The 12-page Sue Gray report was published yesterday and just about met the expectations of everyone who has been following party-gate closely. The report was about getting to the facts (not apportioning blame) and had already been stymied by the police so a damning indictment of Boris Johnson that would immediately lead to his resignation was always going to be very unlikely.

Nevertheless the report is damning in its own way. Yesterday I wrote about how the intervention by the Metropolitan police was contrary to the public interest and while Gray does not explicitly agree with that, she does point out:

“Unfortunately, this necessarily means that I am extremely limited in what I can say about those events and it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report setting out and analysing the extensive factual information I have been able to gather.”

By civil service standards this is probably as close as we would get to outrage and such a reaction is not surprising. We now know that a full police investigation could take months and No. 10 may never confirm or deny that fixed-penalty notices were handed out to party-goers. This is in complete contradiction to the immediate public interest in finding out the full facts of the case.

Subscribe now

At this point of the scandal you have to be a complete sycophant to believe that Boris Johnson is not a liar. However the Sue Gray report cleverly proves this fact in a clear and undeniable manner.

Back in December, Johnson was asked in Parliament if there was a party on the 13th November 2020:

Here is the clip where he says “no” in answer to whether there was a party on 13 November. Also says all guidance followed. He’s in peril here if the the police find otherwise and he was there

He responds that there was not but the report makes it clear that on 13th November there was a party to honour a departing special adviser, Lee Cain.

This not only confirms that the prime minister lied but that he specifically lied to parliament. That has traditionally been a resigning offence and could lead to him being found in contempt.

The context that Sue Gray provides throughout her report is also damning from a public relations point of view. She consistently refers to the culture of rule-breaking against the backdrop of the effort made by every other person in the country to abide by the strict COVID regulations that were in force at the time.

It is almost easy to forget it now but there were times when people were debating what constituted their one period of daily exercise and whether couples could do their shopping together. The report makes it clear that the staff at Downing Street made a mockery of those sacrifices. A lot of public sector staff had to leave their homes and go to work throughout the pandemic and that includes nurses and senior civil servants. However while nurses and doctors would do their bit to help the national effort and then immediately return home afterwards, some officials treated the office as the sort of working environment where alcohol and frivolity were par for the course.

In her final paragraph, Sue Gray tells us that the events within the scope of her investigation span over a period of 20 months. Pointing this out, alongside her recommendation that there be a much clearer leadership structure within No. 10, shows that this is not a series of isolated incidents but the sign of a disturbing culture that exists around the prime minister.

Due to a number of factors, Sue Gray could not write the report that she might have liked to but the message is clear: there is something rotten at the heart of Downing Street.