VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
The Prime Minister won a vote of confidence in his leadership last night.
Throughout yesterday, I was conflicted and thought long and hard about the right decision to make. I listened to what the PM had to say at a private meeting, discussed the matter with others and read through correspondence I was receiving from constituents. Of course, there were calls for him to go – including from some who had previously backed him. However, there was also a great deal of support being expressed.
I share the deep anger and frustration of many at the contents of the Sue Gray report but the primary findings of that report related to the behaviour of civil servants within Whitehall, and not his own conduct. It was a significant failing that this behaviour should have been allowed to occur, and I welcome the PM’s apology for this and the changes he has made to the Number 10 leadership.
I have the benefit of knowing the Prime Minister personally, and having a judgment of his character which does not accord with much of what has been alleged in recent times. I agree with his verdict that “some of that criticism has perhaps been fair, some less so”. I also think that coverage of this issue by elements of the media has been excessive and unbalanced. Ultimately, I decided that unleashing a destructive and divisive leadership contest with an uncertain outcome was not in the best interests of the country – especially at a time when we have war in Europe, worrying ‘Cost of Living’ pressures, and a need to restore the NHS to health post-pandemic.
There remains much loyalty to Boris Johnson, who won a landslide just two and a half years ago, delivered Brexit, oversaw a world-beating Covid vaccination programme, and has taken an international lead on the environment and Ukraine. However, no loyalty is boundless and there is an over-riding need for the PM to re-establish trust where it has been lost. I have told him personally that this needs to be his immediate focus.
SUE GRAY REPORT
The full Sue Gray report on “Alleged Gatherings on Government Premises during Covid Restrictions” was published on 25th May and is available to read here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1078404/2022-05-25_FINAL_FINDINGS_OF_SECOND_PERMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf
The report largely confirms what was already known: sadly a small number of those who helped set the rules for the rest of us failed to observe those same rules themselves. They may have worked very hard, for long hours and under extreme pressure. They may also have worked in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid-safe workplaces. However, the country never deserves – and particularly not through a crisis such as the pandemic – to be dictated to by people who think that rules do not apply to them, and behave as if they are superior to the population they serve.
A number of events were investigated by Sue Gray and some of these are very difficult to justify. In that respect, senior oversight of individuals within No 10 and the Cabinet Office was lacking. This is very regrettable and the Prime Minister has apologised for his role in allowing such a situation to exist. He has made significant changes to leadership roles accordingly.
I was particularly incensed to learn of the way in which security and cleaning staff at No 10 report they were treated by some of those involved in the events. I am aware that the PM has been apologising directly to those staff but I very much hope that those responsible face disciplinary action.
It is clear from Sue Gray’s report and the Metropolitan Police investigation that despite widely-held perceptions, the PM’s personal attendance at events (many of which were little more than brief “thank yous” to departing staff) was not deemed improper by virtue of the fact that No 10 is his workplace and his home. It was often how these events developed after his departure which was the key concern. While the police judged it appropriate to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to both the PM and to the Chancellor over 20 minutes of sandwiches and cake between meetings on 19th June 2020, the Gray report’s account of this event makes it clear that neither had been aware of the intentions for the event in advance. Furthermore, the fact that it was reported upon routinely in The Times newspaper the following day indicates that there was no belief at the time that it had been inappropriate.
The very existence of these investigations demonstrates that our democracy is one of the most open in the world. I believe that contributes to it being one of the least corrupt in the world. There is however a deficit of trust in our politicians. This is not new but “Partygate” and “Beergate/Currygate” have exacerbated it. They put across a misleading impression of the vast majority of our civil servants and politicians. If we are to defend democracy and encourage the best into national leadership roles, it must be a priority for the Government to re-establish trust.
During the lockdowns, those who had good reason to attend a workplace in reality experienced a much greater degree of freedom than many others. While it was acceptable and necessary for some “business meetings” to take place, many were conversely unable to see loved ones who were ill, or attend funerals. This disparity, combined with what we know about some of the indefensible behaviour in Whitehall, makes many people angry. Having lost a relative to Covid, I understand that.
