Was lockdown a terrible mistake?

The Prime Minister panicked. And it may all have been for nothing.

It is seemingly imperative to start such a potentially controversial post by pointing out some things that I would hope might be obvious and therefore unnecessary to spell out, but these are not the times in which we live and so these first few paragraphs are purely an attempt at self-preservation from the flak I expect to receive. I called by blog ‘Off the Party Line’ for a reason, not because (despite some criticism) I am deliberately contrarian, but because sometimes the popular view is not altogether correct and therefore needs pointing out calmly and concisely. I should also point out that my world, my bubble, my circle is predominantly left wing, Northern, Labour voting, Remainy and middle class – places where the ‘party line’ can be firmly enforced when not appropriately toed. And whilst I am some of those things, I am not all. This can be uncomfortable at times, nevertheless it is important not to follow the herd when it heads for a cliff.

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, is serious. I don’t doubt it for a moment. It spreads, it infects, it sometimes kills. These are facts that are not lost on me, nor are they facts that I take lightly. It got round our highly connected, globalised world quickly, taking advantage of modern miracles such as air transport and fast moving supply chains to insert itself into most countries on the planet.

However, it remains to be seen just how serious, how infectious and how deadly it is. Not only does it remain to be seen, but it was flagged early on by voices subsequently drowned out that we were liable to overreact and take measures that would be disproportionate to the threat we faced. We might become the elephant so scared of being scratched by a cat, that we jump off a cliff to save ourselves.

I will add my last note of mitigation here; that is to say that I do not take death or disease lightly. I believe every death, whether a child, a parent, a 40 year old, a grandparent, a 100 year old or an unborn baby, is tragic and is to be mourned. I hope this is enough to persuade you that what I come on to say is not cavalier or heartless. If you feel that you won’t be able to hear those kinds of arguments, it may be best for you to stop reading at this point, though I sincerely hope that having got this far, you’ll hear me out.

Let’s start with this now ubiquitous (but erroneous) term, ‘The Science’. The capitalisation is mine as it seems to me that it is being held way above its station, and is beginning to sound like something you might read in a dystopian novel. No, that does not make me a ‘Science denier’, it means that the assumptions being made about what constitutes ‘The Science’ are wholly unsatisfactory and in clear contravention of what those who engage in such work would ever profess to be doing – i.e. providing certainty and fool proof answers.

In terms of epidemiology, this is even more important to understand. Early on in this pandemic, government ministers now privately admit that they believed ‘The Science’ was more certain than it actually was. As James Forsyth reported, “they had not realised quickly enough that epidemiology was a lot more like economics than physics: lots of variables, lots of assumptions and no one right answer”.

One minister said, “we talk about following ‘the science’ as if there’s one opinion and not at least seven.”

This is vitally important to understand. Scientists disagree with one another. That’s what peer review is for, that’s why there are papers and counter papers. And in this instance, you’d better believe there is severe disagreement. For every Chris Whitty, there is an Anders Tegnell. For every Neil Ferguson (more on him later), there’s a Sucharit Bhakdi. Dr Bhakdi is an infectious medicine specialist and one of the most highly cited medical research scientists in Germany – i.e. he knows what he’s talking about. He describes the current fear over Covid-19 as ‘nothing but a spook‘. Is he right? Well I’m not an expert – but he is. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do – listen to experts?

This should tell us that there really isn’t any such thing as ‘The Science’, and the quicker we understand that, the better.

Which brings us to our other eminent expert, Dr. Neil Ferguson. Dr. Ferguson is the man who is essentially the architect of much of the lockdown panic that has engulfed the world. His models, suggesting 500,000 deaths in the UK alone, have set the basis for terrified governments to enact some of the most extreme and unprecedented peacetime attacks upon the civil liberties of their citizens. In his recent address to the nation, the Prime Minister Alexander Johnson repeated this half a million deaths claim.

But this is incredibly specious. Reports in the last couple of days have made some pretty damning assessments of the modelling used by Dr. Ferguson, modelling that is 12-13 years old and was designed to model influenza outbreaks. According to leading figures, his code was “totally unreliable” and “something you wouldn’t stake your life on”.

David Richards, a tech entrepreneur said it was “a buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming…in our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust.” And this is the model we’re using to hibernate the world economy?

