IT'S not just what you say, it's how you say it – politicians know that better than most of us.
So what does the manner of Boris Johnson's apology over the garden party scandal tell us about how he plans to survive it? Here we take a look:
"I WANT to apologise."
The Prime Minister opens not by saying he is sorry, but that he wants to make an apology. It would have been easy to say simply "I apologise" but he didn't.
"I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months.
"I know the anguish they have been through – unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives as they want or to do the things they love.
"I know the rage they feel with me and with the government I lead when they think in Downing Street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules."
This is a direct appeal to the public and the first two and a half lines feel like they're building to a big concession, but that doesn't come.
Johnson walks back on that acknowledgement of sacrifice, anguish and rage by stating that the people "think" that the rules are not being properly followed. This scandal is about parties/work meetings (take your pick) that have already happened, so shifting to present tense here is telling. Is Johnson keener to focus on now than then? Unquestionably.
The switch from "I know" to "people... think" is also an interesting choice and attempts to insert an element of doubt as Johnson moves on to his next point – the inquiry is ongoing and has not yet returned any conclusions. This is something he continues to hide behind. He is not admitting a rule breach here.
"And though I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, I have learned enough to know there were things we simply did not get right and I must take responsibility.
"No 10 is a big department with a garden as an extension of the office which has been in constant use because of the role of fresh air in stopping the virus.
"When I went into that garden just after six on 20 May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event."
Johnson here casts himself not as the person in charge nor the figure of authority; he is a guest in his own garden, someone else did it. He suggests he has been somehow misled about the nature of the event outside his door. This is in contrast with the assertion that he "must take responsibility". He must, but does he?
He "cannot anticipate the conclusions" of the probe but has "learned enough". It's unclear what learning Johnson is alluding to here but he presents himself as someone with little knowledge of the actions of government departments and staff.
"With hindsight I should have sent everyone back inside. I should have found some other way to thank them.
"I should have recognised that even if it could be said technically to fall within the guidance, there are millions and millions of people who simply would not see it that way, people who have suffered terribly, people who were forbidden from meeting loved ones at all inside or outside, and to them and to this house I offer my heartfelt apologies.
"All I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others so that the full facts can be established."
As the statement ends, Johnson acknowledges he could have done things differently, but the apology is to the house, not the public. While there are conventions about parliamentary speech, Johnson has by now noted public "rage", so why not extend the apology to the people he is responsible to? And we finish with an appeal for patience for the "full facts" of Gray's probe, another entreaty to listeners.
The Prime Minister has not admitted breaking the rules. That is not what this apology is.
Everything rests on Gray, Johnson seems to say, and it's an attempt as much as to appear responsible and respectful of the rules as to close the conversation on this.
Slim chance.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel