Goodnews Johnson

 

From 2010 to 2015 the President of Nigeria was His Excellency Goodluck Johnson .  Presumably "Goodluck" is a literal translation of a first name common in Nigerian culture, just as my name, Peter, is a translation of Rock, and Irene means peace, and probably originally given in the hope that the child will be endowed with some of the finer aspects of the name.

Following that reasoning it would have been appropriate to give the name "Goodnews" to  our Prime Minster, Alexander* Johnson, since he has the undoubted  gift of proclaiming Good News in all sorts of circumstances ("word beating,"  "oven ready" et al) even when they turn out to be not good at all, or even moderately average.

 From his earliest days as prime minister Johnson has been very reluctant to announce bad news, even  when  it was highly desirable to do so promptly.  Hence our severance from the EU must  go ahead at the end of this year regardless of the pandemic; he could shake hands with hospital workers in spite of  of warnings not to; Goodwood and an international rugby union game and accompanying crowds could go ahead; the March lockdown was far too late and cost cost 20 000 lives; all would be back to normal  by Christmas.

In fact it is far from normal and has  seen seen to be so for some time, but Johnson hadn't the courage to decree that multi-family celebrations should be abandoned.  No, up to three families could still meet together for five full days.  When the "science" insisted that this was bound to cause pronounced increases in infections, hospitalisations and deaths, until yesterday this advice still remained in force.

Mr Johnson has all the characteristic of a supply teacher who has lost control of the class and appeals to their  better natures.  This is what you're allowed to do, but please don't do it.

At last, from yesterday,  travel and multi-family meetings are banned in a new Tier Four, and mixing in other area is reduced to just the one day.

Fortunately I believe "the British people" (a phrase of which Johnson is very fond) have more sense than an unruly class of adolescents, and the overwhelming majority of us  will  stick to "one family only" cerebrations,  a small sacrifice to make in order to enable more of us to survive to next Christmas and well beyond.

 

" Johnson has three given names, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel,   but I understand the first,  or its diminutive "Al," is the one the family and friends use.  "Boris" for public use is a curious pretension.

 

On not BEing PREPARED

 

In October 2016, a few weeks after David Cameron walked away and Theresa May our became Prime Minister, the government ran an exercise to test Britain's preparedness to deal with a pandemic.   

The findings were that we were woefully unprepared.

The exercise, called Cygnus, made six recommendations, relating to:

1. Capacity; such as availability of ICU beds, PPE etc:
2. Planning; delegation and regional co-ordination etc:
3. Education; what to do about schools, colleges and universities:
4. Care homes - yes, they were thought about:
5. Communications:
6. Social distancing.
   

The report was not published at the time and efforts to gain access to it have produced only heavily redacted versions.

The report was shelved and the recommendations largely ignored.  Though at the time related to influenza, they are, of course highly relevant to dealing with the Covid-19 or any other pandemic.

 Such details as are available can be found here:

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/six-crucial-pandemic-lessons-government-ignored/

 Note, the Daily Torygraph.  This blog uses varied sources.

In his Reith Lecture this morning, Mark Carney, immediate ex-Governor of the Bank of England commented, if I heard him correctly, that the cost of implementation of the recommendations would have been equivalent to two days of lockdown.  That's the monetary cost.  

The cost in lives is estimated to have been at least 20 000

 Note that this same political party, with its cheese-paring polices of cutting public expenditure and thus running down the state, including the health services, were in charge at the time, have been ever since, and will probably be for the next four years.

 Pity Mrs May wasn't in the Girl Guides and that Boris Johnson frittered away his youth in the Bullingdon Club rather than the Boy Scouts. 

 

 

Humans need rights

 

It must be a good ten years ago that one of my hiking companions, a staunch Conservative, said he was getting fed up hearing about people claiming their human rights.  To say I was astonished is putting it mildly.  I had thought that everybody accepted respect for human rights: that this was a given in a civilised democracy, just as all Americans are supposed do believe in motherhood and apple pie.

