Why Sue Grey’s Report is Irrelevant

Why are Conservative MP’s waiting for Sue Greys report? We are told it will establish the facts. But in reality the facts are no longer in question. Were there breaches of the law in relation to Covid? Did the PM attend where the breaches occurred? Yes to both as admitted by the PM at the dispatch box.

The question is, did the PM lie to Parliament and the country when he admitted the actions but claimed they were unintentional and the fault of the advice of others.

His ministers are running around trying to see if they can get a defence to fly with the country. Jacob Rees Mogg has tried them all. Blaming the civil servants for arranging the breaches; the complexity of his diary; advisors telling him the events were within the rules; a PM focused on his big job and not the meeting he was taken to.

All of these are attempts to demonstrate there was no intention to break, or knowledge he had broken, any laws.

If this does not work there is the defence about how good the PM has been on the “big calls” he has made. How, all this obsession with Partygate, driven by the media and opposition, is distracting the PM from dealing with a vast in-box of issues not least the attempt by President Putin to invade even more of the Ukraine. Mr Rees Mogg even had a go at trying to undermine the severity of the breach by talking about how excessive the rules were.

However well delivered in the meliflous tones of the upper class, however remorseless the politeness and however supported by classical references, Mr Rees Mogg’s arguments for the defence remain bunkum.

In essence the PM’s own argument seems to be the age old defence of the nursery. “He told me to do it.” To which over the years parents and primary school teachers have responded, “So if he told you to jump in the river would you?”

Despite what some people may call him the vast bulk of the population do not think the PM is stupid. And certainly not so mind numbingly stupid as not being able to distinguish, for himself, when he is engaged in breaking a law he has designed.

The country has decided he has lied. He has a track record of this which many people discounted when he was lancing the noxious boil of Brexit, which had petrified UK politics for years after the referendum. Lying about breaches of the Covid laws, however, are lies about something intensely personal for many people. His lies were about behaviour which was in direct contrast to the behaviour of millions of law abiding citizens convinced of the sense of what they were doing to control a deadly disease.

But does Partygate matter? In one view it pales into insignificance when you look at what is happening in the world at the moment. The challenges and threats are significant and many imminent. Ukraine and Putin more generally, the rise of China and its threats toward Taiwan, global Covid, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and the ticking time bomb of the existential climate crisis.

There is another view however which is about the challenge to democracy which is growing around the world. That challenge comes from “strong leaders” who certainly do not want to be held accountable for their kleptocratic behaviour by anything so awkward as democracy.

But it also comes from those within democracies who play fast and loose with the truth. Lying at the heart of government is corrosive. It involves more and more members of the government trying to defend the indefensible. Bending the truth, manipulating the facts, prevaricating to buy time. All the while undermining public confidence in the democratic system. It seems impossible to hold those who break the rules to account if they are rich and or powerful.

President Putin tells lies. He lies about state sponsored assassinations, little green men in Crimea, and the defensive purpose of a build up of 100k troops on the border with Ukraine.

It may be argued lying about breaking minor laws cannot be compared with the egregious life and death falsehoods of President Putin. But that would be a mistake. One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is trust in political leaders and this requires they speak the truth. If people do not feel trust in democracy they may be much less willing to defend it. Indeed they may be happy to try something different.

The PM behaved in a way which he knew would be totally unacceptable to the British public. He decided to try to pretend he had been misled into this behaviour. It does not wash. When you start telling lies to hold on to office you pave the way to ever more audacious falsehoods. Eventually, you do not lead by consent secured by convincing people with rational arguments you lead by force and state enforced “truth” which becomes whatever you want it to be.

The PM and President Putin may be at very different points on the spectrum in relation to lying. However, it is not a spectrum any leader should be on. People will forgive mistakes, they will even forgive some lies, but they will not forgive being taken for mugs. I am pretty sure the Tory party knows this and the PM’s days are numbered.

What a difference a day makes!

On Sunday I posted about a likely shift in gear as the government responded to a growing chorus of concern about the scale of the response to COVID-19. I agonised over sharing a link to an article by Tomas Pueyo which painted a rather bleak picture and was urging radical action on social distancing immediately. I did not want to contribute to a growing sense of unease. Little did I know.

I have more confidence now and believe yesterday was merely an introduction of what is to come and that by the end of the week legislation will be in place to enforce a much more rigid programme of social distancing, nay social isolation.

The report from Imperial College London has focused policy makers minds with its projections of a quarter of a million deaths unless radical action is taken to slow the spread of the disease. This would overwhelm the NHS and involve medial staff making live or die decisions.

There were a number of criticisms one could make about yesterday’s speech and it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. however phrases about what we are “going to recommend” do not help. And suggesting what people do is too weak. There may not be the legislation to back up clear instructions at the moment but that should not prevent them from being given and it is a matter of days, maybe hours, before that legislation is in place.

Two things are absolutely clear:

  1. Social distancing should be taken really seriously. No social gatherings at all. There is plenty of guidance on this. One practical piece of advice, have a soap dispenser that you have to step over to get into your home. As soon as you come in from outside wash your hands before you touch anything. The virus can remain on surfaces for 72 hours+
  2. Isolated individuals and families, particularly the elderly, who do not have local support will need help from their neighbours. Such help is the right thing to do from a moral point of view but also from a public health point of view. If people are infected  and hungry they will go out. Unless they are critical hospitals will not be interested. There is not the infrastructure of public social care support to help them. It is going to come down to neighbours to help them maintain the isolation.

Yesterday was tantamount to a declaration of war. Like all wars it depends upon public servants to be won. Sometimes that is the soldier, this time those on the front line are doctors, nurses and a range of other healthcare workers. We should not however forget the private sector workers who are on the front line particularly those operating the supermarket tills and transport staff who interact with the hundreds of members of public every day.

What is crystal clear now is that time is of the essence, and no longer should we underestimate what a difference a day makes.