The noises starting to emanate from government is that the lockdown will have avoided this catastrophic loss of life. But the evidence for this is extremely slim. It falls rather bluntly into post hoc ergo procter hoc territory and, in the first place, assumed a scenario where the government would do absolutely nothing; hardly a likely scenario, and certainly not one that should be used for spreading panicked headlines.

We need to understand the politics of these numbers as well. Consider the scenario where 500,000 deaths are predicted and there end up being 30,000. Bad, but not anywhere near what we feared, so that’s good. Well what if they’d predicted 25,000 deaths and there were 30,000? How awful – why did you get it so wrong? The incentive is to wildly overestimate and look like you did something, rather than try to be accurate and get it wrong. This is no way to make good policy.

There probably isn’t much need to go into Dr Ferguson breaching the lockdown he helped to create, as that’s been covered extensively anyway. Suffice to say, he can’t believe in it that much if he then flouts the rules as soon as he feels the rush of adulterous desire.

The new shift in the goalposts is now around the so called ‘R’ number. Yet another nail in the coffin of ‘The Science’ is that experts disagree on the effectiveness of this tool as well, despite it now being the tool that Al Johnson wants to use to monitor lockdown conditions.

We have never actually been told what the ‘R’ number is, and this may be something to do with the fact that nobody really knows. In her press conference, Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Jenny Harries sounded almost embarrassed at the use of this tool. Maybe because experts can’t agree – she said “the rate is derived from a different number of modelers. And each modeler will put in, each modeling group will put in slightly different data, it will process it in a different way; and they’re all compared to see, to come out with a broad consensus.”

She also explained that it would differ based on the setting: “(There) are predominately three different R values: we have community, which will be most people in their homes, and that’s where the ONS data is coming from, that’s households; we have care homes which have had high rates, they’re starting to come down; and we’ve had hospitals as well. So it’s quite difficult.”

As Kate Andrews points out, Dr Harries looked like she was mocking the use of this number. “We’ve got a number of different R rates. It’s a bit like saying everybody in one area has the same sort of house cause the average one looks like this.”

With such disagreement amongst even our own experts, never mind internationally, how are we supposed to know what to think? And is this really justified to lockdown entire nations when we really have no idea how effective that will be? Sweden seems to be doing no different to nations that have enforced strict conditions – why is that?

What will the effect be on our children? Studies being undertaken are finding little to no evidence of children spreading the disease, yet they’re locked up in the same way as everyone else and can’t go to school. My 2 year old son is desperate to see his friends, will have a lonely birthday when he thinks he’s having a party, and my youngest probably won’t even recognise anyone when we eventually get out. How can we know the full effects of this panic on our youngest members of society? I believe we will look back in shame at what we did to them.

The insane, nasty argument of accusing those of us who are questioning the government approach of putting ‘lives vs money’ when discussing the effects on the world economy  needs to stop. We are all arguing in good faith here, and these sorts of comebacks are unnecessary and unfair. And I don’t even do social media anymore, I only see it in the papers and on TV, I can’t imagine the howls of rage on the cesspits of the internet.

But this must be taken seriously. You think 10 years of Cameron/Osborne austerity was bad? You think daily headlines in the Guardian about the effects of austerity on the poor, the disabled, the BAME, the women were hard enough to stomach? Well wait for what’s coming. We’ve already spent the money ‘saved’ by austerity over those 10 years many times over. Johnson has promised that there will be no return to austerity, but do you trust him?

Haughty proclamations along the lines of ‘lives are more important than money, if we can save even one life it will be worth it, how can we even be thinking about the economy when people are dying?’ are, I’m afraid to say, dangerous and reckless. They’re incredibly easy to say (probably worth at least 50 likes on facebook, I’d say), but do not see the tsunami that follows. As this study from the IFS shows, ‘economic downturns have an impact on health as well as wealth’. It points to research showing a 1% drop in employment leads to a 2% increase in chronic conditions – what do you think might happen when we hit 5%? 10%? 15%? Are those lives worth saving, or are they too far in the future to care about right now?

