A few dodgy Christmas lights are the least of your concerns, Prime Minister - but if it distracts people, eh?
‘FFS Steve’ is a term this page has used a few times before.
It refers to so-called ‘Brexit Hard Man’ Steve Baker, the Conservative MP for Wycombe who - when he isn’t complaining about a “political fiasco” like Brexit - that he campaigned for - he’s busy complaining about “intolerable” poverty in his own constituency as if he wasn’t aware it had ever existed before.
Baker does a lot of complaining, and the rather odd thing about ‘Steeeeeeve’ is that he’s actually quite well respected among the Conservatives - in particular, the more ‘libertarian’ brand of Tory Ultras within the Covid Recovery Group and formerly European Research Group.
On Tuesday, following a symbolic debate on the re-introduction of masks in certain settings [and subsequent vote that was lost by some considerable margin], Baker did some more complaining.
Being forced to wear a mask in certain settings is, according to Baker, “a fundamental choice between heading towards Heaven and heading towards Hell.”
Bit histrionic, Steve.
Although, in Baker’s defence, he has a point on the matter of authoritarianism - in the sense that if the government - any government - implements legislation without a discussion, debate or vote on the matter, it begs the question: what is the point of Parliamentary debate or scrutiny, or indeed, broadly, democracy?
But then like the PCSC Bill, Elections Bill, or Borders and Nationality Bill, authoritarianism is ‘fine’ by Baker when he fundamentally agrees with it - he did, after all, vote in favour of all three.
Milquetoast
Baker isn’t the first so-called ‘libertarian’ to object to coronavirus restrictions.
In March, MPs debated on an extension to coronavirus restrictions. One MP horrified by the extension was Conservative MP for Broxbourne Sir Charles Walker who stood in Parliament and gave a surreal, almost post-modernistic speech where he indicated his intention to walk around London carrying a pint of milk.
I’m not entirely sure if after the recent vote in Parliament on the re-introduction of masks whether Walker has taken to trotting around London with his pint of milk again in protest, or if so-called ‘Freedom Day’ back in July was enough to save him from continued embarrassment.
Presumably, and hopefully, he’s still in touch with his constituents although his grip on reality might be of some concern - even if he was another that voted against the measures on Tuesday.
This came on the same day as the Prime Minister told the nation that Christmas parties could go ahead at a press briefing the same evening - which was happening, oh, around the same time as a debate was taking place on the Prime Minister’s conduct [or, censure motion] which predictably did not succeed.
There are two narratives that follow here, however - although this page doesn’t serve as a Choose Your Own Adventure novel:
The first is that this information came in stark contrast to advice of head of the UK Health Security Agency Jenny Harries, who advised against doing it.
The second is that the Prime Minister can’t do too much to discourage people from having Christmas parties when last year, under Tier 3 restrictions, he held a rather ‘boozy gathering’ himself - breaking the rules in the process.
[A possible third narrative exists in that we don’t talk about this - it is dismissed as a ‘dead cat’, but for all intents and purposes, let’s proceed]
On the second narrative, it’s worth drawing on a thread by barrister Adam Wagner who consulted the Mirror [who first reported the story] on the legalities.
Wagner writes:
I think that the "unofficial Christmas party" on 18 Dec 2020 with 40-50 people at No. 10 probably broke the Covid rules. “
At the time (Tier 3), you could only have gatherings over 30 indoors if they were a "permitted organised gathering", but that would require households not mingling, or if "reasonably necessary for work".
But a Christmas party was very unlikely to be "reasonably necessary for work" Although not binding on a court, it is probably relevant that the government's own guidance at the time said this:
Wagner continues:
I can see how late nights working at No. 10 could lead to a bit of drinking / socialising which could be in a grey zone - but I think that purely social gatherings which weren't e.g. combined with work meetings - like a Christmas party - weren't "reasonably necessary"
You could probably say the same about the "leaving party" which the PM attended on 27 November which happened during the November-December national lockdown. If you had asked the govt at the time is a "leaving do" reasonably necessary for work they would have said "no"
Johnson - later, at Prime Minister’s Questions - went on record three times and denied any wrong-doing and dismissed the importance of the story.
There is risk of falling into a trap, however, when focussing exclusively on a perceived out of date story that may play into the 'hindsight' narrative but when Christmas restrictions are providing a catalyst for much of the current debate over guidance and/or restrictions, it's pertinent to the discussion now.
Especially if people begin to question why they should, indeed, follow the rules when - as it turns out, alluding to Nixon once again on this page - “when the Prime Minister does it, then it is not illegal.”
Dead cat?
If focus on the Christmas party from last year were to be perceived as a ‘dead cat’, it would be to detract from several other stories - although it should be worth pointing out that it’s perfectly feasible the government can make errors of judgment on numerous issues all at the same time and one story doesn’t necessarily over-ride the other.
If you saw Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, Jacob Rees-Mogg was looking rather nonchalant in the chamber while it was announced that he was being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commission.
Allegations of ‘sleaze’, as noted in ‘Crikey Pt. V’ are ongoing - in Rees-Mogg’s case, an investigation surrounding his failure to declare that he received around £6 million in director’s loans at lower interest rates over 3 years that could reasonably end in his suspension if found guilty.
[Or at least until Jacob Rees-Mogg tries once again to change the procedures that are implemented to investigate… oh, Jacob Rees-Mogg]
Another small - but very important part of PMQs yesterday was the revelation [on the hansard] of a leaked communications ‘playbook’ [note: spin document] called the ‘New Hospital Programme Communications Playbook’ discussing the definition of the word ‘new’ when describing ‘not new’ hospitals.
First spoken about in August, under the definitions of a new hospital, the document stated, among other things:
You can read the document here - with parts redacted.
This casts doubt on yet another manifesto pledge [specifically relating to the building of new hospitals] in addition to numerous other promise that the Conservatives have broken since 2019.
Misconduct in Public Office
Beyond everything, however, what should concern Johnson most - and those who voted against the measures, like Baker and Walker - is in the findings of Michael Mansfield QC, who determined that the Government should face charges for misconduct in a damning report published yesterday as part of the People’s Covid Inquiry.
You can read the whole report here.
The inquiry was organised by the Keep Our NHS Public campaign group in the absence of a formal investigation - the chair of which has until December 25 to be announced, and without the involvement of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group.
You can also read more on a related website here.
As noted in ‘At This Stage’ from a couple of days ago, we do not yet know the full extent of the risks posed by the Omicron variant, and what we do know is convoluted - the UK is putting hopes on its booster strategy while simultaneously the WHO are saying that there’s no evidence yet that giving boosters to the whole population, including healthy people, will provide greater protection against the disease.
[NATB disclaimer - do not let that dissuade you from having it, however]
If they turn out to be sinister then obviously, the votes of Baker and Co. should be considered morally reprehensible, as should the lack of clarity and - once again - mixed messages and guidance from the government we’ve become accustomed to since the pandemic ventured to the UK.
The issue on how the Prime Minister spent last Christmas combined with over a month of stories where we have seen Boris Johnson without a mask leaves only one effect on society - complacency instead of compliance.
If the Prime Minister cannot demonstrate that he appreciates the severity, with repeated flouting of guidelines, why should we?
That language, that guidance, once again, begins at the top, as does the example the Prime Minister should be setting for the rest of the country. That is what leaders do.
If he cannot set that example, then he ceases to be a leader.
And it’s that simple.