The public has moved far beyond waiting for Sue Gray’s nuanced judgements

More parties, more questions. This time the nation learns to some dismay, Downing Street hosted a double-header: a party for a departing director of communications (the irony), and another for someone else in the political image-building game, a photographer.

Given that, and the timing of the parties on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral, it is entirely appropriate that the image that has accompanied the coverage of the story is of the Queen sitting alone at the funeral of her husband of 73 years, a symbol of solidarity and leadership by example. The contrast in attitudes hardly needs amplifying.

Despite the apology since made from No 10 to Buckingham Palace, the problem for Sue Gray may be that the number and frequency of the parties – or “gatherings”, as the euphemism goes, over a period of many months – means that there may be relatively few staffers who didn’t get involved. If every career civil servant and every spad who boogied the night away was fired for betraying public trust, the Downing Street and Cabinet Office machines might find it difficult to function.

Nonetheless a kind of de-Baathification of the culture is required, as well as appropriate disciplinary action and criminal prosecutions. Once again, the principle of the rule of law applying equally will be tested. If, for example, someone in Downing Street organised an illegal party – and there was some organisation involved for leaving events – then they should be subject to the same prosecutions and exemplary fines of £10,000 imposed on others. A disobliging reference in their HR file is not enough.

Although the prime minister wasn’t at these particular events – so it was not he who broke little Wilf’s swing – he was at the party on 20 May 2020, even if he didn’t realise it (an absurd claim). Around 30 people were with him, they were not doing any work, “key” or otherwise, there was food and drink, and – even if it is a private space, indeed his home – the gathering was plainly against the rules.

Let us remind ourselves that the whole point of lockdown was to stop the spread of the virus through unnecessary social contact. The party in the garden was all very nice, and no doubt it was gracious to thanks staff, but it was not necessary for the functioning of government.

If it was all so innocent and lawful, why did an acknowledgment have to be dragged out of Mr Johnson under threat that his MPs would otherwise make him resign?

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Perhaps some loophole in the law will be found, some ambiguity that the prime minister can exploit to back his claim in the Commons that the event may have been “technically” lawful. Mr Johnson may try to claim that he has been exonerated and that he never misled parliament. Loyal ministers sing the mantra that we must all wait for Ms Gray’s findings.

Yet – as the latest revelations about tasteless, indecorous, hypocritical and unlawful activities at a time of national mourning prove – the public has moved far beyond waiting for Ms Gray’s nuanced judgements.

They want regime change and a new culture to prevail in No 10. After all, the voters pay their wages. Yet Mr Johnson is an old dog and dislikes learning new tricks. He is incorrigible and so he has to go. Many would gladly throw a party to celebrate.