How Boris Johnson defends each of his partygate statements to parliament

Published

3 years ago

March 21, 2023

admin

Boris Johnson has admitted he inadvertently misled parliament in a series of statements he made in relation to partygate.

But setting out his defence ahead of an appearance at the privileges committee tomorrow, the former prime minister insisted his comments were delivered “in good faith” and that he believed them to be true at the time.

It’s his response to allegations he broke the Palace of Westminster’s rules, as set out in a book called Erskine May’s Parliamentary Procedure, which says: “The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.”

Here we take a look at each of the three Commons statements the committee is investigating and set out Mr Johnson’s explanation for how he played by the rules:

Alleged rule breach 1

Date: 1 December 2021

What Boris Johnson said: “What I can tell the right honourable and learned gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in Number 10.”

His defence: Mr Johnson said he became aware the Daily Mirror was planning to run a story on alleged lockdown breaking at a gathering on 30 November 2021 – around the time of the Omicron variant and new restrictions being voted through Parliament.

He said his director of communications, Jack Doyle, came to see him that evening about an email the paper’s political editor had sent – his diary recorded this meeting between 6pm and 6.05pm – making allegations about four parties.

“I did not see the email myself and the only event I can recall Jack mentioning in any detail was the one held in the press office on 18 December 2020, which I had not attended,” said the then PM.

“The email mentions two other events – on 13 November 2020 and 27 November 2020 – which I do not recall Jack bringing up but I accept that he may have. These were ones that I had attended.”

But he said had Mr Doyle mentioned them, he would have been “confident” they had complied with the COVID rules at the time due to his own attendance.

Back to 18 December, and Mr Johnson said he felt it was “implausible” the COVID rules had been broken.

After hearing Mr Doyle’s description of the gathering, Mr Johnson said he believed it.

And in his evidence to the privileges committee, he sought to add context to the experience of Downing Street staff.

For the then PM, drinking wine at a person’s desk was not rule breaking under the rules he had brought into force.

The press was briefed “COVID rules were followed at all times” and Mr Johnson said he “did not anticipate that this would be a big story”, even saying he was “surprised” when Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer raised it at Prime Minister’s Questions on 1 December.

Sir Keir asked: “As millions of people were locked down last year, was a Christmas party thrown in Downing Street for dozens of people on 18 December?”

Mr Johnson responded: “Based on the conversations that I had had the previous day and that morning… What I can tell the right honourable and learned gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in Number 10.”

And while he said he meant to repeat the exact line given to the Daily Mirror the night before, he said he did believe all guidance had been followed based on his understanding of the rules.

He said: “I did not mean that social distancing was complied with perfectly in Number 10, but this was not required by the guidance.”

He said he “relied on my knowledge of those events for the periods which I attended”.

He also added: “Number 10 and the Cabinet Office are very large departments. I believed that if anyone witnessed something that they considered to be illegal or contrary to guidance, I would have been made aware of it.”

Evidence supporting him: Mr Johnson said it was fair to accept he believed everyone was following the rules and guidance because “this belief was shared by many others” – pointing to six individuals.

The names of three of them – all Number 10 officials – have been redacted, but his principle private secretary, Martin Reynolds, his official spokesman (later promoted to director of communications) James Slack, and Mr Doyle were named.

In his written evidence to the committee, Mr Reynolds wrote that he and others “involved in organising and attending the gatherings” believed they were following regulations and that decisions “were taken in good faith and were reasonable on a common-sense reading of the relevant regulations”.

He also said he believed “all senior staff in Downing Street”, assumed the events were lawful too, both political staff and civil servants, saying: “They spoke at, attended or were aware of some, or all, of the gatherings. The attendees included some of those responsible for the regulations. I believe in-house lawyers were copied in to some invitations.”

In an interview that came as part of Sue Gray’s partygate investigation, Mr Slack said: “I honestly don’t think that anyone who was in that room was breaking any rules. They were with their colleagues who they sat with all day every day for 12 hours.

“Were there additional elements to that? Yes. That was a reflection of the specific circumstances of the end of the year. Everyone in the office knew that they were public servants and wouldn’t have done it if they thought they were breaking rules.”

Mr Johnson also cited a WhatsApp conversation between him and Mr Doyle on 10 December, where the then PM said: “Is there a way we could get the truth about this party out there.”

In conclusion, Mr Johnson said: “In hindsight, I accept that my statement to Parliament on 1 December 2021, although reasonably and honestly believed at the time, did mislead the House.

