I think this one is a little different, the reason being that there's thousands of people who have lost loved ones over the past 21 months and - as a result of having to "follow the rules" - were unable to visit their relative in hospital, their loved one had to die alone, couldn't get to see the body afterwards, had to choose who couldn't attend the funeral, couldn't attend a funeral, or perhaps couldn't lay on the funeral service they'd have liked to.
You are absolutely right. It is the restrictions affecting those at the end of life that will cause the most anger. If it had only been those complaining that they couldn't party while No. 10 did, it would have gone away - party later, forgotten in days; but it wasn't.
It is hard enough in 'normal times' when you are told that there is nothing that can be done except keep the patient comfortable and try to keep the amount of pain in check, Relatives will want to spend as much time as possible by the bedside, knowing that time is limited. But to be able to spend only a token amount of time, maybe when the patient is beyond understanding, or even no time at all, must be heart breaking. Such relatives will probably feel very guilty and that they have let the deceased down big time. Similarly with the funeral, even having to decide who couldn't attend or not being able to physically be there at all.
I am surprised that those advising the Prime Minister do not appreciate that the guilt people felt has now welled up in anger, firstly that these 'events' took place at all, and also that there has been no appreciable signs of regret. It is like Paterson - if he had accepted the suspension, it would be largely forgotten. Instead 'nothing happened and if it did no rules were broken' as yet another disclosure takes place - the Bailey party which he left at
6pm 9pm, the Education party, the Quiz, the Downing Street garden gathering, the cheese-and-wine business meeting, the Rees-Mogg speech to the IEA, enquiry overseen by
Case someone no-one has ever heard of who reports to Gove, probably more, it is difficult to stay in touch. So far Bailey has resigned from a job no-one knew he had, other than that, it has all been down to Stratton, who was not even at a party. Her crime appears to be that she (sort of) admitted there was a party and could not keep a straight face*.
It will stay in the news because many people expect there is more simply because it has been drip, dripping out for weeks - and no-one has said sorry to those who stuck with the rules despite the burden they imposed.
* - I know some party officials were reprimanded; punishment? They probably got a Christmas card without a photo of the family Johnson in it judging from past actions. At least May took actions (sometimes).
