*With a dogged refusal to accept the blame and a little luck, Boris Johnson succeeded in neutering Sue Gray’s verdict on the No 10 parties. Now his team openly talk up an early election, despite the lingering resentment of the public and junior officials sacrificed to save their leaders*
–
When Boris Johnson got Sue Gray’s final report on the parties scandal, the paper was still warm from the printer. It was Wednesday morning and the prime minister was in his office with Steve Barclay, his chief of staff, and Guto Harri, his director of communications. Samantha Jones, the permanent secretary at No 10, rushed the report in, pages still loose.
They had expected the document at 8am. It was now 10am and they had just an hour to prepare Johnson’s statement to the Commons and pass it to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, and Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition. Johnson and Barclay began to read while Harri flicked to the end to read [the conclusions](https://archive.ph/WQ3YA). Then the silence was shattered as Johnson’s dog, Dilyn, began to bark in the Downing Street garden — “going absolutely apeshit”, as one witness put it. Johnson could not concentrate. “Can someone deal with that f***ing dog?” he snapped.
Ben Gascoigne, Johnson’s deputy chief of staff, was sent to calm the recalcitrant canid. No sooner had he returned than Dilyn began yapping again. Johnson repeated his outburst. The third time it happened, an irate PM yelled: “Will someone put that dog down!”
In what might be a pivotal week for the prime minister, the episode was emblematic of much of Johnson’s premiership: moments of great seriousness and high tension shot through with comedy and low farce. It is fitting that the report, along with the [£15 billion spending splurge](https://archive.ph/WSn0n) to combat the cost of living crisis, which followed on Wednesday, will do much to shape the outcome of the next general election.
It was a week that marked the culmination of months of turmoil in No 10 and one that laid bare a chaotic culture that flows from the personality of the prime minister — both of which have hit his personal ratings and led to a slowly growing pool of Tory MPs calling for him to go.
No 10 officials insist that moment on Wednesday morning was the first time Johnson, Barclay or Harri had seen the final Gray report. But the full story is more complicated and murkier. It calls into question the independence of the Gray report and lifts the lid on the lengths those in power were prepared to revive the so-called Operation Save Big Dog — the name given to the plan to shore up Johnson when the scandal threatened him in the new year.
Partial drafts of Gray’s report were circulating in No 10 the day before and Downing Street officials confirm that Jones discussed with Gray’s team who would be publicly named as breaking lockdown rules. Sources, both political and civil service, say Gray was lobbied on Tuesday evening to make changes by three senior civil servants: Jones, Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, and Alex Chisholm, the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office.
They urged her not to publish the names of some of those who had attended the 12 law-breaking parties. Among the names they wanted removed was Case’s own. Other changes were also requested to passages in the report that made reference to Carrie Johnson, the prime minister’s wife.
Gray told them to “instruct” her to make the changes — a move that would have required a senior minister to sign off amendments, signalling publicly that the revisions had been made against her will.
A Whitehall source said: “On Tuesday night, one last attempt was made to persuade her [Gray] to omit names from the report, but she made it plain to them the only way that was going to happen was if they issued her with an instruction.”
A senior figure in Downing Street revealed that Barclay, Gray’s political boss in the Cabinet Office, was approached and, after discussions with Harri, refused to issue the instruction. Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, said he would carry out the request only if ordered to do so by Barclay.
The result of the standoff was that a number of names were removed, because by then the key pressure had already been brought to bear. Up to 30 people had been contacted by Gray telling them she intended to name them. She sent them extracts and they were given until 5pm last Sunday to complain. This part of the Maxwellisation process, under which those criticised in a official report are given the right of reply.
In the end only 15 people were named in the final report. Those who did not want to be named used a variety of excuses and some employed lawyers or union officials to plead their case.
Sources, who saw a draft of the report before it was published, insist changes to the text were also made, including details about a leaving party for Hannah Young, a No 10 private secretary, on June 18, 2020. Helen MacNamara, the former government ethics boss, who received a fixed penalty notice, brought a karaoke machine to the party in a room close to the cabinet secretary’s office at No 70 Whitehall. In the earlier draft, emails were included which showed staff discussed the gathering in advance and were warned that it could break the rules. A ministerial adviser said: “After Sue made clear that she wanted to print WhatsApp messages and emails, the entire machine fought her.”
