Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

Bring your own brain, part 2.

My earlier 🧵 addresses the peculiar case of the Downing Street parties👇

That was before PMQs.

Now we know a bit more about Mr Johnson’s defence.

A 🧵 to follow that.

TL;DR only Clouseau would fall for the latest blithering & babbling. /1.

https://twitter.com/andrewprlevi/status/1481109282624094208

Mr Johnson’s defence appears to be:

- he attended the drinks party

- he didn’t realise it was a drinks party rather than work

- it was work

- the Downing Street garden is private, so it wasn’t work

- the garden is part of the office space, so it was work /2.

Or, any combination of the above. As long as it gets him off the hook.

It’s clear massive misjudgements were made.

By Martin Reynolds, No 10 Principal Private Secretary (a very senior, key official at the centre of govt). It pains me to say so, because I respect him. /3.

Even greater misjudgements, however, were made by Mr Johnson.

First, let’s remember: he personally appointed Martin Reynolds. If his Principal Private Secretary got it so badly wrong, that’s absolutely Mr Johnson’s personal responsibility. /4.

Second, in normal times, it’s true that the Downing Street garden is both a private space for the PM &, at his discretion (which can be delegated by him to eg his Principal Private Secretary), an extension of the indoor workspace. No problem. /5.

But it beggars belief that the UK Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, in charge of the nuclear codes & intelligence services, endowed with quasi-monarchical powers by virtue of the UK’s curious constitutional arrangements, didn’t realise these were not normal times. /6.

Either he didn’t realise, in which case he’s a dangerous fool who should be nowhere near public office.

Or he did realise, in which case he’s a scheming, contemptuous sociopath who should be nowhere near public office. /7.

There is a third possibility, to be fair. He (no doubt via Martin Reynolds) obtained authoritative legal advice at the time, to the effect that such a gathering was within the law/ regulations. He arranged for that to be circulated to all the staff, alongside the invitation. /8.

And explicitly gave staff guidance that if they felt uncomfortable turning up, under all the circumstances, even though the event was judged legal by the experts, he’d fully understand if they didn’t. /9.

We don’t need to wait for Sue Gray’s enquiry. Mr Johnson can tell us now whether or not that happened.

If it did, the charge of appalling misjudgement still applies. But at least we’d have a contemporaneous, expert legal opinion to consult. /10.

And it would exculpate the No 10 staff who, having received the invitation & legal advice, decided to attend. Which would at least be something.

It wouldn’t do the same for Mr Johnson or his Principal Private Secretary. /11.

Which just goes to show: if you care about your reputation, don’t be like Mr Johnson.

And definitely don’t work for him, or anyone remotely like him.

It always ends in tears. /12. End

P.S. In case you think this is party political, it isn’t. We’ve never had a PM remotely as atrocious as Mr Johnson. The “Conservative Party” is no longer anything of the sort. If you’re in denial about that, try harder. This is about what was done. Regardless of party allegiance.