Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I guess this means the report won't be published in earnest for months, if Dick is giving Johnson a huge favour. Pricks.

I get that Johnson thinks his best strategy is to play for timem - and that's probably right. But I don't know that this actually helps him for a start - unless one of those benign reasons is true (which the Met will leak soon if it is) I don't think their position is sustainable given what they were saying earlier in the week. If they're not one of those reasons I'd expect a u-turn.

But I think this is a bit like idea that the Met investigating was actually helpful for Johnson because it would allow them to deflect ("we can't comment on an ongoing police investigation") which strikes as a little bit galaxy-brained and only really true for lobby reporters/people who follow politics very closely. Not least because it relies on people moving on and I'm not sure that will happen with this story because it's so linked to our own experience - parties while other people couldn't see their drying relatives or have had to tell their kid for two years running they can't have a birthday party. People get bored and move on when it's a slowly building political scandal that is basically just about politics or quite complex. The reason this one has had such dramatic effect is that it's not, it's about a really basic and easy to understand thing that affected every person living in the country.

But there's a few reasons I don't think this is helpful for Johnson. A lot of Tory backbenchers think its too soon to remove him (even if they've decided they want to) and would rather do it after the local elections in May/close to the summer recess - this probably pushes the worst revelations into the timetable of when the Tories think is optimal timing to remove Johnson. Spring is already going to be very difficult politically: cost of living, tax increases, local elections that will probably not go well and now added into that is the drumbeat of a police investigation in the background. The police leak especially with cases that touch politics so I'd very much doubt that we stop hearing about this now instead it'll be a drip-drip-drip of details/stories.

There is also going to be the rest of the report and we don't know how bad that is - the police are investigating 8 parties. From my count there's about 15 parties in total - which could lead to a bad situation for Johnson because the parties in the report look really bad and the public are angry, we know there's more coming and Johnson can't even try to roll the pitch because they're under police investigation.

The other big unknown risk for Johnson is whoever's been leaking these stories in the first place. My expectation was always that Sue Gray would release her report and either that afternoon or the next day there'd be a leak of a new party or something that showed Johnson hadn't been honest in the report. I still think something else is likely from them.

Edit: E.g. from former Blair (and Julia Gillard advisor):

John McTernan
@johnmcternan
Great news for Labour.

They need to focus group the most damaging phrases to describe the scandal.

Then use them repeatedly and force the government to obfuscate in reply.

The PM isn't going to go, but he can be made to look guilty.

Which is right - Labour should work out what's the most damaging attack line because they've now got a few months to run with it (and I'd try to look for one that makes the rest of the cabinet - including possible successors - and the party look complicit).

And the government can't say anything about it to defend themselves because it could "prejudice the investigation"

[Tamas]

I think what will happen is that no the Met hides this until Easter, at which point they'll fine a few people (Johnson may or may not be among them). Those people will pay the fines and then Johnson will declare that the matter is settled and over and no point in publishing the report.

[Josquius]

A bit of delay could be a good thing potentially. Ukraine is a great shield at the moment.

[Sheilbh]

I think what will happen is that no the Met hides this until Easter, at which point they'll fine a few people (Johnson may or may not be among them). Those people will pay the fines and then Johnson will declare that the matter is settled and over and no point in publishing the report.

But I don't see how that works politically?

I think the best route for Johnson was to try and cauterise this quickly - get through a very difficult week and then try to move on. Sue Gray report drops with all the details, Johnson fires everyone else who's involved (or rather he fires the political appointees he can fire and civil service re-shuffles the civil servants he can't fire) and says they should all pay their fines/cooperate with the police. He apologised profusely in the Commons. If he survives that try to move on with some big announcements like a windfall tax on energy companies and a cash bonus for everyone under x income to help with gas prices etc.

