NEW YEAR STILL ‘UP IN THE AIR’ WARNS NO.10
Calls growing for Brady to replace PM
SIR Graham Brady is being touted by backbenchers as the best person to replace Boris Johnson because he is “unsullied” by Covid policy and the recent Christmas parties scandal.
As speculation continues over the future of the Prime Minister, a growing number oftory MPS believe they need a “cleanbreak candidate” to run for the leadership.
One Conservative MP told the Sunday Express: “I’m not sure how long Boris can last. But if and when he goes, his replacement has got to be outside the Cabinet, someone with unsullied hands.
“Anybody in the Cabinet has to explain whether they knew about the Christmas parties, why they didn’t resign, if they agreed with all this mess.”
The bookies’ favourites to take over are Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and Chancellor Rishi Sunak.
MPS wanting contenders from outside the Cabinet have been considering former Brexit minister Steve Baker and former Cabinet minister Esther Mcvey.
But their current favourite appears to be Sir Graham, who is chairman of the 1922 Committee which representstory backbenchers and who has been a leading voice questioning Covid policy.
Onetory MP said: “Graham is the obvious candidate outside the Cabinet. He has a job to do first as [1922 Committee] chairman but he’s a Brexiteer, voted the right way on Covid and is a proper Conservative, unlike most of the current Cabinet.” Another said: “He certainly would represent a clean break and has an enormous amount of respect among MPS.”
The news comes as a constituency by constituency poll puts Labour eight points ahead of thetories and finds Sir Graham and even Mr Johnson would lose their seats if the results were replicated in an election.
The poll of nearly 25,000 people was commissioned by the Sundaytimes and took place over three weeks up to December 21. Had it been an election, it shows Sir Keir Starmer would have secured a 26-seat majority.
Mr Johnson would have lost his seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.the Focaldata survey shows five Cabinet ministers would lose their seats, along with Sir Graham.
THE chances of a New Year without fresh Covid restrictions are still unresolved as ministers wait for data about Omicron’s impact on the elderly.
A Downing Street source has indicated current evidence showing the latest Covid variant is 50 to 70 per cent less dangerous means more curbs are “much less likely”, although they “cannot rule anything out”.
It comes as Tory backbench MPS have made it clear that they will repeat their pre-christmas rebellion if the Prime Minister comes back demanding a “circuit breaker” lockdown.
Bars and clubs have warned they could be forced to close for good if they are unable to trade on New Year’s Eve and the Archbishop of Westminster has urged Number 10 to keep places of worship open, saying: “Most people are sensible and cautious. We don’t need stronger impositions to teach us what to do.”
A Downing Street source said all options remained on the table. They said: “It’s obviously good news [about the lessened severity of Omicron], but it’s still early
data and we don’t have much about its impact on older people yet. So it’s a bit up in the air.”
The Government is due to make a decision on further constraints tomorrow. Boris Johnson has said ministers “can’t rule out” any further measures.
Downing Street sources now say the latest evidence on Omicron means it is “much less likely” more limits will be needed. Senior backbenchers have told the Sunday Express they believe Boris Johnson decided against bringing in further rules in England last week because he is fearful of a potential attempt to oust him if he takes on his own MPS.
The approach contrasts with the measures brought in by SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland and Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford inwales. In Scotland, Hogmanay New Year celebrations have been cancelled by Ms Sturgeon and football stadiums and other venues will be empty.
Mr Drakeford threatens a fine of £60 for people going to work when they could work from home, while from Boxing Day no more than six people will be allowed to
meet in pubs, restaurants and cinemas. The refusal by Mr Johnson to introduce restrictions in England follows three reports last week suggesting that the Omicron variant is 50 to 70 per cent less likely to hospitalise sufferers than the Delta variant.
In South Africa, where the variant was first discovered, cases are dropping off in the Gauteng province where it began and levelling off in three other provinces. It also emerged two thirds of patients in hospital with Covid had gone in for other reasons and tested positive while there.
It is widely believed the Prime Minister would have already agreed to more restraints including a circuit breaker if it had not been for the rebellion by 100 or so of his own MPS, which forced him to rely on Labour votes for success.
The Sunday Express has been told Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance provided video briefings to backbench MPS last week in a bid to persuade them to back more measures but had failed to win over many rebels.
A member of the 1922 committee which represents backbench Tory MPS said that in reality more than 200 were against the vaccine passports and more regulations.
The MP said: “The Prime Minister could be facing a much bigger rebellion next time.” And North West Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen said: “There is no doubt that had it not been for that rebellion we would now be living under much tougher restrictions.”
Critics argue that government scientists are being too cautious about the threat from Omicron, particularly given the impact on the economy of new limits.
Last week Sir Patrick defended the Sage modellers, who were criticised for being overly pessimistic.
Models released over Christmas suggest the UK is about to be hit by a large wave of Covid hospitalisations and the peak could be even higher than last winter.
Sage papers included University of Warwick modelling looking at tighter rules starting on
December 28 or New Year’s Day and lasting until January 15, January 28 or even March 28 – a three-month period.
The latest of those dates is longer than publicly suggested by some of the most cautious scientists and politicians.
Sage minutes warn that the peak on hospital admissions “may be comparable to or higher than previous peaks” – including the second wave in January.
The modelling has not yet been examined by ministers. But professor Carl Heneghan, of Oxford university’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, said: “The modelling data has been consistently wrong in the past, and current projections have already been shown to be erroneous.
“But they are forcing the Prime Minister’s hand who has no alternative view to go on.
“Nearly two years into the pandemic we need an overhaul of how forecasts are produced and interpreted, and an alternative approach to inform ministers and end this pandemic.”
The PM is acutely aware of the threat from his party. Sources say that dozens of letters needed to be sent to the 1922 committee
chairman Sir Graham Brady to trigger a leadership election “have been written but not yet sent”.
One former cabinet minister told the Sunday Express: “Boris is feeling vulnerable. After the North Shropshire by-election defeat and the Christmas party scandals he is not in a strong position to take on his own MPS over new Covid measures they don’t want and believe will severely damage the economy even more.
“It could take just one more big problem for the Prime Minister for MPS to decide to try to get rid of him.”
South Dorset MP Richard Drax said: “It is time to trust people to get on with their lives and for the state to back right off. Another lockdown will not prevent the spread of Omicron but it would devastate lives and livelihoods. Enough is enough!”
Speaking before Midnight Mass at Westminster Cathedral, Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Vincent Nichols said: “I would sincerely appeal that they do not again consider closing churches and places of worship.
“This country has shown that people can make good judgments themselves.
“We’re at that point of saying we understand the risk. We know what we should do.”