“If I had been aware of this information, I would obviously not have stood up in Parliament and said what I said.”

Alleged rule breach 2

Date: 8 December 2021

What Boris Johnson said: “I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken – that is what I have been repeatedly assured.”

His defence: The day before Mr Johnson made this statement to the House, the footage of Allegra Stratton joking about a lockdown event taking place on 18 December 2020 in Downing Street was published by ITV.

The then PM said he had “not previously seen this video” and it caused him “immediate concern”, but in the evening Mr Doyle sent him a WhatApp saying: “I think you can say ‘I’ve been assured there was no party and no rules were broken’.”

Mr Johnson said he later called Mr Slack “who I regard as a man of great integrity and who was in the building on the evening of 18 December 2020”, and he also confirmed that the rules had been followed.

But as he “remained concerned”, he decided he needed to commission an investigation to “find out precisely what happened at the event in question”, and spoke to cabinet secretary Simon Case that night, asking him to carry it out.

Mr Johnson received another WhatsApp from Mr Doyle the following morning with a proposed wording for a statement: “I sought and was given reassurance no rules were broken and no party took place.”

The details were thrashed out in an email chain “which involved numerous civil servants and advisers”, and after a large meeting, a statement was agreed.

The PM went to the House and ahead of PMQs said: “I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured.”

He also confirmed the independent inquiry, which was due to be led by Mr Case – before he was later found to have attended a gathering and recused himself.

In his evidence to the committee, Mr Johnson said: “This statement was entirely accurate, and I do not believe that the House has been misled by it.”

He said the statement “related exclusively to the event on 18 December discussed by Ms Stratton – “the focus of the media storm”.

And he said he told MPs “what I honestly believed based on my own understanding, and what I had been told by others – but I acknowledged that the truth would be established independently, and that I might subsequently be found to have been wrong”.

Evidence supporting him: First, Mr Johnson included Mr Doyle’s interview with Sue Gray over what he had told the PM about the events.

Asked if he gave the repeated assurances, Mr Doyle said the pair had a conversation “and the only thing I said to the PM was that I didn’t regard this as a party and we didn’t believe the rules had been broken and that’s what we said at lobby – the rules is a judgment for others, it was not an organised party”.

The then PM also said the “repeated assurances” he was given were witnessed by two Tory MPs – Andrew Griffiths and Sarah Dines.

And Mr Reynolds said: “I believe that reassurances were provided by some of the senior communications team staff who were present at the event, including Jack Doyle.”

Alleged rule breach 3

Date: 8 December 2021

What Boris Johnson said: “No but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”

His defence: In the same PMQs sessions, Labour MP Catherine West asked Mr Johnson whether there had been a party on 13 November amid rumours of a fresh story.

It was later confirmed a leaving party did take place in Downing Street on that date – though rumours of a “victory party” taking place in the PM’s flat the same day Dominic Cummings left his post have been denied.

Replying to the MP’s question though, Mr Johnson said: “No but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”

In his evidence, Mr Johnson said: “I appreciate that the meaning of this statement is not entirely clear. At the time, I did not know what event Catherine West MP was referring to, and it remains unclear.”

He revealed he did attend two events on that day, but again said he believed he had acted in line with the rules.

Evidence supporting him: Again it is principle private secretary Mr Reynolds who Mr Johnson uses to back up his claims.

In his statement to the committee, Mr Reynolds said: “I believe that at the time the story broke in November 2020 there was a collective belief in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street that we had operated within the rules during lockdown and that any events which took place had been legitimate, work-related gatherings”.

World

Is this what the beginning of a war looks like? How the US threat around Venezuela is shaping up

Published

3 hours ago

December 10, 2025

admin

Is this what the beginning of a war looks like?

In the deep blue waters of the Caribbean, visible from space, an unremarkable grey smudge.

But this is the USS Gerald R Ford: the largest, most deadly aircraft carrier in the world. And it is only part of an armada, apparently set on Venezuela.

From being able to count on one hand the number of warships and boats in the Caribbean, since August we can see the build-up of the number, and variety of ships under US command.

And that’s only at sea – air power has also been deployed, with bombers flying over the Caribbean, and even along the Venezuelan coast, as recently as this week.

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro told crowds his country has endured 22 weeks of aggression from the US and Donald Trump.

Things could be about to get worse.

