6 2GM Thursday January 13 2022 | the times
News
minister said. “It’s just not defensible
and it’s astonishing how little support
he has within the parliamentary party.”
Others believe that he is likely to sur-
vive. They point out that 54 Tory MPs
are required to submit letters of no con-
fidence to trigger a leadership election.
Johnson’s cabinet members were
slow out of the traps to defend him.
Prime minister’s questions finished
shortly after 12.30pm but it was not
until 3pm that Nadine Dorries, an ultra-
loyalist long before Johnson made her
culture secretary, broke the seal. “PM
was right to personally apologise
earlier. People are hurt and angry at
what happened and he has taken full
responsibility for that,” she tweeted.
About half an hour later Priti Patel,
the home secretary, wrote in a Whats-
App group for the parliamentary party:
“Team, today the prime minister has
given his heartfelt apologies and taken
responsibility for what has happened...
now is the time to put our shoulders to
the wheel and back Boris to deliver on
the People’s Priorities.”
Dominic Raab said talk of a leader-
ship contest was “daft”. Jacob Rees-
Mogg, in a significantly less helpful
intervention, said that “HR does not
apply to ministers”, unlike civil servants.
By the end of the day ministers were
lining up to show their support. “The
WhatsApp group is going ballistic with
ministers swearing oaths of loyalty,”
one MP said. “But generally speaking
backbenchers are keeping quiet.”
Whether they will remain silent after
Gray’s report remains to be seen.
Johnson has put the Tories in
toxic territory, Iain Martin, page 29
Sorry sight, leading article, page 31News Politics
Contrite? PM doesn’t believe he
Steven Swinford Political Editor
Henry Zeffman, Oliver Wright
Chris Smyth, George Grylls
Quentin Letts
The air throbbed —
Johnson was in peril
T
yburn and its gibbets
always did draw a crowd.
The Commons was
packed by the time Boris
Johnson slipped in by the
back swing-doors at 11.58am and
hovered by the Speaker’s chair. A
throng of trusties formed around
him, almost in a military square.
The environment secretary,
George Eustice, gave him pats on
the shoulder. Michael Gove was in
there too, one headlight on the
press gallery.
MPs squashed on to the green
benches, big Alec Shelbrooke (C,
Elmet & Rothwell) lowering his
bulk on a squealing Simon Hoare
(C, North Dorset). No friend ofJohnson, Hoare and a few other
Conservatives awaited PMQs with
gaiety.
Johnson piglet-sped to his seat.
After a salute to the late Jack
Dromey, he opened with a two-page
grovel. “Mr Speaker, I want to
apologise.” “For what?” cried a
heckler. Johnson’s mea culpa was
otherwise heard in cold,
ecclesiastical silence. On the
government bench Thérèse Coffey
folded her arms. Lady May (C,
Maidenhead), cast as if from cold
marble, gazed at the clerestory. To
soothe her distress the former PM
had treated herself to a new pair of
shoes, black kitten boots with
leopard heels.
Sir Keir Starmer allowed a flighted
pause before concluding: “Well
there we have it.” Snorting, almost
spitting, the Labour leader spoke of
the “pathetic spectacle of a man
who’s run out of road”. Johnson’s
apology was “pretty worthless”.
At this point the air throbbed. One
sensed the tension of the casino whenPolitical Sketch
The speech unspun
What he said
“I know the rage
[people who followed
the rules] feel with me,
with the government I
lead, when they think
that in Downing Street
itself the rules are not
being properly
followed by the people
who make the rules.”What he meant
Boris Johnson finally
accepted that public
anger and evidence of
social events during
lockdown were too
strong to continue to
ignore. After initially
trying to ride out the
stories with a blanket
insistence that all rules
were followed,
Johnson switched to
insisting that he could
not comment until the
inquiry he had been
forced into setting up
had reported.
Now he has
accepted that it is no
longer tenable to argue
that he needs an
inquiry to tell him
whether he had
attended a party.What he said
“No 10 is a big
department, with the
garden as an extension
of the office, which has
been in constant use
because of the role of
fresh air in stopping
the virus. And when I
went into that gardenjust after six on the
20th of May 2020 to
thank groups of staff
before going back into
my office 25 minutes
later to continue
working, I believed
implicitly that this was
a work event... I
believe that the events
in question were within
the guidance and were
within the rules.”What he meant
Johnson admits one of
the most damaging
claims — that he
personally attended
the May 20 gathering
— but does not admit
to breaking the rules.
He continues to argue
that the event was not
illegal since it was held
among work colleagues
on work premises.
As the barrister
Adam Wagner points
out, an invitation to
“bring your own
booze” means that this
interpretation is
unlikely to hold.
However, Johnson’s
words imply that he
was unaware of this
invitation and, Wagner
says, he has “probably
been advised that the
only possible personal
liability would be as an
accessory to others’
criminal offences [he
wasn’t outside his
home so was not
subject to the
restriction onmovement regulation].
