A very British coup or a series of unfortunate events?

By ShepherdWales.

On the release of Boris Johnson’s defence to the accusation that he inadvertently, recklessly or intentionally misled parliament, I’d like to ask the question: How on earth did we get here?

Was it an organised coup, as some suggest? Or was it just a series of unfortunate, uncoordinated events that just happened to bring an elected Prime Minister down?

As Julie Andrew’s once sang, ‘Let’s start at the very beginning…’

Cast your mind back to the start of party gate.

Tuesday November 30th 2021, the Mirror and journalist Pippa Crerar broke what was to become the Party Gate scandal that would eventually lead to the ousting of a democratically elected Prime Minister who had won an 80 seat majority barely two years previously.

Less than 24 hours before Prime Minister’s Questions, the story breaks. It’s November 30th 2021.

We know, from reading Hansard, Sue Gray, Boris’ defence and the Privilege Committee initial report, that the specific question that Boris was asked at that PMQs by Keir Starmer, was about a Christmas party on the 18th December 2020 which Boris did not attend. It is therefore reasonable to accept that he was answering the questions in good faith, having had limited time to investigate.

It is therefore reasonable to accept that he was answering the questions in good faith, having had limited time to investigate.

The following week, again the day before PMQs (coincidence?) on Tuesday 7th December 2021, the Allegra Stratton video was dropped by Paul Brand from ITV confirming that something had occurred on the 18th December 2020.

We now know from Boris’ defence that he sought reassurances from people at that event. They reassured him that all rules were followed and he said as much in PMQs. It was at this point: only one week after the initial accusation of parties in No 10 that Boris Johnson kicked off an investigation into party gate. This would eventually be led by Sue Gray and end at the Privileges Committee with a deposed PM.

At the same PMQs, Catherine West MP throws in another question about an event a year earlier on November 13th 2020 to which Boris replies that he is sure all rules were followed and it came to pass that Boris was not issued a fine for either of the events that occurred on that day.

Some claim that the ‘ABBA’ party was not investigated but barrister Adam Wagner took to Twitter to say it had been confirmed.

As a mother of three, I cannot begin to contemplate having Abba blaring whilst my baby was asleep in a flat.

As for Lee Cain’s leaving gathering at the time that Boris attended, it was not a rule breaking party according to the Met Police. It can therefore be taken that Boris was not intentionally misleading Catherine West MP as he was unaware that the Lee Cain gathering had morphed into a party.

From this point onwards, having set up the enquiry, Boris’ answer to any question was to wait for the results of the enquiry. A pretty reasonable response if you are now aware, from the video, that there may have been events that fell outside of your knowledge.

From now on the investigation should have been left to take its course: in the way the media allowed the investigation into Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and BeerGate to take its course without constant intervention. It didn’t happen like that with Boris though. Almost every Tuesday / Wednesday a new photo or line would drop just in time for PMQs. You may recall, as I do, watching parliamentarians on their mobile phones in the chamber as a new accusation dropped.

You may recall, as I do, watching parliamentarians on their mobile phones in the chamber as a new accusation dropped.

In my opinion this was coordinated. It was a coordinated attack on an elected prime minister.

Don’t take my word for it, Dominic Cummings in his blog today (21.03.23) has just posted this:

‘If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post’

I challenge you to read the Sue Gray account of what actually happened at these events and Boris’ attendance (or not) at them.

I challenge you to read his defence submission to the Privileges Committee that has already declared him guilty in their initial report. I challenge you to think about the actual FPNs handed out and to whom they were given to.

I challenge you to look back at Hansard at the debates and PMQs and see the level of incorrect and outright lies spoken by MPs now the true facts are known. I challenge you to look at the media coverage and ask yourself, ‘Was this reasonable?’

It is a fact that the initial Sue Gray report, published on January 31st 2022 was a vague, unclear and unnecessary publication, that she herself made the decision to publish.

It was delivered at the point that the Met Police, under the threat of being sued by The Good Law Project, had been pushed into investigating ‘Partygate.’ Worth noting that the Good Law Project didn’t, to my knowledge, threaten to sue Durham police for refusing to initially investigate Beer Gate – why?

Worth noting that the Good Law Project didn’t, to my knowledge, threaten to sue Durham police for refusing to initially investigate Beer Gate – why?

The vague, unclear and unnecessary publication of the Sue Gray initial report fed the already frenzied media and MP response and sent it into hyperdrive. It was the media reporting and the unspecific hints contained within the Sue Gray report that led to downright lies being spoken in the House of Commons and in the media over the coming months. Party Gate dominated PMQs in the run up to the Russia / Ukraine war.