And hope nothing else comes out. I think some of the information coming now, then months of police investigation and leaks which Number 10 can't really comment on, then more details dropping (during a local election campaign) is a really bad situation for him politically. Plus it assumes that whoever's been leaking everything so far has nothing else to reveal. A very long and ultimately inconclusive investigation into cash-for-honours was not helpful for Labour or allow Blair to move on.

On a practical level I would be astonished if the Met was able to hide/keep a lid on this given how much they leak normally but particularly during a political investigation (cash-for-honours, Damian Green, Plebgate, Chris Huhne). Also the Met is a political actor. They'll be aware their reputation's taken a hit for very good reasons over the last few years, I think they probably think it was a mistake not to investigate in December which is why they've u-turned and they can read polls as well as the rest of us. I suspect they'll be chatting to the press a lot to spin this as a "no fear nor favour" investigation and won't be too worried about annoying a government that is, on current trends, likely to be out of office in the next year or two. It would do the Met's reputation and political position no harm to be seen to be tough on this.

I think this quick take from Stephen Bush (as ever) is very good. Basically kicking it into the long grass makes things more comfortable for Tory backbenchers not to do anything - I'm not sure it helps with the public:

The public has already made up its mind about Boris Johnson
Voters aren't waiting for Sue Gray's report to be published – they're waiting for justice.
By Stephen Bush

The Metropolitan Police have asked Sue Gray to remove references to eight incidents that the force is investigating from her report into lockdown-breaking Downing Street parties, in order to avoid prejudicing their inquiries.

Relief for Boris Johnson? That's the consensus among many Conservatives this morning. It means that Gray's report will either be further delayed or published missing some of its biggest hits, and the Metropolitan Police's investigation may not yet conclude that the is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Just one problem, though: are the British public really waiting for Sue Gray, or indeed for the Metropolitan Police, to tell them whether or not the rules were broken? The evidence from the polls and indeed every focus group I have seen is that the public is pretty clear that rules were broken. What people are waiting for is justice, and what they expect is a cover-up.

The Conservative Party is doing what political parties in trouble often do: mistaking its own rhythms for the heartbeat of the nation. An abandoned investigation and a gutted report would, I'm convinced, combine all the political pain of the Owen Paterson vote with all the discomfort of the last few months.

[Sheilbh]

A bit of delay could be a good thing potentially. Ukraine is a great shield at the moment.

I don't think Ukraine actually plays into it at all except as a justification for inaction. There's a broad political consensus on Ukraine with the Tories and Labour. Policy doesn't appear to be at all affected by the ongoing scandals and, in fact, Truss and Wallace just appear to be getting on with it (with their civil servants - possibly reflecting that consensus/establishment view). Everything the UK is doing has been uncontroversial here because it just reflects the UK's broad approach to Russia since at least Skripal. What's striking is how little it's been discussed and how little impact the chaos in Number 10 has on our Ukraine policy rather than how much.

Plus, bluntly, it's not an issue people particularly care about domestically (again possibly why the establishment view - ministers, opposition, civil service all aligned - is able to proceed so smoothly). The heavy lifting is being done by Truss and Wallace and if Johnson goes I don't think that would change anything.

Things might escalate - but the UK had an election and changed leader during Potsdam, Thatcher was replaced during the Gulf War - and the first confidence vote against her was while she was in Paris at a conference on the future of Europe as the iron wall was collapsing. I'm not sure Ukraine boosts Johnson in any way - it's a nice debating point for the Mail and his supporters, but that's about it.

[Tamas]

But I don't see how that works politically?

I think the best route for Johnson was to try and cauterise this quickly - get through a very difficult week and then try to move on. Sue Gray report drops with all the details, Johnson fires everyone else who's involved (or rather he fires the political appointees he can fire and civil service re-shuffles the civil servants he can't fire) and says they should all pay their fines/cooperate with the police. He apologised profusely in the Commons. If he survives that try to move on with some big announcements like a windfall tax on energy companies and a cash bonus for everyone under x income to help with gas prices etc.

