Apologies are one of the most under-rated devices in politics. It is convention to argue that apologising is a sign of weaknesss, but people don’t expect politicians to get everything right, they know we all make mistakes, and if used sincerely (a big if – we’ll come back to it in a moment) they can wipe the slate clean, restore trust and provide a bit of a reset.
Today Johnson opened with a very full apology for the behaviour of his staff caught on film laughing about a lockdown-busting party. It probably won him some credit with his backbenchers, and it made the subsequent exchanges a bit easier than they otherwise would have been. The other obvious option (see 9.38am) would have been a lot worse.
But that is about as much as can be said for his ploy, because it failed the sincerity/credibility test. This morning I suggested that Johnson could either own up and apologise, or blame others for something of which he was not aware. At PMQs he combined both approaches. His apology was of the Irish famine variety; what happened was awful, and he apologises unreservedly, but that apology is divorced from responsibility, because others were to blame. On responsibility, he clearly implied that he had sought reassurances about no rules being broken, and had been given them. He also announced an inquiry, which may well allow him to report in the future that, “alasâ€, he was misled. Junior heads may well have to roll.
The problem with this, of course, is that the notion that Johnson (the most anti-lockdown, rule-averse member of the government) was being kept in the dark about lockdown-busting partying by dozens of staffers fearful of his response is implausible. Starmer made this point very effectively, with humour and moral force. He even managed to pray in aid the Queen.
Her Majesty the Queen sat alone when she marked the passing of the man she’d been married to for 73 years. Leadership, sacrifice – that’s what gives leaders the moral authority to lead. Does the prime minister think he has the moral authority to lead and to ask the British people to stick to the rules?
Afterwards, during points of order, a Tory MP complained about this reference to the Queen, who is normally not discussed during parliamentary proceedings. The Speaker gave him short shrift, and the exchange suggests Starmer struck a nerve.
Johnson made things worse for himself by accusing Starmer of playing politics with the issue. He would have been better off just repeating the apology line six times, but by his third response to Starmer he seemed to have had enough of apologising and instead brought up the “playing politics†charge. Even at the best of times this is a feeble political attack lines (it only ever impresses ultra-partisans, who will back you anyway) and on a day when Johnson seems to be planning a cat massacre on a scale so blatant even his backbenchers have noticed (see 11.18am and 12.40pm), it seemed even less appropriate.
