Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

What is ironic in the whole thing is he actually tried at the start to be selfless and set an example by taking to heart the advice of public health officials (who for whatever stupid reason are considered to represent "science") and shook the hands of covid patients, and the result was he nearly died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3NAx3tsy-k

Shaking hands with covid patients while an obese middle aged dude? Really dumb and a terrible example for everyone.

Going to an outdoor dinner party after recovering from covid and having solid immunity? And then getting vaccinated at the first opportunity? Not a bad set of decisions.

I'd like to see a link demonstrating that public health officials advised him or anyone else to shake the hands of covid patients.

The video I posted literally has him at a joint press conference with the health secretary who responded to "wash your hands"! Apparently the day of that press conference was the day the guidance on social distancing was released.

Yes. Boris bumbles on about shaking hands (though he doesn't specify corona virus patients, he's talking about business meetings etc) and mumbles something about that being the scientific advice. Turns to the avdisor who looks a bit irritated and reminds him that the advice is to wash your hands. I don't see how that in any way supports your contention. Rather, the contrary.

[alfred russel]

What is ironic in the whole thing is he actually tried at the start to be selfless and set an example by taking to heart the advice of public health officials (who for whatever stupid reason are considered to represent "science") and shook the hands of covid patients, and the result was he nearly died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3NAx3tsy-k

Shaking hands with covid patients while an obese middle aged dude? Really dumb and a terrible example for everyone.

Going to an outdoor dinner party after recovering from covid and having solid immunity? And then getting vaccinated at the first opportunity? Not a bad set of decisions.

I'd like to see a link demonstrating that public health officials advised him or anyone else to shake the hands of covid patients.

The video I posted literally has him at a joint press conference with the health secretary who responded to "wash your hands"! Apparently the day of that press conference was the day the guidance on social distancing was released.

Yes. Boris bumbles on about shaking hands (though he doesn't specify corona virus patients, he's talking about business meetings etc) and mumbles something about that being the scientific advice. Turns to the avdisor who looks a bit irritated and reminds him that the advice is to wash your hands. I don't see how that in any way supports your contention. Rather, the contrary.

He behaved in a way that was within the advice of the time, and also completely absurd. I always got a huge kick out of that press conference and have watched it many times for a laugh: I thought he was referring to his visit to a hospital and meeting covid patients, I'd be disappointed if he wasn't meeting covid patients.

[Sheilbh]

This set of snap polls is fairly bad for Boris





I don't know if the Tories still have men in grey suits, but they should be arranging a trip to Downing Street soon.

[The Larch]

"The government has let down the NHS" seems a rather weird statement to me...

[Sheilbh]

"The government has let down the NHS" seems a rather weird statement to me...

Yes it's by a Lord Lawson (Nigella's dad) so a former Chancellor under Thatcher, but his line that the NHS is the closest the British have to a religion isn't totally wrong


Edit: Posted too early by mistake - I don't think any other country has this level of weird attachment/fetishisation of their healthcare system.

My theory is it's war-time nostalgia but for the left. It's the last big institution (though wildly reformed) from that time when the entire economy was planned with an ambitious welfare state all of which emerged directly from the wartime experience.

[Admiral Yi]

What's with the horrible names given to offspring of the aristocracy?  Nigella?  Allegra?

[Sheilbh]

What's with the horrible names given to offspring of the aristocracy?  Nigella?  Allegra?

She's named after her dad.

Though they're not aristocracy - they have even sillier names.

[Sheilbh]

And another party now being reported in the Telegraph - I think it's their first scoop in this story. Whoever is leaking in this in Downing Street is doing it very, very well - nothing came out over the holidays when it would have been wasted. But back in business on the first working week.

This one also has the first admission and best excuse:

Lord Lister, then the PM's chief of staff who worked in private office, tells Tel booze was drunk in lead-up to Christmas there.

"In the run-up to Christmas I'm sure we had a drink. But I want to stress I have no memory of parties. This is sat at one's desk and having a drink."

They were drinking on the job, not after it. Which makes all the difference.

Edit: And in the Indy - it seems they forgot to say in the message telling staff to get rid of anything that might leak, that they shouldn't leak that message either

No 10 staff told to 'clean up' phones amid lockdown party allegations, sources claim
'I was told to get rid of anything that could look bad,' says source
Anna Isaac

Downing Street staff were advised to "clean up" their phones by removing information that could suggest lockdown parties were held at No 10, The Independent has been told.

Two sources claim a senior member of staff told them it would be a "good idea" to remove any messages implying they had attended or were even aware of anything that could "look like a party".

