View from the UK: When’s the right time to lift the lockdown?
In the good old days, before COVID-19, a new Kurdish barber in my south London suburb took my request for a short haircut a little too literally. Since I’ve been unable to get a haircut since the lockdown began, that small misunderstanding seems to have worked in my favour.
Whether it’s a haircut we’re after, a nail appointment, or a chance to see friends and relatives, we are all fixated on just how long this lockdown is going to last – as surely are the local Kurdish barbers and baristas with whom I used to exchange a cheery “choni bash”.
Finding an exit strategy is contentious and complex because no one will be entirely safe without a vaccine or cure. Newspapers are speculating about options for a phased relaxation over several months and the longer term cocooning of the old and vulnerable.
The government, however, is cautious about loosening the lockdown as it balances infection and death rates with economic activity.
The letters V, L, U, and W explain the possibilities. V is how a graph would show a quick bounce back. U is a slower version of recovery. L is a sharp drop and then a longer and lower level of economic activity. W signifies a second surge of cases, leading to the reintroduction of restrictions and more economic harm.
The government also has to juggle obedience and possible disaffection. I am not marooned in a tower block or a house without a garden, but occasionally fall into what some call the hell zone of despondency.
Media coverage and political leadership are crucial to reassuring the public and maintaining their consent for restrictions. The media is full of good news reporting and analysis but also some sensationalist “gotcha” journalism about past mistakes and current failures.
I am wary of wonderful hindsight. One national newspaper has accused the government of being slow on the uptake, criticizing the prime minister for failing to chair five meetings of the co-ordinating committee on the coronavirus, although that can be seen as fairly normal at that time.
Complaining about the media is like sailors moaning about the sea. The relationship between journalists and politicians is often compared to that between a dog and a lamp post. But the government has released long rebuttals about past failings, which are best dealt with in detail when the emergency is over. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-ft-article-and-twitter-thread-by-peter-foster
Ministers must know that all past assumptions and actions will be ruthlessly and forensically examined in due course and their reputations are on the line. However, a focus on the past wastes time and time will tell how many charges hold water.
But the swirl may have forced ministers to make promises they cannot keep with the best will in the world. The pressure for more testing may have encouraged the pledge of 100,000 daily tests by the end of this month, but it may prove impossible. The policy is now criticised by some who say it cannot be done and should not have been made.
Ministers still need to be pressured to find the resources and to understand neglected concerns in the here and now.
The daily media conferences at Downing Street have been a mixed bag but we could now have better accountability in parliament. It was in recess for much of the lockdown and returns this week in a hybrid form with 50 MPs, suitably distanced in the chamber, and 70 connected online for questions and statements.
A recent online session of the Health Select Committee showed how MPs are often better placed to ask searching questions because parliament’s prime directive is that ministers tell the truth or can be hauled over the coals if they knowingly lie.
Ordinarily, opposition MPs seek to catch ministers out and destabilise them, but the main opposition says it is not interested in party political games, which would rebound on them in any case.
My non-partisan distillation of the public mood from my suburban eerie is that it is angry, stoic, febrile and sometimes immune to the reality that any course of action carries risks. Difficult decisions require government getting a firmer grip and showing leadership that allows the public to keep buying into continuing hardships.
I don’t know when Boris Johnson will be well enough to return to the frontline but he and the new Labour leader Keir Starmer have major roles to play in steadying frayed nerves and framing a strategy for co-existing with the coronavirus until it is defeated.
Former prime minister Tony Blair says the government should be reconfigured to fight this pandemic. A start has been made by appointing an experienced trouble-shooter to source personal protection equipment.
Some sort of temporary national government or greater co-ordination seems urgent in these deeply abnormal times when the term “unprecedented” is used an unprecedented number of times but is quite unequal to the uniqueness of the times.
After COVID-19, the hair cut awaiting us will be an economic short back and sides as we work out how to pay for the largesse we have rightly thrown at our workers and businesses. All our lives have been changed and the economic, social, and political ramifications will echo for years to come.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), a Fellow of Soran University, and Deputy Chair of the European Technology and Training Centre in Erbil. 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.