A good enough smokescreen?

I have hesitated about saying anything about the Dominic Cummings affair, but I did have to spend a half an hour on the radio yesterday filling dead air while I was waiting for him to appear.

My conclusion afterwards, in the measured tones necessary for a BBC station, was that I did not find his account 'convincing'. I had been expecting some kind of apology on the lines of 'I made poor decisions under pressure which I now regret.'

But he has probably bought some time at least.  Unnamed 'senior cabinet ministers' are gunning for him, however.

I don't want to get into the detail too much because I sense that the spin strategy is to load lots of details on so that everyone talks about that and avoids the big picture.   However, a few points follow. 

On the childcare issue, none of the questioning journalists seems to have latched on to the point that he does have relatives in London, and surely he must have some friends who could help in an emergency.

On the issue of harassment by protesters, could he not have had panic buttons installed or asked the police to investigate and perhaps provide regular patrols?  The Cabinet Office could surely have arranged that.

 

His wife is deputy editor of the Spectator.  I read her article when it was published and gained the clear impression that they had been in London.  Indeed, there is a specific reference in it to a 'London lockdown'.   I used the word 'smokescreen' to describe this yesterday.

Why couldn't a family member have collected his wife and child from the local hospital?  Were there really no taxis?

The account of the trip to Barnard Castle, despite Boris Johnson flourishing his newly acquired spectacles at last night's briefing, lacks conviction - particularly given the coincidence with his wife's birthday.

Boris did say that he would not give unconditional support to anyone which suggests that Cummins may go later.  As one writer in The Times points out today, they need each other because they both have contempt for conventional notions of accountability.   Rules to them are a bourgeois hindrance.

Having said that, I don't find the spectacle of the British public and media having one of its periodical fits of morality all that edifying, particularly when it takes the form of a self righteous Twitterstorm.

The media has been bigging up the dissident Conservative MPs who hardly amount to a major revolt.  Many of them are professional trouble makers or publicity seekers.   The sound of Sir Roger Gale taking the high moral ground on Radio 5 is not that inspiring.

Boris did seem to be floundering in response to the questions last night, although I would not like to have to deal with 'Death' Rigby whose question could be paraphrased as 'Are you an incompetent charlatan'?  The circumlocutions of Robert Peston can easily be brushed aside given the time it takes him to put his question.

Of course, the real issue here is the one rule for us, another for them.   My expectation is that elites tend to behave badly if they can.  Tax evasion anyone?  Gaming the bankruptcy rules?