Boris Johnson is facing an internal investigation into lockdown-breaching parties, being carried out by senior civil servant Sue Gray, and fury at revelations that 100 Downing Street workers were invited by email to a drinks event on 20 May 2020, when Britons were allowed to meet only one other person outdoors.

Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said it raised "yet more questions for a prime minister who seems to have no answers".

The "clean-up" suggestion was made early last month after the first reports emerged of parties at Downing Street, the sources allege.

One said they were "told to clean up their phone just in case" they had to hand it in to the investigation.

A second said: "I was being leant on [during the discussion with a senior colleague] and told to get rid of anything that could look bad."

Both sources told The Independent they felt under pressure to delete communications and images.

The claims that a senior member of staff directed junior colleagues to remove potential evidence contradicts an email, also sent in December, that instructed staff not to destroy any material that could prove pertinent to an investigation, criminal or otherwise.

This was meant to refer to emails, WhatsApp messages, and calendar invitations, but it was allegedly not observed by some staff, many of whom conducted discussions via WhatsApp on their personal phones as well as work devices.

Personal phones cannot be accessed by Ms Gray's investigation unless staff volunteer them. However, staff can be forced to hand over workplace handsets.

With many staff who attended lockdown-busting events no longer working at No 10, and others having wiped messages from their phones, it will be hard for Ms Gray to gather all available evidence of wrongdoing, sources claim.

Emails at No 10 are automatically deleted after 90 days for security reasons. This is also the case in some other sensitive government departments but not all.

Ultimately, deleted emails can be recovered from servers, but this is far more challenging than accessing historic messages in some other departments, according to people familiar with the process.

Lord Evans of Weardale, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said civil servants should remember that all messages that are relevant to government business ought to be retained and recorded.

A No 10 spokesperson told The Independent that they did not recognise the claims.

"Staff were given clear guidance to retain any relevant information. As set out in the terms of reference, all staff are expected to fully co-operate with the investigation," the spokesperson said.

Ms Rayner said: "The latest revelations about this scandal raise yet more questions for a prime minister who seems to have no answers.

"From missing minutes to secret WhatsApp messages, a culture of cover-up is endemic in Boris Johnson's No 10 and the rot starts at the top.

"The prime minister has a habit of trying to dodge scrutiny, but the consequences are catching up with him. The public deserve to know the truth about what went on while they were making so many sacrifices to obey the rules."

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said: "Destroying evidence for what may soon be a police investigation is an incredibly serious offence.

"No wonder the public has lost all faith in Boris Johnson's Downing Street. This would be a new low, even for his government.

"Sue Gray must ask all those involved if they have been pressured or ordered to delete messages and emails relating to any parties. If a cover-up took place, then it must be exposed and all details made public. There should be no more hiding or lying from this prime minister."

I think it's a more serious criminal offence to destroy evidence than to breach the covid rules but I could be wrong

[garbon]

 

[Josquius]

Companies that specialise in software for cleaning devices could really use this to their advantage

[Jacob]

Are we entering the stage where the cover up may end up being more serious than the crime?

[Admiral Yi]

They were drinking on the job, not after it. Which makes all the difference.

Let's be fair.  Drinking at your desk is not necessarily the same thing as drinking on the job.

[Gups]

Are we entering the stage where the cover up may end up being more serious than the crime?

Danny Finkelstein in the Times addressed this

-------
Let's get the Watergate cliché out of the way first. It isn't "always the cover-up" that gets you into trouble. It's the crime. Failing to tell the truth about Downing Street parties may have been unacceptable. But the real problem was the parties.

After Richard Nixon's men went down for obstructing justice and perjury there emerged the idea that if only they hadn't covered up the whole thing it would all have been fine. Yet this ignores the burglaries.

The Watergate break-in was only one in a series of covert operations. Coming clean when the burglars were caught would have involved admitting White House involvement not just in Watergate but, at a very senior level, in earlier crimes. It was too late to, as the phrase went at the time, "let it all hang out". Hence the cover-up.

What brought down the Nixon White House was the conspiracy to use illegal methods to undermine opponents. The cover-up was just an attempt to avoid being held accountable.

When the news that No 10 had been holding parties during the Covid lockdown first became public, their response was to deny it. There is a temptation to regard this — the cover-up — as the "real" error. To think that if only they had found a better "comms" response than denying it they would be in far less trouble now. But this isn't true.

When news about the first party broke, they all appreciated that this wasn't a single event, one that could be admitted and disavowed, a slip up by junior officials. There had been a pattern of holding social events and the prime minister had been involved. There was no good, politically viable explanation.

