Durham Police have confirmed that Dominic Cummings’s visit to Barnard Castle was a breach and that the original journey to Durham was compliant. Interestingly, other police districts have said that they would have told him to turn round and go back home. What is clear is that the regulations and advice were unclear. 99% of the population interpreted them one way, and Cummings interpreted them another way with the support of the cabinet.
In an example of unbelievable irony, it transpires that there is a slang expression prevalent in Durham, “that’s Barney Castle”, which means a pathetic excuse. Apparently, it originated in 1569, when during the northern rebellion Sir George Bowes refused to leave his fortified position in Barnard Castle to join in the fighting.[1]
The general opinion is that if Cummings had come out early and issued a contrite apology it would have blown over in a couple of days. The problem for the government is that if he did that it would have been a reflection on Cummings’s integrity. Even worse, it would have highlighted a huge lack of judgement and commitment where he put family issues before his service to the country. It would raise the question of how we would react in the next national crisis such as terrorist bombings or civil unrest. What use is a senior advisor with suspect judgement?
Opponents of the government have grasped the opportunity with both hands and are openly and covertly going for Cummings, Johnson and the Government.
It is now payback time for many people that Cummings has upset over the years. The ex-chancellor of the exchequer, Savid Javid sent a letter to his constituents stating that the trips were “neither necessary nor justified”. Mr Javid resigned earlier this year after a battle over control between Number Ten and the Treasury. Cummings gained almost total control over staffing matters in Javid’s personal office.
At the same time, Penny Mordaunt, who currently serves as Paymaster General in the government, said there are ‘inconsistencies’ in Mr Cummings’s account and that the row had undermined key public health messages. Following on this, rumblings surfaced from within the Conservative party and it was leaked that over 40 MPs were pressing the Prime Minister to sack Cummings.
This level of opposition is before one looks at the antagonism towards Cummings from the parliamentary opposition, the MSM and fringe actors (various interest groups).
Boris Johnson has doubled down on his support and refuses to countenance Cummings’s departure. He has burned a huge amount of political capital maintaining this support, with the Government’s approval rate dropping from +14% to -2% and his own personal rating falling from +19% to -1%. He has fallen behind Matt Hancock, the education secretary, who even though managing a difficult portfolio is at 5% approval. Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, has fallen from 35% to 20%. Whilst this is not a threat to a Government with a huge majority and no election due for another four and a half years it has major implications for Johnson himself. At Press conferences, he dithers and appears, unsure and “fluffy”. It is obvious that he is still suffering severely from his battle with COVID-19 and is nowhere near fully fit.
The schools are scheduled to open in phases and the left-wing teachers’ union is voicing strong opposition (yes, ‘elf n safety rears its ugly head). Their action has brought a strong response from Alan Johnson, Education Secretary in the last Labour Government, and David Blunkett, Home Secretary in the same government and previously Education Secretary, both of them lambasting the union.
Politically the situation will keep festering away, especially as the lockdown is slowly released and the people gradually transgress against the regulations. There is a dispute brewing between the scientific advisors and the politicians, with the scientists recommending a continuation of the lockdown and the politicians and economists wanting a faster removal of the lockdown. This will develop into an interesting conflict with seven members of the SAGE committee expressing dissent.
With this the background the Chancellor is extending the lockdown furlough scheme until later in the year. It is apparent that the support is going to be enormous, with no guarantee of a return to a sustainable economy in the short term.
He will have to have a strong plan to manage the nursing of the economy back to recovery in the next 12 to 24 months. The forecasters (and remember, all forecasts are by definition, wrong) are predicting high unemployment, lower economic activity, low GDP and low trading activity, so there will be major shortfalls in government income and higher demands on the social welfare system.
The options are to raise taxes, reduce benefits, reduce government expenditure and/or increase borrowings. All these options demand careful management to minimise the political damage. For instance, a 10% increase in unemployment will result in a 10% decrease in tax take (or more, depending on the types of jobs being lost). National insurance contributions, both employer and employee will drop. The resulting drop in disposable income will result in a lower VAT (GST) take following on from the reduced expenditure.
Unlike New Zealand, there is no VAT on food (except for luxury items) so the drop in sales will mean a higher fall proportionately in the VAT take. People will cut back on many things, but not on zero-rated food. A reduction in the rate of benefits will be politically brave, but the gross expenditure on benefits will go up because of the higher unemployment and that has to be funded from somewhere.
Just remember that income tax was introduced as a temporary measure in 1799 by William Pitt the Younger to fund the Napoleonic wars, so any promises on temporary tax moves must be taken with a bucket load of salt.
Given that New Zealand is in an economically more precarious position than the UK, I have my fears about the short-term future for NZ. Tax increases and new temporary measures will be considered and because of the economic damage NZ is suffering drastic measures will be needed. Unfortunately, if Labour retain power I can see temporary fiscal measures being introduced, and other clamp downs on personal freedoms (temporary of course) being introduced. Left wing governments are opportunistic, and they won’t let the opportunity to impose more control on the populace go by.
As a final headshaking demonstration of the surreal, I have to drive 200 miles (legal in England). The quickest way to my destination is via the M4 and A49 through Wales. If I do that, once I go over the border, I am breaking the law. I therefore have to drive 50 miles farther to ensure that I stay in England, using secondary roads for the last 30 miles.
You couldn’t make it up!
[1] Source Brewer’s Britain and Ireland 2005
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