Which part of this has been well-managed by Johnson & co so far? I wasn't saying what's the ideal course of events for him, but rather what they may do.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I took a look at the Daily Express  earlier. The comments under the Sue Gray/Met article would make pretty grim reading for Johnson; they seem to think he is a corrupt liar engaging in a whitewash attempt 

If the penny has dropped in those quarters then I think we can assume his position is completely untenable.

[Sheilbh]

Which part of this has been well-managed by Johnson & co so far? I wasn't saying what's the ideal course of events for him, but rather what they may do.

Fair. And I agree on that point.

I just think it's a little bit like the whole story of the Met investigating. The obvious take is that it is bad for the PM to be investigated by the police. The smart take on the lobby and among Tory MPs etc is actually it's good for the PM to be investigated by the police (delays Gray, "we can't comment" etc). But I think that's too clever by half and the smartest take is that it is, in fact, bad for the PM to be investigated by the police

You're right on well managed though. It's always the thing I find slightly frustrating aginst many people who really dislike Johnson that he basically swings in their view from an utterly incompetent buffoon to an incredibly dangerous machiavel. I feel like those two contradict each other (it's a bit like the anti-Obama takes in 2008: he is too inexperienced to actually do anything and he is a dangerous radical who will transform our society) and you probably have to pick. My own take is utterly incompetent buffoon.

Basically I think if it is an attempted cover-up it will fail or, at best, delay things. Even the leader of the Lib Dems is saying it looks like a cover-up and the police need to explain themselves - and when an institution like the Met have lost the liberals you know they're in trouble (and Tory MPs are saying similar).

If it's not an attempted cover up then it feels to me like the most straightforward explanation is that they're investigating more serious crimes than covid - especially given the language the Met used of "prejudicing our investigation" not prejudicing a court case/prosecution. I disagreed but go back to Jake's comment that the cover-up is always worse than the crime and that we know someone was getting people to wipe their phones. It seems to me that if you were investigating with people for tampering with evidence or with witnesses the last thing in the world you would want is a clear record of what happened being made public. Even misleading or changing evidence for a small crime that only attracts a fine is perverting the course of justice which is far more serious - see Christ Huhne.

What would be very helpful would possibly be a record of witness statements people have made elsewhere to other investigations. That isn't covered by contempt or anything like that but that would make investigating very difficult because everyone would know what story they'd need to tell. It is baseless, wild and probably very wrong speculation but I feel like the most likely explanations are cack-handed attempt at cover-up or another turn of this scandal in a slightly more serious direction.

Although imagine the absolute shame you'd feel if you were some spad in Number 10 and you ended up throwing away your political career by being the John Ehrlichman of light refreshments

I took a look at the Daily Express  earlier. The comments under the Sue Gray/Met article would make pretty grim reading for Johnson; they seem to think he is a corrupt liar engaging in a whitewash attempt 

If the penny has dropped in those quarters then I think we can assume his position is completely untenable.

Over 50% of Tory voters in 2019 think he should resign. Tory members are still more reluctant but I think a plurality think he should resign if he misled the Commons.

Edit: But it is strking because the Express is the only paper that's consistently defended him through all this - and eventually most papers try to stay in-line with their readers. So it'll be interesting if they turn.

Apparently Johnson-backing Tory MPs were sharing this front page in the last few days:

[garbon]

The publication of the Sue Gray report could be delayed significantly after Scotland Yard revealed it had asked for references to matters it is now investigating to be removed.

Wtf?

Just catching up on the day.

[Sheilbh]

There's something very funny about Johnson coming up with "levelling up" as the theme for his government after Brexit, only for Labour to lead on it by 30 points


The crucial ones here seem to me that Labour's ahead on crime, immigration and taxation(!) - even the six point lead by the Tories on the economy is good. I think the Tories almost always lead on that (like Labour does on the NHS), apparently the Tories were ahead by four on the economy in 1997 even after Black Wednesday.

