We cannot continue to be governed like this

This ‘government by press conference’ must be stopped

Yes I am aware, thanks – there’s a pandemic on.

That out of the way early doors, we have got to stop sitting back and allowing ourselves to be governed by diktat and press conference. The precedents that are being set at the moment are truly crazy, and frankly even these exceptional circumstances do not justify it.

It has been something of an amusement to watch a general population who consider Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson to be some kind of neo-fascist enabling authoritarian dictator, beg him to tell them (or more accurately, everyone else) exactly what they can and cannot do with their lives. A group of people who were (rightly) incandescent when the Prime Minister tried to prorogue Parliament in order to get something through, claiming that Parliament was the most important thing, that accountability was vital, that our democratically elected representatives should not be silenced in this way.

Yet where are we now? The government is using the Public Health Act 1984 as it’s own personal prescription pad. It writes some illegible, incoherent scrawl, tears it off, hands it to the population and tells us to do as we’re told. No debate, no accountability, no opposition, no checking with Her Majesty to see if that’s ok, nothing. Where is the outraged Speaker threatening to grind everything to a halt until things are done properly? Where is the leader of the Opposition demanding to know how these decisions are being made? Where is Gina Miller now? Nowhere to be seen.

Of course things need to move quickly when you need to react to a crisis. Things have to be more nimble than they usually are. But next time Parliament is sidelined and a load of dreadful laws and precedents are set, don’t be crying about it, because this is where it will have started and we’re allowing it.

A crisis is no reason to stop doing the important jobs of asking the right questions and holding the powerful to account – in fact it is even more important now. Handing over vast power and authority is sometimes necessary, but that’s no excuse to back down on the holding to account or the checks and balances that need to be in place to stop appalling laws from being created and disastrous precedents being set. Don’t assume that when you temporarily give up your rights and freedoms that there will be any hurry to give them back, whole or otherwise. We have to stay vigilant.

Today, HMG announced – just casually announced at a press conference – that further ‘reopening’ plans will be pushed back by two weeks. Having imposed local lockdowns again last night, the Eid plans of thousands of Muslims were ruined. Did the government not know that Eid was coming? A time when Muslims come together into each others’ homes and celebrate together? Do they not understand the impact of this? It’s like saying at 10pm on the 24th December that you can’t go to your family’s house tomorrow for Christmas. How would you react to that? ‘Oh well, guess the government is doing the best that it can, better suck it up and get on with it’ or ‘How can you possibly announce this so late and ruin our family celebrations?’

Again, yes I know – there’s a pandemic on. Things happen quickly. But that is no excuse for governing like this. It is haphazard, flailing and likely to put everyone’s backs up. Where was the transparency, the warnings, the hedging just in case? And let’s be honest – where is the law? By what authority do they do this? Is it guidance, a statutory instrument, a provision in the Public Health Act? Who is asking these questions? where is the opposition? Where are the journalists?

Weddings, which have already taken a massive hit, were planned for the time when the restrictions would ease. Now they will be restricted again. How can you possibly tell people whose weddings are already nothing like what they hoped and dreamed they would be, but honestly and respectfully went ahead and put together a Covid-appropriate wedding, that they can’t now go ahead with their plans, just like that? Sorry guys, no best day of your life now, cancel the food, the photographers, the restaurant booking, tell your guests to get lost. Oh and wash your hands, yeah? God Save the Queen and all that. It’s for the greater good (THE GREATER GOOD)*.

Well maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. But are you honestly expecting people are just going to accept this from a government that most believe has handled this crisis like a monkey might handle a Ming Vase?

Precedents are being set here that should worry everyone. Once these things take off, it’s hard to stop them. Let’s say by some miracle that we have some semblance of normality back in a few years. Let’s say a vaccine is created (dream on I know, but go with it). Let’s say we eradicate Covid-19 forever. What happens when the next one comes? What do we do with Covid-20? What if if we get a bad flu season?