 I now realise that my companion was probably absorbing drip-feed from his favoured newspaper source, the Daily Mail. His and our  problem is that for most of we comfortable British, only very rarely does some misfortune affect us that requires us to appeal to our human rights.  

This, however, is not true of those who, for one reason or another, are pushed to the margins of society.  These include the disabled, the homeless, many of those relying on social security payments, all prisoners and particularly those  who die in custody, migrants, asylum seekers, those claiming they are victims of rape, our soldiers in wars and the enemies they face -  even terrorists.

Yesterday, 10th December, was World Human Rights Day because the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  on that date in 1948.

The Labour Government in 1998 introduced the Human Rights Bill in the UK, which became operative in 2000.  Our present government is using this as an excuse for reviewing the "effectiveness" of the Act.

In particular the are concerned with the increasing use of Judicial Review, which allows the courts to decide whether or not such and such an act of the government is actually legal.  

Recent examples have been the attempt by the May Government to implement  Article 50 for leaving the EU without reference to parliament (it wasn't) and  the prorogation of parliament to "get Brexit done" without their scrutiny (that wasn't either, leading the the Daily Mail to describe the judges as "enemies of the people.")

 That the government (then the Crown) should obey the law was one of the principles of Magna Carta, first passed in 1215, on which matter we probably really were then world leaders.

 Attempts  to water down the Act diminishes us on the world stage and endangers some our  most vulnerable people.  These attempts  should be resisted vigorously.  

Those who would like to help should join  Liberty.

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/contact-us/

 

You can do so for as little as £1 per month.

 

To vote or not to vote . . .

 The final gallop towards a Brexit deal is following the pattern many of us have been predicting for a couple of years or more.  Those charged with the negotiations are at loggerheads.  We are told that the fault lies with the EU who are intransigent and, indeed introduce last minute additional demands to  frustrate the doughty British. 

Bold Johnson charges in at the eleventh hour to fix a deal.  

 We can expect this to be announced within the next couple of weeks.  Whatever it is will be hailed as a triumph.  The Tory press will laud it to the skies, overlooking the fact that the UK will have diluted if not ignored most of its so-called red lines.

The deal will be lean because it is impossible to achieve what was promised: "All the benefits of membership without being members."  

The question then arises: how should the opposition parties vote on the deal?

Labour, poor things, are already locked in an unproductive squabble.  Sir Keir Starmer seems anxious  to support the deal.  He presumably has his eye on the former "red wall" areas  which are assumed  to have deserted Labour because they, the "Northern left behind," were predominantly pro-Brexit and regraded Labour, quite accurately, as  being less than enthusiastic about staying in the EU - instead  sitting on the fence. Starmer thinks that supporting the deal will re-assert Labour's dedication to the so-called "will of the people."  

Pro EU Labour MPs, by far the majority, feel they could not possibly support a deal which will be so damaging to the British people, though some take the pragmatic view that any deal, however lean, will be less damaging than no deal. Their spokesperson Rachel Reeves plays for time, saying that the party should not decide until the contents of the deal are known.  Their former leader Neil Kinnock calls on the party to abstain.

A similar dilemma faces the tiny band of Liberal Democrats in the Commons.  As a party we  could vote for the deal on the grounds that it is better than no-deal.  We could vote against it on the grounds that it is nowhere near as advantageous to the UK as the deal we had when we were in the EU. On the other hand, voting against the deal, if sufficient others support this line, leads to no-deal which is even worse.

Better to abstain.

 In truth, however the opposite parties vote  will have few practical consequences, since the decision is unlikely to be uppermost in voters' minds when the next election comes in 2024.  Things will have moved on.

Nevertheless I believe it is important for all the opposition  parties, including the national parties and Greens, to abstain.  Indeed, if Labour could be persuaded, it would be better for all the opposition parties not even turn  up for the debate.  Let the Tories fight it out among themselves.