Also relevant - early signs that Starmer is beginning to escape the Miliband-Corbyn levels of non-credibility:

[Sheilbh]

The next stage of the leadership crisis - the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee (who I llike a lot - on foreign affairs; he's a blank slate on domestic policy) Tom Tugendhat has announced he will be running for the Tory leadership. He's got no chance unless the party decide they want really want someone with clean hands from the backbenches. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan and was then in the FCO. I think there is a sense he's been under-promoted by recent governments, but made the most of it as chair of a backbench committee.

But it's the first time someone's put their head above the parapet and once potential candidates start working on/launching their campaign's it's going to get more problematic for Johnson. A lot of people are basically saying one of the factors that's keeping him in is that the candidates are either not ready to run a campaign or not signalling that they're willing to take over. In part this is the old Tory leadership line that "he who wields the knife doesn't get the crown". But also it's that I feel despite the rules having been this way for over 20 years the Tories and the press still basically expect a 90s style leadership campaign when there was no no confidence vote, instead there'd just be a challenge to the leadership normally with a stalking horse first to test the strength of the leader.

More seriously it looks like Sunak's campaign is getting ready for whenever it needs to launch:

Rishi Sunak puts final touches to leadership bid and says Partygate could be 'unsurvivable' for Boris Johnson
Exclusive: The chancellor's team have been preparing a website and marketing campaign while sounding out Sunak's chances of success among MPs, sources claim
Anna Isaac

Rishi Sunak is putting the finishing touches to a PR-led leadership campaign after telling allies he believes Partygate could be "unsurvivable" for Boris Johnson, The Independent has learnt.

The chancellor is understood to have built a draft version of a campaign website, taking inspiration from his weekly No 11 newsletter, and developed a marketing strategy.

He and his close circle are also believed to have had informal conversations with former No 10 staffers and MPs about the recent scrutiny of Downing Street, in order to gauge his chance of winning a leadership contest, sources said.

The imminent publication of the Sue Gray report into parties at No 10 is expected to have less impact after the Metropolitan Police asked that it contain "minimal references" to the parties they are investigating, for fear that its release could prejudice their own criminal investigation.

Police involvement may put the brakes on Mr Sunak's plans, said a source, though they added that "there's no question that Rishi and his team have got everything in place". They noted that there is a clear communications plan, and that copy for a website has been drafted and is ready to set live.

Cass Horowitz, a special adviser to Mr Sunak, is widely credited with building the chancellor's online brand, through canny use of social media, building up his Instagram following, and overseeing his newsletter.

A former No 10 staffer told The Independent that Mr Horowitz was regarded as a "boy genius" by many in the Conservative Party, having revamped its use of social media before moving to work for Mr Sunak.

"He's built a data dashboard from the newsletter. Every click and share will be informing the wider leadership campaign. He's got form on watching for any online grassroot sentiment to tap into," they said.

The No 11 newsletter takes an informal, upbeat tone. It features "uplifting" statistics in "Stats Corner" – a choice cut of the official releases from the past week that paint Mr Sunak's efforts in the best possible light.

The ex-staffer said that a Twitter account called "Ready for Rishi" (@ForRishi) – which describes itself as "grass-roots" – set hares running at No 10 when it first appeared in September 2020. Its latest tweet, posted on 27 January and pinned to the top of its profile, reads: "Time for a leader who doesn't break the rules #readyforrishi".

"If I were Cass, I'd be tapping that sentiment," said the former staffer.

In recent conversations, Mr Sunak is understood to have suggested that Partygate would ultimately prove "unsurvivable" for the prime minister, sources claim.

One discussion is said to have focused on the idea that it would not be possible for Mr Johnson to continue in the long term, as the scandal had permanently damaged his brand.

But a source close to Mr Sunak said that these claims, along with those relating to the chancellor having prepared a leadership campaign, were "totally false".