Do we lockdown again, repeatedly, every time an infection starts to spread? Do we ‘hibernate’ our economy when the coughing starts? Do we close down all opposition and allow the government of the day to dictate to us day to day, minute to minute what we may or may not do, what we must or must not put on our faces, how far away from our loved ones we must stay, whether we may marry, whether we may say our last goodbyes to our closest family members? Is this an appropriate way to govern a law-based, Western, supposedly ‘free’ democracy?

You may scoff at me and think I’m being over-dramatic, but governments do not do well when they feel they will be blamed for something awful. No government will ever loosen security measures at airports. No government will ever remove the barriers on Westminster bridge. Once these things are there, you can’t get rid of them, because if the worst happens, everyone will blame those in power who ‘allowed’ it to happen. These measures are ratchets. Can you honestly tell me you can’t imagine this happening in future?

So when the next flu season hits and we’re all locked down again, it will be because of this. We never did it before, but we did for Covid-19. Never again will a government allow itself to be blamed for thousands of deaths, and why should they? We will be told what to do to save their bacon. And honestly, we’ll deserve it. We allowed them to do this. Nobody said ‘Ok fine we consent to this in order to stem this pandemic, but what are the conditions for relaxing? When will this end? Under what circumstances will you remove these restrictions?’ We all just accepted it, no questions asked. Any whiff of dissent was scolded. A three week lockdown to ‘save the NHS‘, transformed into semi-permanent paralysis where nobody must ever be allowed to contract or die from this disease at almost any cost. When did ‘flatten the curve’ become ‘avoid completely’?

These are the questions Keir Starmer should have been asking the whole time, but for political reasons he didn’t. He didn’t want to look like an opportunistic politician opposing ‘for opposing’s sake’. Pity that’s your actual job title though, Sir Keir. We could have used you.

There may very well be no end to this. This could be it now – this could well be our lives. I hold no hope in ‘normality by Christmas‘, nor in a vaccine being produced that will allow us to return to normal.

And so it will continue. Johnson will carry on taking our freedoms and liberties at the click of a finger as nobody seems bothered enough to stop him. Hard won, easily lost freedoms and ways of doing things, gone in a cloud of sneeze particles.

Yes I know. There’s a pandemic on.

*One for the Hot Fuzz fans. Needed one laugh in this pessimistic piece.

The PM becomes everything he once railed against

From rebellious child to Chief Nanny within 12 months – what happened?

Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson recently celebrated a full year in office. It’s been a pretty eventful year, starting with the culmination of a long battle to remove the previous incumbent, through a fraught general election (which he of course won handsomely), the official departure of the UK from the EU and now a global crisis of historic proportions.

It’s a job he always wanted, apparently from early childhood, and so achieving the goal should have been momentous. And maybe it was for a short while, but it seems the enormity of what he had taken on hit him early, and hit him hard.

The arrival of Johnson into Number 10 and the subsequent defeat of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party heralded a new dawn in a politics that had been characterised by thin margins and difficult backbenches for the previous 10 years. He could govern freely. But what was it all really for? Why did he want it? For what point and purpose was he to obtain this office and level of power?

We all know who and what Jeremy Corbyn was. He never hid it and never really changed, even as the decades went by. It’s not difficult to imagine what a Corbyn premiership would have looked like, especially if he had a whippable majority the likes of which Johnson now enjoys. Whatever your view on the guy, he had principles and plans. We can imagine the country’s relationship with Israel would have changed significantly, rail companies would have started to move into public ownership, taxes would have risen, wealth taxes introduced, private schools abolished, the works.

But turning back to the chap who actually won – what does he stand for? What does he believe? And why does he want this job? When he got into Number 10, what was the driving vision, the force, the true goal of being there? What troubled him so greatly about the state of the nation that he was determined to lead it? What made him tick? Well, it’s difficult to pinpoint. But surely there are clues in his background and writing?

Most notoriously, he apparently penned two articles for the Telegraph before the referendum campaign kicked off – one in favour of Leave, one in favour of Remain. There are charitable readings of this, there are slightly less charitable ones. But the plain fact remains – he didn’t know.

In fairness, once he had chosen, he stuck to it, and continues to do so. But this is surely due more to political reality than any real conviction on the matter. He had readily and viciously attacked Britain’s membership of the EU in the past – but it suited him just fine back then, when it was all easy and hypothetical and grew his audience. Then it became easier to be its defender when he obtained office, so he did that. Does it bother him that much?