It is important to nail this debacle entirely on the Conservatives.  It is their shambles.  They must be seen to own it.  Starmer's ploy of voting in favour means that Labour can be forced to share the responsibility.

It was never in the national interest to hold a referendum on EU membership.  There was, until the late noughties, no popular call for it.  In spite of the efforts of the Euro-sceptics and their supportive press, opinion surveys showed that EU membership came about 16th in the order of voters' concerns, way behind the top concerns of employment, education and the health and care  services.

The Conservative party itself  did, however, have a problem, in that their votes were haemorrhaging to the maverick UKIP party led by the populist Nigel Farage.  So Prime Minister Cameron made a promise that he did not expect to keep: that if the Conservatives won the 2015 election there would be a referendum.  He did not expect to keep the promise becasue he did not expect an over-all majority, so would have to continue to rely on the Liberal Democrats, who would veto the idea.

Alas that didn't happen and so Cameron was forced to keep his promise.  The result was that in a referendum without the usual safeguards for a critical decision,an underwhelming 37% of a highly restricted electorate, fed on lies  and distortions amplified by illegal expenditure voted to leave, whilst 34% voted to remain and 27% didn't bother to vote at all.

This 37% was then magnified as "the will of the people," efforts to minimise the damage by remaining in the customs union and single market, options  which were put forward by the Leave campaign itself, were abandoned, Prime Minister Theresa May chose to demonstrate her macho decisiveness by triggering  Article 50  before her government had any idea of what they actually wished to achieve, the die-hard Europe Research Group  with their poster-boy Jacob Rees Mogg made the running from there on, and so we approach the pending national self harm.

The Tories should be made to own it and seen to own it.

Empty politics

 Today's debate and vote in the Commons on the imposition of the Three Tier  grades of lockdown for the country until the five day Christmas break illustrates the emptiness of our political system.

The debate and vote is taking place only because dissatisfied MPs have become resentful of the Downing Street clique's governing by fiat and feel, quite rightly, that Parliament should have a say.

Labour at the moment is promising to abstain on the vote because, although they are  vaguely in favour of the lockdown, they feel that the government is giving  insufficient financial compensation for the businesses forced to close or having their functions severely limited by the more stringent limits in Tiers 2 and 3.

The government is cementing its "catch up" reputation by trying to buy off its rebels, as usual at the  the last minute, by offering increases in compensation.  Whilst these are welcome they are unlikely to mollify the Tory rebels, whose primary reason for opposing the measures appears to be  their libertarian belief that the government is exceeding the limits of its right to interfere with individual behaviour.

With respect to Labour's abstention, No 10 has issued this feeble bleat:

“Keir Starmer is playing politics in the middle of a global pandemic instead of working with the government to find a way through this difficult time for the British people. We will continue to engage, listen and work with MPs who have concerns.”  

The truth is that the government has only itself to blame for Labour's operation of the political system as it stands. Sir Keir Starmer has offered time and again to work with the government in some sort of co-operative committee, as he has explained at Question Time.  His offers have been ignored or rejected.  Instead again and again Mr Johnson concludes his Question Time session like a spoilt child with a petulant grumble that "he" (that is Starmer) should be supporting  him rather than criticising.

 These remind us of a similar pleas from president Trump for  suburban housewives to "love me."

However, we are where we are and I believe the priority of all the parties should be to act and vote in such away that as many of us  as possible  survive not just to this Christmas  but to next year's and many more after that.  

To that end the entire political establishment should vote for  the measures, inadequate as they are.

An abstention or vote against provides an excuse for  the less responsible in society (and the Tory libertarians) to ignore the restrictions on the grounds that "My party didn't vote for them so why should I observe them?"

Hence the title of this post.  It is our adversarial political system which has prevented a  co-operative approach to dealing with the most dangerous situation we have faced since the Second World War.   

