Monday afternoon saw the initial publication of Sue Gray’s much-anticipated, if highly edited, ‘partygate’ report. Due to an intervention from the Metropolitan Police - who confirmed last week that it would be launching a criminal investigation into 12 ‘lockdown parties’, reported to have taken place in Number 10 and Whitehall at a time of heightened COVID restrictions, the senior civil servant advised that her ability to discuss the events under police investigation was currently ‘extremely limited’.
While the delay may have provided the PM and his team with some much-needed breathing space, the spectacular fallout from its top line findings left Downing Street little time to take stock. Perhaps more importantly, in coming weeks, the PM’s ability to steer the narrative will be further compromised by the reality of an ongoing police investigation into the heart of government and Gray’s confirmation that her report will be published - in full - once the Met finishes its inquiries.
Redactions and nervous waits aside, it seems fair to suggest that the night has certainly turned for Number 10. The key question, in light of yesterday’s developments however, is whether the party is well and truly over for the embattled prime minister.
The build up
It is often said that a week is a long time in politics. For the prime minister, this would be underselling it.
Still reeling from Christian Wakeford’s headline-grabbing defection to the Labour Party, a televised drubbing from a Conservative stalwart and relentless whispers of pork pie plotters conspiring to force him into a no-confidence vote, the PM went into last week with one thing to look forward to: the anticipated publication of a report that could credibly put an end to his premiership. Yet, amidst a flurry of confusion and conjecture from the press, public and policymakers alike, the report in question, never came.
It’s fair to say that the week didn’t exactly get better for the prime minister. Revelations of a birthday party in Number 10 added further fuel to ‘partygate’ and the Met’s aforementioned announcement that it had launched a criminal investigation into the alleged parties in SW1, gained widespread coverage, and a fiery PMQs provided the opposition with multiple opportunities to land blows on Johnson and his inner circle. However, the hammer blow of an all-revealing report into the events, which took place in Number 10 and Whitehall was not to land.
As Friday afternoon arrived, headlines suggesting the imminent arrival of Gray’s full report became obsolete in real time. Over the weekend, articles increasingly suggested that the Met’s investigation was holding up the immediate publication of Gray’s full report. By Monday morning, it was clear that said report would not contain any information that could ‘prejudice the police investigative process’, and that a heavily-redacted version was going to be the flavour of the day.
The findings
While Gray has since promised that a full version of her report will eventually be published, yesterday’s top line update still makes for intriguing reading.
Referring to the national situation at the time the reported gatherings took place, Gray advises that the behaviour, which took place in Downing Street and Whitehall was ‘difficult to justify’, displayed ‘too little thought’ for the national situation and reflected a ‘serious failure to observe’ governmental standards, given the ‘far-reaching restrictions’ that the public was contemporaneously being asked to oblige.
Gray also found that there were ‘failures of leadership and judgment’ across different areas of Number 10 and the Cabinet Office and suggested that staff who wanted to raise concerns at the time did not feel able to do so. Moving away from line management and pointing to another aspect of working cultures at the time of the gatherings, she added that the ‘excessive consumption of alcohol’ is never appropriate in a professional workplace and advised that every government department should develop a ‘clear and robust policy’, covering the use of alcohol in the workplace.
Gray also concluded that the size and responsibility of Number 10 had consistently grown in recent years, but the structures within Downing Street had not evolved at the same pace, leading to complicated and fractured leadership channels and blurred accountability. She added that too much was expected of the senior official responsible for directly supporting the PM, and that this situation needed to be addressed as a ‘matter of priority’.
Going beyond the details of the report, the elephant in the room comes from Gray’s suggestion that 16 events were looked into, four more than the Met is currently investigating and three more than had been previously reported.
While the first copy of Gray’s report made for quicker-than-anticipated reading, the details above – and at times, spectacular fallout which followed – are likely to be causing headaches in Downing Street this morning.
The follow-up
According to yesterday’s media coverage, Gray’s report arrived at Number 10 shortly after lunchtime. At 3.30pm, having digested its findings, the prime minister took to the House of Commons chamber to provide his statement on Gray’s findings.
Johnson began by expressing his ‘deepest gratitude’ to Sue Gray and those who had supported the report, repeated his apology to the House and the nation, for ‘the things we simply did not get right’ and ‘for the way that this matter has been handled’ and clarified that he accepted the report’s ‘general findings in full’. Finishing his preamble, the PM quoted Gray in her assertion that ‘no conclusions should be drawn, or inferences made’ from the top line report ‘other than it is now for the police to consider the relevant material in relation to those incidents’.
The PM went on to announce that the government would act immediately on Gray’s findings about Downing Street’s operational structure by creating an Office of the Prime Minister. He then addressed her comments about workplace cultures in Whitehall, by reviewing the civil service and special adviser codes of conduct ‘wherever necessary’, whilst ensuring that these codes are properly enforced, before announcing that steps to improve the Number 10 operation and the work of the Cabinet Office, to strengthen Cabinet Government and improve the connection between Number 10 and Parliament would be made ‘in coming days’.