If you’re of the mind that you wouldn’t be able to live with yourself if people close to you died because of lockdowns being lifted, then I would simply ask – can you live with the unintended consequences, the indirect loss of life, that could be far, far greater? How about some of these statistics:

  • A&E attendance has halved – so half the number of people who thought themselves sick enough to be checked out by an emergency medical professional are staying at home. Do you really think all of those people will have survived?
  • A leaked email from 31st March showed that children who would have survived, ended up dead.
    • “In one case, a mother reported that she was waiting to be spoken to on NHS 111 for more than 60 minutes while her child “arrested” – medical terminology for the heart or breathing stopping. The child subsequently died.In another case referred to in the email, a mother says she was told the ambulance service was too busy whilst her child was “semi conscious and vomiting”.And another set of parents were reported not to have taken their unwell child to hospital for five days as they believed there was “risk in hospitals of Covid-19″. The child also died.”
  • 2,700 fewer people every week are being diagnosed with cancer – do you think that there are just 2,700 fewer people a week getting cancer, or are these people just going to have it and then die because they couldn’t get medical care?
  • Given that mental health is something that people now talk about a lot, how about this one – only three weeks in (so over a month ago), “The research, conducted by King’s College London and pollsters Ipsos Mori, finds 15% of the population already say they are finding the restrictions very challenging and another 14% expect they will be unable to cope within the next month.” What do you think some of these people might do?
  • How many more people are killing themselves? How many more women are being beaten? These are horrible stats, but have to be considered as part of the ‘all lives matter’ conversation.

It’s also helpful to realign ourselves with what we normally consider a perfectly fine risk/reward ratio and what are normal deaths. As I said to my wife early on in this lockdown, imagine if (like we have now), every day, we had the BBC and the newspapers flashing the number of people who died the previous day at us. It would obviously be alarming. But we don’t have that, so we put it out of our minds. This is not to say that more people are now dying, but the numbers don’t seem to me to add up to anything like a proportionate increase that would require a complete lockdown.

Every year, around 1,800 people die in road casualties. Old people. Middle aged people. Children. Babies. Pregnant women. Dead. From being crushed and smashed by road vehicles.

Why is our response to these shocking figures not to ban cars, vans and trucks? Why do we accept these deaths? Because our risk/reward ratio tells us it is worth it for the freedom and the economy it gives us. So where is the cry of ‘every life should be protected at all costs’ when it comes to this? If you believe cars should not be banned, then are you saying you don’t care about leaving children orphaned and people permanently disabled? And how on earth, if you couldn’t live with yourself for passing on Covid-19 to a vulnerable person, could you possibly ever again get behind the wheel of over a tonne of steel, glass and rubber, fire it up with fume-producing explosive fuel and drive it around where you might kill a stranger, not to mention the child in your back seat or the elderly parent in your passenger seat?

Perspective and proportion are vital, and in normal times, we have no problems justifying our convenient (but sometimes deadly) societal norms. It is imperative that we rediscover this.

I do not say that we shouldn’t follow the guidelines. I do not say we should just go back to normal straight away. Those who are vulnerable should absolutely have the choice and freedom to keep themselves safe and out of harm’s way – this virus is dangerous for them. But as for the rest of us – why are the young and the healthy being quarantined in this way? Why are our freedoms still being trampled on? Why are we not trusted, as in Sweden, to analyse for ourselves the risks and take the appropriate action as we see fit?

The care home situation is a scandal, no doubt about it. Not even Sweden got that right. The inquiry into this should be swift and severe. But this didn’t have to happen. And we can’t go on with lockdown for much longer.

Simon Jenkins puts it perfectly in the Guardian, speaking of the PM: “In his U-turn he opted for the politics of fear. He now has workers terrified of working, and parents terrified of school. He has frightened his economy into inertia. I share the view of scientists such as Cambridge’s David Spiegelhalter and Oxford’s Carl Heneghan that this virus is unprecedented in its infectiousness, but that it will pass. The chief variant will prove to be how governments reacted, and the toll they took on the rest of their healthcare and the wider economy. Sweden gambled in its response, but so did the rest of the world. South Africa’s lockdown threatens it with economic and political catastrophe. The UN warns that the world could lose four years of growth at a cost of $8.5 trillion. Famine and further disease will be rife. That was surely the greater gamble.”

Unfortunately, it seems that for that to happen, we will need a miracle. Something that is as rare as Haley’s Comet. The PM will have to admit he made a mistake.

To finish, here’s a quick one – without looking, how many new cases of Covid-19 were there in London yesterday do you think? The city that has had over 25,000 cases. 5,000 more? 1,000 more?

24. 24 new cases. It’s time to get back to our lives.

