25th May 2022
Today we take in the now-published Sue Gray report.
The quick-takes have already been given and a parliamentary statement has come and gone, as the rest of us who have an interest digest the details of the report.
This post is not about the report in detail, but about the current Prime Minister’s response.
It is a response that Boris Johnson often gives at times of trouble.
It is the response of saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.
What could this phrase mean?
Note the ‘responsibility’ he purports to take is ‘full’ – and so, presumably, this is intended to mean something (or to convey that it means something) distinct from taking mere responsibility.
Oh no – this is ‘full’ responsibility.
Rhetorically, it is an impressive statement – to which some may even nod-along.
But it is hard, if not impossible, to see what it means.
For example: what actually is different as a consequence of Johnson saying he ‘takes full responsibility’?
What things change that otherwise would not change, but for the Prime Minister saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.
What is different from the Prime Minister saying instead “I am not taking full responsibility” or “I am not taking any responsibility whatsoever?”.
There is not any real difference; nothing changes.
If the Prime Minister instead said a sequence of nonsense words, it would have the same constitutional import.
This is because, in constitutional terms, when the Prime Minister says he is taking ‘full responsibility’, he is saying nothing meaningful.
In constitutional terms, the position is exactly the same after the moment Johnson says it, as when he does not say it.
It is instead a rhetorical device – a political tactic to get him through an awkward moment, cynically giving the impression to the listener that something grave is being conceded or admitted, when nothing is being accepted at all.
For, in constitutional terms, a Prime Minister taking ‘ full responsibility’ for a serious wrong is to perform an action, rather than to say a thing.
The action the Prime Minister would perform is to resign.
And if there is not a resignation after a serious wrong then ‘ full responsibility’ has not been taken.
Indeed, by using it as a deft rhetorical trick, Johnson evades taking full responsibility.
So next time you hear the current Prime Minister assure you and others that he ‘takes full responsibility’, substitute for that phase a sequence of random words and sounds, for it will have the same constitutional meaning.
That is to say: no constitutional meaning at all.
**
Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.
For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
You can also become an email subscriber.
***
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.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
I have full confidence in the Prime Minister.
I can pretty much guarantee you that there will be one thing that the full responsibility taken by the Prime Minister will be insufficient to accommodate… and that will be any form of internal disciplinary or termination of any MP or Civil Servant involved.
Simple reason, really: to discipline one would mean that all warrant such treatment, up to and including the Prime Minister himself.
And the hits just keep on coming.
Precisely! Sometimes an apology is not good enough. I wish that, instead of twisting language like Humpty Dumpty, Johnson would fall, smash, off HD’s wall.
Absolutely right – genuinely taking full responsibility would be accompanied by his resignation. But of course it’s just words, and about a plausible as saying he is ‘humbled’.
Clutching at straws here, but could “I take full responsibility” mean, “These events are part of my record in office and you should take them into account when deciding whether or not to re-elect me”? That would maintain some vague link between the statement and something ‘constitutional’…
Perhaps a very thin straw but I agree, at the very least others can now say “ but you said were responsible”.
When you utter the words “I take full responsibility for this”, even if you have no intention of doing any such thing, in my book you’ve gone on record as saying “it was all my fault” and “even if I didn’t cause it I could have stopped it but chose not to”.
Another flimsy straw perhaps. The one to be added to the back of the camel maybe?
Either the 1922 dumps him or they’re blasted into outer space at the next GE. They’re in a bit of a bind, really, all of their own making. As DAG advises: brace, brace.
Me thinks there is humpty dumptyism going on by both the author and the PM.
Much depends on one’s definition of ‘full’.
Johnson could easily argue that having cleaned out the stables of a few senior civil servants that he has taken full responsibility for the ensuing events ( albeit, clearly not all the Partygate implications)
It’s not clear that this a constitutional matter ( or even a point of law) , it’s more a matter of opinion. Happy to be corrected.
The challenge is, as humpty dumpty says ” When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less..”
to add to my earlier comment.
“..The action the Prime Minister would perform is to resign…”
There are a myriad of options, one of which is to resign.
If he was a religious man, Johnson could go to confession and even pay a penance.
Or, he could bluster his apologies.
I just can’t see an immediate legal or constitutional tool to force him to resign.
“If he was a religious man, Johnson could go to confession and even pay a penance.”
Henry II’s penance before Becket’s tomb came to mind, but even the notion of BJ tossing an extra fiver into the collection plate is far-fetched.