And then we come to the latest drive to ‘combat obesity’. I make no remark on the validity of this strategy, the requirement for it, nor even whether this is something that should or should not be happening. But again, less than a year into securing the top job, he shows all his previous utterances to be mere vapour.

One would have got the impression from his many columns and writings on the topic that Mr. Johnson was not just an advocate of the freedom of the individual, but positively rabid on the subject of so-called ‘nanny state’ intervention. Yet the second he takes a briefing from PHE on the matter, he’s a convert. What drives this? And how did that happen so fast?

As recently as July of 2019, he promised a review of so called ‘sin taxes’, vowing to end the “continuing creep of the nanny state”. He said the new taxes would “clobber those who can least afford it”.

Looking back to his column history, in 2004 he wrote a piece headlined “Face it: it’s all your own fat fault”. In it, he argued that “the more the state tries to take responsibility for the problem, the less soluble the problem will become”. Seems pretty straightforward. But years ago, right?

A couple of years later, he attacked Jamie Oliver for trying to introduce more nutritious food into schools. “If I was in charge I would get rid of Jamie Oliver and tell people to eat what they like”. Well now you are in charge, Mr Johnson. He allegedly also said of mothers who were pushing ‘unhealthy’ food through the railings of their children’s schools, “I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn’t they push pies through the railings?”

He also used his Telegraph column to rail against the ‘cack-brained’ EU plan to introduce compulsory child booster seats up to the age of 12, claiming they were “poking their noses into the back seats of our cars”. Compulsory face coverings anyone? No state intervention there, no siree.

Perhaps an inkling as to how he might deal with a national health emergency came in 2012 when he penned a column headlined “To swim, perchance to drown, is an undeniable human right”. He was responding to a Port of London decision to ban swimming in the Thames without a permit. The driving message was that risk taking is part of life and that people should be allowed to do so without the nanny state wagging it’s bony finger at us. Ahem…

His flowery language, as has been typical of Johnson over the years, didn’t hold back: “this river-swimming ban is of a piece with the namby-pamby, risk-averse, mollycoddled airbagged approach that is doing so much economic damage to Britain”. Does this sound like the kind of man who, if ever trusted with power during a pandemic, would impose a lockdown, restrict freedoms, ‘mollycoddle’ and ‘airbag’ a ‘namby-pamby’ and ‘risk-averse’ population? Again, I make no comment on those policies such as they are, but why did Johnson, of all people, impose them when he has always set himself up as a defender of liberty against the strong arm of the state? If he really believed the state does more damage than individuals free to make their own choices, why did he not stand on that principle when it really came to a head?

This is not an argument for or against lockdowns or masks or anything like that. It’s a point about what different leaders would do when faced with these challenges. Lockdown wasn’t inevitable, nor compulsory face coverings. Other options were, and still are, available. You may believe these things to be vital, but ask yourself: why would a libertarian styled leader take these routes?

It goes without saying that having had Covid-19, and had it badly, that that would have an effect on him. A close brush with mortality would be enough to scare anyone. I have no wish to take away the impact that would have had.

But principles long held are typically difficult to shake. Those previously mentioned ‘nanny state’ columns were written when he was hugely overweight. He is still overweight – so what else changed? At the moment it feels like the walls crumble just a little too easily. As though the typically pro-immigration PM might suddenly become a Farage-style drawbridge puller, or become a puritanical religious believer, or start believing that Churchill was really a racist and should be erased from our collective memory.

Is this uncharitable? Perhaps. It’s just hard to watch this without imagining that it would simply not have happened with any number of other leaders. Imagine for a second that Corbyn had become the PM and secured a healthy majority. The way Johnson has behaved since taking office is like Jeremy Corbyn agreeing with Netanyahu that the West Bank settlements should be annexed, introducing a tax cut for the wealthy, repealing the sugar tax and sending a birthday card to Donald Trump. Maybe even writing a leader for the Telegraph, reintroducing grammar schools, expanding Trident and outlawing industrial action. All completely anathema – but of course, we always knew who he was and what he thought, so that would all have been crazy and straight of the blue.

