As always, DAG has crystalised on how we should review Dominic Cummings' evidence in Parliament yesterday: not in what he said, but what he didn't say.
Cummings' ire was on Johnson and Hancock but failed to mention Gove of the Chancellor. The Chancellor brought in the "eat out to help out" which introdced multiple mass spreading events in every town and city in the country, and cost the Governement a tenner a meal.
We should be cautious that he said many things we long suspected and what we wanted to hear, but as above, there were many things he didn't say.
Will this make a difference?
The Torygraph and THe Express framed it as revenge without, at least in the headlines, examine the claims. The Times is focusing on his claims, at least, but a leading opinion piece by Oliver Letwin calls it revenge.
But it can be both revenge and truthful, but again, we should be wary of what was unsaid and what we wanted to hear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment