I'm thinking of doing something naughty

This is how I imagine BoJo broached a subject with Lord Geidt, who recently resigned as the Government’s ethics adviser because, he claims, the Prime Minister put him in an "impossible and odious position.”

The usual BoJo Backstabbers are, of course, in paroxysms of delight at this ‘cast-iron evidence’ that Bojo is a criminal. My working hypothesis is therefore the opposite: that BoJo is nothing of the sort, and his Backstabbers are too busy backstabbing to smell the coffee, see the light and analyse yet another situation remotely fairly and intelligently.

You might recall that my working hypotheses usually turn out to be either pretty darned on the money, or that no conclusions can be drawn either way because insufficient evidence is not yet available. Ya see, I like to consider not what the Guardian prints (which is habitually wrong, misleading and one-sided) or what the BBC broadcasts (which is habitually wrong, misleading and one-sided) or what any member of the Labour Party spouts (which is habitually wrong, misleading and one-sided) or what the Lib Dems think (that’s an oxymoron). I go to the source:

• Northern Ireland protocol? I read the protocol, not the EU take on it. 

• Rwanda policy? I read the policy, not Amnesty International’s view of it. Who cares what they think anyway. A once noble organisation that has flushed itself down the toilet. Talking of which …

• … Sewage polluting our rivers? I read industry documents and considered everything in wider, fairer, pragmatic contexts from both sides, not the Guardian reports on it.

• Lord Lebedev’s peerage? My previous blog found little hard evidence, just supposition and hysteria, that BoJo had ennobled his Russian oligarch mate.

May the Source be with you. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Dragging myself back to the topic of this particular blog, I read Lord Geidt’s resignation letters. Yes, plural. His first resignation letter wasn’t clear enough or wasn’t wounding enough or disappeared off the front pages too quickly, so he had another pop. Here are some extracts from Geidt's second letter:

“[You, Prime Minister,] did not, however, address specifically the criticism in Sue Gray's report about your adherence to the Nolan Principles (on leadership, in particular). Neither did the letter make mention that, despite being repeatedly questioned in the House of Commons about your obligations under the Ministerial Code (after paying a Fixed Penalty Notice), your responses again made no reference to it.”

In other words, BoJo is guilty of not saying anything about some ethereal, subjective, theoretical, uncontextualized leadership mantra. The Horrorrrrrrrr!

“… I was tasked to offer a view about the Government's intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position.”

What this actually means is, BoJo asked Geidt for his advice over a probable solution to a thorny problem that involved a possible breach of the Ministerial Code. Geidt didn’t like to be asked about something that might breach the Ministerial Code and resigned from his job that included a duty to advise the PM over possible breaches of the Ministerial Code. Am I the only one who thinks Geidt is two cards short of a full deck?

“… the idea that a Prime Minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own Code is an affront”.

Let me ask Geidt a hypothetical question – if the only way to protect the UK from a terrorist attack is to breach the Ministerial Code, would that still be unacceptable? What I’m asking is, who on earth wants a Government that always plays by the rules and ‘codes’ and wipes their noses on their napkins rather than their sleeves. Criminals don’t. Rogue states, such as Russia, China and the EU don’t. If we did, we’d be under the thumb of Russia, China or the EU faster than you could ask for another slice of cake. (But that’s what BoJo Bashers want, isn’t it. To be once again subsumed by the E effing U.)

How did Bojo respond?

“… When we spoke on Monday, you said that you were content to remain until the end of the year. So your letter came as a surprise.”

What a polite way to say, you little liar, you deliberately misled me.

“My intention was to seek your advice on the national interest in protecting a crucial industry, which is protected in other European countries and would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs. This has in the past had cross party support. It would be in line with our domestic law but might be seen to conflict with our obligations under the WTO. In seeking your advice before any decision was taken, I was looking to ensure that we acted properly with due regard to the Ministerial code.”

This reads to me like: I was seeking your advice about doing what other nations do and which previously has been supported in Parliament and is consistent with UK law, but might now conflict with World Trade Organisation rules now that we have left the EU so WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

“You have carried out your duties admirably under very difficult circumstances. We have discussed the burdens placed on you by this increasingly public role, and the pressures that would be felt by anyone in your position.”

In other words: you obviously aren’t up for the job at hand.

Are there any other views out there other than the BBC’s bombastic bias and my irreverent analysis of just two letters?

The i (online newspaper) claimed:

“Lord Geidt’s resignation is about rescuing his own reputation, not hammering Boris Johnson’s … in an excruciating session before the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, Geidt had lived down to his reputation as Royal courtier. His opacity and verbosity made Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby look like a model of transparency … his missive sounded like a supply teacher who has come to the end of their tether in the face of an unruly pupil who knows just how far he can prod and push their buttons. The sense of impotent fulmination leapt off the page … the three factors that ultimately became too much for Geidt – the public ridicule, the attacks on his integrity and questioning of his competence – are exactly the things that Johnson shrugs off his hide like an elephant ignores the pecks of small birds.”

I don’t really know the i, but the consensus from Google is that it’s centre-left and no fan of BoJo. Therefore, the above reading of Lord G’s resignation, not as critical of BoJo as it might be, has to be read with some respect.

And to be honest, I’m very happy being governed by a Prime Minister who shrugs personal attacks off his hide like an elephant ignores the pecks of small birds, and sometimes does something naughty in the national interest.