So let’s rewind those 22 weeks to understand how we got here…

‘Drug boat’ strike

On 2 September, the White House posted on X that it had conducted a strike against so-called “narcoterrorists” shipping fentanyl to the US, without providing direct evidence of the alleged crime.

Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.

Read more: The US-Venezuela crisis explained

The latest was on 4 December, after which US Southern Command announced it had conducted another strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific.

It was the first such strike since 15 November and since the defence secretary, sometimes referred to as secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, came under scrutiny for an alleged “second strike” in an earlier attack.

The US says it carried out the action because of drugs – and there has been some evidence to support its assertion.

The Dominican Republic said it had recovered the contents of one boat hit by a strike – a huge haul of cocaine.

Legal issues

Whatever the cargo, though, there are serious, disputed legal issues.

Firstly, it is contested whether by designating the people on the boats as narcoterrorists, it makes them lawful military targets – or whether the strikes are in fact extra judicial murders of civilians at sea.

And more specifically… well, let’s go back to that very first video, of the very first strike.

What this footage doesn’t show is what came afterwards – an alleged “second strike” that targeted people in the water posing no apparent threat.

That has created a crisis for Hegseth.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting last week, the defence secretary said he did not see that there were survivors in the water when the second strike was ordered and launched in early September, saying that “the thing was on fire”.

And the 4 December strike shows this strategy isn’t over.

The strikes are just part of the story, as warships and planes have headed toward the region in huge numbers.

Drugs or oil?

Some have said this isn’t about drugs at all, but oil.

Venezuela has lots – the world’s largest proven reserves.

Speaking to the faithful on Fox News, Republican congresswoman – and Trump supporter – Maria Salazar said access to Venezuela would be a “field day” for American oil companies.

And Maduro himself has taken up that theme. A few days later, he wrote this letter to OPEC – which represents major oil producing nations – to “address the growing and illegal threats made by the government of the United States against Venezuela”.

That’s how Maduro has framed this – a plan by the US “to seize Venezuela’s vast oil reserves… through lethal military force”.

Lethal military force – an understatement when you think of the armada lying in wait.

And it may be called upon soon. Trump on Tuesday said he’s preparing to take these strikes from international waters on to Venezuelan territory.

Maduro has complained of 22 weeks of “aggression”. There may be many more to come.

Additional reporting by Sophia Massam, junior digital investigations journalist.

The Data X Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.

World

Trump gives withering verdict on America’s traditional allies

Published

3 hours ago

December 10, 2025

admin

Trump gives withering verdict on America's traditional allies

Donald Trump’s bruising assessment of Europe as “weak” and “decaying” is a bitter blow to nations already reeling from the release of his national security strategy.

At the end of the 45-minute interview with Politico, EU leaders might be forgiven for thinking, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

“Europe doesn’t know what to do,” Trump said, “They want to be politically correct, and it makes them weak.”

On the contrary, I would imagine some choice words were being uttered in European capitals as they waded through the string of insults.

What has Trump said?

First up, the US president criticised European leaders for failing to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.

“They talk but they don’t produce. And the war just keeps going on and on,” he said.

The fact that the Russians have shown no real commitment to stopping the invasion they started is not mentioned.

Instead, the blame is laid squarely at the feet of Ukraine and its allies in Europe.

“I think if I weren’t president, we would have had World War III,” Trump suggested, while concluding that Moscow is in the stronger position.

Does he have a point?

Critics claim that the White House has emboldened the Kremlin and brought Putin in from the cold with a summit and photo opportunities.

Trump highlights the fact that his return to office forced many European NATO members to increase defence spending drastically.

On this, he is correct – the growing insecurity around how long America can be relied on has brought security into sharp focus.

But the release of the new US national security strategy has only added to the feelings of unease.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday claimed some of its contents were unacceptable from a European point of view.

“I see no need for America to want to save democracy in Europe. If it was necessary to save it, we would manage it on our own,” he told a news conference in Rhineland-Palatinate, the German state where Trump’s paternal grandfather was born.

The leader of the EU’s biggest power also said the new US strategy was not a surprise and largely chimed with the vice president’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February.

For this reason, Merz reiterated that Europe and Germany must become more independent of America for their security policies.

However, he noted, “I say in my discussions with the Americans, ‘America first’ is fine, but America alone cannot be in your interests.”

For his part, while Trump said he liked most of Europe’s current leaders, he warned they were “destroying” their countries with their migration policies.