Yet with Johnson, we just nod along. As though this is always what he thought and that it’s ok to, not just slightly bend your principles for the purposes of realpolitik, but turn fully 180degrees without a second’s thought and act as though this is normal. What is an anti-nanny-stater doing talking about sugar taxes? How can he think nobody has noticed?

Maybe because in reality, it actually doesn’t matter any more. Because political tribalism is so deeply embedded that nobody is voting for anyone any more, just against the other guy. It’s easy to scoff and point at those who had hope in the guy, who voted for him because they took him at his word. It’s difficult to feel sympathy, especially when it has been obvious to many just what kind of politician he is. I mean him no ill will, I’m sure he is perfectly pleasant company and, by all accounts, a rather personable chap.

But relying on his principles and sense of duty, his sense of driving purpose? Sorry, but he has never provided any evidence that he should be trusted to maintain a certain set of holding principles against all weathers and all comers. So why would we expect him to do so when push came to shove?

So there we have it: Al Johnson, from rebellious child to Chief Nanny. Who’d’a thunk it?

Cartoons Without Drawings #1 – Stable Doors

Boris and Rishi make an expensive purchase…

Welcome to the first in a new series on this site – Cartoons Without Drawings. Political cartoons are great fun – meant to make a point without too obviously making the point. Saying something sharp and cutting without actually saying it. The beauty is the lack of words, the lack of explanation, the expectation that the viewer is intelligent and well informed enough to understand the subtleties and nuances of what is being portrayed without having to resort to such excrescences as verbal commentary.

So, Off the Party Line will now be starting a cartoon series – except I can’t draw. And apparently all cartoonists are being laid off left right and centre. So all of the above rules will, unfortunately, have to be scrapped. Soz.

In this series, I will simply describe what I think the cartoon would look like and you’ll have to use your imaginations to make it come to life. I really, REALLY can’t draw…

Boris’s Opulent Stable Door

The scene is a farm; we see a stable.

In the foreground, the stable door is wide open. It is being upgraded by several highly skilled craftspeople, including goldsmiths, lapidaries and carpenters. The door is spectacularly bejewelled, diamond encrusted, gold plated and structurally solid.

A man, probably the owner of the stable, has his hand out towards a blonde, tousel-haired, overweight man in an ill fitting suit, holding one of those comically long itemised bills that spills and rolls out onto the floor; the headline sum reads ‘£∞’. The posh, rather scruffy gentleman is gesturing to his associate, a well dressed mixed race man who is standing in front of a money printing machine, holding on to the handles of a wheelbarrow to collect the reams of paper cash falling down from the machine’s conveyor.

The machine is being furiously operated (perhaps by some hilariously old school crank/lever system) by a gentleman wearing a badge that says ‘Bank of England’.

Meanwhile, in the background, we see a trail of hoofprints in the mud going from the stable into the distance, leading up to a horse that is bolting. The horse is being ridden by an anthropomorphised virus particle.

Jeremy Corbyn is in the background holding a placard…something about Israel. Not sure why he’s there but…

The end.

Newsnight is playing a dangerous game

As a concerned friend, I beg you to see that this isn’t healthy

“Dominic Cummings broke the rules. The country can see that, and it’s shocked the government cannot. The longer ministers and the prime minister tell us that we worked within them, the more angry the response to this scandal is likely to be…He made those who struggled to keep to the rules feel like fools, and has allowed many more to assume they can now flout them.”

The words of Emily Maitlis, opening the BBC Newsnight programme for 26th May 2020. True? Brave? Wise? Advisable? Appropriate?

It wasn’t until this morning that I saw the clip. I, like many others, haven’t watched Newsnight for years now, and I have my own reasons. The reaction to this has been divided, but I confess mine was one of deep discomfort and unease. I tried to find the best gif for it, but so many just didn’t quite do it. The closest I got was the classic Picard head in hands one, but even that isn’t exactly there.

