Paul Holmes’ Statement on Pandemic Parties at the Johnson Residence

At long last Paul Holmes has made a statement in relation to lockdown parties in Downing Street, after reports first emerged towards the end of last year.

“The Prime Minister will be aware that Eastleigh was formed as a railway town and, from producing locomotives and carriages to building gliders for the D-day landings, Eastleigh has a proud railway heritage. Given that pedigree, its excellent transport links and the need to level up the south, does he agree that Eastleigh would make the perfect home for the new headquarters of Great British Railways?”

You might be wondering what that has to do with his views on government parties during the pandemic. The only relevance is that this was Paul’s contribution during Prime Minister’s Questions today, which was dominated by Boris Johnson’s admission that he had in fact attended one of the parties during lockdown after all.

Paul claims that he was merely trying to secure money, jobs and investment for Eastleigh. Even if you believe that he wasn’t just providing friendly cover for the Prime Minister during a difficult PMQs, Paul appears to be appealing to the Prime Minister to influence the new railway headquarters decision when there is meant to be some sort of competition for towns to submit bids. That’s an interesting approach on the day that the government’s VIP lane for PPE contracts was found to be unlawful.

Interestingly Paul had previously suggested to the Deputy Chief Whip that the competition should be cancelled in favour of Eastleigh. He also said this in that debate:

“I did notice, however, that I still have not received a Christmas card from him—[Interruption.] which is shocking. No doubt—I ask him to comment—that is an indication of my standing in his little black book in the Whips Office.”

I don’t think Paul need worry about his standing with the whips after today!

Anyway, I assume Paul will eventually stop ignoring the issue and actually make a statement. I’ll add a link, or the text, here when he does.

Update: Paul Holmes’ actual statement!

Paul finally got around to posting a statement on his website today!

“I know many constituents have contacted me about the recent revelations regarding events in Downing Street.

First and foremost, I want to make it clear that I have not attended any parties in Downing Street myself.”

It’s telling that he starts by clarifying that he wasn’t at the parties. He knows it was wrong.

“The reports we have all seen in the news are deeply disappointing.  Not only do I understand your anger and frustration about the reported parties in Downing Street, I share that anger and frustration.”

The Prime Minister said he understood the anger back in December last year: “May I begin by saying that I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures?” We had to wait a very long time to hear something similar from Paul.

“These reports raise serious questions about the conduct of people working in Downing Street and like you, I want answers to these questions. I believe Sue Gray’s report will address these points. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, I also believe he needs to address these concerns.”

Paul seems to be playing his part in Operation Save Big Dog already, deflecting blame from the Prime Minister to “people working in Downing Street”. Classy.

Paul was so slow writing his statement that the likely outcome of Sue Gray’s report has already leaked and is not expected to find evidence of criminality! Ultimately Sue Gray’s investigation is not what it’s being advertised to be.

While I welcome Paul’s statement, it’s too little too late.

“Fundamentally, there is no excuse for those who make the rules, to break the rules. Those found to be doing so should be disciplined and face the consequences, with no exceptions.”

Well Paul, over to you. Or did you mean no exceptions except for the Conservative Prime Minister?

Update: Paul’s update!

Paul has updated his email template since Sue Gray’s update.

“I appreciate and understand the ongoing anger and frustration around these matters, and I remain clear that anyone found to have broken the rules must face the consequences of their actions.”

It’s already clear that the Prime Minister repeatedly breaks the ministerial code, and has done so since before it was revealed that he broke his own lockdown law. It’s also clear that Paul isn’t interested in those rules, and doesn’t expect the Prime Minister to face any consequences.

Worse, Johnson appears to be lying in Parliament even more regularly than usual in a desperate attempt to cling on to power, and has now even sunk to repeating far-right conspiracies to score political points.

“I have said that I will make a further statement when Sue Gray’s report is published. Given the concurrent police investigation, it has not yet been possible for her to release her full report, which is why only a limited update has been published so far. I look forward to the full report in due course, as well as the outcome of the police investigation, and I will make a further statement then as promised.”

Instead of distancing himself from even the worst of the Prime Minister’s false allegations, Paul is still content to stick to Johnson’s “wait for the report/wait for the police investigation” script.

It’s worth reading Sue Gray’s limited update. The full report should be interesting if the Prime Minister actually ever publishes it.

“I understand that many are calling for decisions to be taken now, but I have always been of the view that the full facts must be known in a case before a judgement can be made. However, I want to assure you that I continue to take this matter extremely seriously as your MP, and that I have heard and taken on board your views and have made them clear to the Prime Minister and Number 10.”

The facts are that Boris Johnson is a liar, and Paul Holmes still has confidence in him.

Update: Paul Holmes’ statement (radio edit)

Paul has clarified his position further during an interview on the T&G Times Radio show (from 1h54m on 13th February 2022):

“I fully support the Prime Minister. He’s getting on with the job.”

“I have every confidence that he will be able to deliver going into the next election.”

His enthusiastic support was somewhat unexpected after he had initially claimed he was angry, but said that we should wait for the result of the police investigation.