So has to say he
‘implicitly’ didn’t
believe it broke rules.”
While this may be
arguable in a court of
law, it is questionable
whether voters will
accept it. The idea that
Johnson did not realise
a gathering of dozens
of people chatting and
drinking was a party
provoked instant
mockery from the
opposition. After
previously telling the
Commons he was
furious about claims of
other Downing Street
parties, Johnson also
avoids admitting that
he misled the House,
which by convention is
a resigning issue for
ministers.What he said
“I regret the way the
event I have described
was handled... I regret
the way things
happened on the
evening in question.. .”What he meant
With painful
circumlocutions such
as “the event I have
described”, Johnson
continues to argue that
the gathering was not
a party. To admit this
would be to admit that
he, or at the very least
dozens of his staff,
broke the law.
Chris SmythWithin minutes of delivering a “heart-
felt” apology to the Commons for
attending a drinks event in the garden of
No 10 during the first lockdown, Boris
Johnson had a somewhat different
message for Tory MPs in the tearoom.
The prime minister was, according to
those present, far from contrite. He told
colleagues that “we have taken a lot of
hits in politics and this is one of them”,
adding: “Sometimes we take the credit
for things we don’t deserve and this
time we’re taking hits for something we
don’t deserve.”
Douglas Ross, the leader of the Scot-
tish Conservatives, said that Johnson
took a similar tone when he spoke to
him yesterday afternoon. He said the
prime minister told him that he
“believes he didn’t do anything wrong”.
It is understood that Johnson de-
clined to guarantee that further dam-
aging details about lockdown-breaking
gatherings would not emerge. Within
an hour and a half of their conversation
Ross publicly called for Johnson to go.
Privately, Johnson is said to feel
frustrated and believe he has been put
in a difficult position by others. He is
determined not to quit. “He’s not going
to resign, he’s a fighter,” one ally said.
“He has more fight in him than the vast
majority of people. He’s frustrated that
he’s in this position. He’s a force of
nature. If there’s a single person who
can charge through all of this it will be
him. Never underprice that.”
Johnson’s mea culpa in the Commons
was carefully calibrated and came after
extensive consultation with aides and
lawyers. Senior officials in Downing
Street warned him that anything he
said risked prejudicing an inquiry by
Sue Gray, a senior civil servant he has
charged with investigating allegations
of lockdown parties. Johnson’s political
advisers, they said, were in a “real bind”
because they knew that waiting for the
inquiry’s findings was unsustainable.
At prime minister’s questions
Johnson admitted to attending the
event in Downing Street on May 20,
2020, shortly after 6pm for 25 minutes.
“I want to apologise,” he told MPs. “I
know that millions of people have made
extraordinary sacrifices in the last 18
months. I know the rage they feel with
me and with the government I lead
when they think that in No 10 rules are
not being followed.”
He claimed that he “believed
implicitly that this was a work event”,
despite reports that there were tables
full of alcohol and more than 40 guests.
Carrie Symonds, his fiancée at the
time, was said to be among those
present and was allegedly drinking gin
with Henry Newman, who was a senior
adviser to Michael Gove and is now in
No 10.
By arguing that the gathering was a
“work event”, Johnson was, in effect,
pleading ignorance — that he did not
know the event was a party.
No 10 later said the prime minis-
ter was unaware of an email from
Martin Reynolds, the prime minis-
ter’s principal private secretary,
in which he had invited 100
staff to a “socially distanced
drinks” and encouraged
them to “bring your own
booze”.
His apology was
therefore limited to three
discrete areas. First, he
apologised for the public
perception of the event.
Second, he apologised for
the mistakes of others. And
third, he apologised for not
breaking up the event. He
did not, at any point, admit to breaching
lockdown rules or apologise for attend-
ing the event in the first place.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader,
highlighted criticism of the prime
minister by Hannah Brady, a teacher
who lost her father to the coronavirus
and has described the allegations of
parties as “disgraceful”. She was among
members of five families who met John-
son at Downing Street last September.
However, both Downing Street and
the prime minister’s critics in the Con-
servative Party believe that the conces-
sions he did make have bought him
time, at least until Gray completes her
inquiry. Only a few Tory MPs who are
longstanding critics of Johnson called
for him to go on the basis of his admis-
sion that he attended the event.
Sir Roger Gale, the third longest-
serving Tory MP, said: “Enough is
enough, a red line has been crossed.”
Johnson could resign “with dignity”,
he said, “or the 1922 Committee
will have to take action”. Less
expected was the fury of William
Wragg, a Brexiteer on the right
of the party and a senior
member of the 1922 Committee
of Conservative backbench-
ers. Johnson’s position, he
said, was “untenable”.
In private, MPs
across the parliament-
ary party and at all
levels of government
are incandescent.
“It’s all over,” oneHannah Brady lost relatives
to Covid. She described
the parties as disgraceful