Breaking response from the Prime Minister:
"I do not remember meeting, or even hearing of, Mr Cummings. To my knowledge, I have never worked with a Dominic Cumming. Did I mention I'm having a wedding?"
Currently on BBC PM:
"The big issue of the day is Boris says he has never met Dominic Cummings, Dominic Cummings said he words for the Boris Johnson. Which is true? How can we tell? I guess we'll never really know!"
Laura and the BBC making it very clear she isn't part of the story.
Tonight on Newsnight there will probably be a special segment on Woodward and Bernstein, followed by a discussion about how incredible stories can be broken by anonymous inside sources.
Tomorrow morning Matt Hancock will be on GMB and at the end of ever answer he will say:
"The main thing is we're getting on with the job, opening up the economy with our incredibly successful vaccine rollout, and there is going to be a wedding".
Carole Malone will be on Jeremy Vine later arguing that if you weren't personally in the room at the same time as Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson, then you cannot honestly be sure that they had met. Especially in an age of highly sophisticated special effects.
Politics Live will invite Darren Grimes, Tom Harwood, a random comedian, and the politician who accidently answered his phone without looking at 'caller id' to debate if Dominic Cummings scientific arguments hold water.
Joking or not joking, Meghan Markle must be odds on to be the front page story in tomorrow's Daily Mail.
I'm not sure that the Telegraph will actually print, but the strategy will be entirely consistent with their mission statement.
Every single time anyone tweets about Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings a twitter bots will respond saying "It has been proven that they didn't actually meet".
The Daily Express will come out in support of the side they think is the most angry.
Nobody resigns, the news moves on, and the cycle begins again...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The EU are negotiating a deal with Australia at the moment too, so it looks like we're going to be in a great position to compare the deal the EU got for its farmers with the best the UK government could manage.
And it's important to note that we haven't seen if the deals we've rolled over are better or not.
Because the exact same deal rolled over, doesn't mean it's equal...
For example, if an EU deal with Mexico gave them quota access of 500 million tonnes of meat, that would be a tonne of meat per person in a 500 million person market.
There is a consistent noise of an over nostalgic trade relationship from people who know as much about our trade relationship in the 70s as they did about all those tariffs the EU puts on the poorest countries in the word. 🙄
UKATA is in no way, shape, or form, reciprocal tariff free trade.
Apart from anything else, trade deals are supposed to be long term. If you believe in the free market, you have to accept that buying and selling patterns are not fixed and market led.
And of course, this. Production can increase to meet demand.
Once again, shelf price and purchase price are not the same thing.
The supply chain needs to be paid.
Food imported at distance is more susceptible to oil price.
Food imported at distance is more susceptible to the competition of other markets.
Food competing with your domestic market weakens food security.
In a free market investors move their money from products that start making less money.
If there is less production and demand remains the same, prices can rise.
The reduction of tariffs should not be seen as a guaranteed cost benefit to the consumer.
Any cost benefit can result in structural changes which ensure this is short term, and actually worse for the consumer.