Attention has been drawn to Mr Sunak's political posturing in recent weeks, which has not gone unnoticed in Downing Street, sources said.

This includes his absence during PMQs when Mr Johnson first apologised for attending the May 2020 party in No 10, and the amount of time it took for Mr Sunak to publicly back the PM on Twitter, eventually delivering what was considered by some to be a lukewarm display of support.

As the wait for Ms Gray's report drags on, Tory MPs said conversations in the corridors and tearooms at Westminster are increasingly revolving around the identity of Mr Johnson's successor.

One senior Tory MP, who said they were backing the prime minister, said they were "surprised" that foreign secretary Liz Truss had attracted more criticism for photo ops than Mr Sunak had for the use of his personal branding in regard to policies such as Eat Out to Help Out.

Alongside Mr Sunak and Ms Truss, speculation has revolved around possible bids by levelling up secretary Michael Gove, former health secretary Jeremy Hunt, and education secretary Nadhim Zahawi.

Other possible contenders being discussed include Mark Harper, whose role as the chair of the Covid Recovery Group has made him a figurehead for lockdown-sceptic MPs, and Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Tugendhat, who may win the backing of "One Nation" MPs linked to the more liberal Tory Reform Group.

One MP told The Independent that preferences for the succession were the topic of conversation "whenever two or three are gathered together".

Separately - more from Cummings - and again it's just impossible to imagine this with any other recent PM:

Tim Shipman
@ShippersUnbound
NEW: Two sources say Dominic Cummings grew concerned about the "frat house" atmosphere in Johnson's flat and upstairs at Chequers. He and Martin Reynolds, the PPS, agreed Johnson should only get STRAP classified materials in his office downstairs
STRAP papers are usually classified Top Secret, but you have to have an even higher level of security clearance to see them and be a named individual. They are easy to spot because they are on pink paper
NEW: It is claimed that the pink papers were left lying around and spilling out of Johnson's red box
A third Downing Street source says Johnson's red box was sometimes left outside the door of the flat on Saturdays and that it would be there in the morning and appear untouched in the evening
Why is this relevant now? It is understood that as Sue Gray's inquiry proceeded into socialising in the No 10 flat that it became clear that several of Carrie Johnson's friends in government have the access pin code for the private flat
No 10 have not denied any of this. All we got was a "we don't comment on security" line. Unclear if these tighter protocols around the red box are still in place

[Sheilbh]

Tories plotting to *checks notes* nationalise the NHS

This policy makes a lot of sense - the weird position of GPs is a legacy of how Bevan got doctors to sign up for the NHS and nowadays apparently very few doctors want to go into partnerships/run GP surgeries which is a problem:

GPs nationalised in Javid plan to reduce hospital admissions
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Saturday January 29 2022, 12.01am, The Times

GPs would be nationalised under plans from the health secretary to make them do more to keep patients out of hospital.

Sajid Javid is considering radical changes to the 70-year-old structure of the NHS that could see many family doctors directly employed by hospitals instead of running their own surgeries.

He has told Boris Johnson that there are "considerable drawbacks" to the system under which GP surgeries are in effect independent contractors paid per patient by the NHS.

A review of primary care planned by Javid will look at how to better integrate GPs with hospital care as part of attempts to do more to stop people developing serious illness.

Sources insisted there would be no forcible state takeover of GPs, who are likely instead to be given incentives to link up with hospital trusts.

The plans are likely to provoke resistance from doctors who said that the independence of GPs boosts innovation and offers value for taxpayers' money.

Javid is keen to accelerate the pace of reform in the NHS as he feels pressure to deliver tangible progress in exchange for billions of pounds in extra funding.

He is reviewing hospital management to hold NHS chiefs more closely to account as well as considering "academy style" hospitals with more freedoms, which he hopes will start taking over GPs.

This month he wrote to the prime minister setting out his ideas for NHS reform, telling Johnson that he had "an ambitious agenda that has the potential to be a central plank of your domestic policy legacy".

