25th January 2022
Well.
Downing Street is now bing investigated by the Metropolitan Police.
And we are told that the Sue Gray report will not be ‘paused’ – and that it may even be delivered to the Prime Minister this evening, with it being published tomorrow.
What can be usefully said about this?
Perhaps two things.
First, look (again) at the Terms of Reference – that is the best corrective to getting carried away with what the report may or may not include.
In particular note that it is structured as a fact-finding exercise.
Indeed, had Gray been tasked with apportioning culpability then there may have been reason for the report to be delayed pending the police investigation.
What Downing Street gained by making it a fact-finding exercise they lost by not having a plausible excuse for it to be delayed at this stage.
And second, note that the Terms of Reference say:
“As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.”
This probably means that a government lawyer has had to advise on whether the threshold has been met for evidence to be referred to the police.
And – if so – this means that on that advice, Sue Gray has been satisfied that evidence does need to be referred.
In essence: for this evidence to be referred a government lawyer and a senior official have already had to be satisfied of its seriousness.
And, in commencing an investigation, the police concur.
This does not mean that anyone is necessarily guilty.
Suspicion does not mean guilt.
But.
The evidence uncovered is so serious that a certain threshold has been met.
Brace brace.
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Pretty clear then
Johnson has already declared that he’s done nothing wrong. He repeated that (if not in that exact phrase) again today.
“I’m innocent!” he cried.
And in those two words he has effectively prejudged any outcome.
As others have observed, he will cling on for as long as he can. He’s a limpet on a rock, a bolt in a nut – a thorn in our side.
There are good reasons for not pushing him off the edge: but equally can we let this continue?f
The Tory brand has been utterly trashed by someone, and yet no-one is remotely surprised because we are aware of his amorality. But just the Americans couldn’t let Trump endlessly trash their political system, so we cannot allow this pollution to continue.
Over to the backbenchers.
An awful number of Americans were fully aware of Trump’s immorality and despite that he garnered a frightening number of votes.
Unfortunately we don’t have an election on the horizon.
When it came to garnering votes, I think Trump broke the mould in two very significant ways. Firstly, he was able to transact a whole series of ‘Faustian Pacts’ with segments of the electorate. For example, he was able to persuade the Bible Belt to vote for him in significant numbers, despite the breaking story that he had slept with a porn star while Melania was recovering from the birth of Barron. Those publicly claiming devotion to their faith seemed willing to overlook adultery in their president – in return for Trump promising to nominate a swath of conservative justices to the bench.
The second and even more remarkable [when you think about it] element was his ability to persuade a bunch of people who would almost certainly ignore elections most of the time – the fascists, racists and other extremists – on the basis that his dog-whistles were telegraphing that he was one of them. It wasn’t that he did it, it was that he got away with it.
Much as the world recoiled, the extent of his malfeasance seems to have been limited largely by his own incompetence. Although more than half a million dead thanks to down-playing the pandemic through fear that reacting to it would harm the economy and with it his electoral chances… really did seem to put the “malignant” in front of the “narcissist”.
There’s a lovely exchange in the “Dave” (1993: Ivan Reitman), where a Presidential Look-alike, “Dave” Kovak (Kevin Kline), invites his accountant buddy Murray Blum (Charles Grodin), to the White House to try and redress the Federal Budget deficit.
Blum: “You could get in *so* much trouble!”
Dave: “With who?”
Blum: “With the government!”
Dave: “*I’m* the Government!!!”
That exchange was brought to mind as I read your comment and the original post, because the thread that runs through this entire debacle seems to be similar in nature: the participants and those proximate to the scandal remain supremely confident that their elected office is some sort of super-power that offers limitless authority, complete immunity and a note from teacher excusing them from ever having to do their day job – of administering the country.
Sadly, the sycophantic nature of the Westminster Bubble, references to the “political class” so common in the media that it has entered the mainstream, all serve to explain that conduct which *is* visible – of an administration that exists separate from and superior to the nation they serve.
It’s easy to blame an individual or a party for this outrage, but it has been decades in the making and has had fervent cross-party support. If any one thing were to come of this event I would like to see accountability.
Those elected to the highest offices must be held to the highest standards. And those unable to live up to those standards must be removed. But publish the Standards so we can all see them. Write them in plain English so that any transgressions are clear, unambiguous and fair. Then enforce the rules.
“He’s a limpet on a rock, a bolt in a nut – a thorn in our side”
The second in your trilogy of marvelous metaphors is back to front: he is a nut on a bolt.
The news this evening suggests Gray’s report will be made public tomorrow, even before PMQs. Forgive me if I am sceptical. Either it is anodyne; it will be heavily redacted; or it simply isn’t true. I cannot imagine Johnson would subject himself to the ritual humiliation he has experienced at PMQs unless he had a get out card. Nous verrons.
Thank you for clear dissection of what exactly is happening. I fear the whole thing will be deliberately muddled up at PMQs tomorrow to confuse the public.
Our fellow Brummie Austen Chamberlain is generally regarded as the most honourable figure in 20th century British public life.
Following a disaster at Kut near Baghdad where the Indian army suffered huge casualties owing to mismanagement in the Indian government in July 2017 he resigned as Secretary of State for India when a Select Committee was set up to investigate.
It would have been easy for Chamberlain to throw the blame onto the man who at that point was Permanent Secretary in the Foreign Office, having ceased to be Viceroy of India and head of the Indian government the previously year, Lord Hardinge. He did not do so despite Hardinge twice offering his resignation to the Foreign Secretary.
