and policies, however - often, they're too complicated; sometimes, deliberately so; and to the point where most, including the Prime Minister, do not even understand them.
If anything, it's an indictment of the public's inertia towards political matters most feel do not affect them directly.
I speak about this here:
As a result, the media - for better or worse - focus on the story that fundamentally ‘sells’.
This story [on Christmas parties] is not complicated. It's easy to understand. It has greater capacity for cutting through. [Story X]
If at a later date we still have our misgivings about Policy Y, the result - or outcome - of Story X may give another Prime Minister an opportunity to repeal the act or institute a new one.
It's easy to justify on the part of the journalists [like Pippa Crerar] that exposed it when it comes to the question of, 'why wait a year?'
You can listen to Pippa Crerar’s cogent and perfectly justifiable reasons for sitting on it for so long here [ie. corroboration].
As Omicron seems to be taking hold as a particularly virulent strain in Britain, however - with its threat undetermined - and with a half-baked plan B implemented, the necessity to speak about this story now takes precedent because ultimately, it asks the question why anybody - when the government literally laughs in the face of so many who have suffered - would even remotely take them seriously now?
But then all of this is indicative of what opposition has experienced these last 2 years - all of it, everything written above; the absurdity, the sadness, the horror, the mismanagement; all of the above is inter-linked by one man who leads an abhorrent and frankly lawless cabal made up of thieves and liars.
If Conservative voters see this now, good.
Though for all intents and purposes, and forgivably, they’re a little late to the party - which may or may not have occurred, right?