Another key passage that was altered concerned the “Abba night” party which it is claimed was held in the prime minister’s flat on November 13, 2020. An earlier draft of the report referred to music being played and stated at what time it came to an end. Two sources close to the process say Barclay tweaked the relevant section on the eve of publication — a claim flatly denied by Downing Street but one has already been raised in the Commons by Labour, which has tabled a series of parliamentary questions.
Gray has told allies that she felt isolated by the civil service. At least two other permanent secretaries are understood to have tried to pressure her to protect colleagues caught up in the scandal.
Despite the excisions, Gray’s report, detailing 4am drinking, brawls, vomiting and red wine up the walls, was damning. Even Johnson appears to have been shocked to read that security guards, known as custodians, and cleaners who tried to stop the parties were abused. “That was the only time he was really angry,” an aide said.
When Johnson returned to No 10 from the Commons, aides took him to [apologise to the custodians](https://archive.ph/HPstx), who sit in a room off the foyer behind the famous black door. “They said they were battered and bruised by it all and how they got criticism from friends who assumed they were partying as well,” a source said. One custodian, who had to clean up the mess from parties, said he had been asked by relatives: “How can you work there?”
Johnson repeated his apologies in the No 10 post room and to the cleaners the following morning. He even went to say sorry to his protection squad officers. One of them, brandishing his weapon, smiled and said: “Don’t worry, sir, no one was rude to us.”
The report might have been even more embarrassing. A Downing Street official said Gray also investigated claims that two couples were caught having sex in the building on the night Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain left No 10 in November 2020. “She did not find enough evidence to put it in the report,” the official said.
Nonetheless the culture of impunity over which Johnson presided prompted others to come forward this weekend with claims about the treatment of staff. Two Conservative sources say that a female employee at Chequers, the prime minister’s country retreat, left after “personality clashes” with the Johnsons. “Staff at Chequers had a lot of problems,” one said. “The dog was chewing everything and shitting everywhere.” A second source said: “One of the housekeeping left because she found it a nightmare.”
Insiders say the laissez-faire approach comes directly from Johnson. “He absolutely thinks none of the rules apply to him,” said a source who knows him well. “He’s been telling everyone for months, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’. The reason the apologies sound so fake is that he doesn’t think he needs to apologise.”
Lord Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, told allies he left No 10 amid concerns about the “frat house” atmosphere. He told friends he knew nothing about a party in his office on June 18 until the next day, when he learnt staff had been dancing on his desk.
–
If we put posters up all over Britain pointing out he wanted to kill his dog for barking then he’s toast.
Starmer – gloves off we must do this.
What is the odds on one of the shagging couples being BoJo and MadNad?
[deleted]
As someone who lives in the North I don’t know anyone who’s bothered about immigrants, everyone I’ve spoken to is more bothered about the economy than anything else. The NHS on the other hand is and has always been an issue for people, especially those on lower incomes and those very same people will become even worse off as the economy tanks.
Seems the Times are accusing Johnson of lying to parliament again:
> A ministerial adviser said: “After Sue made clear that she wanted to print WhatsApp messages and emails, the entire machine fought her.”
— Times article posted here.
> What Sue Gray has published is entirely for Sue Gray. It is a wholly independent report.
> Sources, who saw a draft of the report before it was published, insist changes to the text were also made . . . In the earlier draft, emails were included which showed staff discussed the gathering in advance and were warned that it could break the rules.
— Times article posted here.
> What I can tell the hon. Lady is that the report is wholly independent and the judgments contained in it are a matter for Sue Gray.
> Another key passage that was altered concerned the “Abba night” party which it is claimed was held in the prime minister’s flat on November 13, 2020. An earlier draft of the report referred to music being played and stated at what time it came to an end. Two sources close to the process say Barclay tweaked the relevant section on the eve of publication
6 comments
*With a dogged refusal to accept the blame and a little luck, Boris Johnson succeeded in neutering Sue Gray’s verdict on the No 10 parties. Now his team openly talk up an early election, despite the lingering resentment of the public and junior officials sacrificed to save their leaders*
–
When Boris Johnson got Sue Gray’s final report on the parties scandal, the paper was still warm from the printer. It was Wednesday morning and the prime minister was in his office with Steve Barclay, his chief of staff, and Guto Harri, his director of communications. Samantha Jones, the permanent secretary at No 10, rushed the report in, pages still loose.