Coming off social media has been pure bliss

I thought life without it would be so much harder – it’s been the opposite

I used to think they were so tedious. Those ridiculous people who left social media with trumpet sounds and angel music to wave them off. They’ll be back – they always come back. It drove me crazy that ‘getting off social media’ was this virtuous act that would allow you the ability to forever look down your nose at the rest of the poor plebs who would remain trapped in their cesspits arguing endlessly about Brexit and Piers Morgan.

Well I did leave, albeit without the fanfare. But given I did it over 6 months ago, I feel I can now put some skin on the bones. Because honestly, despite the vom inducing nature of a blog like this, I have to say it has been wonderful.

Sure, in these weird times, it means I don’t get to see or hear from all my friends and acquaintances, see their wedding photos, new children, what they’re up to with their lives, and that’s a bit of a shame. But honestly, maybe it was just the little nest I’d built for myself in my little corner of the internet that did it, but it was getting too much. Politics, Brexit, Tories, “Boris” was all that was ever being discussed. And that’s fun for a while, but not forever.

When you find yourself on the opposite side of a debate while everyone is worked up into a frenzy, it is exhausting. Even though I posted less and less frequently, I could still see it all. All the lies, the distortions, the pettiness, the frustrations all being spilled out onto the internet. I did my fair share of it over the years.

I’ll always be able to pinpoint the moment it happened. I wasn’t planning it, I just did it. 10.01pm, 12th December 2019.

One minute after I saw the election result predicting a Conservative landslide, I deleted Facebook and Twitter from my phone and that was that. A couple of weeks later I suspended my accounts. Not deleted, as I still use Messenger, and I’ve used the marketplace to sell some things, this blog will even be posted there, but it’s not there to be scrolled through or looked at.

I couldn’t bear to see the inevitable roar of rage that was about to be unleashed. My circle of friends consists of people from Liverpool (my home city), people from the comedy world (whom I have met whilst doing standup) and others. That means Labour, left wing, Remain – not exactly the audience for an exit poll like that one.

It certainly wasn’t the result I was expecting (or desiring), but my goodness was it going to be unbearable to be a part of that reaction. If the Brexit debate had taught me anything, it was to not swim out into the ocean when you see black clouds incoming.

So I left. And it has been pure, unadulterated bliss. No more shouting and screaming (digitally of course), no more feeling the need to defend even those who I dislike, no more feeling the need to balance everything out, nothing. I’m free. I’m going to post this on social media and I won’t even read any reaction. I’m not interested any more.

There is no moral message to this – it isn’t a recommendation or a warning or anything like that. It is merely a story. I was on Facebook for the best part of a decade, Twitter less so but still regularly opened. And now I no longer have the urge to open them up, life is easier for me.

I’m aiming to restart the blog and try and make it regular again (with furlough and a worldwide crisis, it feels like a good time), but I no longer care about or will even see the reaction to it. So don’t take it personally if I’m not responding, I honestly just won’t see it.

No doubt I miss a lot of you. But it’s been for the best. Maybe I’ll see you again in real life – but probably not any time soon.

The Left has cultivated an image of viciousness and intolerance. This needs to change

When the Left operates with bad faith, it damages its own cause

It is something that has been niggling away at me for some time, indeed a reason I started this site. Why do so many conversations these days end in an argument, smears, lies and bitterness? Why does this happen particularly online? Why are tribes forming where once there were simple disagreements? I think I may be stumbling toward an answer.

Now please, forgive me if this has been blindingly obvious to everyone else and I’m late to the party. But it seems to me that we have no desire to believe that our opponents are arguing in good faith. We assume ill of them, we figure malign intention on their part and, above all, we believe they must be bad people.

I don’t see how any debate, discussion or argument can bear any fruit if this good faith is absent. The reason I offer the pages of this blog out to anyone who wishes to write for it is because I want people to give an unpopular opinion in an environment that encourages them to think freely and have the best assumed of them. If you give an ‘off the party line’ opinion, you have, by definition, thought it through, because the backlash wouldn’t be worth it unless you believed it to be so. Again I offer – if you have an unpopular opinion, get in touch.

The viciousness of much public discourse these days can be attributed to a lack of good faith. Left wingers assume Conservatives are evil and sadistic, Tories assume Corbynistas want state control over which trousers you’re allowed to wear that day, and so on and so forth.