Advertisement

Paul Holmes’ Statement on Owen Paterson

It’s not immediately obvious that Eastleigh’s MP Paul Holmes even made a Statement on Owen Paterson because it’s tucked away in a dark corner of his website.

It seems appropriate to revisit his statement given that today’s North Shropshire by-election was only possible because he and the vast majority of Conservative MPs supported the government’s attempt to thwart the Parliamentary standards process. Let’s have a look…

“I do not support the lobbying activities that Owen Paterson undertook while working as an MP for two companies that he acts as a paid consultant for. This is expressly forbidden in the rules and it is right that he is punished.”

I think most people agree. I also think most MPs agree. I’m fairly certain most Conservative MPs, like Paul, would now publicly claim they agree as well.

I’m inclined to believe them, which makes it even more inexcusable that they allowed the motion to suspended Owen Paterson, who had been found guilty of corruption, for 30 days to be hijacked by the government.

Instead of passing the motion to suspended Owen Paterson, the motion was amended to politicise the standards process. Conservative MPs were told to support the amendment, whether they liked it or not, and the amendment passed.

“I did not vote for the ‘Leadsom Amendment’ which would have stopped Owen Paterson being punished”

It’s true that Paul did not vote for the amendment which did stop Owen Paterson being punished but he doesn’t say why.

Paul has a government job as PPS to Priti Patel. Angela Richardson lost a similar job for defying the government whip but, as far as I know, Paul did not lose his job. The most likely explanation is that he did not rebel; he just didn’t vote for some reason that was acceptable to the government.

“I did vote for a review into the Standards Regime which was encompassed in the second vote.”

Basically he just voted for the motion which was now to rip up the standards process instead of suspending Owen Paterson.

The alternative was for Paul to lose his PPS job, and it’s even possible that Eastleigh would have been punished as well, which would be even more appalling than Owen Paterson’s behaviour.

“I am pleased that the Government has now changed its mind and is proceeding with a review into the standards regime but in a more cross-party and collaborative way.”

I hope the review will look at why ministers like Priti Patel can break the rules and escape without punishment

The review also needs to examine the Ministerial Code and the conduct of the Prime Minister, as highlighted by Dawn Brent.

Finally, Paul makes some statements about his own employment…

“For the record, being the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh is the only job that I have and am remunerated for.”

He does also have a job as a PPS in addition to his constituency role, but that is unpaid.

“I do not have a second job and I do not earn any money from any paid consultancies.  This is reflected in my own register of interests which is a matter of public record.”

This one is a bit more puzzling because, well, that is not what is reflected in the public record!

15 hours per month for share options in the “Employment and earnings” section sounds like a second job to me!

He has since revealed more details of his second job on twitter…

“It’s a judging role for a fund to build housing for key workers and NHS workers”

The share options are a £5 discount on the listed share price of £5.50 per share.

Conservative MPs, including Paul, created this scandal themselves, but it’s telling who their anger was reserved for: not the person who broke the rules (Owen Paterson), or the one who tried to rewrite the rules (Boris Johnson).

No, apparently in a WhatsApp message to a group of new Tory MPs, Paul called Chope a “selfish twat” for not allowing the government to make the scandal go away without even a debate in Parliament.

I agree with Theresa May’s remarks in the debate which Chope was so selfish for forcing on Parliament:

“The attempt by honourable and right honourable members of this House, aided and abetted by the Government, under cover of reform of the process, effectively to clear his [Paterson’s] name, was misplaced, ill-judged and just plain wrong.”

Paul’s contribution to a more recent debate on Johnson’s (lack of) standards was even less impressive than his WhatsApp outburst…

“As a new Member of Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, I need to ask your advice. Is it acceptable in the House to use the word “liar”, and to accuse a Member of lying?”

He seems more interested in covering for the Prime Minister’s lies than having a debate on improving standards in public life. Ironically Paul seems to have missed the start of the debate where the usual rules that protect the Conservative leader from proper scrutiny had been suspended.

Perhaps he was too busy with one of his other jobs?

Move along, move along

Well my MP has replied (below) regarding the government’s ongoing quest to undermine its own authority.

On the plus side he did say he wouldn’t have made the same decisions as Boris Johnson’s adviser. That shouldn’t be surprising because most of the country was also much more responsible and didn’t make the same poor decisions. Perhaps the government needs better advisers.

Unfortunately the rest of his reply had nothing to do with my questions, just continuing to promote the defence offered in the unusual press conference. Even so he did concede that the government’s actions have threatened to undermine their own public health rules.

Sadly that was the end of the email. Just follow the advice when some people don’t have to. No commitment to do anything to repair the damage, and not even a call for the government to apologise.

He was even more dismissive on Twitter when I pressed him on what he might do to remedy the damage done.

“You can find the rules on gov.uk as you know well. So look there.”

I had been hoping that Eastleigh’s new MP might be more willing to stand up for his constituents when the government gets something wrong than our previous MP but if he can’t even do it in the middle of a public health emergency with overwhelming public support, it’s hard to imagine he ever will.

