Some thoughts.

1. Even an update with the full facts is not going to say that there was any breach of the Regulations.
2. Why? The Terms of Reference make it clear that Sue Gray has only been asked to look at what happened by reference to the guidelines. Not the Regulations. Also she says very clearly that she is not going to make a finding on breaches of the criminal law.
3. Annex B – which sets out the Regulations is very incomplete and in one place inaccurate. It does not even set out what the Regulations were let alone the guidance. It is a summary. I would hope for something much more detailed and complete in a final report.
4. Without knowing who was or was not at the various gatherings, why and in what capacity, it really is not possible to say who is or is not under investigation and for what. But visitors to the flat and Mrs Johnson are obviously in the frame, as well as civil servants and others invited to No 10 for social events.
5. The distinction between going to work and then having a drink at the end of the day and going to a place of work but spending most of the day drinking, smooching and socialising will be this year’s equivalent of medieval arguments about pinhead dancing angels.
6. We really need the evidence gathered and names. As well as photos. Will we get these?
7. The fact that there seems to have been no effective whistleblowing process within government is very very poor and worrying. As is the apparent lack of control over the use of alcohol in a work setting and access to government offices. The Cabinet Office is meant to “support the Prime Minister“, ensure “the effective running of government” and deliver an “exceptional civil service“. Judging by this report it has fallen well short of those objectives; see paras. iv – vii. Would it be rude to point out that the Cabinet Office is – in part – investigating itself?

I will now be brave and reach some tentative conclusions.

• There were probably a number of breaches of the law. But fewer than some may anticipate and mostly by people other than the PM, though he will probably have committed a few.
• There will be lots of breaches of the guidelines by pretty much everyone present at No 10.
• In answer to Mrs May’s question, the majority of the people attending these gatherings, from the PM down, had very likely not read the rules or the guidance and did not understand them anyway. Or bother to – beyond what was necessary for the daily press conference. In this they were probably like quite a lot of the rest of us, including many journalists and quite a few in the police, from senior levels down. There is an important lesson to be learnt about not confusing laws and guidelines and effective communication in a crisis. That will be ignored now but must not be forgotten when this has passed.
• Many of the people attending, from the PM down, did not worry or care about whether the rules applied to them. They thought of themselves as important and that there was nothing wrong with letting off steam by getting drunk and partying in the office. Like many in a bubble, arrogant and cut off, they had a tin ear for how this would appear to others and/or didn’t care.
• If civil servants at No 10 are supposed to be the cream of the crop, God help us. Management and discipline at No 10 seems to have been non-existent or ineffective. What was that again about “capability and effectiveness“?
• While it is true that the PM sets the tone and is meant to take ultimate responsibility, the civil service is meant to be permanent and independent and effective regardless of one person’s failings. It should not be so easy to suborn it. This too needs to be thought about carefully and learnt from when the current fever has abated.

Had the PM right at the start admitted failings and apologised properly and sincerely, he – and his party – would be in a much better position than they currently are. But Tory MPs who are now making an issue about getting the full report before deciding what to do are repeating their earlier mistake about waiting for this report.

After the 2 years we have had, we should not be in the position of having to read even this short expurgated account about how those at the top of government behaved during the severest restrictions on liberty Britons have faced outside wartime. Those at the top should aim to be like Caesar’s wife – beyond suspicion. After two and a half years of his premiership, Tory MPs have all the evidence they need to determine whether their current leader should remain leader and Prime Minister. They should stop expecting Sue Gray to do their job for them.

And finally. The Home Secretary should call in the Met Commissioner to tell her that she expects the completed investigation report into whether there have been breaches of the Regulations on the DPP’s desk within a week, along with a full account of the basis for their decisions. No ifs, buts or faffing about. If she could convey this while leaving a map of the Falklands and a job specification for its Chief Traffic Warden visible on the desk so that Ms Dick gets the message, so much the better. Then resign from Cabinet saying she no longer has confidence in the PM. This might trigger others to show some courage. Her time as Home Secretary has been distinctly undistinguished but if she did this at least it could be said of her that nothing in her professional life “became her as the leaving of it“. There are worse epitaphs.

Cyclefree