Given the sensitivity of the public to mass immigration, what’s the explanation for our panel’s return above?
We will be re-running the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chairman’s piece for us above each day this week.
And it makes next to no difference whether or not the question asked is about resignation or dismissal.
The Treasury has been welded at the top to Number Ten. Now there’s a push to do more of the same to the Office.
Enraged voters are not his target: he is zeroing in on the mass of questioning teachers and parents.
“I cannot in good faith tell my constituents that they were wrong and one senior adviser to the Government was right.”
Any fair-minded observer would think better of him at the end of yesterday’s press conference than he or she may have done at the beginning.
There can only be one explanation: that the internal polling is dire. If this event doesn’t move it, resignation inches a step closer.
Assuming no new revelations or his adviser’s resignation, he can either tough it out or order an inquiry.
If so much, as Ministers suggest, depends on common sense, nuance, context and common sense, people will draw the inevitable conclusion.
Groups of MPs are able to beat their jungle drums into a frenzy. And the powers-that-be have limited capacity to quieten them.
The nub of the matter is that without changes to the law the entrants will keep coming to Britain.
People cannot simply be viewed as consumers or producers – there are other dimensions to policy, including the stewardship of the countryside.
The Government has ways of evading commitment to the national reproduction rate of the virus as the determinant of policy.
Rolling out enough tests with enough trackers, and then putting effective self-isolation in place, is very much a process rather than an event.