They had expected the document at 8am. It was now 10am and they had just an hour to prepare Johnson’s statement to the Commons and pass it to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, and Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition. Johnson and Barclay began to read while Harri flicked to the end to read [the conclusions](https://archive.ph/WQ3YA). Then the silence was shattered as Johnson’s dog, Dilyn, began to bark in the Downing Street garden — “going absolutely apeshit”, as one witness put it. Johnson could not concentrate. “Can someone deal with that f***ing dog?” he snapped.
Ben Gascoigne, Johnson’s deputy chief of staff, was sent to calm the recalcitrant canid. No sooner had he returned than Dilyn began yapping again. Johnson repeated his outburst. The third time it happened, an irate PM yelled: “Will someone put that dog down!”
In what might be a pivotal week for the prime minister, the episode was emblematic of much of Johnson’s premiership: moments of great seriousness and high tension shot through with comedy and low farce. It is fitting that the report, along with the [£15 billion spending splurge](https://archive.ph/WSn0n) to combat the cost of living crisis, which followed on Wednesday, will do much to shape the outcome of the next general election.
It was a week that marked the culmination of months of turmoil in No 10 and one that laid bare a chaotic culture that flows from the personality of the prime minister — both of which have hit his personal ratings and led to a slowly growing pool of Tory MPs calling for him to go.
No 10 officials insist that moment on Wednesday morning was the first time Johnson, Barclay or Harri had seen the final Gray report. But the full story is more complicated and murkier. It calls into question the independence of the Gray report and lifts the lid on the lengths those in power were prepared to revive the so-called Operation Save Big Dog — the name given to the plan to shore up Johnson when the scandal threatened him in the new year.
Partial drafts of Gray’s report were circulating in No 10 the day before and Downing Street officials confirm that Jones discussed with Gray’s team who would be publicly named as breaking lockdown rules. Sources, both political and civil service, say Gray was lobbied on Tuesday evening to make changes by three senior civil servants: Jones, Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, and Alex Chisholm, the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office.
They urged her not to publish the names of some of those who had attended the 12 law-breaking parties. Among the names they wanted removed was Case’s own. Other changes were also requested to passages in the report that made reference to Carrie Johnson, the prime minister’s wife.
Gray told them to “instruct” her to make the changes — a move that would have required a senior minister to sign off amendments, signalling publicly that the revisions had been made against her will.
A Whitehall source said: “On Tuesday night, one last attempt was made to persuade her [Gray] to omit names from the report, but she made it plain to them the only way that was going to happen was if they issued her with an instruction.”
A senior figure in Downing Street revealed that Barclay, Gray’s political boss in the Cabinet Office, was approached and, after discussions with Harri, refused to issue the instruction. Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, said he would carry out the request only if ordered to do so by Barclay.
The result of the standoff was that a number of names were removed, because by then the key pressure had already been brought to bear. Up to 30 people had been contacted by Gray telling them she intended to name them. She sent them extracts and they were given until 5pm last Sunday to complain. This part of the Maxwellisation process, under which those criticised in a official report are given the right of reply.
In the end only 15 people were named in the final report. Those who did not want to be named used a variety of excuses and some employed lawyers or union officials to plead their case.
Sources, who saw a draft of the report before it was published, insist changes to the text were also made, including details about a leaving party for Hannah Young, a No 10 private secretary, on June 18, 2020. Helen MacNamara, the former government ethics boss, who received a fixed penalty notice, brought a karaoke machine to the party in a room close to the cabinet secretary’s office at No 70 Whitehall. In the earlier draft, emails were included which showed staff discussed the gathering in advance and were warned that it could break the rules. A ministerial adviser said: “After Sue made clear that she wanted to print WhatsApp messages and emails, the entire machine fought her.”
