House of Fun? No, You're An Embarrassment

I wondered on 19 November (Tipping point reached?) whether the point was being reached where the public had decided to eject the government at the next election come what may, as they did with John Major's government in the 1990s over 'back to basics' coupled with sleaze, cash for questions, a recession and the perceived economic incompetence of Black/White Wednesday. The last of these turned into  economic success but it didn't matter. I said that the see saw might have begun to tip but more weight would be needed on the high end to make it go. There's been rather a lot of weight added....

I'm in what I suspect is a small minority that isn't prejudging the report of civil servant Sue Gray's investigation. Why? Because I'm not clear the various events were 'parties' or necessarily broke any rules. Here's my logic:

• at the time of the above photo (15 May 2020) all sorts of work activities were prohibited and there was a general "you must work from home if you can" guidance for the rest. Most civil servants can work from home. Indeed I suspect a very large proportion of them still are: partly because I've seen statistics and partly because I note the appalling drop off in performance of usually efficient bodies like the DWP, who can't seem to answer the phone, call back, respond to letters, acknowledge receipt of money or get calculations right at the moment. So I can entirely understand why it was decided that number 10 staff needed to be in the office
• However, it's much safer to be in the fresh air. I don't have a problem with the idea that the number 10 garden is considered an "extension of the work space".  The groups above, including the PM, the great influencer (i.e. Carrie Johnson), the dark lord Dominic Cummings and the PM's accident-prone PPS Martin Reynolds - all in the group seated nearest the peeping tom camera - are relatively well socially distanced. Maybe not 2 metres, but safe enough outdoors. Hopefully they were chewing over ideas - after all football didn't restart for nearly another month. But I'd be amazed if this particular "event" would be considered to be breaking the regulations of the time, even though the rules were that you could meet only one other person from outside your household, outdoors in a public place. The No 10 garden isn't a public place
• However the BYOB (bring your own bottle) event to which said Martin Reynolds invited a much larger number of people sounds like another matter. Even there I could potentially be persuaded that the PM didn't see the invitation: I'm sure he doesn't read every email and it probably went to his Diary Secretary anyway. The "I didn't know it was a party" excuse sounds too daft to most people to be true but it might be. And if all those people were legitimately working in number 10 and came into the garden keeping their distance that doesn't automatically mean a regulation was broken

So I don't know whether Sue Gray will find that rules weren't broken, or that they were a bit stretched; in either case to a loud chorus of "whitewash". Though she might say they were in which case it must surely be time for a change of PM.

But even if she does find rules weren't "technically" broken (or some such form of weasel words - a phrase I first learnt from civil servants) I don't think it matters. Because I suspect that most people's reaction is emotional. Over the last few days there has been an outpouring of anger about "another rule for them". Many have posted poignant pictues of what they were doing in May 2020 - such as working in ICUs in full PPE, not going to a loved one's deathbed and/or funeral, or granny sitting alone in her overcoat on the patio outside while her grandchild's party went on inside the house for residents only. It only takes a few percent swing in marginal seats to change the outcome of a general election radically and I think we can bank that swing now.

Not only is there anger, there is also derision. Johnson has never minded being seen as a bit of a figure of fun, as in the famous picture of him stuck on a zipwire in his time as London mayor, looking for all the world as if he was semaphoring for rescue:

Johnson has traded on his scatterbrain image. I know folk who are anti-tory don't get it, but he does have charisma. I used to say that even people who didn't vote Tory (especially blokes) would be more likely to shout something like "Hey, Boris, wotcha!" and ask for a selfie with him if they saw him on the opposite pavement. For a figure of fun, to some extent it doesn't matter what the mix is between people laughing with you and at you. But a figure of ridicule is different. Never have I seen so many visual jokes on a particular theme, especially political. For example:

(with thanks to my buddy on WhatsApp for sending these and several more).

But for me none of the above really matters. To me it's about a failure of leadership rather than technical details about the rules and how they were or should have been interpreted. 

Let's say for the sake of argument Johnson hadn't seen the invitation to the BYOB "party" and it had just been put in his diary. A big presumption yes, but I often found things had just appeared in my business diary so I could just about believe it. The PM probably has regular meetings with his Diary Secretary and might veto some items but it wouldn't be a surprise if Johnson skipped some of that and ended up winging it. And remember these guys have bright young bag carriers just steering them from meeting to meeting. For example, David Cameron was an adviser at the Treasury and Home Office before he stood as an MP. 

Even in this extremely generous scenario the PM could still have realised the poor example that was being set and the risk that, with the best part of a hundred people present, it was bound to leak. The only real surprise is that it took so long! Even if we cut him that much slack, he should have realised what the gathering could look like to those outside No 10. He could have called for order and said something like "I really do appreciate all the hard work you are all doing. But we've asked people not to do this sort of thing even in private and people all over the country are suffering tremendous hardship to comply with the rules we've set. So we'll have to save this for another day. Please pick up some tucker on the way back in and let's get back to saving the country from this awful virus".

But that would have required awareness, foresight, reasonably quick thinking and the ability to disappoint those around him, a characteristic he seems to lack much of the time. People who play up to the crowd can be like that. However, these are all characteristics of good leaders. So for me it doesn't really matter what Sue Gray concludes, the issue is still a failure of leadership.

But just thinking ahead, we can anticipate Gray may conclude one of the following:

• rules were broken
• it's all a bit gray (sorry, grey) but the spirit of some rules weren't complied with
• rules weren't broken, but it didn't set a great example

I think all of these options are bad for Johnson.

So the opposition have been presented with an open goal. According to Tim Shipman in the Sunday Times, Keir Starmer's team has briefed Labour MPs not to deploy "one rule for them" type points, since many voters might respond "you politicians are all the same", but to stick to calling Johnson shambolic and saying he's lost his grip and "the joke isn't funny any more".  Labour do seem to have a new found confidence and effectiveness. The strategy of Starmer sorting out internal problems such as anti-semitism and marginalising the hard left first, before turning to building confidence in them as a realistic candidate for government risked appearing underwhelming for a long time. But, as I thought it might, the long game may pay off. There is no point in pushing hard against a popular government, as this was until very recently. Most governments go through periods of unpopularity, though rarely do the wheels come off so spectacularly. You have to position yourself to take the opportunities when they arise. Given Johnson's characteristics that was always likely. Starmer's boring and trustworthy persona may well prove to be good characteristics at the present time.

When The Economist runs a story with these headlines:

"Boris Johnson has always been unfit to be prime minister

With him in office, Britain can expect a rough ride" as they do in this week's edition, it's clear the Tories have a big problem. Their problem would appear to be whether to change leader, if so when and for who. After all, they pushed Maggie out and then won two years later with Major.  The speculation has already started. But changing leaders isn't easy and could easily not be enough to rebuild trust.  The story will surely run for even longer than it's taking for the Australian government to decide what to do about Novak Djokovich. And Johnson may yet hold on. It probably depends on whether Tory MPs can coalesce around a candidate enough of them agree on. And whether they think their preferred candidate will come over as just as trustworthy as Starmer but less boring and more effective. For me that would point to Sunak though, if she got to the last two who are put to party members, it seems Truss would win comfortably. Given Sunak's smart PR the "stop Truss" move, when it comes, will be stilletto rather than blunderbuss, but it would come. Meanwhile the hangover from the party goes on. PS if you're wondering where the blog title comes from, of course, it's Madness!