But that is to provide a balance that I’m sure isn’t a fair one. I hate to come across all Lefty-bashing here, but it seems to be well documented that the Left is increasingly savage and hostile to its opponents. Dissent is deemed intolerable and impure to so many on that side of the spectrum. Providing me with examples of it happening the other way round are fine, if you want to waste your time. I don’t claim it is only one way, it definitely happens both ways – I merely offer a note of caution to those who claim themselves to be ‘kinder, gentler‘ people. Is your bar really going to be the cowardly and deflecting phrase, ‘yeh well they do the same thing to us’? I sincerely hope not. If it is, you offer no virtue that separates you from your opponents.

Let me just make that completely clear – I do not claim this is solely a Left wing problem. But it is one that should feel more urgent to those on the Left.

The Left is the wing that I should naturally be on. I try to have opinions on every issue individually, but inevitably there will be overarching principles that will inform my outlook. Most of those tend to be ‘liberal’. But I cannot count myself as among the modern Left. Elements of both wings may share the attributes of hostility, nastiness and downright rudeness, but the Right makes little outright claim to be the opposite. It is the Left that self-declares its occupation of the grounds of ‘kinder, gentler politics‘, ‘reason and science‘, ‘data-led policy’. And yet it simply isn’t so. And therefore there is a hypocrisy that cannot be tolerated by anyone with half a brain or a conscience.

If it were indeed ‘kind and gentle’, it would not assume ill-intention of its opponents or shout and scream at them. If it were a lover of ‘reason and science’, it would not shout down those who question, for instance, new gender orthodoxies, but would engage based on research. If it were ‘data-led’, it would not engage in spurious, politically driven nonsense that clearly defies the data.

The obsession with the word ‘hate’, a word my mother told me not to use unless in extreme circumstances, is now so all-pervasive that mere disagreement is now deemed hate. Disagree with gay marriage? You hate gays. Hate them. All of them. Disagree with abortion? You hate women. Vote Tory? You hate the poor. Concerned about Islamic terrorism? You hate Muslims. Want immigration to be slowed down a little? You hate immigrants. No nuance, no discussion, just straight to the extreme. Straight to the sliming and the smearing.

When even the CiF pages of the Guardian are filled with those on the Left denouncing that newspaper for straying even a tiny bit off the party line, you get a sense that something isn’t quite right. It was savaged in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader (the paper having backed Yvette Cooper – sounds crazy now, doesn’t it?). Things have rarely been better since.

I am an occasional listener to Sam Harris’s ‘Waking Up‘ podcast, among others. He is an atheist, I am a Christian. He believes free will is not a fundamentally defensible concept. I believe it is central to our being. There are plenty more disagreements I could point out. But I believe he is honest, a man of integrity and fully believes every word he says, and therefore worth listening to. That is all I would ever ask of a person – its a reason I will never listen to the likes of Milo Yiannopolous or Katie Hopkins, because I simply do not accept that they really believe in what they’re saying. They’re professional trolls who feed their children and their lifestyles on the money they make from upsetting the Lefties who will consistently rise to their bait. They are not serious people. I don’t believe they should be stopped from speaking publicly, but I won’t be listening when they do.

Mr Harris has recently been in the middle of some controversy, which you can read for yourself, or better yet listen to his discussion of it. It is far too long and detailed to go through here, but suffice to say, he has been attacked by many on the Left for a particular podcast. His most recent opponent, Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox, took a completely bad-faith interpretation of the podcast and would not back down from his position despite plenty of evidence to show that he ought to. He could still have disagreed, but still have assumed good faith on behalf of his opponent. He steadfastly refused to do so.

I was struck by the end of one the podcasts in this controversy, and it made me realise just what a problem this is for the Left more so than the Right.

A listener contacted Sam to ask: “You come off cosy with those on the Right, and then when a blowout like the one with Ezra Klein comes, it seems you can’t have the same warmth of relations and good spirit with a straight up Liberal”.

Sam explains why this misses the point spectacularly (I have shortened the monologue to sum up the key parts – highlights are all mine):

“I, as you know, disagree with Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro [two men the writer had highlighted as Right wing examples] about many, many things…but the point here is not disagreement, it is slanderous misinterpretation. And that almost always comes at me from the Left…With Ben, I made a joke on our podcast together and Ben came away not realising that it was a joke, and so misrepresented my views elsewhere. I reached out to Ben by email: “Ben, you’ve got me all wrong. That was a joke”. What did he do?…He apologised immediately, he regretted misrepresenting me.