 All-party co-operation could have generated  the trust that is so essential in dealing with a situation requiring so much self-restraint.  It is now too late for that, so the parties should unite to support the second best option.

No change in the Tories' spots

 

That’s an advertisement on TV by an insurance company that promises “not to make a drama our of a crisis.”

With yesterday’s spending review, and the reporting of it by their supporting media, our government seem determined to do the opposite.  We are warned of “the biggest UK slump in 300 years” and there is much  talk of “hard decisions “ and “tough choices.”

Let’s be clear.

There is a public health crisis. It is very serious.  Over 50 000 people have died because of it.  We need to make every possible personal sacrifice (such as having a nuclear family Christmas, minimising social mixing and travel, isolating ourselves  if we have been in contact with someone with the virus, etc) to help contain it.

There is no economic crisis.

True, there has had to be, and will continue to be, extra public expenditure both to deal with the crisis (buying PPE, setting up a Test and Trace system, caring for those infected) and compensating those  whose normal economic activity has had to be suspended.  It is a shame that neither has been done very efficiently - indeed billions of pound have been wasted and  had the government  responsible been even marginally to the left there would have been uproar.

However, the rise in public debt to around 100% of national income (the debt to GDP ratio) is probably inevitable.

And such a level debt is perfectly manageable, as explained in an earlier post. 

It is not a crisis.

In 1945, at the end of the war, the government’s debt was not 100% of GDP but more like two and a half times GDP - around 250%.

It remained at above 100% until 1963.

In that period successive governments introduced free milk for all schoolchildren, universal secondary education with  new schools to facilitate it; provided free higher education along with maintenance grants; created the National Health Service (which included free dentistry );  took  key industries such as the railways, water, electricity, and gas into public ownership  and compensated the previous owners; increased the capacity of the building industry to build  300 000 houses per year, mostly for affordable rents; introduced family allowances; and still paid  off 60% of the debt. 

 

Even while the debt level was around 100% the 1960s were great fun, as already explained in that  earlier post.  It was the time of “swinging Britain,.” Even though Philip Larkin may have exaggerated its potency:

  Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

 - it was a good time to be alive

But not for the first time, the Conservative government now puts into practice the dictum attributed to Winston Churchill;  “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” 

Back in 2008/9, when we had a world financial crisis, as soon as the Tories got hold of the government in 2010 they put the brakes on the Brown/Darling creative response which had started a recovery and introduced “austerity” in order to implement their dogma of a smaller, less caring , state. 

They managed to convince the public that his was necessary, so that, while those  who  caused of the financial crisis got off scot free the poorest in our society paid the price.

Now that we have a genuine, and expensive, public health crisis, the talk of “difficult  decisions” and “hard economic choices” is being bandied around to soften us up for the next stage of the process.

Once again it is the poorest who will be expected to pay the price.  The public service pay freeze will affect some of the lowest paid workers who have actually most exposed to the dangers of the virus and kept the health and hygiene service going.  The £20 extra for Universal credit is to be discontinued.  Both of these, and other cuts , will take demand out of the economy just a the time when it is most needed to generate a revival. The decision to cut our Oversees Aid Budget by over £4bn at the very time when the poorest in the world need help most is a source of both self harm and national shame.

 It is not a mater of that, like the Bourbons, the Tories have learned nothing from their past experiences.  They know exactly what they are doing: using the public expenditure necessary to deal with a genuine health crisis to further their aim of an even more minimalist state, isolated from the EU, in which the haves flourish and the weakest go to the wall. 

 

 

 

cf Wartime Christmases

 I was only seven years old when the Second World War ended in 1945 so my memories are probably more attuned to the immediate post-war years than the war years themselves.  Nevertheless I think they make a valuable comparison to what so many of our population feel is their entitlement today.

I can recall no great family gatherings on Christmas Day.  My father had four brothers and two sisters, my mother one brother, all living within easy reach. All but the two sisters had families.  However our Christmas Day was very much a matter of the nuclear family, though that included my maternal grandmother, who was widowed and lived with us.

