BORIS Johnson has published a 52-page document laying out his defence as MPs probe whether he deliberately misled parliament over the partygate scandal.
It is a desperate bid from the former prime minister to avoid even more public humiliation, ahead of what is expected to be a marathon grilling session in front of the Privileges Committee on Wednesday.
Ahead of the session, which the media will be watching with keen interest, the Jouker had a read through the whole of Johnson’s submitted defence.
Here are some of the most ridiculous or surprising parts…
Old, cramped No 10
Johnson consistently argues that Covid social distancing guidance probably wasn’t followed all the time because of the working environment. “We tried to keep our distance, but we knew that proximity was sometimes unavoidable,” the Tory MP writes.
To hammer home this point, Johnson takes aim at a minor character in the story: No 10 Downing Street.
He says of the house – which incidentally has more than 100 rooms: “No 10 is an old, cramped London townhouse.”
The UK Government’s own website states: “The building is much larger than it appears from its frontage … The house in Downing Street was joined to a more spacious and elegant building behind it in the early 18th century.”
Right then.
Boris Johnson mocks himself?
In one interesting part of the defence, Johnson quotes a [redacted] No 10 official who wrote of the partygate scandal in Tatler magazine.
The quote states: “What actually happened is that we agreed to go our separate ways and I went to the press team to say goodbye.
“The PM, unable to see a group of people and not orate, gave a painful, off-the-cuff speech to a bewildered clutch of advisers.”
Johnson adds: “That is an accurate recollection.”
That birthday party
The London Met issued Johnson with just one fine over partygate, for attending a birthday event on June 19, 2020. In his defence documents, the former prime minister tries to downplay this event as much as possible. He ends up making it sounds thoroughly sad.
“We had a sandwich lunch … No cake was eaten, and no-one even sang ‘happy birthday’.”
Poor old Boris.
Interestingly, he also argues here: “I was in the Cabinet Room for a work meeting and was joined by a small gathering of people, all of whom lived or were working in the building.”
The argument that it was a “work meeting” attended by people who – by Johnson’s own admission – just happened to “live” in the building will surely be noticed by MPs.
Not a party?
On 8 December 2021, Johnson told MPs: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken.”
But two days later, according to Johnson’s own evidence, he sent a WhatsApp message to Downing Street director of communications Jack Doyle which said: “Is there a way we could get the truth about this party out there.”
He insisted the message implies that the “truth” is that no rules were broken, adding: “I used ‘party’ as shorthand because that it [sic] how it was being referred to in the media.”
No remit?
One of the key arguments made early on in the document is that the Privileges Committee has no remit to investigate any breaches of Covid guidance.
Johnson argues instead that the MPs can only look at breaches of Covid laws.
This nitpicking line isn’t likely to hold, considering the committee’s remit is to probe whether he deliberately misled parliament.
In just one example, Johnson told the Commons: “All guidance was followed completely in No 10.”
It would seem that probing guidance breaches is made a part of the committee’s remit by Johnson’s own statement.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel