The Geidt Letters: Just when you thought it couldn't get any sleazier

I spoke before about the judgment of Lord Geidt on the Downing St. flat refurbishments [and the Electoral Commission’s findings, too] - and what’s interesting about it is that even though Boris Johnson has been ‘technically’ cleared, as reported previously, had he shown Geidt the messages, he’d have been in breach of the ministerial code.

Or “possibly illegal” acts, according to his former adviser Dominic Cummings.

At least that’s the tone of the language in the the correspondence between Lord Geidt and the Prime Minister - which you can read here.

What’s obviously staggering about it though, is that even though both Geidt and Johnson have been left utterly humiliated by this, neither of them have actually resigned, and stranger still, is that Geidt didn’t consider [as new evidence emerged] that such matters should be re-investigated.

Even though they’re “possibly” [and most likely] “illegal”.

The substance of the exchanges between Johnson and Brownlow are interesting, too.

Firstly, it’s incidental, but nonetheless ‘fun’ - the alleged “tip.”

For historicity, the “tip” Johnson is referring to is the “John Lewis furniture nightmare” best described by the Prime Minister’s wife Carrie when she saw the ‘state’ of the flat that was set to be refurbished - a handover from Theresa May’s tenure as Prime Minister.

And it is ‘best described’ by Symonds because Johnson is ambivalent to living in and around squalor himself…

Boris Johnson’s car c. 2019/Guardian

Johnson in the No. 10 office c.2019

…and so upon seeing the alleged ‘tip’, one can only assume that these are the extended views of his beloved wife rather than those of the Prime Minister.

It’s incidental, of course - the main focus lies elsewhere insofar as the apparent ‘Exhibition’ - a ‘pet project’ of Lord Brownlow’s, which was discussed at a meeting between Brownlow and then culture secretary [now Tory Party chairman] Oliver Dowden in January.

The idea was ‘not taken forward’ - according to No. 10, but then they’re struggling to make a distinction between the ‘Great Exhibition’ and the upcoming ‘Festival UK’ /‘Unboxed’ - which itself is indistinguishable from the so-called ‘Festival of Brexit’ and described as such by, of all people, Jacob Rees-Mogg - recently in the news as having inadvertedly exposing the Achilles heel of any future Rishi Sunak leadership bid.

Oops.

Where the waters muddy further is that mere weeks after Boris Johnson sent a text to Brownlow telling him that he hadn't forgotten his Great Exhibition plan, Oliver Dowden held a meeting to discuss - oh, the Great Exhibition 2.0.

With… the donor who also said, “I know where the £ will come from” for the Prime Minister’s flat refurbishment.

In essence, quid pro quo - and this was not made aware to Geidt at the time as part of his initial investigation.

Strangely, Johnson states that the reason for his failure to disclose the WhatsApp messages to Geidt was due to him changing his phone number - which, up until April last year, had been in the public domain for 15 years and revealed by gossip website Popbitch, who the Prime Minister blamed for his failure to fully disclose the messages with Brownlow.

At a Covid Vaccination Centre in Moulton Park, Northampton [in a further weird NATB-exclusive geographical coincidence - as spoken about here] the Prime Minister was asked:

ITV News Politics @ITVNewsPolitics

Reporter: 'Do really expect the public to believe you didn't disclose key messages about the refurbishment of your flat because you have a new phone?' @BorisJohnson: 'I followed the ministerial guidance at all times - and yes'

So, essentially, the Prime Minister’s defence for this rests on:

• His [or his wife’s] belief that the flat’s necessity for a refurbishment was due to it being a “tip” - to the absolute delight, I’m sure, of Theresa May.

And:

• Johnson didn’t declare the messages to Geidt as part of his initial investigation because, basically, his new phone ate his chat history - and presumably Johnson had never heard of Cloud storage that automatically backs it up anyway. [or alternate description - ‘Doing a Bethell’]

Graphic - Good Law Project

Interestingly, the former Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life Sir Alistair Graham told LBC:

"Well, it all looks a very unhappy saga as far as Boris Johnson is concerned.”

Is that so?

The Prime Minister later “humbly and sincerely” apologised to Geidt and pledged to give him, “more dedicated support from officials as part of [his] secretariat” and a “specific proposal” this month to compel ministers to give him “necessary and prompt, full answers” to inquiries - which falls short of a commitment from Johnson to give Geidt the power to initiate his own investigations, something that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has called for.

Labour, meanwhile, has written to page favourite and bane of the Conservative Party’s existence Kathryn Stone, and have asked her to open a formal investigation - though she has yet to take a decision on whether to initiate one.

A Conclusion… of Sorts

Lord Geidt would have probably fared better if he’d have simply resigned rather than carry the torch for the Prime Minister - for the sake of his own establishment reputation, at least.

His only other option would have been to re-investigate - but had he been privy to all of the details [as they are now known], he’d have probably recommended sanctions be imposed on the Prime Minister having been found guilty of breaking the code of conduct, including for him to make an apology [which he hasn’t done to Parliament - yet] or be suspended from the Commons.

The problem though, is that even with these recommendations - which may have never happened, since Geidt is “independent” of Boris Johnson in the same way my left hand is independent of my right hand - the person who’d serve as the “ultimate arbiter” in the case of Boris Johnson’s alleged misconduct… is Boris Johnson.

It’s why the Electoral Commission’s findings were so absorbing.

And why Kathryn Stone’s investigation would be, too.

As we saw in the case of the Owen Paterson scandal that tore the Conservatives apart - at least in the eyes of the public - the Standards Commission [represented by Kathryn Stone] carries weight; to the extent that, sadly, Stone was receiving death threats for the problems she posed to ‘the establishment’ that many who, ironically, voted for and support Johnson [to this day] opposed.

And who remembers when Kwasi Kwarteng doubled down on the efforts to depose Stone from the role, too?

Ultimately, Geidt has criticised the Prime Minister - which is a euphemism for ‘a slap on the wrist’ - but Geidt is in an awkward spot here; as he was before Christmas - because both outcomes could lead to a chain of events that ends with the Conservatives in an even more precarious position than during/after the Owen Paterson affair.

[It’s why this story isn’t a ‘dead cat’ and why Cummings was smart at the time to mention it]

Geidt could re-investigate, and make damning recommendations that - if the Prime Minister “follows the ministerial code at all times” as he said he does, would - bizarrely - involve him tendering his resignation to… himself if it is found that he didn’t.

Geidt could also resign, in which case - for those old enough to recall the departure of Sir Alex Allan - to lose one apparently “independent” adviser on ministerial ethics might be seen as ‘unlucky’ or even ‘careless’.

To lose two, though.

Well.