 We did not have turkey for dinner, or chicken, which was still a luxury food.  Instead, we had pork, which my father would praise as "like a bit of chicken."  I have no recollection of Christmas crackers.  Maybe they weren't available, or maybe my parents regarded them as a frivolous  luxury.

 There were presents, and they must have been substantial, or at least bulky, since my sister and I both hung up pillow cases rather than stockings for Santa Claus to fill.  The prized gift was still reckoned to be the orange at the bottom of the sack.

 There wasn't a lot of time to gloat over the contents of the sack on Christmas Morning as I was a member of the Church Choir  and our fist job was  sing carols round the wards of the local hospital.

 Our choir master was called Mr Pride. However the hospital matron  caused  us all to giggle by referring to him as Mr Proudlove.  This error was never corrected over the years.  Maybe it was meant to be a joke.

 After our stint at the hospital we ran the mile or so down the hill to Church for the major morning service at 10.45.  This was the fourth of the day. There would have been a Midnight Mass but we choirboys didn't sing at that.  The choir men would have, and I suppose Mr Pride would have played the organ.  (I now realise what a hero he was.)  There would have  been a said Communion at 8 o'clock and a Sung Communion at 09.15.  Who played the organ for that I can't remember.  The singing was supported by a small group of ladies.

 Our 11.15 service was a "double."  We first sang Matins up to and including the collects, then segued seamlessly into a full Choral Communion.  Then it was home for the pork dinner with apple sauce  followed by Christmas Pudding (bought not home-made).

 I presume there was a Christmas Day radio broadcast by the King but I can't recall our ever tuning in to it.  Time at last for toys. If Christmas Day happened  on a Sunday it would be back to Church for Evensong at 06.30

Every  Boxing Day Batley played Dewsbury in the local Rugby League Derby,  though I don't suppose that actually continued during the war. My father used to take me in later years and I disappointed him by never becoming a fan.

 By writing this I'm not trying to emulate Monte Python and the famous competition as to who had the most deprived upbringing, but  merely to provide a contrast to present  expectations.  

My family Christmas was luxurious compared with those whose fathers were in the forces.  Mine was not "called up,"  partly because he was too old, and also because as  spinner in a woollen mill his occupation was "reserved."  We in the Heavy Woollen District specialised in making the heavy cloth for the uniforms of the armed forces.  (In the Crimean War we made them for both sides).  

But thousands of children didn't see their fathers for up to five years.  Similarly for many sweethearts and wives, and parents who didn't see their sons and daughters. Contact of a sort was maintained by the BBC "Home Service" which linked up with "Forces Radio" with "Two Way Family favourites."

It's worth also remembering that the Christmas Holiday for workers was just two days (one I believe in Scotland, because New Year's Day was also a holiday for them, though it wasn't in England  until 1974.) It is a measure of the economic progress we have made that we now regard the entire Christmas to New Year period as "the holiday" and some even stretch it to a fortnight.

However, the present pandemic is by far and away the most serious crisis mainland UK has experienced since 1945.  

 Prime Minister Johnson likes wartime analogies.  This week we've already had "the scientific cavalry" and "a final push".  There can be no doubt that if the lockdown rules are relaxed over the two days of Christmas (or five?) this will cause an increase in infections.  The ones who become carriers may not suffer seriously but some will inevitably pass the disease on to the more vulnerable who will.  This will equally inevitably lead to a post-Christmas spike in serious illnesses and deaths, and a further strain on the NHS staff who are already close to exhaustion.

So It is no great sacrifice to ask us, for this year only, to abandon our collective winter "knees-up" and substitute a quieter nuclear family observance instead.  The aim should be that as many of us as possible survive for Christmas next year.

Will our government have the courage to take this decision, or will they yet again, be guided not by "the science" but their focus groups?