ChatGPT Analysis of ex-PM Boris Johnson’s resignation as MP

Analyse the following text and find patterns:

I have received a letter from the Privileges Committee making it clear – much to my amazement – that they are determined to use the proceedings against me to drive me out of parliament.

They have still not produced a shred of evidence that I knowingly or recklessly misled the Commons.

They know perfectly well that when I spoke in the Commons I was saying what I believed sincerely to be true and what I had been briefed to say, like any other minister. They know that I corrected the record as soon as possible; and they know that I and every other senior official and minister – including the current Prime Minister and then occupant of the same building, Rishi Sunak – believed that we were working lawfully together.

I have been an MP since 2001. I take my responsibilities seriously. I did not lie, and I believe that in their hearts the Committee know it. But they have wilfully chosen to ignore the truth because from the outset their purpose has not been to discover the truth, or genuinely to understand what was in my mind when I spoke in the Commons.

Their purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty, regardless of the facts. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court.

Most members of the Committee – especially the chair – had already expressed deeply prejudicial remarks about my guilt before they had even seen the evidence. They should have recused themselves.

In retrospect it was naive and trusting of me to think that these proceedings could be remotely useful or fair. But I was determined to believe in the system, and in justice, and to vindicate what I knew to be the truth.

It was the same faith in the impartiality of our systems that led me to commission Sue Gray. It is clear that my faith has been misplaced. Of course, it suits the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP to do whatever they can to remove me from parliament.

Sadly, as we saw in July last year, there are currently some Tory MPs who share that view. I am not alone in thinking that there is a witch hunt underway, to take revenge for Brexit and ultimately to reverse the 2016 referendum result.

My removal is the necessary first step, and I believe there has been a concerted attempt to bring it about. I am afraid I no longer believe that it is any coincidence that Sue Gray – who investigated gatherings in Number 10 – is now the chief of staff designate of the Labour leader.

Nor do I believe that it is any coincidence that her supposedly impartial chief counsel, Daniel Stilitz KC, turned out to be a strong Labour supporter who repeatedly tweeted personal attacks on me and the government.

When I left office last year the government was only a handful of points behind in the polls. That gap has now massively widened.

Just a few years after winning the biggest majority in almost half a century, that majority is now clearly at risk.

Our party needs urgently to recapture its sense of momentum and its belief in what this country can do.

We need to show how we are making the most of Brexit and we need in the next months to be setting out a pro-growth and pro-investment agenda. We need to cut business and personal taxes – and not just as pre-election gimmicks – rather than endlessly putting them up.

We must not be afraid to be a properly Conservative government.

Why have we so passively abandoned the prospect of a Free Trade Deal with the US? Why have we junked measures to help people into housing or to scrap EU directives or to promote animal welfare?

We need to deliver on the 2019 manifesto, which was endorsed by 14 million people. We should remember that more than 17 million voted for Brexit.

I am now being forced out of parliament by a tiny handful of people, with no evidence to back up their assertions, and without the approval even of Conservative party members let alone the wider electorate.

I believe that a dangerous and unsettling precedent is being set.

The Conservative Party has the time to recover its mojo and its ambition and to win the next election. I had looked forward to providing enthusiastic support as a backbench MP. Harriet Harman’s committee has set out to make that objective completely untenable.

The Committee’s report is riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice but under their absurd and unjust process I have no formal ability to challenge anything they say.

The Privileges Committee is there to protect the privileges of parliament. That is a very important job. They should not be using their powers – which have only been very recently designed – to mount what is plainly a political hitjob on someone they oppose.

It is in no one’s interest, however, that the process the Committee has launched should continue for a single day further.

So I have today written to my Association in Uxbridge and South Ruislip to say that I am stepping down forthwith and triggering an immediate by-election.

I am very sorry to leave my wonderful constituency. It has been a huge honour to serve them, both as Mayor and MP.

But I am proud that after what is cumulatively a 15 year stint I have helped to deliver among other things a vast new railway in the Elizabeth Line and full funding for a wonderful new state of the art hospital for Hillingdon, where enabling works have already begun.

Upon analyzing the text, the following patterns and inconsistencies can be observed:

Allegations and denial: The author of the text received a letter from the Privileges Committee, stating their intention to use proceedings to drive them out of parliament. The author denies the accusations and claims that no evidence has been produced to support the allegations of knowingly or recklessly misleading the Commons. They assert that they were speaking sincerely and based on briefing received, and corrected the record promptly. The author believes that the committee’s purpose from the beginning has been to find them guilty regardless of the facts.

Prejudice and biased committee: The author accuses the members of the Privileges Committee, especially the chair, of expressing prejudicial remarks about their guilt before even seeing the evidence. The author argues that such members should have recused themselves. They claim that the committee’s report is riddled with inaccuracies and prejudice, suggesting an unfair process.