He suggested setting up a "new National Vaccination Service" to free surgeries from the need to administer regular Covid boosters, which could keep on some of the non-medical vaccinators employed during the pandemic to administer routine immunisations.

GPs in England were told to prioritise boosters before Christmas, but this week they were told by NHS England to "restore routine services" now that demand for jabs has dropped off.

In the letter, seen by The Times, Javid said: "Whilst there are some strengths to the system of primary care, it's also clear that the historic separation of general practice from the wider healthcare system as created in 1948 comes with considerable drawbacks including an underinvestment in prevention." He says he will launch "an independent review of the future of primary care", to look at "workforce, business models and how GPs work with the other parts of the NHS such as hospitals".

This month, The Times reported that Javid was considering a new class of "reform trust" in the NHS, modelled on the academy school scheme. The letter said that they would "drive innovation with the freedom to improve outcomes by pioneering approaches including by bringing together primary and secondary care". The idea has been dubbed the Wolverhampton model after the city's hospital took over GP practices and cut emergency admissions.

Martin Marshall, the head of the Royal College of GPs, said the current model "delivers exceptional benefits for the NHS", and that the main problem was a lack of qualified staff. "There has to be a very good reason for changing a model that works well" for all.

Aren't GPs already run by the NHS?
Although GPs are the front door to the health service, practices have never been owned by the government but are owned and managed by GP partners, whose pay in effect comes out of surgery profits.

How are GPs paid?
Surgeries get a fixed sum per patient, currently £155 a year, with extras for hitting targets on chronic conditions and for offering extra services, with allowances for extra staff such as pharmacists.

Why is the NHS set up like this?
It was a compromise struck as Nye Bevan set up the NHS facing resistance from the British Medical Association and others, who compared the plans to Nazism. To buy off their opposition, he allowed consultants to carry on seeing private patients and GPs to remain independent small businesses.

What is the case for reform?
Joining up care and preventing chronic illness is a key goal of health systems globally. Some argue that the divide between GPs and hospitals hampers this integration. Hospitals lack the opportunity to prevent disease while GPs lack the resources and financial incentives to prevent disease they do not pay to treat.

What is the case against?
GPs are established, developing long-term local links and are responsive to patients, not looking to the NHS hierarchy and an unresponsive bureaucracy.

Are any GPs paid a salary?
Yes, and the number is growing as fewer younger doctors want the responsibility of in effect running a small business. The number of salaried GPs in England has gone from 6,650 in 2009-19 to 11,000 in 2019-20, a rise of 65 per cent. GP contractors have fallen 27 per cent from 26,400 to 19,250.

What does nationalisation mean in practice?
Javid's allies insist family doctors will not be forced to hand over their surgeries. They are more likely to be offered incentives to become part of larger NHS organisations, often hospitals.

What will this mean for patients?
The goal is a more seamless link between doctors and specialists, meaning problems picked up quicker and patients given help staying well. Critics say the changes will not address the fundamental problem of falling GP numbers.

[Josquius]

Very strange from them. Making sense....

Not getting the innovation argument against it. GPs are not a place I expect innovation.

I guess one area I have concerns is it could see GPs being too attached to one hospital with greater reluctance to send people to better specialists in other hospitals. Already its an issue that being sent across county lines is hard.

[Sheilbh]

I have no idea how it'd work with the whole Lansley reforms which were based around GPs as commissioners of healthcare which was meant to help with that - but just created a complicated mess that no-one understands and everyone ignores.

And totally agree with GPs. Some are really good and I tend to use that NHS website listing the ones near you and what services they have to try and work out which ones are more modern. But some I've been with are I'd say the least innovative bit of the NHS - just huge amounts of paper files etc

[garbon]

What's this bit about the NHS and preventing disease? While I know it was eventually overturned in judicial review but wasn't the NHS stance on Truvada that preventive are remit of local councils not the NHS?