Reports suggest that Boris Johnson could face a large revolt from his own MPs in a parliamentary vote on the introduction of domestic vaccine passports. But will it be enough? That likely depends on the Labour Party, which remains undecided. The Guardian has the story.
Tory MPs opposed to the plan for Covid passes to enter nightclubs and other crowded indoor venues said more than 40 Conservatives were prepared to defy the prime minister over civil liberties concerns, particularly as Number 10 has refused to rule out extending the passes to pubs and other sectors.
The scale of the rebellion could put any vote on a knife-edge if opposition parties also oppose the idea, which was proposed by Johnson on Monday in an extraordinary U-turn hours after clubs were allowed to open in England for the first time in 16 months.
At least 42 Tory MPs have signed a cross-party Big Brother Watch declaration against “Covid status certification to deny individuals access to general services, businesses or jobs” in recent months. More MPs privately told the Guardian they were unlikely to back such a move, especially if it remained a vaccine-only pass that did not recognise a negative test result or evidence of antibodies.
The issue is likely to be raised on Wednesday at a meeting of the new 1922 Committee of backbenchers, which is now led by three sceptics of Covid passports. Nusrat Ghani and William Wragg were elected as new Vice-Chairs on Tuesday, joining the longtime Chairman, Sir Graham Brady. On Tuesday some Tory MPs threatened to boycott the Conservative party conference in October over fears Covid passports would be required.
However, Keir Starmer is still undecided about which way Labour will vote, despite the party leader having previously suggested Covid certificates would be against the “British instinct”.
Labour shadow ministers were locked in talks on Tuesday about the party’s position and were expected to have made a decision by Wednesday morning. If they oppose the passports, Johnson could face defeat in the Commons as the Liberal Democrats are also opposed.
However, senior Labour figures are believed to have argued that the situation has fundamentally changed since the party first set out its position. Cases are soaring, and jabs are being offered to young people and pregnant women who otherwise might have been excluded, reducing the argument that they are discriminatory. Ministers have promised exemptions for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Asked on Tuesday whether access to pubs and transport could eventually be subject to Covid passports, Johnson’s spokesperson said the Government was “going to use the coming weeks to look at the evidence, particularly both in the U.K. and globally before making a specific decision”.
Several Tory MPs spoke of their frustration. Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a former Tory leader, said the policy was “without logic”, especially as having two jabs was currently not enough for people to avoid isolating after exposure to Covid.
Steve Baker, one of the main opponents of Covid passports, said: “There is nothing I can do or Conservatives can do if Labour continues to decline to oppose the Government’s illiberal policies. This is really now all about Sir Keir, who described this policy as un-British.” …
One MP said they had “no doubt” Johnson would insist on vaccine passports for the party’s conference, and that “as a result, it shouldn’t come as a surprise if a number of Conservative MPs and activists refuse to attend”.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: A spokesperson for the Labour Party has said it will vote against.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Very good. Gets to the heart of the matter, not least in questioning the wisdom of the attempt by assorted intellectuals over the last few centuries to substitute an ersatz ‘Religion of Humanity’ for the real thing.
I thought Boris’s middle name was piffle.
The harm principle is worthless without a definition of harm. If people are free to define cause harm as exhale (as they did), all of human live becomes subject to legitimate execution of power and that’s certainly not what Mill meant.
But that is exactly where we are now. There seems to be no burden of proof when it comes to claims of harm. At least not in the political or social sphere. Harm is whatever one claims it to be.
Why we just take every claim of harm being inflicted at face value is something that I don’t completely understand.
E.g. You are breathing the virus out and infecting me. Evidence? Proof? Even if you stand back a bit? Nothing, the claim is accepted without question.
E.g. Your reluctance to switch from an petrol car to an electric battery powered one is causing a catastrophic change in the climate. Really?
E.g. You are white and male and inherently racist and sexists and the cause of injustice in the world. What?
Perhaps it isn’t and never has been about the reality of things but rather the narrative of the moment. If claims are consistent with a prevailing narrative they are taken at face value.
And the prevailing narrative of our times seems to be an anti-human one. Humans are a pest in the world and the fewer of them the better. What is terrifying is everyone now believes this with almost no exception, even people who are for the most part on “our” side of the major political issues.
The idea that there are just too many humans around is a dominant thought in our times. So no one needs too much persuading when a claim is made that a person, or a group of people or all of us as species is causing some form of harm or other.
You are breathing the virus out and infecting me.