Spot on, as ever. But “full responsibility” surely has, certainly in plain if not necessarily in legal English, more than a merely rhetorical meaning. It implies that responsibility is undivided, and that everybody else involved acted, explicitly, implicitly or tacitly, with his permission. That is plainly true, and whether or not we think he meant to make that admission he should be held to it.
Thank you David for another insightful and helpful post.
I’m sure you will look at the report with your usual attention to details and will notice that the font of paragraph 10 number is in italic, unlike all other paragraphs. This is rather odd, given the length of time Sue Gray and most probably many other people had to review the report. Is this on purpose, to attract our attention, or a late addition to the report? Perhaps it just means nothing, but still strange in a report written by someone who is known to have great attention to details.
Maybe there’s a code in the report, like in Mr Justice Peter Smith’s judgment in the Dan Brown copyright case (he got told off for it)…
I think it’s worth keeping in mind that nobody involved in this scandal is involved as a person, despite the fact that several flesh-and-blood people are now looking at substantial fines. To put it another way, “126 fines handed out to individuals working at 10 Acacia Avenue” is a curiosity; it’s the fact that their workplace was 10 Downing Street, and that they were getting fined for actions taken in their role as public servants, that makes it big news.
When the Prime Minister says, in his role as Prime Minister, that he “takes full responsibility” for a political scandal, the logical inference is that the responsibility – all the responsibility – lies with the Prime Minister, and not (for example) with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Cabinet Secretary, let alone any more junior civil servant. (Which logically implies that he’s offering to pay all the fines.) So everyone else’s career can continue as before; no one else’s record of public service has the slightest blemish on it.
As for his career, well now. “This pattern of repeated lawbreaking took place on my watch and with my implicit endorsement, I am deeply sorry and I take full responsibility” is the kind of formulation that would normally be the preamble to a resignation statement. This being Johnson, though – someone whose guiding principles throughout his entire career have been to occupy whatever position of power or influence he can find and then see how much he can get away with – it’s more of a dare. “Yes, I’m a crook; what are you going to do about it?”
We’ll just have to see what the people with the power to do anything do want to do about it. I’m not optimistic; I fear there’s going to be a lot of Drawing of Lines and Moving On. “He’s taken full responsibility, what more do you want?”
A more appropriate address might be 126 Letsby Avenue.
PS If Johnson’s next move is not only to take full responsibility but to be very clear about it for the avoidance of doubt, I won’t take full responsibility for my actions. And if he enshrines it in law, I’m emigrating.
Surely taking “full responsibility” means “it was all my fault”. The buck stops with him.
He has also previously offered a “full” and indeed “wholehearted” apology – which presumably is meant to indicate something more than a simple, plain “apology”. Or perhaps that was just another rhetorical device to avoid having to take any action.
He has singularly failed to particularise what he (says he) is taking responsibility for, or apologising for. Was he at fault for the prevailing atmosphere of impunity? The failure to set and maintain approriate standards of behaviour? The feeling that anything goes, as long as they are not caught (more particularly, the “comms risk” the press might get wind of it)? The impression that organising and attending regular boozy events were an essential part of work at the heart of government, in the middle of a national lock-down?
So far, it is all just words. Nothing more than: “I’m sorry if you all upset, and I am really, really sorry I was caught. Changes will be made, and lessons will be learned. Now go away and let me get on with the job.” There are no actions that demonstrate contrition or atonement.
So what is he going to do about it, beyond offering hollow protestations of regret and humility. What exactly did he get wrong, what consequences flow from that, and what he is going to do to avoid it happening again. What lessons has he learned? What amends could he make?
The one decisive act he could take to demonstrate the gravity of it all, and the fullness of his personal responsibility, is to resign.
“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
Here here.
In plain English, taking responsibility for something means accepting that one will bear the consequences, whatever they may be. “Full” responsibility ought to mean that no one else will bear the consequences. So, for example, Johnson might say that he will pay all the fines incurred by his staff (and his super-rich neighbour) as those fines are a clear consequence of the improper behaviour that went on in Downing Street under his leadership. Or he might say that rather than anyone in the Civil Service being punished he will make all necessary amends – apologise to cleaners, clean the floor, mend the swing, or indeed reinstate those who have resigned and then resign himself.
But given that others have (literally and metaphorically) paid the price, his “full responsibility” statement unaccompanied by any further action is yet another piece of empty rhetoric – and treats those who have actually faced consequences with utter contempt.
