The PM and that party: moment of madness or unforgivable betrayal?

How did the Prime Minister — a seasoned statesman with the hide of a rhinoceros and a cunning worthy of Odysseus — come to grief so badly over something as trivial as an office party? Has Boris Johnson’s sixth sense for what a large section of the public is thinking, the eye for the main chance that propelled him into No 10, wholly deserted him? What became of the survival instinct that has vouchsafed him more comebacks than any politician of his generation? Has Boris lost whatever it was that led voters to trust him with the biggest Tory majority since Margaret Thatcher?

The answers to these questions are important but elusive. Much remains mysterious about what went on in Downing Street during the various lockdowns, although the inquiry led by Sue Gray will throw light on the sequence of events that led the Prime Minister’s staff to play fast and loose with the rules, seemingly with the approval of their chief. At the political level, however, the key questions are: did he approve the party on May 20th, 2020, was he present and has he lied about it? We should not need to wait for Ms Gray’s report to get answers to these questions. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (who should be emerging from isolation today) will undoubtedly be demanding answers in his usual forensic manner at Prime Minister’s Questions later today.

From what we already know, there seems little point in Boris Johnson denying knowledge of the party organised by his own PPS, Martin Reynolds. Whether he approved it is a different matter; at any rate he did nothing to prevent it. There are credible reports that he and his wife Carrie attended the event and were seen “gladhanding” those present. The word need not imply literally shaking hands rather than elbow-bumping, but even if the gathering in the garden had not been authorised by the PM, it is very much in character for him to take the opportunity to thank his staff.

Unfortunately for him, such gatherings — however informal — were of course strictly prohibited at the time. If he was there, in any capacity whatsoever, the best and indeed only proper course of action for the Prime Minister now is to come clean, apologise and in effect throw himself on the mercy of the House of Commons. If he clears the air and his party remains loyal, he will survive any confidence vote that may be called by the Opposition parties. If he does not, it may well be his own colleagues who demand a vote of no confidence.  

There remains the key question of whether or not the Prime Minister lied to the Commons. It is one of the best established conventions of our unwritten constitution that any minister who is found to have deliberately misled the House must resign. Critics have been quick to remind the PM that only last month he professed indignation at the discovery that parties had been held at No 10 during lockdown in December 2020. His defenders will point out that these were different events and that he never misled the Commons about the May 20th party.

At worst, it seems that the PM has been economical with the truth. That is not lying and certainly not a reason for resignation. Whether the public accepts this explanation or sees it as equivocation is another question. Opinion polls suggest that more than 50 per cent of voters consider that “Partygate” is indeed a resigning matter. The perception that Boris Johnson and his staff failed to play by the rules to which the rest of the country was still strictly adhering has angered Conservatives even more than others: they feel especially badly let down.

At such a time, any plea in mitigation is bound to ring hollow. However, one should not forget the context in which this apparent breach of the law, as it then was, took place. A bunker mentality at No 10, always incipient, had been exacerbated by the pandemic and especially by the PM’s own brush with mortality the previous month. During the weeks when he was recovering from Covid at St George’s Hospital, his role as minister for the civil service in general and Downing Street in particular had necessarily been delegated to others.

The role of Dominic Cummings had come under intense scrutiny and his notorious press conference in the Rose Garden took place soon after the May 20th event. It is fair to say that a still convalescent Prime Minister who is anyway inclined to leave details to others was more than usually distracted during the late spring of 2020 by the Herculean task of preserving at least a semblance of normality while the economy, public services and above all the NHS were on the brink of collapse.

Whereas many of the rest of us were working from home, on furlough or otherwise struggling with isolation, in No 10 a young team of talented, ambitious staffers were working round the clock, almost as if nothing had changed. As it became clear that the worst predictions of the experts were not happening, there must have been a sense of euphoria and perhaps also of entitlement. It is in this context that the fatal invitation to a premature celebration was issued, ten days before even small outdoor gatherings of six people were permitted.

We now know that the risks of open air meetings during the pandemic were much smaller than was then understood. But hindsight does not excuse the offence caused to those who were then deprived of company or prevented from attending funerals or weddings. There can be no excuse for such an offence against the solidarity to which the Government was and still is appealing.  

Retrospective breaches of lockdown have, in general, been treated leniently by the police. There is a case for making an example of the PM and his staff, but it is almost certainly not in the national interest. Most people would like to move on from arguments about what happened nearly two years ago. The evidence is clear that Britain may be among the first countries in the world to emerge from the Covid pandemic — a fact for which the Prime Minister deserves much of the credit, as I have argued here .

To make the most of this opportunity, we need the strongest possible leadership. So the question which is likely to be left hanging once the facts about what happened in May 2020 have become clear is: can Boris Johnson still offer such leadership — or is his credibility too badly damaged? The public will make its feelings known, but ultimately MPs will decide his fate. Once they have got over their irritation, most Conservatives inside and outside the House may wonder on reflection whether the political crisis precipitated by a leadership contest is what the country needs just now. They may be inclined to give Boris the benefit of the doubt. Others will be less forgiving. This drama is very far from over. We can only hope that it won’t drag on much longer while the world faces rather graver questions than how to punish a moment of May madness more than 20 months ago.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.