Boris Johnson has played Lord Geidt for a fool and left him in a difficult position

Lord (Christopher) Geidt is unusual in having had both the Queen and the prime minister for a boss.

He served as private secretary to her majesty for 10 years until 2017. It was, by all accounts, a warm and easy working relationship, and marked by good grace, as might be expected. Since April 2021, Geidt has been Boris Johnson’s independent adviser on ministerial conduct. I believe it is safe to conclude that this has not been a warm and easy working relationship marked by good grace.

One of the most surprising revelations in Geidt’s annual review of his work was that he hasn’t met the prime minister to discuss the protracted period of lawlessness in Downing Street commonly known as Partygate. Unlike the Queen, Johnson appears to have had literally no time for his adviser. Apparently there was a “failure of communication between our offices” according to Johnson, who adds that he was unaware of the of the importance Geidt had placed on him making explicit reference to the ministerial code over the Partygate fixed penalty notice.

With a feline tact that must have served him well in Buckingham Palace, Geidt explained in his report that he didn’t push the point with the prime minister about the fine because if he had and if the prime minister’s answers had been unsatisfactory, then he’d have had no option but to resign. It is a quite twisted form of logic that Geidt has deployed, superficially to protect the ministerial code because “such a circular process could only risk placing the ministerial code in a place of ridicule”.

However, having gone public with his grievance and caused a fuss, Johnson has now responded, citing precedents, of sorts, and pleading that he only broke the law inadvertently – the “ambushed by a cake” defence that has attracted so much derision. After an awkward few hours when rumours swirled of Geidt’s resignation, as obliquely threatened in his report, that danger seems to have lessened.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Geidt, no doubt an honourable man who would regard resignation as a recognition of failure, has been played for a fool by Johnson, who probably regards him as an irrelevant stuffed shirt. It is hardly an edifying sight in any case. Last year Geidt had to object when the PM neglected to tell him the full story about who paid for the expensive refurbishment of the Downing Street flat he shares with his wife, Carrie. Now he, Geidt, is being humiliated once again by accepting at face value Johnson’s legalistic – yet I believe still flimsy – excuses. Perhaps this is a moment to remind ourselves of the central point, bluntly delivered recently by Dominic Cummings, about the Abba after-party subsequent to the unlawful cake event Johnson was fined for:

“Dozens of people downstairs could hear it, so all the police had to do was interview any one of them to find out. You don’t have a work meeting, at the top of No 10, where the music is so loud that you can hear it in the f***ing press office.”

Two years, more or less, when Johnson enabled, facilitated and ignored flouting of the public health laws, and Geidt has nowt to say about it? As Sue Gray put it:

“It is also the case that some of the more junior civil servants believed that their involvement in some of these events was permitted given the attendance of senior leaders. The senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility for this culture.”

That too impinges on the ministerial code.

Poor old Geidt, like most, is not used to dealing with its someone as slippery and mendacious as the PM. He seems quite unable to get the measure of the prime minister (though not vice versa) and short of Johnson literally tweaking Geidt’s nose it is not clear what it would take for him to pack his briefcase and recover his dignity. As things stand it is he who is in a place of riddle, and a right royal figure of fun.