It’s hard to explain this without sounding like a partisan. If you are willing, up front, to be assured that I am not, then I hope you will hear me. To ‘the Left’ (as unhelpful a term as that usually is, it’s the best I have at this point), those who like, defend and cherish the BBC, I beg you to hear this. As a critical friend, I offer this up.

To start with, read the lines again. Can you hear them in the voice of, say, Owen Jones? Can you imagine Ash Sarkar saying it? Polly Toynbee? Sounds right to me. Now, can you imagine it from Allison Pearson? Daniel Hannan? Ok this isn’t a perfect science, but you take my point.

It certainly sounds like an opening monologue from a CNN news show, perhaps MSNBC, and of course if you flip the perspective, Fox News. American channels whose biases are upfront for you to see. Does it sound like something that should be being said on a supposedly neutral show, on a supposedly impartial channel? It was praised by the Independent and HuffPost, criticised by the Daily Mail and the Express. What does that tell you?

Whatever you may think about this tiresome Cummings story (and I made my point clearly, I think he broke the law), the facts and the interpretation of the events are disputed. While I think he broke the law and you may do too, others don’t. And frankly, it seems to be straight along party lines whether you believe it or you don’t, which makes this even more of an issue. It looks like Maitlis, and by extension Newsnight, and by definition the BBC, are taking a side in a partisan dispute. And that just isn’t sensible.

The current government has not hidden its disdain and dislike for the BBC. At the start of its administration, the higher levels of the Conservative Party have been making strong noises about what will happen when the BBC’s charter expires (which, barring some monumental collapse, will occur under a Conservative government). Cabinet Ministers don’t appear on the main news shows (outside crisis time). I am absolutely not saying that the BBC should be kowtowing to the incumbents, far from it. But again, I say as a concerned friend, is it wise to be so brazenly flouting the charter rules? Is it really in your interests, long term, for Newsnight to editorialise along your party line? Is is wise to claim, on a neutral platform, that you are ‘speaking for the nation’?

Honestly, if Maitlis had taken my exact, biased thoughts and spelled them out in a monologue, I would not have cheered. It’s not the platform we should be hearing it from. It felt like Maitlis thought she was taking a loaded gun and firing it at the government. That it was fool proof, that this would be a clear shot with little repercussion. What it looks like she has instead done, is load the gun and hand it straight to them. The government is under the heaviest sustained attack it has yet faced, and now they have an out – ‘look at that, blatant bias, against the rules’, blah blah blah.

Newsnight is supposed to be impartial, to report the news. The news yesterday was that Cummings had given his account, that some of the story checked out, some of it was fishy at best, and there was serious doubt over whether what he did could reasonably have been said to have broken the law. That was the story, it is straightforward enough and, frankly, looks awful for the government when reported straight. But that’s not what the monologue said. And opinion could absolutely have been given by invited guests

Emily Maitlis is a great presenter and interviewer. I don’t think I’ll ever forget the interview she did with Prince Andrew last year, in which she slowly and quietly handed him the opportunity to sink or swim, and he duly threw himself into the water without a life raft. It was meticulous, it was thorough, it was well prepared, it was even on his territory. The interview with the Prince was so powerful because she stayed neutral, because she didn’t get tribal or aggressive.

Newsnight is the flagship BBC television news programme, and Maitlis has been key to it for a number of years now. She is very, very good. But last night she made an error. Not only did she make an error, but the whole team did. I struggle to understand how that speech managed to get written, then past however many layers of editorial checks that are required for a programme like that without being remotely questioned. Even if you agreed with every word, I plead with you to see that this isn’t a good thing.

The BBC takes serious risks with its own future when these sorts of things happen. This isn’t the time to be flagrantly taking a line when its whole financial model, its very existence could be coming under serious pressure very soon. As somebody who would hate to see the BBC disappear, I’m worried. And these rather silly attempts to look tough and trend on Twitter could be very costly indeed.

Dominic Cummings staying in place is a good thing

The government now has to accept that its ‘rules’ are flexible

Let’s just get this out of the way straight away – I don’t like Dominic Cummings. I don’t like Al ‘Boris’ Johnson. I don’t like his so called ‘Conservative’ government. I hold no candle for any of these people and do not wish to provide them with any sort of defence.