Chamberlain returned to the War Cabinet in 1918 and became Chancellor of the Exchequer (for the second time) in 1919 and on Bonar Law’s resignation as leader of the Conservative Party he became its leader in the Commons. If he had not been loyal to Lloyd George, he would in all probability have become Prime Minister.
He died – universally respected – in 1937. Leo Amery – another Birmingham MP – wrote ‘He just missed greatness and the highest position, but his was a fine life of honourable public service’ Another contemporary – reflecting on his resolute opposition to Hitler – “There will be rejoicing in Berlin today that this desiccated patriarch is no more.’
What a contrast with the monster in No 10.
But even if the PM is held guilty of a crime the sentence would surely be a mere fine of about £100. Also by the time the Met reports, the public generally will have moved onto other concerns. The damage is far worse politically than legally but it looks like the PM has a sack of odious wriggles and wrigglers to assist him.
In the “Guardian”, it’s suggested Johnson and others MAY breached the criminal law to the extent they could be charged with “misconduct in public office”. I think that’s an unlikely outcome – however, a life sentence is the MAXIMUM punishment for “misconduct in public office”.
At one stage I had hopes of seeing Tony Blair being handed down such a sentence because of his alleged misdeeds relating to the Iraq War.
Thanks for that amplification.
Depending on the facts, other offences may be relevant – for example, taking steps to destroy evidence might involve a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Johnson apologizing being prosecuted surviving and paying a fine misses the point: the country is now an international laughing stock.
Keating may not be a serious player on the world stage but his comments resonate with many .
Europeans are laughing at cake hijackings this morning as they used to laugh about ham sandwiches.
Until a UK politician publishes a first draft of a written constitution for consultation purposes it is hard to see where you go post Brexit.
And now we have Tory people on the PM programme (Crispin Blunt) arguing that ‘everyone was working very hard’ and ‘it’s the same as a speeding offence’. So all at No 10 should be forgiven eh? ‘Not a big enough offence to sack the PM. ‘ But the offence is not the breaking of the rules, per se, but the hypocrisy of it and the mendacity about it, both of which reflect, in my view accurately, the nature of the PM and his governing gang.
Listening to Crispin Blunt on radio today, with his emphasis on 10 minutes of cake, I wondered if the next stage of Johnson’s defence would be to admit that he had broken the law, but only in a specific and limited way.
Thank you David for a very thoughtful analysis as usual. I am intrigued by the end of the sentence: ‘and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused’ in the Terms of Reference.
Can we say that the evidence uncovered has met the threshold to be referred, but not the threshold to pause the work of the Cabinet Office? Assuming there is a threshold for that to?
Thank you
I have two points, first regardless of what the terms of reference are, the expectations in the press and general public are for some sort of utterly damning indictment of Johnson and No 10. If the report simply states facts without judgement then there is a good chance it will fail expectations. Johnson and No 10 will benefit from the resulting disillusionment, and partisans will use it to reclaim the high ground.
Secondly, I think we have seen a similar situation before, across the pond. The report released at the end of the Mueller investigation was released to DOJ before it was released to the rest of the government or the public, and although it contained a lot of damning information it didn’t have a simple conclusion for the public to read. Attorney General Bill Barr used his early access and the lack of a definitive conclusion to spin the results to great effect.
I feel a certain ennuie. Here we are at the middle of the week, newspapers full of Boris, alleged dramas in a large country far away, bosoms, bums and frocks n cars and the usual murders etc etc. So normal. I just know we will drag our way to the weekend colour sups for more cheery news re inflation and the gas bills and intractable problems. And Monday will start the whole process over again.
Meanwhile we have lots of expensive people who seem to be engaged in subverting and getting in the way of yet more expensive people in ensuring nothing useful gets done and even more expensive people engaged in telling us all about it. One feels the world would run just as well with 1/4 the people.
I suppose things will go on until they don’t. In the past revolutions and wars served as punctuation marks. Can’t see that coming, so more of the same. But can’t avoid a nasty feeling trouble is over the horizon.
Assume we are expecting redactions in Gray’s report so as not to potentially hinder any prosecutions?
Given the statement from the Met, this morning, that while they are not asking for publication of the report to be delayed they are asking that it contains only “minimal reference” to the events they are actively investigating, it would be suprising, to say the least, if the Cabinet Office do not, off its own bat, now “pause” the investigation (and provision of the report to the Prime Minister) until after the police investigations are concluded.
After all, reported statements earlier this week that the Cabinet Office would not pause the investigation were predicated on, a now erroneous, belief that the Met were content for the full report to be published, because the offences in question would give rise to the issuing of tickets and not trial.
It is worth remembering, the Prime Minister has told the House of Commons that the ‘full facts” would be “established” by the investigation and, on Tuesday, the Paymaster General, told the House of Commons that the findings of the investigation would be provided to the House of Commons and be made public. The Prime Minister has also said that when that happens he will make a ministerial statement in the House of Commons and a debate would follow.
If the Cabinet Office aceede to the Met’s request, and its hard to see a scenario where they do not, and put less in the report than the investigation found in respect to the events the Met are investigating then that report cannot form the basis of a ministerial statement (and debate in the House of Commons on how the Prime Minister is to be held account for events he has already told the House of Commons he “must take responsibility” for. That is because, becasuse, by defintion, less than the full findings by that investigation will have been made public.
That is the most narrow reason why it would not be credible for the Cabinet Office to continue with the report at this time. More broadly and, from a political perspective, practically, the Prime Minister wants the Sue Gray report to draw a line under this affair, so he can move on. If the commencent of a police investigation did not ensure no line would be drawn (and, frankly, it should have). The Met’s intervention this morning gurantees no line will be drawn until they are done.