Just a few days ago we thought it was all over. Not now. Photographs that have become public domain and the detail in which the story is told in Sue Gray’s report have made it a much uglier story. The phrase that seems to say it all is a quote from Martin Reynolds, a senior member of the Prime Minister’s staff, in which he comments to colleagues at an already notorious Downing Street drinking event that “it looks like we’ve come out with the his. [it]. ”
Is that how you would describe a meeting that you really thought was not your fault and within the rules that you were responsible for introducing? The most creepy details of the prevailing drink culture on Downing Street may be unpleasant, suggesting, as they do, a culture of timid irresponsibility, but they themselves are not a resigned matter.
In fact, much of the behavior described here can be seen simply as insensitive or, if you are inclined to make harsher judgments, you could say, insensitive, arrogant, and childish. But the important constitutional issue, aside from violating the law, is whether Boris Johnson deceived the House when he categorically denied knowledge of parties violating the rules. He has now reiterated that he believed this to be true. In this case, he did not understand (or care) what the law he had enacted really meant.
In general, he seems to have difficulty with the meaning of words. He has told Parliament that he accepts full responsibility for his mistakes. What exactly does this mean if it has no practical consequences?
Johnson assumes “full responsibility for everything that happened under my watch,” but at the same time, I wasn’t aware of what happened at those parties after I left. These two statements are contradictory. Being fully responsible for everything that happened on the clock does not mean that you can escape the consequences when you have your back. This is not over.