There’s more to the Christmas party confusion than what should go on under the mistletoe

When a cabinet minister suggests we get together but avoid a yuletide snog, puzzlement is the only rational response, writes Andrew Woodcock. But that’s not what lies at the root of the confusion

Boris Johnson hosts an event to light up the Downing Street Christmas tree on Wednesday (Getty)

Social etiquette at Christmas parties is one of the many subjects which Boris Johnson probably never expected to have to adjudicate on when he became prime minister.

And yet as the festive season approaches in tandem with the new omicron coronavirus variant, Downing Street has found itself having to fan down a wave of panic over what we will and won’t be allowed to do when the party hats come out.

Confusion has been sparked by a breakdown in message discipline by advisers and ministers, who seem to feel that the jollity of the subject matter licenses them to opine in public on whether office colleagues should be indulging in a (soon to be regretted) sozzled boogie on the dance floor and what exactly should go on under the mistletoe.

When the head of the UK Health Security Agency suggests that we shouldn’t socialise “when we don’t particularly need to”, it sets people wondering. What kind of social life do we “particularly need” to have? Does that cover after-work drinks? Or a party in a nightclub? Or having your mum round for turkey and the trimmings on the big day?

And when a cabinet minister suggests that we should get together to enjoy ourselves but avoid a yuletide snog, puzzlement is the only rational response. Is this virus airborne, as we were told, or is it just exchanges of saliva we need to worry about?

No wonder that pubs and restaurants say that bookings in the crucial pre-Christmas weeks are already being cancelled.

Downing Street has struggled valiantly to hold the official line that the only new restrictions in response to omicron are mandatory masks in shops and public transport and tougher isolation rules for contacts of confirmed cases. Anything else is down to an individual’s personal judgment, the prime minister insists.

Of course, the whole issue is complicated for Johnson by questions over his own personal judgment on the issue, after claims - conspicuously not denied by the PM or his spokespeople - of boozy get-togethers in No 10 at the height of the second wave of Covid last December, not to mention the invitation of a friend to share Christmas lunch in the Downing Street flat, supposedly as part of a “childcare bubble”.

But the root of the confusion lies in the fact that – as ministers freely admit – we don’t yet know how serious a threat omicron poses, or indeed if it poses much of a threat at all.

Minutes of scientific advisory bodies suggest that they are acutely aware of the danger of yet another massive wave of infections, with the nightmare scenario that the protection of vaccines will be much reduced when dealing with the new variant.

But the government’s approach seems to be heavily influenced by the desire not to disrupt Christmas festivities – and spending – too much for the sake of a variant which may turn out to be mild.

Yet again, Johnson’s preference is to delay tougher action until it’s proved to be necessary, rather than taking precautions until it’s proved they’re not needed. And yet again he runs the risk of making the final outcome in terms of illness and deaths far worse than it might have been under a more cautious leader.

Yours,

Andrew Woodcock

Political editor