I was going to tell you about the litany of cock-ups, mistakes, illegal application of the law and so on, but there really are too many to choose from so I will look at the politics of the situation here in the UK. It really is developing into an almighty shambles and the phrase “couldn’t organise the provision of light refreshments in a brewery” springs to mind.
As I forecast a couple of weeks ago the blame game has started with briefings coming out faster than a winter flurry of snow – and the term snow job seems appropriate. Politicians and scientists alike are resurrecting their old wartime Anderson shelters and ducking for cover. Even the usually faceless civil servants are trying to be more faceless than usual.
The blame game has well and truly started.
Conflict between Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary (the most senior civil servant in the UK), and Boris Johnson over exit strategy has surfaced.
PHE (Public Health England) recommended no track and trace based on estimates of infections supplied by the scientists at Imperial College. Led of course by Professor Ferguson, they fed this to SAGE who advised the government who took the decision. Naturally, the government say they acted on the advice of the science, so the scientists are at fault. PHE say they advise but the government makes the decision. The government are briefing that it was Matt Hancock, the Secretary for Health, that made the decision. He is briefing that it is a cabinet decision. And so the circle gets bigger and more complex. In the end, there will be a committee of inquiry and it will report back in, say, 2024. In the meantime, the betting is on Matt Hancock being the first to go.
Meanwhile Boris Johnson has not made an appearance at the daily covid press updates. It could be that he is tired and recovering from his bout with the virus, he could be sharing duties as he is busy with the leadership of the state or he is avoiding the conferences so that when it all turns to custard he can’t be blamed as he wasn’t the visible face of the management of the crisis.
This atmosphere has been caused by spokespeople regurgitating the mantra “we are following the science”. The problem with this is that it accepts no counter argument and is compounded by the decision-making process being kept private. On Friday night Hannah Fry appeared on the TV programme “Have I Got News for You”. She is the Associate Professor in the Mathematics of Cities at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis at UCL (University College London) and commenting on the graphs and bar charts being thrown at the public was quoted as saying “most of them are wrong, many of them should come with trigger warnings and some of them make my eyes bleed in how wrong they are”.
Then it was revealed that the Chief Constable of Derbyshire had resigned. He was the one who approving the dyeing of a tourist attraction, use of drones to watch walkers and various over the top implementations of the guidelines. Somewhat mysteriously he resigned after a probe into his personal conduct.
There was a warning about the economy from the Daily Mail business writer Alex Brummer, a man who understands the national finances better than most. He said last week:
The hugely expensive decision to turn an emergency measure, designed to see UK Plc through the peak of Covid-19, into a commitment that could stretch to six months suggests a public health crisis and economic meltdown far worse than first imagined.
My own feelings are that this will be even worse as once the furlough system ends businesses will not re-employ staff permanently but will lay them off. Their markets will have disappeared. The public are scared after the Government’s sloganising and will be reluctant to return to work until the furlough ends, by which time it may be too late.
I have just watched the daily press conference on the BBC delivered by Grant Shapps and the deputy medical officer, Jenny Harries. The main thrust of the questions was concentrated on the behaviour of Dominic Cummings, the senior advisor at Downing Street. In late March he drove his wife (who had tested COVID-19 positive) and his 4-year-old son to his elderly parents’ home in Durham, 250 miles away. The excuse is that he could do this to protect his child, in apparent contradiction of the interpretation put on the guidelines by the majority of the population. The child was to be in the care of his sister in a separate house on his parents’ estate. Even if his excuse was valid then what cognisance was taken of the fact that by merely being elderly, his parents were classified as high risk and thus possibly enduring a higher exposure to risk because of his actions?
Downing Street says that Cummings was not displaying symptoms when he drove North, and it was only his wife who had symptoms. They followed this by stating that it was later that Cummings displayed symptoms. Unfortunately, his wife, who is a writer for the Spectator magazine, wrote in that publication that Cummings first presented with symptoms the day after hers appeared. The opposition parties have called for his resignation and although the cabinet has presented a united front there are rumblings against both Cummings and Boris Johnson for not getting a grip on things.
The great and the good are running all over the place faster than a MS105 muck spreader in full flow. To their credit, the journalists have tried to get a timeline on events and have been fobbed off by Grant Shapps, the medical officers and Downing Street. They are persisting and the answers will come in due course. I am aware of the law of libel and so will refrain from using words such as lying, insincere, mendacious, duplicitous, deceitful and deceptive. I will, however, say that there are inconsistencies in the statements from the parties concerned that need validation and reconciliation.
The government gave the impression that Cummings was still in London during the period in question and as a result was not questioned further about his illness by the press.
I think I am allowed to use words such as hypocrisy, hubris, confused, disconnected and arrogance, but just to make sure, I won’t use any and leave the readers to form their own opinion.
I have just managed to catch up with the situation in New Zealand and with the replacement of Simon Bridges as leader of the National Party. I am not confident in Todd Muller, but as there are few reports about him in the UK, I find it hard to form a judgement. The one thing people tend to forget about politics is that it is all about numbers and power. On the latest polls it looks as though Labour will be able to form a government on its own. This would prove to be a disaster for New Zealand, and it would give them the opportunity to pass whatever legislation they think fit. It would be the economic ruin of New Zealand for a decade. They would hit the main economic industries and generators of the country’s wealth. As usual they would engage in a redistribution of wealth before they generated the wealth.
The National Party must try and restrict Labour to less than 50% of the vote or the country will go down the pan at a rapid rate of knots. All the economic indicators suggest that disaster is on its way and will only be made worse by Labour being in full control.
We have to recognise that politics is the pursuit of power and without power, nothing can be achieved (or conversely, destroyed). National has to get a message that resonates with the electorate and display front line politicians that also appeal to the electorate. Tony Blair recognised this and after focus groups and polls, isolated what appealed to the electorate. Where this conflicted with traditional labour views he wasn’t afraid to adjust his policies in order to win power. Similarly, Boris Johnson gained success in the labour heartlands of the working class north because he offered the electorate there a viable alternative that cashed in on the feeling of the electorate that Labour had been taking them for granted and had neglected them.
I have to stress that I am only going on impressions from afar but I see only one route to power for National. That is a total economic and social disaster happening before the election. I do not see that National have the combination of policies, personnel and the understanding of what appeals to the electorate. They are fixated on a leftish globalisation Sino-oriented view of the country. They are blinkered in their approach to MMP and have an unwillingness to work WITH partners to secure at least a share of power in a coalition. They have always wanted to control other minor parties as they think that it is their divine right to rule.
As I said, these are only my observations from afar based on limited knowledge, but it is just politics 101 – numbers, power and how do you get them to coincide? They must focus on what has to be done to gain power, never mind the traditional message or the new message of wet National. What do the electorate want at the election? You can always adjust policies once in power and you have to react to changing circumstances.
The only hope then is an economic catastrophe and I don’t think that this will come in time for National. Once Labour has full control of the country it will decline even faster as their social policies suck even more cash out of the economy.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.