Kier Starmer PMQs 19.01.22 Hansard: Demonstrably contains many lies now that all the evidence has been revealed.

Hansard confirms that the initial Sue Gray report, coupled with the FPN for the 19th June 2020 birthday gathering, swayed MPs to start manoeuvres against the PM and refer him to the Privileges Committee.

Anthony Mangnall MP (Conservative): Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges debate 21.04.22.

Boris didn’t go onto get anymore FPNs.

It is a fact that the referral of Boris Johnson to the Privileges Committee came off the back of: Sue Gray’s initial report, one FPN and a media and MP frenzy of distortion and ignorance. MPs were so certain of Boris’ guilt that they thought better than to wait for the results of the police investigation and for the final report from Sue Gray.

Even now, when in receipt of all the facts of the matter, the distortion and ignorance continues. I still read members of the public, journalists and MPs claiming the PM partied the night before Prince Philip’s funeral, that the suitcase of alcohol was on his watch, that he arranged the events.

It is all nonsense and now we know, from the evidence that the privilege Committee held (but chose not to release in their initial report – why?) that Boris really was unaware of events that progressed onto being parties.

EVEN NOW, WHEN IN RECEIPT OF ALL THE FACTS OF THE MATTER, THE DISTORTION AND IGNORANCE CONTINUES.

We are now at the point of the Privilege Committee hearing. A committee where the original chair had to recuse himself for bias and where the current chair has publicly expressed Boris’ (and the then Chancellor’s) guilt.

A committee where they have moved the goalposts from ‘intentionally misleading’ to ‘recklessly misleading’ – a charge for which only they know how they define it.

A committee where they go off on tangents that were not within the terms of reference or convention and assess what should have been ‘obvious’ to Boris and yet have evidence to show what it was not ‘obvious’ to anyone else that worked there. A committee where their initial report withholds crucial parts of information that exonerates Boris Johnson but includes incomplete evidence that could sway the reader to convict him.

In my opinion nothing highlights the story of the injustices within the Party Gate saga more than this Paul Brand ITV sensational scoop that culminated in Brand’s partygate podcast:

This shocking exclusive was splattered across the media, all media: print, broadcast, social media. It appeared to confirm to the world that Boris knew there were parties and he knew they were breaking the rules. As of 21.30pm on the 21.03.23 this is still Paul Brand’s pinned tweet.

As of 21.30pm on the 21.03.23 this is still Paul Brand’s pinned tweet.

On reading the tiny footnotes contained in the Privilege Committee report published, I was struck by the quote contained and how it differed to what Paul Brand had claimed.

The actual quote from the Privilege Committee is:

‘The most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK’

The changing of the word from ‘gathering’ to ‘parties’ is significant because Boris was specifically asked about attending parties not whether No10 had maintained social distancing at every workplace gathering across the pandemic.

Imagine if Sir Keir had to answer that question with BeerGate.

On release today of Boris Johnson’s defence this story just gets murkier.

Boris Johnson has been privy to all the evidence that the Privilege Committee holds. The truth about that quote is staggering. The full quote has been withheld from the public at large by both Paul Brand (assuming he is aware of the full quote which I assume he is as the lady was on the podcast saying it to him) and it’s been withheld by the Privilege Committee in their initial report in which they directed us to believe that Boris was guilty.

The full quote is:

‘this is probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now. He had a glass of water in his hand, made a short speech and then went up to his flat. He was the most sensible person there to be honest.’

He goes onto say in his defence:

Boris Johnson has admitted inadvertently misleading parliament (for events he was not aware of) and he has apologised continuously for it for over a year.

If you still think Boris Johnson intentionally or recklessly misled parliament then I can only conclude that you fall into one or all of these categories:

A) You loathe him anyway
B) You have not read Sue Gray, his defence submission to the Privilege Committee or taken into account the FPNs awarded and to whom they were awarded
C) You have taken your information from the distorted and inaccurate reporting of some journalists or from watching some shocking speeches in the House that frankly would land many MPs in front of the committee if anyone bothered to challenge them.

So where are we now?

We are on the cusp of an unelected Rishi Sunak signing the UK up to an effective permanent alignment with the EU whilst the world is watching Boris Johnson fight to save his parliamentary career. All whilst the previous PM is unable to contribute and vote in a key issue that he gained the mandate from the people to sort out.

We are on the cusp of the Conservative 2019 manifesto pledge to ‘Get Brexit Done’ being ripped up and replaced with being a rule taker without the seat at the table.

I asked if it was an organised coup or a series of unfortunate events.

I’ll leave you to judge but…

Follow @ShepherdWales on Twitter.