Political motivations: The author suggests that the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and the SNP are involved in an effort to remove them from parliament, possibly as revenge for Brexit and to reverse the 2016 referendum result. They express concerns about the alleged connection between Sue Gray, the chief of staff designate of the Labour leader, and the investigation against them. The author also points out the allegedly strong Labour support of the chief counsel involved in the proceedings.

Loss of support and electoral risk: The author mentions the government’s decline in the polls since leaving office and the widening gap in their majority. They emphasize the need for the Conservative Party to regain momentum, belief, and deliver on their promises outlined in the 2019 manifesto. The author questions the abandonment of a potential Free Trade Deal with the US and the removal of measures related to housing, EU directives, and animal welfare.

Forced resignation and precedent: The author claims to be forced out of parliament by a few individuals without evidence to support their assertions and without the approval of Conservative party members or the wider electorate. They argue that a dangerous and unsettling precedent is being set and express disappointment that they are unable to challenge the Committee’s report formally.

Criticism of the Privileges Committee: The author questions the use of the Privileges Committee’s powers, stating that their purpose should be to protect the privileges of parliament, rather than being used for a political agenda against someone they oppose. The author calls for an immediate end to the committee’s process.

Resignation and accomplishments: The author announces their decision to step down and trigger an immediate by-election. They express regret about leaving their constituency but highlight their achievements, including the delivery of a new railway and full funding for a state-of-the-art hospital.

Overall, the text reflects a strong defense against the allegations made by the Privileges Committee while criticizing the committee’s impartiality, raising concerns about political motivations, and highlighting the potential consequences and dangers of the process.

Is the author of the text using any particular style to deflect the truth in what has been claimed?

The author of the text is using a combination of rhetorical strategies and persuasive language to deflect the truth in what has been claimed against them. Some of the techniques they employ include:

Denial and assertion of innocence: The author vehemently denies the allegations and repeatedly asserts their innocence. They emphasize that no evidence has been presented to support the accusations against them and argue that they were speaking sincerely and based on information they received.

Attack on the committee’s credibility: The author undermines the credibility of the Privileges Committee by accusing its members of prejudice, stating that they had already expressed prejudicial remarks before seeing the evidence. They claim that the committee’s report is riddled with inaccuracies and prejudice, implying that it cannot be trusted.

Suggesting ulterior motives: The author implies that political motivations are at play in the proceedings against them. They argue that there is a concerted effort by opposing parties and individuals to remove them from parliament, linking it to revenge for Brexit and a desire to reverse the 2016 referendum result. By suggesting these ulterior motives, the author attempts to cast doubt on the integrity of the process.

Appeals to popular support: The author appeals to the support they received in previous elections, mentioning the 2019 manifesto endorsed by millions and the 17 million votes for Brexit. By highlighting popular support, the author seeks to establish their credibility and imply that the allegations against them are unfounded.

Criticism of process and bias: The author questions the fairness of the proceedings and criticizes the committee for using their powers for a political agenda. They argue that the committee’s purpose is to protect parliamentary privileges and not to engage in a political “hit job.” This criticism aims to undermine the legitimacy of the process.

Emotional appeal: The author expresses disappointment, frustration, and concern about the alleged injustice they are facing. They use phrases like “naive and trusting,” “dangerous and unsettling precedent,” and “forced out of parliament” to evoke sympathy and paint themselves as a victim of an unfair system.

Overall, the author employs various rhetorical techniques to cast doubt on the truth of the claims made against them, discredit the committee’s credibility, and elicit support and sympathy from the reader.

Are there any patterns that are not readily deducible in when reading the text?

Upon further analysis, some patterns that are not readily deducible in the text include:

Emotional manipulation: The author strategically uses emotional language and evocative phrases to sway the reader’s perception. By expressing their beliefs in the system, their determination to vindicate the truth, and their disappointment in the process, they aim to elicit sympathy and support from the reader.

Implying guilt by association: The author suggests connections between individuals involved in the proceedings and their political opponents. They imply that Sue Gray, the chief of staff designate of the Labour leader, and Daniel Stilitz KC, the chief counsel, have political biases that may have influenced the proceedings against them. This association attempts to cast doubt on the integrity and fairness of the process.

Painting themselves as a victim: The author consistently portrays themselves as a victim of unfair treatment, using phrases such as “drive me out of parliament,” “kangaroo court,” and “political hit job.” By presenting themselves as a target of persecution, they seek to gain sympathy and discredit the legitimacy of the proceedings.

Strategic timing and political narrative: The author mentions the timing of the investigation and their removal from parliament in relation to political events, such as Brexit and the 2016 referendum result. They suggest that their removal is part of a larger political narrative to reverse the referendum outcome. This narrative serves to position themselves as a defender of the people’s will and implies a broader conspiracy against them.