This one is easily addressed: The answers is I don’t. Viruses may have invaded my body. If so, this happened without me noticing or being able to control it and certainly without my consent. Assuming this has happened, viruses may also be shed from my body in a variety of ways, again without your or me knowing this, without me being able to control it and without my consent. That’s a phenomenon which is as naturally occuring on this world as rain or sunshine and in all three cases, if the possibility bothers you, it’s up to you to take whatever precautions you deem suitable.
Your reluctance to switch from an petrol car to an electric battery powered one is causing a catastrophic change in the climate.
There are 1142 coal fired power plants in China and even one of them dwarves the CO₂ emissions from my car to such a degree that they can rightly be regarded as non-existant.
You are white and male and inherently racist and sexists and the cause of injustice in the world.
I’m certainly not responsible your desire to employ injust broad-brush generalizations of this kind. Hence, other sources of injustice must obviously exist. People like you, for instance.
—
Addressing this passive-aggressive whining is obviously of limited usefulness when it’s just being employed as cover for peope with power acting in self-serving ways but it’s still better than just accepting this as fate.
My point is that it’s worse than people of power using these anti human accusations as devices of manipulation.
These accusations of “abuse” are landing on fertile ground of a population that believes humans are a pest.
You did read the article yesterday that us humans breathing had a significant detrimental effect on CO2 levels and climate….
I didn’t. I’ve now tried to find one but couldn’t. But I was writing about something different, anyway, namely, nonsense-definitions of causing harm which rose to popularity during/ because of COVID.
Opinions are like arseholes — everybody has one would generally come to mind here. And nowadays, everybody with an opinion also has a statistic which ‘proves’ that his opinion is correct.
Boris is a stage name designed to make him seem like everyone’s mate. He’s not my mate.
Egregious as he was and is, he is but a tiny part of a global problem.
Actually I am sick and fed up of all the Bozo analysis. He was proven via the Scamdemic to be utterly useless, lazy and dishonest – I know, I’m being generous – and in reality a traitor so why do we keep bringing him back to the front page on the basis of ill-placed what iffery?
Boris Johnstone is a sick joke and one I am tired of hearing about.
100%
I couldn’t agree more.
Shysters and conmen have long been an object of fascination.
Not for me though. All conmen do is remind me how gullible people are. And I have zero admiration for people who exploit the weakness of others.
The quote in the article also exposes him as the evil schemer he actually is, because he not only accepted exhale as definition of [intentionally] trying to cause harm but is still defending it here: I had to introduce totalitarian rule (sort-of, things were much worse in Germany) because I had to remain be true to my liberal principles!
The DS seems to be able to see the inherent mendacity in many things but somehow not in Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party more generally.
One senses a certain desperation to find something to redeem them.
Yes I think it’s wishful thinking. If you stop believing in the Conservative Party as a party of the right then there’s not much left – it’s pretty bleak.
Totally agree
Excellent and illuminating.
But even then I don’t think ‘Boris’ would have done things differently.
He is in truth first and foremost a man without principles, incl. libertarian ones, and a narcissist.
He primarily wants to be loved by as many people as possible and his fellow chattering class members, which means he will always cave in to polls and spending OPM.
A fair-weather libertarian at best.
You’re still treating him too generously. De Pfeffel likely doesn’t give a hoot if people like him unless that turns out to his private benefit, ie, being liked by people is – to him – just one way to make them do what he wants them to do.
Good article. Very happy to read the truth about Mill and his ilk. Mill neither understood nor cared much about real freedom. He was a proponent of scientism, or rule through ‘the science’ by those deemed superior and ‘rational’.
Fun, but wrong. Boris fucked up because he’s a coward. I prefer Mike Tyson’s trainer to Oxbridge: ‘The coward and the hero feel the same. It’s what they do that makes them different.’ Boris knew what was right and did what was wrong.
What has King Lear got to do with events of recent times. The fools, the evil, the conniving all die. Whilst those with a true heart and an honourable nature Edgar, Kent and Albany live, and it’s no Hollywood production.
This “harm” argument might make sense …. if it wasn’t for the very clear and very obvious FACT that the lockdowns were inevitably going to harm a very large number of people.
And even IF the Tyrants could make an argument that they didn’t know how appalling the harms to the whole population would be when they imposed the first lockdown, by the time we got to Summer 2020 they most certainly did.
Yet they carried on for another 18 months.
So I’m not buying it. There was a clear Agenda in operation and “don’t kill granny” had nothing to do with it.