Can a report be utterly damning even if it fails to provide much in the way of detail? If so, the Gray report manages it.
It is not long by the standards of departmental publications. Indeed, at 12 pages – two of which are blank and one contains little more than the report’s title – I have seen (and contributed to) tables of contents that have stretched on for longer. Read in full here.
So if you were hoping for blockbuster revelations, pictures of booze-ups and Nixonian audio recordings, you will be disappointed. Gray herself barely conceals her frustration at having to comply with the Met’s request that she make only “minimal reference” to the events the police are investigating:
“I am extremely limited in what I can say about those events and it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report.”
Yet the report could still prove politically toxic for the Prime Minister. Gray identifies a pattern by those at the top of government who did not adhere to the standards expected of them:
“At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.”
Gray goes on to say that some of the events “should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did.” So the question is, who allowed them?
Turning next to some of the specifics. Gray confirms the Met is investigating 12 of the 16 events her report had looked into, meaning that there is indeed a criminal investigation into the 20 May 2020 event that Boris Johnson attended as well as a gathering in the Number 10 flat on 13 November 2020.
So what is the Prime Minister’s end game here? Number 10 has thus far refused to commit to publishing the full Gray report once the Met’s inquiry is finalised. Therefore, this might be the extent of the transparency we see.
Ultimately, Johnson will get through the day. That much was obvious since the Met’s intervention. Yet beyond mere survival, Boris Johnson wants more than anything to have the country move on. From Gray, from parties, indeed from Covid itself. It is far from clear whether this partial report will allow him to do so.
TLDR: Were parties held? The answer is yes. Did Johnson mislead Parliament? You might very well think that, but it was never within Gray’s remit to comment.
Elsewhere in the paper, if politics is show business for ugly people, then Dominic Cummings is the gift that keeps on giving, writes Melanie McDonagh.
Meanwhile, Alex Jones laments that, unless you’re very rich or very clever, how you dress is important and often taken as a signifier of how capable and “with it” you are.
And Matt Majendie reflects on Rafael Nadal’s remarkable, record-breaking comeback win at the Australian Open, and what it means for the interminable GOAT debate.
Finally, by a distance my favourite story of the day. South London residents have ‘fox-proofed’ their cars after the animals chewed through brake cables and electrical wires. The quotes, the pictures, the whole thing is *chef’s kiss*.