“Same with Jordan Peterson when he got on Dave Rubin’s show. He said the opposite of one of my core beliefs. It is the centre of the bullseye for me intellectually, and he was getting it wrong. So I wrote to Jordan, with whom I had a painful collision on the podcast, and I said “Jordan, you’ve got me completely wrong. You’re misstating my views.” What did Jordan do? An instantaneous apology. He said ‘Sorry, I guess I have to read your books so I know what I’m talking about when we have our public events.”

“That is a difference that cannot be exaggerated. Peterson and Shapiro and I will go on to disagree about many things, it could be very heated…but there is a world of difference between bad faith misrepresentations and honest engagement with a person’s ideas.”

This guy’s whole experience of disagreeing with people on the Left is disheartening in the extreme. His experience of disagreeing with people on the Right is worlds apart from that, and is the way things should be. This is only one example of course, but I highly doubt this is not typical. My question to the Left would be, do you really want to concede the ground of honest, reasonable debate to the Right? When protesters can storm a lecture given by Jacob Rees-Mogg and he comes out as the level-headed, reasonable one, does that not set off an alarm bell? You’re conceding this ground to your opponents and it will be hard to wrest it back.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine had this to say:

I’m not a fan of the term ‘SJWs’ (at this point it just comes across as a pejorative), but the point is made all the same. You get an insight into why more and more find themselves moving away from the Left and going elsewhere. There is no longer much tolerance or respect over there. It’s shocking to see otherwise lovely, intelligent people spit bile over those with whom they disagree, rather than simply have the disagreement.

They seek to destroy, to burn, to have fired, to shun, to have removed from social media, to silence, to shut down anyone who will dare defy them. It is savage and bloodthirsty, as stomach churning to watch as it is to see a lion tear up a gazelle.

 

This assumption that ‘they must think that because they are bad people or have malign intentions’ is so unhealthy. If you can’t believe your opponent is arguing in good faith (unless they’ve clearly and repeatedly demonstrated otherwise – again, see Hopkins, Yiannopolous, Klein), then not only are you doing them a disservice, you are doing yourself one as well.

The image that leads this piece is of students protesting Charles Murray’s appearance at Middlebury in the US. He was invited to speak by conservatives in the college and was due to debate a professor who was planning to challenge him hard. He was not just going to speak freely – he was going to have a robust dialogue with somebody who totally opposed him and his ideas. But then the idiots started to shout him down as he spoke. Then what happened?

“When Murray and Stanger finished their dialogue [having moved to a secret place], they found themselves surrounded by protesters. The protesters—some of whom were wearing masks and may not have been Middlebury students—began pushing them. When Stanger tried to shield Murray, according a Middlebury spokesman, a protester grabbed her hair and twisted her neck.

“Murray, Stanger and their escorts made it to a waiting car, but the protesters “pounded on it, rocked it back and forth, and jumped onto the hood,” according to The New York Times. One took a large traffic sign, attached to a concrete base, and placed it in front of the car to prevent it from leaving.

“Finally, Murray and Stanger got away. They had planned to eat dinner at a local restaurant, but, upon learning that the protesters planned to disrupt their meal, left town altogether. Stanger later went to the hospital, where she received a neck brace. “

Kinder and gentler, apparently. Hardly. This was a vicious attack on someone who was going to debate on their side. Complete insanity, and what happens when you refuse to engage in good faith argument.

Much like yesterday’s post, I’m trying to help. I’m trying to show you how this looks to those outside your bubble. My main source of news and comment is the Guardian, but I venture to the Spectator as well, the Telegraph, the Independent, Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday. I listen to people like Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson as well as Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee and Gary Younge to name very few in my attempts to have as rounded a viewpoint as possible.

When you go to the places outside the bubble, you see so many people who are natural Lefties but who have either been shunned or can’t bear to be a part of it anymore. If you don’t care, then fine, that’s not a problem. I won’t tell you what you shouldn’t or shouldn’t care about. But if you keep wondering why you’re losing elections or not being listened to or not being taken seriously, you have to start listening to the other side, and not whilst seething at the temerity of these people to dare defy the social norms.