The important thing that must come out of this affair is that the lockdown, which I believe was a mistake in the first place, gets harder and harder to justify every minute of every day. And Dominic Cummings keeping his role as senior adviser to the PM adds immensely to the pressure that is continuing to build on the government to release us.

From the start, the government and Johnson himself have placed conflicting expectations upon the British public. The first was that we needed to use our common sense to deal with this crisis. The second was that we must follow a huge set of rules and guidelines. Who can forget those sinister words coming out of the mouth of the otherwise pretty wet and feeble Health Secretary, Matt Hancock: “This advice is not a request – it is an instruction”.

The problem is that stringent rules are the opposite to common sense. Common sense invites interpretation within a broad sense of an issue – rules require adherence. You can’t instruct the police to arrest anybody for not using common sense. As I’ve said, I have felt for a long time that we have engaged in a foolish mistake in our response to this undeniably dangerous virus, nevertheless myself and my family have stuck to the rules. I may hate the current state of the law, but I still consider myself bound by it.

I keep the scientifically unjustified distance of 2m away from people when I go out for my once a week shop, I stay at home, I take some exercise in my local park, I don’t meet family and I don’t go to other people’s houses. I do these things because of the law, not because of common sense.

Because the truth of it is, the actions of Dominic Cummings can be justified using common sense. It sounds like a terrible situation and he made a decision that many people may have made. But it cannot be justified under the rules. And he helped to write them.

And this is precisely why it is important that he stays – because if he had resigned or been let go, that would have been a victory for the rules over all of us taking responsibility for our own health and wellbeing. But he stays, which means that we are now free to interpret the rules and the guidance as we see fit, and it intensifies the pressure on this maddening policy. It also shows Johnson for what he really is – nothing without Dom.

So the media will rage, people will thrash about on social media and Cummings will keep his job. Like any other day. But with any luck, this sorry episode (where there are no winners, just losers everywhere) will bring forward the day when we are set free to live our lives again.

And if we have to sacrifice the government, Johnson and Cummings to do so, all the better.

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.

“We shall close down the beaches…” Johnson is no Churchill

No message of hope and a panic driven response – hardly ‘Churchillian’

“We shall keep pushing back the end. We shall cower in our homes, we shall shut down the seas and oceans, we shall cower with reducing confidence and reducing strength, fearing the air, we shall shut down our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall close down the beaches, we shall quarantine the landing grounds, we shall send police into the fields and into the streets, we shall close down the hills; we shall surrender”

This edited version a section of one of the greatest and most famous orations, first delivered by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on the 4th June 1940, is my attempt to sum up where we are, several months into the great ‘lockdown’ of 2020. It seems apt to borrow a speech delivered by a man claimed as a hero to many, not just in Britain but around the world, to make this point. I do so because our current Prime Minister, Alexander Johnson, has not just spent his own life idolising the wartime leader, but has apparently had delusions of being his successor.

He has written a book about him, he attempts to speak like him, he is compared to him by his cheerleaders. And yet, dropped into a worldwide crisis just months into his premiership, these comparisons have come shattering down. Perhaps history will judge him differently, and who can really know at this point what the right course of action was (I have my doubts), but in the midst of the pandemic, he has demonstrably panicked. He has, in an alarmingly short amount of time, turned his back on everything he has always appeared to believe (if one can even suggest that Mr Johnson has ever believed in anything concrete).

I confess I have never had the same loathing and outright contempt for him that I am, apparently, societally obliged to. Sure he’s a sneaky, slippery character, but I see very little difference between him and his contemporaries in that regard. But those around him have at least felt they knew some definitive things about him.

He is apparently a lover of freedom, a believer in the rights of the individual, in minimal state intervention into the personal lives of citizens, a cool, calm head in a crisis, if not into the detail then at least able to inspire a team that is. How exactly does one square that with what is happening under his fledgling stewardship?

He has locked us all into our homes with minimum basic freedoms and confusing directives that make little sense, increased the powers of the state to quite incredible levels, asked the police to interfere with people going about their private business, developed technology that will spy on us all and essentially turned the economy into a socialist state. He implores us to use common sense, yet imposes stringent rules that leave little room to exercise it. Principles abandoned left, right and centre in an instant.

