Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Britain’s COVID-19 death toll is moving remorselessly north of 10,000 – and almost included Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Most of us have dutifully complied with restrictions on our liberties and kept our heads for almost a month. Some of the media haven’t.
We’ve had a sensationalist story about emergency funds for MPs and their staff working remotely on an avalanche of complex cases. The funding was initiated by the independent body that supervises parliamentary payments, and MPs are required to justify any claims. However, gullible observers turned that into MPs filling their boots, leading to a barrage of angry emails and tweets.
One journalist demanded the government apologise for failing to provide enough personal protection equipment (PPE) for doctors and nurses. Home Secretary Priti Patel lamely replied she was sorry if people thought there had been failings. She should have said there would be a time and place for apologies but the priority now is getting the kit delivered.
It is unreasonable to expect politicians to take a punishment beating for decisions and assumptions made and held in good faith on their watch and by previous ministers and governments.
All prior presumptions and policies must be mercilessly and microscopically scrutinised when all this is over, but grandstanding, finger-wagging, and pointless scoops have no benefit now.
A future inquiry will examine the reasons for delaying the lockdown and, for instance, allowing hundreds of thousands to attend a major horse racing event beforehand.
However, we do have the right to understand any delays and up the pressure to deliver. Alastair Campbell, who was Tony Blair’s spin doctor, has criticised journalists for failing to persistently probe ministers on their pledges to deliver testing, ventilators, and protection equipment.
“No minister should be able to get past a microphone without being probed on where they are with that. It is a total failure of journalism that this is not happening,” Campbell opined.
Equally, passionate straight-talking in real time helps ensure we all understand the grim reality of the lockdown for many. Things look very different from a suburban garden than a small high-rise flat.
Full marks to Emily Maitlis, anchor of the BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme, whose rare opening monologue pointed out “the disease is not a great leveller, the consequences of which everyone, rich or poor, suffers the same.”
She highlighted the plight of more exposed low paid and manual workers who are more likely to catch the disease, that “this is a health issue with huge ramifications for social welfare and it’s a welfare issue with huge ramifications for public health,” and asked what kind of social settlement might be needed to stop inequality becoming even more stark.
It’s also time for more parliamentary accountability over ministers. It would be unwise to allow 650 MPs, let alone older and more vulnerable Lords, to criss-cross the country every week to closely congregate in a crowded chamber – but it could be done remotely. The Scottish parliament has pioneered virtual question times, as have select committees at Westminster.
The prime minister’s departure from hospital cheered even many who normally agree with George Orwell that England is “a family with the wrong members in control.” Boris Johnson seemed chipper in his first video appearance, but will be convalescing for some time.
Yet, the government must soon make major decisions about an exit strategy from the lockdown with many views about its timing and speed, as well as keeping public consent.
Ironically, the government’s initial successes make it more difficult. Ministers expected less compliance and now fear that people will be too worried to send their kids back to school and return to work themselves.
But ministers acted quickly when they recognised the National Health Service (NHS) could be swamped. They now seem to have created more surge capacity than needed. But better to be safe than sorry.
The trouble is government messages about staying at home and protecting the NHS mean some shied away from seeking help for other deadly diseases and the economy is weaker than it could have been.
Mass unemployment also kills, and there are trade-offs between lives and livelihoods as well as physical and mental health. The sooner we can safely modify or end the lockdown the less economic and health damage there will be.
Ministers are reportedly looking at the first bank holiday in early May, which also marks the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe, or the second public holiday at the end of May.
Ministers are reluctant to encourage speculation before they have amassed enough reliable data to judge. Much hangs on securing reliable tests to see if people have the disease and a second test to identify those who have had it and are immune. Reports of secondary infections in South Korea are very disturbing.
The experience of other countries is part of the study as we reflect on positive lessons from often women-led countries such as New Zealand and Germany. I would add that the Kurdistan Region deserves praise for being fleet of foot.
Ministers also fear that mixed signals could dilute public discipline and morale. Relaxing the lockdown for millions of anxious people requires strong leadership and cross-party unity. I hope Boris Johnson will be back in the saddle soon and works closely with Labour leader Keir Starmer.
The well-timed lifting of the lockdown will be a momentous moment in a miserable year.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) and a Fellow of Soran University. He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment