Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

I’ve written elsewhere about @SueGrayCO’s inquiry.

@LordRickettsP (do follow, if you don’t already) is, of course, absolutely right about the usual nature of such things.

The difference this time is Sue Gray has a unique position in a unique scandal.

A🧵/1.

https://twitter.com/lordrickettsp/status/1482291103294496772

One which can bring down a uniquely dangerous PM. We’ve never seen anything remotely like it since 1940. Then it was dealt with by Parliament (with much action behind the scenes).

Sue Gray has a choice.

Why?

Because she’s in a position, like it or not, to eject the PM. /2.

Or fail to do so (& live with the knowledge that she didn’t when she had the chance).

Nothing is certain.

It’s a penalty shot which could be missed. The chances of that aren’t high.

The probability of failure to convert her opportunity if the shot isn’t taken is 100%. /3.

Normally, any civil servant would, rightly, run a mile from contemplating such politically charged action.

There’s a key judgement to be made about how far away from “normal” we are & what, therefore, is the appropriate course. /4.

I’m not going to irritate you with the usual historical analogies. You’ll think of your own.

I’ll just point out what you either suspect or are confident you already know.

The emergency lights are flashing red. /5.

To prevent further UK descent into chaotic destructiveness, a necessary - but far from sufficient - condition is that Mr Johnson now leave office. /6.

Whatever one thinks about precedent, convention & usual proprieties, it’s undeniable that Sue Gray is in a unique position.

I don’t envy her. But that isn’t the point.

Maybe by waiting she’ll avoid the choice, because the Conservative Party will do the job. /7.

I fully understand that calculation.

And the fact that it’s extremely dicey.

Because the moment may rapidly pass, the opportunity disappear, & the self-interest of a nation-wrecking minority in Parliament & the country reassert itself. To disastrous effect. /8. End