Plus ca change…
In Johnson’s book, “I take full responsibility” is a phrase utterly divorced from “I accept the cosequences”. Parties have happened – we are to believe that the PM is sufficiently stupid not to understand that he attended many of them (ergo he did not lie to the House when he denied such events took place), – but he also told the House (rather bizarrely) that should such events have happened (!) that “they were fully compliant with the covid regualtions in force at the time” (or words to that effect – they were not; so he lied to the House by giving an assurance he knew to be untrue. He has breached the Ministerial code and must resign, but he will not. Instead, he will hang on until the committee imvestigating if he misled the House concludes and pray (since we are now to believe that he is a devout Catholic) that the built-in Tory majority will save his bacon.
One can only hope that a VoNC will be called by his peers and that they find the balls to kick him out (slim chance in the absence of a clear heir).
“Since we are now to believe that he is a devout Catholic”…
Another recent Prime Minister – Tony Blair – had a sudden outbreak of piety like that.
In Blair’s case it was shortly after it was revealed that he had deliberately and knowing lied to the House of Commons regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and the actual threat that Iraq posed to the UK.
Curiously, these two PMs share other things in common:
– contempt for the British people, the accepted norms of government conduct and even for their own cabinet;
– the fact that the actions of both resulted in needless British deaths (for Blair it was British Forces personnel sent in to GW2, for Johnson it was thousands of British citizens who died during the height of the Covid pandemic;
– autocratic leanings (Blair’s desire for the “presidential model” of government being well recorded at the time;
– towering narcissism cloaked in ‘Everyman’ appeal.
When a leader with autocratic tendencies starts touting their piety, it’s time to be worried. Very, very worried.
At the risk of heading off in a bit of a weird direction, a question…
What is the general reaction to the idea that an office workplace – a government workplace, no less – casually adopts a “bring-a-bottle” culture?
I work in the private sector now but spent 12 years in (local) government, and either then or now, if I had brought so much as a can of beer in to the office for any kind of drinks (socially distanced or not) I would expect to be immediately dismissed for gross misconduct.
I’m asking in part because I wonder if I’ve just become out of touch with “the modern workplace”, or whether the casual acceptance of alcohol in Downing Street is another illustration of the gulf separating the attitudes of the political establishment from “the real world”.
I accept that we might describe my current employer’s attitude as “zero tolerance” (and I have no problem with that), but, in simple terms, my employer considers that I must conduct myself appropriately, on or off the clock. This applies on public transport, in cafes and restaurants, in hotels and in aircraft when traveling, the works. I have no problem with this: I expect my employer to pay me for my time and services and they have a reasonable expectation that I will conduct myself professionally in return.
Yet I read the full report and find excerpts such as,
“… but was smaller in scale, with 15-20 people present, including a special advisor and more junior officials. There were leaving speeches and a presentation. Wine was available and music was played from a laptop on top of a printer. A number of those present drank excessively.”
“There was food and alcohol available which had been brought in by staff.” (*Instant* dismissal for me to bring alcohol on work premises…)… “Some members of staff drank excessively. The event was crowded and noisy such that some people working elsewhere in the No. 10 building that evening hears significant levels of noise coming from what they characterised as a ‘party’ in the Press Office.”
“Shortly before 21:30, there were over 20 people present in the garden, with a number of bottles of alcohol … Some individuals remained in the building and carried on drinking alcohol until the early hours. Exit logs indicate that some left after midnight and others between 01:45-02:45. Two members of staff stayed later still, with one leaving at 03:11 and the last leaving at 04:20.”
If you’re a tax payer (and, one way or another, pretty much every adult in the country is), then you’re funding this.
Not off topic at all. The trajectory of practices in the private sector over the past 30 years or so has been to render more and more unacceptable the consumption of alcohol on or off work premises during work time.
So the argument “we were all working so hard and deserved a drink” is complete bollocks. As is “everyone was doing it”. They were not.
And while I don’t doubt that the people involved were working hard, I doubt they could be considered the most hardworking group during the pandemic.
With an 80 seat majority and no serious challengers in sight it can come as no surprise Johnson is batting this out.
The UK has always been racist although polite foreigners suggest instead Brits have a superiority complex.
What is happening now is fascist and a lot harder for polite society to excuse.
If, as Johnson says, he didn’t realise these gatherings were against the rules, is an assessment of cognitive capacity indicated? Surely he has admitted to a lack of competence and should therefore be removed on medical grounds as a matter of urgent national security.
