A Fresh Approach

Theo normally writes on this blog, but today Colin Stokes, who grew up in the Second World War and its aftermath, gives his thoughts on Covid-19, and whether a National Government is the way forward.

The Problem

Here we are in the centre of a pandemic; something I never thought would write. Through the years we have somehow manged countless worrying situations – most of which have been human-made: banks going bust; 3-day week; interest rates at over 15%; business shut downs; industrial change; increases in poverty, and so on.

But this time the situation is different. It is nature fighting back against the human world, a world failing to realise that it was built by destroying nature. This is a situation being spread by travel – air and sea – spread by crowds together, spread by a simple cough.

The nearest I can remember witnessing anything like this was when we had a world war. But then that was man-made as well, and it was a world problem, not a UK problem or a family problem. We were all involved in the fight then, as now, but there was much less responsibility then. We couldn't change the war ourselves. This time even that is different. If we don't self-isolate, we could end a life.

The British Solution?

So this is a new situation. We are challenged by it, but so are our leaders. How should they respond? What does Boris Johnson do?

We must remember that in all great historical crises there's never a magic map of what to do. It seems like there should be, but each problem is different and requires unique responses. This time is no different. There is no easy answer. But history may help.

Our political system is set up to be constantly confrontational; the opposition must argue, debate and question against the government, who in turn fight back. It is not set up to deal with a problem that requires unity - a pandemic, least of all. So how do we overcome the lack of compromise, and forge a united parliament?

At the top of all the British political parties are well-meaning individuals with great intellectual capacity. Of course, you may not agree with many, or maybe none, of them. But the reality is they are our leaders. Voted in, and responsible. They must take charge. Yet the current system means that either side can only ever command about half of the country. Half of the brains and backing are out of reach.

This cannot stand. In the last world crisis the UK faced, it was Labour who, in tandem with Churchill, created a 'government of national unity'. A government where all parties worked together, took up cabinet posts together, and abstained from fighting each other in favour of a greater goal. Winston Churchill is (rightly) remembered as the front-man, but it was a team which saved us from the Nazis.

For instance, in the first war cabinet were Conservatives Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, with Labour MPs Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood. It was these key figures who first set the country on its path to victory.

And never since has the call been so strong for a united front, drawing from all the depth of British public service. Imagine Labour stalwarts such as Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper working alongside Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove, pooling their experience and dedication, creating a consensus to respond to this crisis. Instead, we have Corbyn on the sidelines, watching, as the government implements the exact policies he promised in the 2019 election.

The wartime coalition locked in the critics looking for political gain, and meant all those in Westminster and Whitehall were focused on a common goal: victory. Every voter was represented. Every opinion was heard. 100% of the effort was aimed at solving the problem.

And that is what we need right now.

Despite their differences, will Boris realise this is the moment to reach across the divide, and have the humility to ask for Labour's help?

He is being lauded as a capable Prime Minister for his response so far to Coronavirus, but this is a crisis which will keep on rolling and he'll need all the help he can get before long.

It's time to stop being a good PM, and to become a great man.

It's time to call a National Government.


CTS 20/03/27

Pointing Fingers - From 2 Metres Away

'To what extent was the British Government's Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2020 limited by austerity cuts on the NHS?'

And we thought David Cameron's reputation couldn't get much worse.

Already a pariah Prime Minister after calling a divisive referendum which he can't be on the right side of, he will likely now get the blame for the weakness of public services during one of the most serious pandemics in modern history.

The man can't win.

In the largest ranking of post-war prime ministers since the referendum, Cameron sits at an embarrassing eleventh (out of thirteen). This is in large part because of said referendum, which was called to heal the Conservative Party but ended up ripping apart the country, but also because of his controversial response to the Great Recession.

With an economy in recession, unemployment rising, and a hefty budget deficit (where government revenue is less than government spending), Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, cut government spending by nearly £15bn in three years; mostly focusing on welfare, social services and local government.

And even when Cameron fell in 2016, Theresa May's government continued the programme. By 2019, there had been £30bn in spending reductions. Even though under her watch austerity was technically ended, aside from health there have been no 'real' increases in spending since ('real' means above inflation, i.e. actually increasing spending levels).

It's important to note that spending on the NHS didn't decrease in real terms across the decade - Cameron and Osborne 'ring-fenced' it. But until 2017 it didn't increase either. That left it unable to cope with the indirect consequences of lower social care and local government spending. It also means that it hasn't received the serious investment needed to respond to a crisis - such as the yearly winter crisis.

Or, say, a pandemic.

When the spread of Covid-19 decreases, there will be a post-mortem on the NHS and its response to coronavirus. And already it is blindingly clear that the provider of, objectively, the highest quality healthcare in the world (not overall best though - more here), is unable to respond to the demand.

A 'tsunami', an 'explosion' of cases in London hospitals has left them short of intensive care beds, compounded by a further shortage of staff. There is a chronic lack of equipment and protective clothing. Retired medics, volunteers and the army are being drafted in.

To link all these shortfalls to austerity would be a poor piece of political theatre. Healthcare systems around the world have been swamped by Covid-19. Many of the shortages are simply because staff are falling ill. There was no need for thousands of extra respirators a year ago. This is a crisis that the globalised world has never before faced, and is far more significant than policy decisions made ten years previously.

However, there is an arguable link. The NHS could well have been in a structurally more robust place, with more beds and capacity than it otherwise was in early 2020. It may have moved quicker, more effectively, needing less support, if not for a lack of spending. It could never have prevented or limited the disease, but it may have inspired more confidence.

And the concerns are already there. Austerity is being openly linked as the root cause of all the issues the NHS is facing. That is wrong.

But, still, when the dust settles, Cameron will be blamed.

He may have successfully dragged the economy out of a recession, but this, and the referendum?

He'll be this century's Chamberlain.

D-Day or Dull Days?

This is an unprecedented period in human history.

Flights blocked, schools shut, workplaces closing. A £350bn investment from the government which still might not be enough.

The creator of a favourite Facebook page of mine, 'Humans of New York', compared the Covid-19 pandemic to our generation's World War Two. For me, that was the moment I realised how large this crisis is.

The news is filled with headlines of marauding shoppers and caring neighbours, contrasting vast government spending with small businesses on the verge of collapse. The national mood is unsettled and incapable of standing on its own two feet. We do not know how to feel or what to feel or why we do feel because we are out of our depth, drowning.

And amidst it all, aren't you rather bored?

Step away from the screen you're killing time with. Think.

What have you done today?

Me? In eight hours, I've done some some easy jobs, played a game of Age of Empires, repeatedly checked social media and put off some urgent studying.

My life has been meaningless today, and I'm not even in isolation (although being on a deserted uni campus, I might as well be). How does yours compare? How will it compare a week from now, when the structures of life break down even further?

This may be the biggest global crisis since the Second World War, but frankly, just like most crises in history, us average citizens will have to sit in slobby boredom until it all blows over. We'll blank-face our way through Netflix, Prime and Instagram on repeat, until we're allowed to publicly cough again.

World War Two lasted 2176 days - a vast period of time. And for all the battles and epic clashes, how many periods were there of nothingness; of going to work; of people knowing they had no influence on events whatsoever. For every D-Day, there were ten more days of banal newspaper headlines and food rationing to endure. How dull it must have been.

Because that's what will happen now. The experts are suggesting it could be eighteen months until a vaccine is successfully created. And jack-all is going to happen in our lives until then.