After reminding the House about the government’s role in delivering Brexit, setting up free ports across the UK, facilitating the UK’s ongoing transition out of the COVID-19 pandemic and securing economic growth, the prime minister commended his statement and awaited questions from the opposition and his own backbenchers.
Naturally, the opposition took every opportunity to confront the PM on the report’s findings - and at times - the lack thereof. Sir Keir Starmer began by commenting that, in attending several of the reported gatherings, the PM ‘took us all for fools’. He held the ‘people’s sacrifice in contempt’ and ‘showed himself unfit for office’. Starmer added his view that the PM ‘is hiding behind a police investigation into criminality in his own home and office… gleefully treats what should be a mark of shame as a welcome shield’ and that the public ‘think that the PM should do the decent thing and resign. Of course, he will not, because he is a man without shame’. Starmer concluded his contribution by urging Conservative MPs to take action to resolve the situation and advised that they ‘would be judged by the decisions they take now’.
While Starmer’s approach was certainly cutting, it did not match the fury put forward by Ian Blackford, the leader of the Scottish National Party in Westminster. After accusing Johnson of dishonouring the office of prime minister, Blackford expressed his view that the current version of Gray’s report was ‘a farce…carefully engineered to be a fact-finding exercise with no conclusions’, before pointedly accusing the PM of ‘wilfully’ misleading parliament. After being asked by the Speaker of the House to withdraw his final comment, or at least caveat it with ‘inadvertently’ misleading, Blackford refused, called on the prime minister to resign, and dramatically left the chamber before the speaker was finished ordering his withdrawal from the House. Albeit in less dramatic fashion, calls for the PM’s resignation were explicitly echoed by Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, and a host of opposition MPs from Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
While he would certainly not have enjoyed responding to these calls, it was the contributions from a number of influential Conservative backbenchers, which would have sent alarm bells ringing for the PM. The first came from Johnson’s prime ministerial predecessor, Theresa May, who rhetorically asked the PM whether he had not read the COVID-19 regulations, not understood them, or simply thought that they did not apply to Number 10, when the reported gatherings took place. Andrew Mitchell, whose Conservative association in his constituency of Sutton Coldfield recently voted unanimously in a vote of no confidence for the PM, followed up by advising Johnson, that he no longer enjoyed Mitchell’s support. To receive another public dressing down from an ex-minister, whip and senior backbench figure – this time explicitly telling the PM that he had lost his confidence – would have done nothing to appease the PM’s growing fears of a large-scale backbench rebellion against his leadership.
Still absorbing the broader implications of Mitchell’s revelation, the PM was then faced with a question from Aaron Bell, Conservative MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, which made the most impact of any contribution during yesterday’s parliamentary discussion. Recounting his grandmother’s funeral in May 2020, Bell advised that he drove three hours from Staffordshire to Kent, did not hug his siblings or parents at the funeral, provided a eulogy and then drove back to Staffordshire. Did the prime minister, he asked to the audible shock of many in the chamber, think he was a fool?
While Bell’s input was certainly the most impactful from the Conservative backbenches, it did not end the onslaught. Later in the day, the evening news rounds included further comments from the likes of Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, who expressed his view that the report’s findings illustrated that Johnson had ‘lost the moral capacity to lead the country’. At the time of writing, Bridgen, alongside Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross and backbencher Sir Roger Gale, are the only three MPs to openly confirm that they have written no confidence letters.
The implications
While yesterday’s dramatic response and this morning’s widespread criticism of the PM across the front pages of many newspapers, are obviously not welcomed by Number 10, there seems to be a consensus that despite Gray’s initial report, Johnson will survive as PM… for now at least.
Naturally, the prospect of a further loss of faith amongst the Tory backbenchers will be a concern for Johnson, especially if this disquiet is written onto headed paper and handed to Sir Graham Brady, Chair of the 1922 Committee. Nevertheless, until the Met concludes its investigation and provides a judgment as to whether Johnson himself broke the rules he set during the lockdown phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems likely that backbenchers will hold off on formally communicating their lack of confidence in the prime minister.
This does not mean, however, that the next few months will represent a lull for the PM. The prospect of further revelations about lockdown gatherings in Westminster and Whitehall, paired with an overhanging criminal investigation and the promise of a more robust report thereafter, will leave little time for the PM to gather his breath.
It also remains to be determined whether the outward criticism from Conservative MPs will be limited to yesterday’s parliamentary statement, and it is difficult to see how Johnson can continue to shrug off these overt demonstrations of dissatisfaction until the Met’s verdict is made. Paired with the weekend’s announcement from Tom Tugendhat, Conservative MP for Tonbridge and Malling - and respected chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee - that he would put himself forward as a candidate for the Conservative party leadership contest should Johnson resign, it appears that the wolves are truly at the door for the PM.
Last week, many thought that Sue Gray’s report could spell an end for the prime minister. This week, it appears that everything the report did not and could not say, will play a far more important role in deciding Johnson’s fate.
Four is one of the leading integrated marketing agencies in the UK and the Middle East. We offer a truly integrated approach with services spanning advertising, creative, branding, PR, public affairs, behaviour change, media planning, media buying, marketing, performance, social analytics, content, web, digital marketing, video & animation, SEO, events, crisis management, CSR, sponsorship, partnerships and training.