“Dear James,

Thank you for writing to me about the situation surrounding Dominic Cummings and the public health guidelines during the difficult times we have faced during the COVID-19 crisis. 

I have over the last few days faced some hostile criticism for not instantly providing my view on whether Mr Cummings should have resigned from his position, but I do not believe in giving my opinion with half-assessed facts. I wanted some time to look into this myself with all of the evidence and information that I could garner. Over the weekend I have raised this issue extensively with the Government, sought to establish the facts, and put your views across robustly.  

I know that the last few months have been tough for everyone in the country and in the Eastleigh constituency. Over the last few weeks my team and I have assisted thousands of people in need of urgent help, in clarification of the guidelines, or to access support for their families or businesses, and we have always done our best to do this as efficiently as possible. I know that you and your family will have had to make many sacrifices as you have followed the guidelines that Government has clearly set out. You have done the right thing and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so responsible.

On 24th March at the daily televised press conference, in response to a question about what parents should do if they are both sick with COVID-19, Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jenny Harries advised the public that “clearly if you have adults that are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance.” This was, if I have established the facts correctly, a week before Mr Cummings travelled to County Durham. His explanation for undertaking his lockdown in County Durham is the welfare of his young son, and he isolated with his family for 14 days. It is also clear that Mr Cummings did visit Barnard Castle, and he has now given a full account of his actions and his reasons for doing so.

Whilst I have sympathy with this, and it appears to be consistent with Dr. Harries’ statement, I accept the criticism that this is at the very limit of what the guidelines permitted and is likely to be highly controversial. I can also say to you that I would not have taken these decisions myself in these circumstances, and that these rules now need to be clarified so that others do not misinterpret them.

Though I well understand much of the anger there is about this at the moment, bearing in mind the sacrifices we have all been asked to make, I do strongly oppose the behaviour of some who have sought to harass and intimidate Mr Cummings and his family. There is no justification for it. This does seem to have been part of Mr Cummings’ calculation when he decided to travel to Durham.

I have been contacted by a large number of constituents on this matter and I want you to know that I have read each of your emails and considered your views carefully. Many people have legitimate concerns about what has gone on, and so do I.

Though I believe his actions were motivated solely by the desire to protect his family, I believe that Mr Cummings has made errors of judgement, and I would have responded differently given the guidance that Government has issued.

I don’t think that the handling of this situation over the last 72 hours has been the Government’s finest hour, and I believe that the questions posed to Mr Cummings should have been answered earlier. I have raised both your and my own concerns about his conduct and will continue to do so over the coming days.

This is my assessment of the situation as it stands, and sadly I do think that this situation has undermined the wider messaging around this public health emergency. However, the fact remains that we need to continue to follow the health advice to keep people safe. Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

Kind regards,

Paul”

Stay elite.

Taking the country for fools

My MP has been relatively proactive at helping constituents with government advice during the Covid19 pandemic so, due to poor judgement by a government adviser and some jaw dropping ministerial tweets defending that lapse in judgement, I emailed Paul Holmes earlier to ask him to clarify the rules. (See below.)

Since then the Prime Minister has also, very publicly, defended behaviour which clearly goes against the rules and displayed a shocking lack of common sense by someone who should have known better.

I have been incredibly lucky so far, with a good employer and no close family or friends being seriously ill, or worse. Nevertheless, things haven’t always been easy, and there is no end to the pandemic in sight.

We have all made sacrifices in order to protect one another and the Prime Minister is taking us for fools by not apologising for the behaviour of his adviser.

What’s worse is that his, and his ministers’, attempts to defend a clear breach of the guidelines, puts us all at risk at a critical point in tackling the virus.

I sincerely hope he considers his position carefully.

Dear Paul Holmes,

I know you have made efforts to communicate help and advice to your constituents during the Covid19 pandemic so far, including working closely with the local council, which I appreciate.

Unfortunately a large number of your colleagues, including ministers, have chosen to undermine the government’s own rules by defending an adviser who has broken those rules.

The defence offered is offensive. My wife and I have worried a great deal about how we would look after our daughter should we become ill. My wife has only recently been contacted to tell her she is extremely vulnerable, and I was diagnosed with a life threatening disease last year, but we have still never considered driving any distance to put family members and others at risk if we did exhibit symptoms.

This is a particularly critical point in tackling the virus as the government tries to ease restrictions. The rules in this phase are necessarily going to be more complex than the previous stay at home message and it is difficult to see how we are meant to take any new rules seriously when the government does not appear to be serious about enforcing them.

The country can ill afford another distraction now after delays and distraction at the beginning of the outbreak look likely to have caused many unnecessary deaths.

Please could you urgently work with the council and other organisations in Eastleigh to publicly clarify what the rules are when someone in a household exhibits Covid19 symptoms, and what support and resources are available to them in case they believe that travelling to another location is justified.

I realise you will be under immense political pressure to put your party first, however I would also like you to consider following your neighbouring colleague’s example in speaking out and ask the government why it considers that different rules should apply to government advisers.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

James Taylor

Stay safe.