The rules themselves were worse than the rule-breaking

While we continue to lambast one individual for breaking his own rules, we fail to question whether the rules themselves were ever humane, dignified or evidence-based.

As the ‘Partygate’ scandal rages on and more call fall in for the Prime Minister to – “for the good of God” – resign, it appears that we are now entering the sunset provision of ‘Boris' Johnson’s tenure.

For me, the most disappointing aspect of Partygate was just how French it was – a media scandal involving wine and cheese is no way for a British Prime Minister to lose his job. On a brighter note, having the appearance of a man ready to unplug the music speaker of any teenage house party, I did find it rather amusing that Sir Keir Starmer should be the one to mutter the words “the party’s over” to Johnson.

On a more serious note, the party scandal has reminded me of a Andrew Gimson quote that described the role of the Prime Minister as the “professional scapegoat” of the country. Indeed, while we continue to lambast one individual for breaking his own rules, we fail to question whether the rules themselves were ever humane, dignified or evidence-based.

We also seem to have forgotten that these rules had the consensus of almost every parliamentarian. Now the tide of public opinion on lockdowns and restrictions has evidently begun to turn, opposition MPs are taking the opportunity to attack the Prime Minister in order to distance themselves from the cruel decisions which they took.

I was astonished to hear the nonchalance with which opposition MPs could recount their constituents’ lockdown horror stories (for example: relatives left to die on their own, mothers enduring labour alone, children deprived of all social contact and a tragic increase in suicide cases) as a way of condemning Johnson’s actions without so much as thinking twice about the untold damage which they had brought upon our country.

The outrage expressed by the members of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition reminds me of the reaction to the heavy-handed policing of the Sarah Everard vigil. Admittedly, the majority of us were shocked to find images of women being thrown about by the police, simply for holding a peaceful vigil. Indeed, these are scenes that we have come to expect in mainland Europe but certainly not on our island. Like today, we witnessed Labour MPs expressing their anger and indignation at the way these women were treated. Some went as far as using the disgraceful incident to push their ‘defund the police’ ideology. No one, however, bothered to point out the fact that the fficers on duty were simply following the authoritarian measures which these outraged MPs had voted for.

If we look back at media coverage during the month of May 2020, we find that our journalists had become obsessed with ordinary people breaking the rules. Worse yet, we were being publicly vilified for activities, such as a day out at the beach, which did fall within the remit of the rules. Any criticism from the mainstream media towards these absurd measures, however, were certainly few and far between.

Many are now juxtaposing the Prime Minister’s conduct with that of the Queen. In a recent PMQs session, the Leader of the Opposition voiced his admiration for Her Majesty’s “true leadership” shown during the funeral of Prince Philip. While one can exalt our sovereign’s magnificent comportment under the public eye, one should not view the measures imposed upon her in any other way than as a national disgrace. Indeed, even the most ardent republicans could not fathom separating a ninety-five year-old widow from her family as she mourned the death of her husband of seventy years.

The Queen is more than just a person, however. She has a certain divinity. She is the symbol of our nation, its history and its continuity. The images of Her Majesty masked and isolated in St George’s Chapel thus reflect the pain this nation has suffered under a perpetual lockdown policy.

The British public will not forget.