The only effective political response to having a bunch of parties in Downing Street during lockdown is to unhave the parties. Stephen Hawking once held a party for time travellers but only sent out the invitations after the party had taken place. No one came. This constitutes experimental evidence that you can't go back in time, that you can't unhave a party you've already held.

So the "comms" team were only left with two options. The first was to fail to tell the truth — to claim there hadn't been any parties, even though there had been. This was a "cover-up" and bound to fall apart, with everyone making free with the Watergate cliché. The second was to admit the truth — that there had been several parties, including one organised by the prime minister's private office which he had attended. And this admission, though morally essential, was understandably even more politically unattractive.

The parties offend against our basic idea of fairness, the one that is hard-wired into us, the one that has evolved. Here is the way a number of evolutionary psychologists think of it. They ask this: why do we co-operate with people who do not share our genes? One explanation is that we do favours for people because we believe they will, in some form, return the favour. So vampire bats regurgitate blood into the mouths of other vampire bats who are on the verge of death, believing that in future the giver will be the taker.

But there is a problem with reciprocation. It is in your interest to take and avoid giving, as long as you can get away with it. We develop all sorts of techniques to disguise our deception.

Robert Trivers, one of the pioneers in the field, suggests that self-deception is explained by this. If people can fool themselves, it is easier for them to fool other people without displaying tell-tale signs that they are lying.

At the same time, it is vital to everyone else that the deceiver isn't allowed to get away with it. So we have developed strong suspicion and a strong social norm to protect ourselves against people who take out without putting in.

We see this deception, and call it out, all the time. There are perceived breaches of the fairness norm — ones in which I feel as if I have put in, but you have taken out — in almost every really impactful political controversy.

Take welfare policy, for instance. There is a constant feeling, whether justified or not, that fraudsters are on the take, receiving money they aren't entitled to. Or immigration, where people are suspicious, often wrongly, that others may be using the benefits system without having contributed to it. Or bankers' bonuses, usually ignored, but understandably a cause of fury when taxpayers were putting money into the banking system.

The parties are a classic breach of the fairness norm and that is why they are not just a Westminster issue. That is why they are so politically potent. The Covid regulations involved many people making sacrifices on the understanding that their sacrifice was being reciprocated. They would stay at home and eschew social events to avoid spreading the disease, and they expected everyone else to do the same.

And people's fury over someone not making sacrifices will be proportional to the size of their own sacrifice. In other words, very large.

When someone says that on May 20, 2020 they were unable to see a sick relative while Downing Street was holding parties, it is hopeless to quibble about how much cheese was involved or how hard the people were working or whether, the party having been in the garden, it was really all that infectious.

These arguments ignore the fairness norm and they will not work. No explanation involving telling the truth will work.

No wonder the approach has been to deny that rules were broken and to pretend that the prime minister was furious to discover that perhaps they had been. The only tiny problem with this being that rules were indeed broken and the prime minister at least knew they were being broken and probably broke them himself. Which was always going to emerge. No explanation involving not telling the truth will work either.

And all that is without considering the baffling stupidity and arrogance of the whole thing. Quite often when I see someone get themselves into political hot water I am sympathetic. I can imagine how it all happened, the slip of the tongue, the thoughtless act, the hasty tweet. I can imagine doing it myself. But this is different.

Two weeks after the resignation of Professor Neil Ferguson as a government adviser for lockdown breaches and it is "please bring a bottle"? Did nobody stop to consider that, whether or not it was wrong, this might not be wise?

There are those who have said well, what did you expect? And isn't it all priced in? But we're talking about 10 Downing Street and the country's prime minister so it is not priced in by me, and it never will be.

And what did I expect? There can only ever be one answer to that. Whatever I expect, I demand better.

[Sheilbh]

Agree with that piece - it's also why I can't see how the "come clean and apologise" approach can work. I think it normally is the best solution to a story like this and it's something apparently Tories and cabinet ministers are pushing as the only solution. I'd expect Johnson to make some statement today before PMQs.

But I can't think of a way he can come clean and say sorry that would be convincing given the last couple of months and all the denials/obfuscations, that wouldn't contradict his previous statements or that wouldn't basically admit that he broke the law (as did his aides and some senior and junior civil servants).

Edit: Also probably a bad sign if Conservative Home are speculating on the timing of a resignation
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/01/if-johnson-has-to-quit-is-it-best-he-does-so-quickly.html

[Josquius]

Intetesting they're saying the quicker the better. I really couldn't decide on that one.