COVID-19: Boris Johnson's concessions on tier system may not be enough to satisfy Conservative rebels
One of the PM's concessions has the potential to trigger a whole new row that could fuel rather than dampen the rebellion.
Sunday 29 November 2020 13:37, UK
It is less than a week since Boris Johnson first set out the details of his COVID winter plan, and it is already buckling under pressure.
The regional tier system was presented as a cautious pathway between national lockdown and the post-vaccine era - a framework adaptable enough to be kept in place until Easter.
The government hoped it would be seen as progress.
But headlines about England facing the prospect of quasi-lockdowns until April - as well as anger over the number of areas placed in the highest tier of restrictions - has left the prime minister facing a potentially majority-busting rebellion on the Conservative benches.
In a bid to see off the threat of revolt, Mr Johnson has written to MPs offering a number of concessions.
But whether these will be enough to convince dozens of Conservatives not to vote against the government on Tuesday is far from clear.
For those MPs concerned about measures being in place until the spring, the prime minister has offered an earlier chance to vote than had been expected.
MPs will now be given a say at the end of January on whether to maintain the tier system, which could see the tiers fall away on 3 February.
But that proposal falls short of what is being demanded by the Coronavirus Recovery Group, the bloc of Tory lockdown sceptics led by former chief whip Mark Harper.
They want to be able to vote on whether the system is working at the start of January.
Another issue where the prime minister's efforts to reassure may not go far enough is the geographic size of the areas in which tiers are applied.
In his letter, Mr Johnson says the government will assess local authority data rather than just the regional picture, and "consider local views".
But, speaking on Sky News' Sophy Ridge on Sunday show, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab indicated the overall regional approach would likely remain to avoid "smaller enclaves of lower levels of virus shooting up because they are not subject to the restrictions in the higher level areas around them".
That is unlikely to satisfy people like former cabinet minister Damian Green, who has bemoaned the fact his constituents in Kent are living under Tier 3 restrictions, while those in neighbouring East Sussex - which has a higher incidence of the virus - are in Tier 2.
Neither will it satisfy fellow backbencher Andrew Bridgen, who has written to Health Secretary Matt Hancock saying he will only vote for the measures if the county of Leicestershire, in which his constituency sits, is "decoupled" from the city of Leicester.
But of all the concessions the prime minister has made, the one that was the most necessary could also prove the most problematic.
A key demand of Conservative rebels has been for the government to publish a cost-benefit analysis of the tier system - one that takes into account not just the health impact, but the social and economic impact.
Given Chancellor Rishi Sunak's warning this week that the "economic emergency has only just begun", they want to know the basis on which ministers have decided the strategy.
Mr Raab confirmed to Sky News that analysis would be published before the vote on Tuesday.
But while that satisfies a core demand of the rebels, it also has the potential to trigger a whole new row that could fuel rather than dampen the rebellion.
:: Subscribe to the All Out Politics podcast on , , ,
If the published analysis lays bare the social and economic costs of months' worth of restrictions, it is by no means certain Conservative backbenchers will reach the same conclusion as the prime minister as to the necessity of the tier system.
What is almost certain is the government will avoid defeat on Tuesday, because Labour have indicated they will ultimately support the measures.
But if Mr Johnson has to rely on opposition votes to pass a policy as significant as this, the political damage to his leadership would be enormous.
It is not impossible that further concessions could be made to avoid such a scenario.