I have no doubt that Mr Johnson’s personal run in with the virus has had an impact on him. How could it not? On a personal level, I sympathise enormously. And I’m sure there will be cries of “well what else was he supposed to do? He’s only doing what must be done”. But this is simply not true. He isn’t the only world leader to have done what he did, but there were certainly other options, ones that would have aligned much more closely with his apparent ‘beliefs’.

But he has been frightened. He is now terrified about what is to come, may soon be coming to realise that he made a grave error and now cannot inspire confidence in the country. This is the job he has always wanted and he is realising far too late what it really means to lead Great Britain in times of peril.

Whatever you think of Johnson, and whatever you think of Churchill, one thing is for sure; on the current evidence, there is simply no comparison.

The ongoing hilarity of Corbyn’s Brexit position

No matter what he does (or doesn’t do) on Brexit, he can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters

As a non-partisan but politically engaged person, I cannot help but continue to actually laugh as this doublethink persists among the rank and file of the Corbynite wing of the Labour Party, and indeed, the country.

It is amazing how much he is allowed to get away with. It is astonishing how little accountability he faces from his supporters. Even if anyone in his own party dares to question him on Brexit, the people who are actually trying to hold him to account on the biggest issues of the day, they are denounced as ‘out to get him’, even by those who are die-hard Remainers.

I have tried to point this out before, but it apparently cuts no ice among the faithful apostles – Mr Corbyn is no ally of Remain. I really don’t mind people ignoring this point (as it makes the opposition to Britain leaving the EU all but toothless in the Commons), but never let it be said that you weren’t warned.

His performance in the original campaign was heavily questioned, but this didn’t stick to him because the acolytes defended him. This was hilarious at the time, and continues to be so. Defending a man against a charge that you yourself would have levelled at literally anyone else…yeh, definitely not a personality cult.

Imagine it had been Blair who had been all lukewarm on this issue. Or Brown. Or indeed, Cameron. They’d have been all over them like a rash – “Why didn’t you try harder? Why didn’t you give it everything? Where were you?!”

Anyway, that was then and this is now. But of course, not much has really changed has it?

Deep down (and probably in the privacy of the voting booth), he’s a fellow Leaver.

As thousands and thousands of people gathered on the second anniversary of the vote to protest against it, chants of “Where’s Jeremy Corbyn?” intermingled with the sourdough dust and diesel particulates of the warm London air. For whilst this was a large gathering of woke, right-on, middle class Leftists on a lovely sunny day in the nation’s capital, it wasn’t a Corbynite rally. This was the fierce, white hot rage of the correct (just less than) half of the nation.

Inevitably, the defence came. The great man had more important engagements. A quick scan of Twitter (shudder) told me exactly what I needed to know. He was in Palestinian refugee camps working with the displaced people there. Aha, gotcha. Argue with that one, you heartless Zionist.

Again – as laudable as that is, does it not worry you that that couldn’t have waited for perhaps one more day? He isn’t exactly known for shying away from demonstrating in London. This march was for one day on a well known anniversary – as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition and apparent ‘Remainer’, could this have been the priority for just one day? Forgive me if this sounds glib, but isn’t the point of a refugee camp that it isn’t a pop up tent that’s here today and gone tomorrow? Who could begrudge him going there…but on that day? The same people are crying foul over Boris Johnson’s failure to show for the Heathrow vote on Monday due to some apparent important foreign engagement – is it not the same thing?

Who knows. I’m not attacking the guy. He can do whatever he wants. If the visit to the camp was his priority, then more power to him. I quite like him (have defended him several times here and here) and admire his ability to not show any cards yet be defended for it. My point is the reaction of his followers. Nobody is ever disappointed in him. They spend so much time defending him from attacks that they seem to fail to see that he is not their ally on this crucial issue.

It’s all fine by me. Keep putting him up on a high pedestal and defend him from attacks. Deep down (and probably in the privacy of the voting booth), he’s a fellow Leaver.

Ooooooh Trojan Horse Cooooorbyn…