Another key passage that was altered concerned the “Abba night” party which it is claimed was held in the prime minister’s flat on November 13, 2020. An earlier draft of the report referred to music being played and stated at what time it came to an end. Two sources close to the process say Barclay tweaked the relevant section on the eve of publication — a claim flatly denied by Downing Street but one has already been raised in the Commons by Labour, which has tabled a series of parliamentary questions.
Gray has told allies that she felt isolated by the civil service. At least two other permanent secretaries are understood to have tried to pressure her to protect colleagues caught up in the scandal.
Despite the excisions, Gray’s report, detailing 4am drinking, brawls, vomiting and red wine up the walls, was damning. Even Johnson appears to have been shocked to read that security guards, known as custodians, and cleaners who tried to stop the parties were abused. “That was the only time he was really angry,” an aide said.
When Johnson returned to No 10 from the Commons, aides took him to [apologise to the custodians](https://archive.ph/HPstx), who sit in a room off the foyer behind the famous black door. “They said they were battered and bruised by it all and how they got criticism from friends who assumed they were partying as well,” a source said. One custodian, who had to clean up the mess from parties, said he had been asked by relatives: “How can you work there?”
Johnson repeated his apologies in the No 10 post room and to the cleaners the following morning. He even went to say sorry to his protection squad officers. One of them, brandishing his weapon, smiled and said: “Don’t worry, sir, no one was rude to us.”
The report might have been even more embarrassing. A Downing Street official said Gray also investigated claims that two couples were caught having sex in the building on the night Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain left No 10 in November 2020. “She did not find enough evidence to put it in the report,” the official said.
Nonetheless the culture of impunity over which Johnson presided prompted others to come forward this weekend with claims about the treatment of staff. Two Conservative sources say that a female employee at Chequers, the prime minister’s country retreat, left after “personality clashes” with the Johnsons. “Staff at Chequers had a lot of problems,” one said. “The dog was chewing everything and shitting everywhere.” A second source said: “One of the housekeeping left because she found it a nightmare.”
Insiders say the laissez-faire approach comes directly from Johnson. “He absolutely thinks none of the rules apply to him,” said a source who knows him well. “He’s been telling everyone for months, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’. The reason the apologies sound so fake is that he doesn’t think he needs to apologise.”
Lord Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, told allies he left No 10 amid concerns about the “frat house” atmosphere. He told friends he knew nothing about a party in his office on June 18 until the next day, when he learnt staff had been dancing on his desk.
–
If we put posters up all over Britain pointing out he wanted to kill his dog for barking then he’s toast.
Starmer – gloves off we must do this.
What is the odds on one of the shagging couples being BoJo and MadNad?
[deleted]
As someone who lives in the North I don’t know anyone who’s bothered about immigrants, everyone I’ve spoken to is more bothered about the economy than anything else. The NHS on the other hand is and has always been an issue for people, especially those on lower incomes and those very same people will become even worse off as the economy tanks.
Seems the Times are accusing Johnson of lying to parliament again:
> A ministerial adviser said: “After Sue made clear that she wanted to print WhatsApp messages and emails, the entire machine fought her.”
— Times article posted here.
> What Sue Gray has published is entirely for Sue Gray. It is a wholly independent report.
— The Prime Minister, [Hansard, 25/5/2022](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-05-25/debates/E888D0F8-37F7-48A5-8598-4449887A0935/SueGrayReport#contribution-2090A42F-565C-4851-8C52-67A20FDC6E6B)
> Sources, who saw a draft of the report before it was published, insist changes to the text were also made . . . In the earlier draft, emails were included which showed staff discussed the gathering in advance and were warned that it could break the rules.
— Times article posted here.
> What I can tell the hon. Lady is that the report is wholly independent and the judgments contained in it are a matter for Sue Gray.
— The Prime Minister, [Hansard, 25/5/2022](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-05-25/debates/E888D0F8-37F7-48A5-8598-4449887A0935/SueGrayReport#contribution-20C0F2B0-6C98-4E56-B9E4-1A354FE392AC)
> Another key passage that was altered concerned the “Abba night” party which it is claimed was held in the prime minister’s flat on November 13, 2020. An earlier draft of the report referred to music being played and stated at what time it came to an end. Two sources close to the process say Barclay tweaked the relevant section on the eve of publication
— Times article posted here.