Which G7 leader, or indeed any leader of any nation, no…if any sentient human being, could descend on a meeting of 30 people unannounced and spend 25 minutes talking to them but not realise it was a party.
Didn’t the drinks, sausage rolls, crisps and snacks give him a clue? Couldn’t he have, you know, asked what they were doing? What was he thanking them for? Didn’t he have any curiosity about why a small crowd had decided to meet in his garden?
Only someone who had never done any real work could mistake a drinks party for work. Personally, I have never had to bring a bottle of wine to a meeting and as a salesman you do tend to have an awful lot of meetings. Even in France or Italy, I never once attended a business meeting where alcohol was present.
One of Johnson’s traits throughout his life is the ability apparently not to mind looking stupid and have people laugh at him. It’s got him out of a lot of awkward situations. But after Lord Geidt had to tell the world the PM seemed to be the only person who didn’t realise the flat refurbishment money was coming out of the pocket of the multi-millionaire Lord Brownlow, a man worth £267 million, he is beginning to just look a bit slow.
The problem in telling a fib, certainly over anything regarded as important, is that another fib becomes necessary to cover discrepancies in the first one. And then another to cover the second. Each time, the circumstances become harder to reconcile with reality.
This is why reports like Geidt’s and the forthcoming one from Sue Gray take so long to draft up. They have to appear plausible and logical to explain the known facts without putting blame on the person plainly at fault.
And these investigations provide a shield. While they're underway, Johnson can hide behind them and stonewall questions, as he did on Monday with his usual smirk. Yesterday that was missing - presumably he had to practice in front of a mirror - because it had to be kept hidden.
This 'technically' within the rules is a clue to Gray's conclusions. She will exonerate him on a technicality, a misunderstanding, something inadvertent or unintentional without impugning the prime minister's 'integrity.' And she will send it to him first anyway.
Gray may want to think twice about a whitewash. For two reasons. First, if images or video evidence emerges of the 20 May party which makes her look stupidly gullible. Someone on Newsnight on Tuesday suggested there is such evidence.
Second, if you look at the eleven occasions when parties were supposed to have taken place and which Gray is investigating, the first two were in May while the third and subsequent ones were in November and December. That's a long period in summer without a party and although the rules were constantly changing, my guess is there could be other parties coming to light.