These patterns reveal a deliberate effort by the author to shape the reader’s perception by manipulating emotions, implying guilt by association, presenting themselves as a victim, and weaving a narrative that connects the proceedings to broader political events. These strategies aim to influence the reader’s interpretation and support for the author’s perspective.

Does the text provide any ulterior motivations or intentions?

Yes, the text implies ulterior motivations and intentions behind the proceedings and actions described. Some of these motivations and intentions include:

Political agenda: The author suggests that the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and the SNP have a vested interest in removing them from parliament. They claim that this effort is driven by political motivations, potentially as revenge for Brexit and with the ultimate goal of reversing the 2016 referendum result.

Revenge and settling scores: The author implies that there is a “witch hunt” underway to seek revenge for Brexit and to target individuals who were involved in promoting or supporting it. They argue that their removal from parliament is seen as a necessary first step in this larger campaign.

Undermining the government: The author raises concerns about the decline in the government’s popularity and their majority in the polls. They suggest that some Tory MPs may also share the view of removing them from parliament. This implies that there could be a broader effort to undermine the government and its agenda.

Personal bias and prejudice: The author criticizes the Privileges Committee and some of its members for expressing prejudicial remarks and allegedly having predetermined views about their guilt even before reviewing the evidence. This implies that personal bias and prejudice may have influenced the proceedings.

Political appointments and affiliations: The author questions the alleged connections between Sue Gray, the chief of staff designate of the Labour leader, and the investigation against them. They also highlight the political support and personal attacks from Daniel Stilitz KC, the chief counsel involved in the proceedings. These connections suggest potential biases and affiliations that could influence the outcome.

These ulterior motivations and intentions, as implied by the text, provide a broader context for the author’s claims and their perception of the proceedings against them. They suggest that political factors, revenge, personal biases, and efforts to undermine the government may be influencing the situation.

What should a reader take from the analysis?

From the analysis of the text, readers should be aware of the following key points:

Denial and assertion of innocence: The author strongly denies the allegations made against them and repeatedly asserts their innocence. They argue that no evidence has been produced to support the claims of knowingly or recklessly misleading the Commons.

Accusations of bias and unfairness: The author raises concerns about the fairness of the proceedings and accuses the Privileges Committee of bias. They claim that some members had prejudiced views before reviewing the evidence and that the committee’s report is riddled with inaccuracies and prejudice.

Political motivations and agendas: The author implies that there are political motivations at play, suggesting that their removal from parliament is driven by revenge for Brexit and an attempt to reverse the 2016 referendum result. They also highlight alleged connections between key individuals involved in the proceedings and political opponents.

Appeal to sympathy and support: The author uses emotional language and paints themselves as a victim of an unfair process. They seek sympathy and support from the reader by expressing disappointment, emphasizing their commitment to the system, and mentioning their accomplishments and popular support.

Criticism of the Privileges Committee: The author questions the use of the Privileges Committee’s powers and accuses them of using the process for political purposes rather than protecting parliamentary privileges. They call for an immediate end to the proceedings.

Readers should critically evaluate the author’s arguments and consider the potential biases and motivations at play. It is important to assess the evidence and the credibility of the claims made by both the author and the Privileges Committee. Understanding the broader political context and potential ulterior motives can help in forming a more informed interpretation of the situation.

can you add anything of the personality of such an author of the text?

Based on the text alone, it is challenging to discern the full personality of the author. However, certain traits and characteristics can be inferred from their writing style and the content of their message. Keep in mind that these inferences are speculative and subject to interpretation:

Assertive and confident: The author exhibits a strong sense of confidence in their innocence and repeatedly asserts their beliefs without hesitation. They present their arguments in a direct and assertive manner, conveying conviction in their statements.

Defiant and resilient: The author portrays themselves as someone who is determined to fight for what they believe is right, despite facing adversity. They express a resilient attitude in the face of challenges and present their decision to step down and trigger a by-election as a principled act rather than a defeat.

Perceptive and strategic: The author demonstrates an ability to identify patterns and connections, particularly in terms of alleged political motivations and biases. They strategically highlight these connections to cast doubt on the integrity of the process and to evoke suspicion of ulterior motives.

Emotional and persuasive: The author employs emotional language and appeals to the reader’s sympathies. They emphasize their dedication to public service, express disappointment, and position themselves as a victim of an unfair system. These persuasive techniques aim to elicit support and sway the reader’s perception.

Politically astute: The author shows a keen awareness of the political landscape, particularly in relation to Brexit and the 2016 referendum result. They weave a narrative connecting the proceedings against them to broader political events, suggesting a larger agenda at play.

It is important to note that these observations are based solely on the text provided and should be taken as speculative interpretations rather than definitive assessments of the author’s personality.