Partygate: Boris Johnson testimony 'really uncomfortable'

There were definitely a couple of

really

awkward moments in that, but if you were to summarize what the real push was in essence, I think what we saw there was effectively across the committee, whether Conservative or Labor SMP Lib Dem MPS, I think what I saw a sense of disbelief that Boris Johnson was arguing what he was arguing and I think Harriet Harman

really

summed it up towards the end when she said that if you were going 100 miles per hour and you saw the speedometer say 100 miles per hour, it would be a bit strange if I said that someone assured me that it was not going that fast because it is what you see with your own eyes, so there is an opinion within the committee and it was repeated over and over again about how you can say that this was in guidance and rules when you're in Advance, which when we look at the evidence it doesn't look like that and then their defense, in essence, was that these were work events and when social distancing was not observed it was because the nature of the environment at number 10 which runs through the small rooms that we operate in, but there were times when, as you said, Mark fell into evidence, one of them was about permission because he was questioned particularly about Lee Kane, his former director. from the communications left by Bernard Jenkins, he was not socially distanced, several people gathered in a room that the Prime Minister defended, well, we did social distancing, we used social distancing mechanisms in other parts of the building speaking. on screens, etc. in other parts of the building, but this social gathering was necessary for work events and then Bernard with the killer question was really okay, if you were at the podium, a coronavirus press conference, would you have advised people to be allowed to have organizations? they have non-socially distanced exit fees, and then the other thing that I thought was really awkward was bringing your own garden bottle party or event and he was like, yeah, Lee Kane said the optics look bad, but no I was breaking the rules. a little confusing, well, if the optics are bad, isn't it because it's breaking the guide or rules?

And he said I thought it was a work event, but I appreciate Jill that you said it that way, look over the wall. proof that if a member of the public had looked over the wall, what they saw would be something they thought perhaps they were prohibited from doing and I think that was the closest admission we came to from the first one, the Prime Minister , who acknowledged that this looked very bad, but all the time he said he didn't think the rules had been broken. I was surprised by the fixed penalty notices. I was surprised to receive one myself and it was all in the context of everything we did at Downing Street. related to work essential to the job, but there are a couple of moments on that committee where it was really

uncomfortable

for him to continue arguing that and I'm not sure the committee was convinced, so was there the so-called gun moment? smoky?

It's more the cumulative impact of what he was saying. No, I didn't see irrefutable evidence that way you thought he had been restrained, but I think the issues around some of the evidence that the advisers provided and the way he argued in Parliament that it was

uncomfortable

, whether because of the optics of that bring your own bottle party or indeed by some of Reynolds's advice to his principal private secretary saying I don't think you should go into the commons and say that the guidelines were followed throughout because In Actually, I don't think we can argue with that, but his defense was again in a perfect world.

It wasn't, but in the round I thought we did the best we could to get him to have a defense ready. I think two problems arise. It's one, as I said, the committee doesn't seem to be convinced, I thought from your evidence, but you also seemed to suggest at the end that if the committee didn't rule in your favor you wouldn't think that was a fair outcome and I think that raises questions in itself. because you know there have been all these issues around MP saying it's a kangaroo court and it's detrimental to him and he didn't do it at that time when he was going through that

testimony

and that cross-examination he actually accepted the legitimacy of the committee, I think a lot of MPS who watched him will feel quite upset about that and what they felt about his behavior throughout the whole process, which was well defined, he was quite angry at one point, I think he went through, I think he went through waves. where he got a little touchy with Bernard Jenkin and started trying to interrupt him and I think that played pretty badly for Johnson, but I think towards the end he got the concern back from him, it was really just in terms of the answers.

I thought there were two or three moments where he was stumped, one was actually when he was presented with the evidence about the conflicting advice he was given. He also couldn't seem to tell where this advice had come from. because actually in the documentary evidence, the advice of his director of Comm Strat Doyle, his cabinet secretary, the Simon case, and then his principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, there are three pieces of evidence in the documentation that suggest that he was not advised, uh, that guide and rules. they were followed throughout and yet he says my advisors did it and that's part of his defense, but I think in terms of the presentation, I know you think Jill gave the impression that she sincerely believed in her argument, which was very clear.