Which Tyler wrote:Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Reports of a 2nd trip now.
I thought we were up to 3 now? 2 to Durham from London, and one to Barnard Castle, on a day that just so happens - complete coincidence, to be his mother's 71st birthday. I say coincidence, because we "know" that Dom didn't meet his mother whilst staying in her house. Mind, we also "know" that the police both did, and didn't, talk to anyone at the house.
Its also come out that, far from being unable to source food or any form of help in London (because that was always believable), his brother-in-law lives 2 streets away in London, as does his chief aide (I think it was chief aide)
As for questions in parliament, I wouldn't waste more than 1 - conservatives are doing a good job of splitting themselves over this already, no need to risk uniting them by adding his own attack. Just one question along the lines of "many of your cabinet colleagues have defended Mr Cummings' illegal trips to Durham on the principal that in doing so, he was just being a 'good parent'. Could Mr Johnson please confirm whether he agrees with his colleagues that other members of the public who decided to abide by travel limitations were doing so because they are 'bad parents'"
Throw a bomb, and leave it there. It boxes Boris I to either defending Cummings, Gove et al - and calling the electorate 'bad parents', or he sides with the electorate, and dumps on Cummings, and the cabinet cheerleaders.
Leaves 5 questions for other issues (including extending self-employed income support in line with furloughed workers' support, and probably bringing in company directors in there too - though I personally have less sympathy there)
I really like the question but I think if he does the slightest bit of preparation (but it's Johnson so he won't) then the answer is that there are many ways to be a good parent and unlike the opposition this government won't be prescribing one.
My stab:
1. Could the PM confirm that the advice remains that if any person has coronavirus they should isolate in their own home, along with all the members of their household, so that they do not present a risk to others.
2. The members of the household, young and old, are required to isolate because they may be infectious without knowing it, presenting a risk to others.
3. Having one of those person looked after by someone else would be particularly problematic and present a risk to others.
4. No one suffering severe coronavirus symptoms, if they had previously collapsed for example, should drive long distances as it presents a risk to others
5. If people as a whole don't follow the rules that may lead to further infections, deaths or a longer or renewed lockdown.
6. Does the PM say that the general public should follow the rules or trust their instincts?
I'd be tempted to simply ask the last question. Either you are saying fuck off plebs or you're owning the free for all.
The emphasis should be on the importance of the guidelines and the reason for them, whilst highlighting the double standard. Avoid personal attacks. Everyone knows the issue is Cummings. The comment can all be done outside the chamber. The press will report it because he doesn't name Cummings, but everyone knows and it won't be what they are expecting. Johnson will be looking to lash out at a personal attack which never comes. Repetition in the questions highlights the reason why you're asking the questions and why it shouldn't have happened.