I had a fantastic knockabout debate on Facebook with a small group of friends before the EU referendum. I will keep coming back to this time as a perfect example of peers treating each other with respect and dignity, because whilst we fundamentally disagreed, the basis of the whole discussion was that each of us was arguing in good faith. Without that, it could not have happened. We were all sincere and honest, and nobody insulted or attacked anyone else.

It really can be like that. But one side has to make the first move. Lefties – please let it be you.

The best thing about the EU? GDPR

The General Data Protection Regulation is an important step in the right direction

In that ridiculous, stupid, constitutionally redundant, binary, idiotic Cameron referendum, I voted Leave. I’m no fan of the EU or its institutions, but that was never to say that everything it does is wrong. I firmly believe that the UK should leave it, and I have never wavered on that enough to change my mind, but there are doubtless some good things about it.

I’ve no intention to rerun the arguments, or provide a defence of my position here – I did all that at the time and it’s become intensely boring. Being attacked for it is no fun, especially from the side of the political divide that is supposed to be nice, tolerant and espousing a ‘kinder, gentler politics’. But that’s what happens. You learn to live with it.

This post is to praise one of the truly great things the EU has pursued – the ‘General Data Protection Regulation‘, or ‘GDPR’.

GDPR has been variously described as ‘the Data Protection Act on steroids‘, ‘severe‘ and ‘the biggest change to the regulatory landscape of data privacy’. It is a behemoth of a piece of legislation and has put the proverbial willies up everyone who does anything with personal data.

Ironically, the one thing that I think is great about the EU is the one thing that my lefty, Remainer friends are much more flustered about. It hasn’t gone down too well in my industry, where it is causing quite the headache for all involved or affected. It means a huge change in thinking, a completely different approach to data collection and retention and, most importantly of all, puts control of personal data firmly back in the hands of individuals.

To give a quick overview to what is an enormous, technically complex law, it allows individuals to gain control over their data and what happens with it. It may sound dry and boring, but I can assure you, it is an important step in the right direction.

Here is a list of some of the key points:

  • It applies to all companies processing the personal data of data subjects residing in the European Union, regardless of the company’s location.
  • Under GDPR, organisations in breach of GDPR can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20million (whichever is greater).
  • Consent must be clear and distinguishable from other matters and provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. It must be as easy to withdraw consent as it is to give it.​
  • Breach notification will become mandatory in all member states where a data breach is likely to “result in a risk for the rights and freedoms of individuals”. This must be done within 72 hours of first having become aware of the breach.
  • Data subjects will have the right to obtain from the data controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning them is being processed, where and for what purpose. Further, the controller shall provide a copy of the personal data, free of charge, in an electronic format.
  • The right to be forgotten – this entitles the data subject to have the data controller erase his/her personal data, cease further dissemination of the data, and potentially have third parties halt processing of the data.

That’s right – these guys aren’t messing around.

As I mentioned before, most people working in my industry (digital) are in a right flap about this. There are so many practices that are either going to have to stop, or be changed radically. Retro-fitting of websites, apps and online portals with new tools to ensure compliance with GDPR is happening at the moment (and if it isn’t, they’ll be in trouble).

But to be honest, whilst everyone loses their heads, I’m absolutely loving it. This is what needs to start happening. It has been 4 years in the making and, in my opinion, it’s all been worth it. Yes, we’re all going to have to make some changes. But these changes are intended to level the playing field and tip the balance back away from large, powerful, secretive (not any of my clients, obviously), companies and towards individuals. We simply cannot continue the way we have been – technological advancement has outstripped legislation at a pace that has allowed all of us to be swept up by it all, without adequate protection.

We have just had the result of a Guardian investigation that has provided revelations into ‘Cambridge Analytica’ – it’s still going, and it looks like it will be one of the biggest scandals the digital world has ever seen. This should make people wake up and realise just what happens with their data. That old adage ‘if you’re getting something for free, then you’re the product’ has never been more true. We’ve all known that our data is being used, but the extent of it should worry us.

Credit where it is due – the EU deserves a lot of praise for this legislation. It is comprehensive, meaningful and serious. It will be in force before we officially withdraw from the Union, and frankly it won’t make much difference anyway as the regulations cover any data held about EU citizens. America and Japan will have to abide by this as much as we do if they’re holding or processing personal data about EU citizens.

If you think it sounds draconian, consider this – you will be put in the driving seat, and large companies are scared of it. That alone should give you an indication that we’re finally heading in the right direction.

