Geidt’s resignation has taken Downing Street by surprise, and his departure will raise further questions about Johnson’s behavior and general standards in his administration. The adviser said this week that it was “reasonable” to conclude that the prime minister had violated the ministerial code on Covid-19 lockdown parties. He stated the reasons why he resigned in a private letter to Johnson. Geidt’s predecessor, Sir Alex Allan, resigned in November 2020 after Johnson failed to act after posting a critical report of alleged intimidation by Home Secretary Priti Patel. According to Number 10, Geidt’s resignation was “a complete surprise” and he had just announced this week that he would like to continue working for another six months. On Wednesday, after weeks of speculation that he was on the verge of resigning, Geidt resigned, announcing his decision in a brief statement shortly before 7 p.m. A statement from the government said, “I regret to say that I am resigning as an independent adviser to the ministers.” A government spokesman said he was “disappointed” Wednesday night, but added that Geidt had been asked this week to “advise on a commercially sensitive issue in the national interest”. No further details were given on what the issue was – or whether it played a role in Geidt’s resignation – but the spokesman added that “no decision had been made pending this advice”. Gade’s departure will once again focus on Johnson’s behavior on Downing Street, a week after he survived a Tory vote of confidence by 211 to 148. The adviser, formerly Queen Elizabeth’s private secretary, was hired by Johnson in April 2021 and lasted just over a year. He told MPs, laughing, this week that it was an “extremely busy” year. Geidt’s first task was to investigate the financing of the renovation of his apartment number 10 by Johnson. He was criticized for not being thorough enough to investigate the prime minister’s claim that he was unaware that the funding came from a Tory donor.

Asked by the Commons board on Tuesday, Geidt acknowledged: “How can I overcome the impression that this is a comfortable, insufficiently independent relationship? It is too difficult. “But I try to work with what I have.” He described himself as an “asset to the Prime Minister”. . . rather than a free-running consultant, “although he felt that Johnson had given him new powers to begin his own investigations. In the end, the workload and the public criticism against him – some media reports presented him as “restored” – seem to have paid off. Geidt had said it was “reasonable” to suggest that Johnson may have violated the ministerial code when he was fined during the partygate scandal. He demanded a statement from Johnson to explain his behavior and the prime minister was acquitted of any wrongdoing. He told lawmakers that the “ordinary man or woman” may have concluded that Johnson had violated the code, given that he had received a fixed penalty notice. The code requires ministers to comply with the law. Geidt suggested that he warn Johnson that he would resign if he did not explain his behavior: “Resignation is one of the raw but few tools the counselor has. “I’m glad that my disappointments were dealt with the way they were dealt with.” Angela Reiner, the Labor party’s vice-president, said: “The prime minister has now led both of his elected ethics advisers to resign in despair. If even they can not defend his behavior in office, how can one believe that he is capable of governing? Lord Nick Macpherson, a former permanent secretary of the Treasury Department, said it was difficult to see a credible figure volunteering to take on the role of Geidt as it stands at present. “Even if the powers of the ethics adviser are increased, the system is as strong as the prime minister’s commitment to high standards,” he said on Twitter.