He said: “Europe is a different place, and if it keeps going the way it’s going, Europe will not be…in my opinion, many of those countries will not be viable countries any longer. Their immigration policy is a disaster”.

He added: “Most European nations… they’re decaying.”

Again, the comments echoed his security strategy, which warned immigration risked “civilisation erasure” in Europe.

There’s no doubt immigration is a major concern for many of the continent’s leaders and voters.

However, irregular crossings into the EU fell 22% in the first 10 months of 2025 according to Frontex, a fact which seems to have passed the president and his team by.

“Within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”, his security document warned.

It also suggested “cultivating resistance” in Europe “to restore former greatness” leading to speculation about how America might intervene in European politics.

Trump appeared to add further clarification on Tuesday, saying while he did not “want to run Europe”, he would consider “endorsing” his preferred candidates in future elections.

👉 Tap to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts👈

This comment will also ruffle feathers on the continent where the European Council President has already warned Trump’s administration against interfering in Europe’s affairs.

“Allies do not threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Antonio Costa said on Monday.

“The US cannot replace Europe in what its vision is of free expression… Europe must be sovereign.”

So, what will happen now, and how will Europe’s leaders respond?

If you are hoping for a showdown, you will likely be disappointed.

Like him or loathe him, Europe’s leaders need Trump.

They need the might of America and want to try to secure continued support for Ukraine.

While the next few days will be filled with politely scripted statements or rejections of the president’s comments, most of his allies know on this occasion they are probably best to grin and bear it.

World

‘Cheap ceasefire’ between Ukraine and Russia would create ‘expensive peace’ for Europe, Norway’s foreign minister warns

Published

13 hours ago

December 9, 2025

admin

'Cheap ceasefire' between Ukraine and Russia would create 'expensive peace' for Europe, Norway's foreign minister warns

A “cheap ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia – with Kyiv forced to surrender land – would create an “expensive peace” for the whole of Europe, Norway’s foreign minister has warned.

Espen Barth Eide explained this could mean security challenges for generations, with the continent’s whole future “on the line”.

It was why Ukraine, its European allies and the US should seek to agree a common position when trying to secure a settlement with Vladimir Putin, the top Norwegian diplomat told Sky News in an interview during a visit to London on Tuesday.

Ukraine war latest: Trump says Putin has upper hand in peace talks

“I very much hope that we will have peace in Ukraine and nobody wants that more than the Ukrainians themselves,” Mr Eide said.

“But I am worried that we might push this to what in quotation marks is a ‘cheap ceasefire’, which will lead to a very expensive peace.”

Explaining what he meant, Mr Eide said a post-war era follows every conflict – big or small.

How that plays out typically depends upon the conditions under which the fighting stopped.

“If you are not careful, you will lock in certain things that it will be hard to overcome,” he said.

“So if we leave with deep uncertainties, or if we allow a kind of a new Yalta, a new Iron Curtain, to descend on Europe as we come to peace in Ukraine, that’s problematic for the whole of Europe. So our future is very much on the line here.”

He said this mattered most for Ukrainians – but the outcome of the war will also affect the future of his country, the UK and the rest of the continent.

“This has to be taken more seriously… It’s a conflict in Europe, it has global consequences, but it’s fundamentally a war in our continent and the way it’s solved matters to our coming generations,” the Norwegian foreign minister said.

Russia ‘will know very well how to exploit vagueness’

Asked what he meant by a cheap ceasefire, he said: “If Ukraine is forced to give up territory that it currently militarily holds, I think that would be very problematic.

“If restrictions are imposed on future sovereignty. If there’s vagueness on what was actually agreed that can be exploited. I think our Russian neighbours will know very well how to exploit that vagueness in order to keep a small flame burning to annoy us in the future.”

Progress being made on peace talks

Referring to the latest round of peace talks, initiated by Donald Trump, Mr Eide signalled that progress was being made from an initial 28-point peace plan proposed a couple of weeks ago by the United States that favoured Moscow over Kyiv.

That document included a requirement for the Ukrainian side to give up territory it still holds in eastern Ukraine to Russia and Mr Eide described it as “problematic in many aspects”.

But he said: “I think we’ve now had a good conversation between Ukraine, leading European countries and the US on how to adapt and develop that into something which might be a good platform for Ukraine and its allies to go to Russia with.

“We still don’t know the Russian response, but what I do know is the more we are in agreement as the West, the better Ukraine will stand.”