Labour reaps with Munroe Bergdorf what it sowed with Toby Young

Do we really want to play this game? Trawling our social media histories can’t end well for anybody.

There’s a storyline in the TV show ‘The Thick Of It” in which the main characters are subject to an independent inquiry on the subject of ‘leaking’. Leaking had become one of those practices that everyone did, everyone knew was going on and just got on with it. Whether it was a genuine scandal, or just the way the government worked, everybody knew that it wouldn’t look good with a full media glare shining on it, despite the fact that this was exactly how the media got their stories.

So when one of the parties (the party of government at the time) announces an inquiry in order to gain some political leverage, the whole thing looks like it’s going to collapse. Ollie, a special adviser almost crumbles at the news. “An inquiry into all of leaking – all of leaking! We are so…! We are so screwed.”

To which Alastair Campb…sorry, Malcolm Tucker replies, “He’s done it. That chinless horse-fiddler. Our f***lustrious PM has opened Pandora’s f***ing Box and curled a massive steamer right into it.”

Which is to say, well done mate. We’re all going down now. And if I am, I’ll be dragging you down with me.

Both parties are constantly trying to one-up each other, looking for any tiny crack in the armour to ram a sword into and prise power. But they both know there are some roads that they can never start down, because they know the whole house of cards will come tumbling down and take them all out.

It’s starting to feel like the modern day version of this is what the Spectator have started calling ‘The Digital Inquisition’. And Labour and the Left generally must be starting to regret opening this particular Pandora’s box and curling a…well, you get the gist.

Only recently, the journalist and director of the New Schools Network, Toby Young stepped down from a new advisory position that he taken up in the Office for Students following an unprecedented campaign against him that was based on a trawl of his social media history. It turned out that he had said some unpleasant and shocking things in the past, and this was brought into the full media spotlight for all to pick over.

He was jumped on – Angela Rayner, Jess Phillips, Owen Jones, all took chunks out of him and the government for this apparently unwise appointment. I saw plenty of it from my own friends and connections on social media. Petitions, campaigns and reposting of his old tweets were paraded around for all to sign, join and despise.

Now, I’m not (here, anyway) taking a position on this. You’re welcome to make your own mind up on whether Mr Young was an appropriate choice for this post. My point here is that this tactic is not something that will only hit one side of the political divide. This has been proven in the last week, as Labour found themselves caught in their own net.

The transgender model and campaigner Munroe Bergdorf had been appointed to the Labour party’s LGBT advisory board, but stepped down after a similar campaign showed some highly unpleasant comments that she had made in the past on social media.

I’ll be completely honest, in my opinion this person is a deeply unpleasant individual with some shocking, awful opinions. I’ve heard her speak where she can give as much context as she like to her views, and I find her to be ill-informed and spiteful. She is, as far as I’m concerned, an idiot.

What I don’t like, and will defend her as much as I will defend anyone on this point, is the stripping of context around something that someone has said and presenting it as the whole truth. This is something I will come back to in a future piece, but for now let’s just say that whenever you see a small quote, especially when used to attack or smear someone, ALWAYS look for the context around it. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve read something, thought “well there’s no amount of context that could give that any credence”, only to click the link and find it more understandable. So please, when you read anything about what Munroe has said, read it in its full context. And do yourself a favour and do the same for Toby Young, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else you’ve taken a dislike to.

I really don’t want to play this game where any appointment is followed by a trawl of their history. We will have to get to the point where we’re going to have to see our past selves in the context in which they were said, and give each other a break. Can any of us really admit that we’d be happy for anyone to trawl back into our archives before we’d had a chance to do so ourselves?

It doesn’t help that everything we have ever said on social media is presented (if you search for it now) in the modern UI (user interface) – that is, whatever Twitter or Facebook looks like now. Imagine we could see a post from 2010 in the UI that 2010 Facebook had. It would already put it into its context effectively. Old photographs and videos are black and white – it gives them context immediately. If we could put them all into full HD colour, we’d subconsciously be applying our modern biases and culture to an age that didn’t have them.

If you want to do this, then fine, but it’s going to take us all down. I promise you, though, it isn’t a fight worth having, and it’s up to all of us to take responsibility as individuals to start giving people a break. This starts with your enemies. Because I can assure you, if you don’t apply the same rules to those on your side as you do to your enemies, you will be open to justifiable attack.

And you can’t say you weren’t warned.