We’re all getting tied up with ” full responsibility”.
The challenge all of us face, on this particular topic, and gives the Oaf of a PM a weak escape clause is that “full responsibility” can’t in any rationale sense be measured.
You can accurately measure a full pint of beer, far more difficult to measure full responsibility of what?
In answer to Sproggit – I have worked in workplaces (private and public sector) where there might be boozing on the premises in particular, restricted circumstances – basically
a) at or near Christmas
b) when work had already wound down for the year, and in any case
c) no more than once or twice in a calendar year
But even those memories go back to circa 2000, maybe 2005 at the very latest.
The thought of drinking on work premises on a regular basis is outlandish – and the idea that keeps coming up, that it was somehow more appropriate because of how busy they were, is like something from another planet. Perhaps that’s how they conduct themselves at merchant banks, I don’t know.
I accept there may be many places of work where any social interaction involving alcohol is unacceptable for all manner of good reasons, but I have worked in a variety of places where drinks after work, perhaps in a local bar or pub, has been a regular (weekly or more often) occurrence.
All of my employers in the last 25 years have held organised drinks within the workplace from time to time – not just Christmas parties, or annual year-end knees-ups, but perhaps a monthly drinks trolley, or beer and wine in the room before or after a post-work meeting, seminar, charity fundraiser, whatever.
Not at the height of the pandemic, of course – nothing of that sort, really, from March 2020 to late 2021 – but we have been paying some attention to rebuilding team cohesion in the last few months, particularly as almost everyone who can is still working from home regularly, myself included.
That said, the prospect of civil servants knocking off at 4pm every week for “wine time Friday” is pretty extraordinary. Perhaps there is a read across from the culture in the City of London, but I’ve not heard anything of the sort from the civil servants I know. Is it just Number 10? And is it just since July 2019?
Sure, Partygate is a disgrace but trivial in comparison with the other problems facing this country. The snag is that replacing Johnson will not throw up some genius who can lead us on to sunny uplands. No, not even Starmer or Rayner taking the reins will make much difference. TBH I can’t think of anyone better than Johnson – that is a terrible measure of the mess we are in.
Sometimes one just has to chop the Gordian knot, question is which one.
That’s pretty much a council of despair.
Why would you think that evidence of the repeated dishonesty and lack of integrity of a leader and his minions was in any way trivial?
And surely “better the devil you know” is a weak argument for maintaining the status quo given there are a couple of hundred potential replacements. They can’t all be the same or worse can they??
I listened to Nick Robinson’s inquisition of Steve Barclay on the Today programme this morning during which, like his Cabinet colleagues, Mr Barclay gave the most cringeworthy responses. The entire Cabinet is responsible for this situation and I hope that, when the Conservatives ‘full confidence’ in the Prime Minister eventually evaporates, someone outside the current Cabinet will become leader. It is the failure to break ranks by anyone in the Cabinet which will inevitably lead to loss of power when the electorate does finally get to have its say
I had to turn him off. I simply could not subject my ears to any more of his drivel.
Just to make the point that there could be viable alternatives to the current occupier of no 10, here are a few Tory MPs outside the cabinet who are perhaps not tarred with the same brush (and in no particular order):
Johnny Mercer
Tobias Ellwood
Tom Tugendhat
Dr. Andrew Murrison
Other candidates for PM are also available.
I’m not making the case for or against any of these, merely trying to suggest that those who repeatedly say “there is no alternative” might not be correct.
Plus, when it comes to it, as it surely must, can we please STOP saying the PM “runs the country”. He or she does not. We don’t (yet) have presidential government, though I admit it’s getting hard to tell.
A few years ago when my children were younger, they watched Ben and Holly’s Little Kingdom. When they watched this episode, I told them to remember what King Thistle said about taking responsibility as it was a valuable life lesson on privilege. I commend it to you now ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqhiu9gMfN8
Brilliant!
King Boris anyone?
“For, in constitutional terms, a Prime Minister taking ‘ full responsibility’ for a serious wrong is to perform an action, rather than to say a thing.”
Is that an opinion or have you a proper legal basis for asserting it?
If there is a proper legal basis for it, then can it not be enforced through the courts?
Could we injunct him to resign, on the grounds that it would be misconduct if he doesn’t?
That wouldn’t need to be tested to the criminal standard, so should be easier than a prosecution for misconduct.