steepholm

I've not said much about the politics of the virus in recent days, but since there's a lot of misinformation and history rewriting about, I want to make a few notes here before I get sucked into the spin cycle. Some of this is just copied over from Facebook, but that's an oubliette. I'm not offering much commentary, just a few things that I've noticed or that have been reported.

26th April
On 25th April the new Labour leader, Keir Starmer, sent a letter that supported the government in extending the lockdown, but called on them to include the public in the discussion about how it might be ended "when the time is right" (a phrase used more than once). The following day, I heard the BBC news report Labour's position in these words:

The Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has rejected calls for an early easing of the Coronavirus lockdown, stressing that the outbreak was still as a delicate and dangerous stage. The Government is coming under pressure from Labour and some senior Tories to relax the strict social distancing measures.

Incompetent reporting? Dishonest reporting? Both? Are other readings possible?

27th April
Boris Johnson was officially back at work from today, and showed how seriously he was taking the Coronavirus by fashioning a new analogy for the occasion, comparing it to an "invisible mugger" that had to be "wrestled to the ground." The papers continue to inhale this flatulent rhetoric with every sign of pleasure.


False Consciousness in Banner Form

28th April
The Government has banned both the Sunday Times and Channel 4 from asking questions at the daily Covid-19 press briefings, for the crime of asking questions at the daily Covid-19 press briefings. Meanwhile, Panorama this week exposed the Government's decision not to stockpile gowns, visors, and other PPE, in the face of warnings from their advisors about the likelihood of a pandemic. They also used creative accounting to exaggerate the amount of PPE they had distributed, counting (for example) a pair of gloves as two items, not one. If only they had been half as ingenious in actually sourcing PPE!



29 April
Professor John Newton (leader of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme) was asked on Today about contact tracing, and explained over the course of a few sentences that: a) that was for the future, b) we have always done it and never stopped doing it, and c) to reiterate, we'll start doing it at some future point.

Asked why the government stopped community testing in mid-March, in direct contradiction of the WHO exhortation to "Test, test, test," he explained that that was the right time to enforce social distancing, which is incompatible with testing because oh my goodness is that the time must dash...

Following the science seems about as solid a project as hunting the White Stag of Narnia.

I'm a cynical old soul who find orchestrated displays of emotion rather cloying, so I don't suppose I'd have participated in yesterday evening's unfortunately named "Clap for Carers" had not all the neighbours I happen to know best been medical professionals. As it was, I was roused from my computer at 8pm by the sound of saucepans being rattled and a few whoops, but mostly a politely enthusiastic round of applause, of the type that one normally hears when a batsman strokes a ball through silly leg over to the boundary. That polite ripple was not very loud, but it was happening all round the country at the same time (even inside Brixton Prison!), something even I must admit to finding quite moving:



Also, credit where it's due: the Chancellor's measures to help those laid off by the crisis, whether employees or self-employed, have been (while far from watertight) pretty decent, especially when compared to some other countries' efforts. I think he "gets" that paying an eye-watering amount now may avoid paying an even more eye-watering amount when all this is over - much as Gordon Brown did in 2008. I'm less impressed with the banks, who were bailed out with taxpayers' cash on that occasion but are now charging businesses over 20%, at a time when the base rate is 0.1%. Could it be that bankers are greedy shits?

Meanwhile Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock (who is contractually obliged to run mad in white linen whenever Johnson runs mad in white satin) have both caught the virus. I'd have more sympathy with Johnson had he not boasted not long ago about shaking the hands of Covid 19 patients. (I wonder how his pregnant girlfriend felt about that?) Even from his sick-desk today he was joshingly referring to the "wizardry" of the technology that enables him to speak to people he's not in the same room as. He's two years younger than me, ffs.

The story that sums Johnson up best, for my money, is from a week or two back. In a meeting about how to increase the supply of respirators, he reportedly dubbed the initiative "Operation Last Gasp." The worst thing about this joke is that it's actually quite witty; I really resent being made to smile at something like that. But also - it's all very well for private bloggers like myself to make off-colour jokes (see the title of this post) as way of relieving the stress of these unusual times; it's another for the Prime Minister to do it - and it's even worse when you realise that, even as this was going on, Britain was (whether from incompetence, jingoism or a mixture of both) failing to participate in a Europe-wide initiative to source... respirators.

For a long time Japan was an outlier in those comparative charts of Covid-19 infection across countries: the country's infections started early but confirmed cases stayed low (the odd Yokohama cruise ship nothwithstanding), despite no stringent measures having been introduced beyond the (advisory) closing of schools. Restaurants, shops, etc. have been open as usual. Even school graduation ceremonies took place, despite the lack of lessons.

Now, finally, Abe has asked the IOC to postpone the Olympics, and almost immediately the number of cases in Tokyo has shot up and the governor has ordered people to stay inside. It's almost as if Abe had been endangering public health for the sake of a sporting competition.

Just as the fish are now teeming through the canals of Venice, so the toilet rolls and eggs are gradually returning to the shelves of Tesco. Yesterday there was no Marmite Crunchy Peanut Butter, though! We must all stay strong...

In the last few weeks Johnson and his gang of however-many-people-are-in-the-cabinet have discovered that they do rather like experts after all, and indeed are going to let government policy be entirely directed by them for the foreseeable future. But which kind of expert? Will it be your bog-standard scientists, or a selection of Dominic Cummings A-team-style geniuses, who are going to catch the coronavirus in a Heath-Robinson contraption of their own devising?

I don't know. I'd love to feel that I was in safe hands, and that the government's sharp swerve away from the international consensus on such matters as school and university closures, calling off sports events, and so on, was motivated by a policy of keeping deaths from the virus to a minimum. However, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that that aim is subordinate to the desire the make in the interruption to the economy as short-lived as possible, and that a high (but relatively brief) spike in deaths is deemed preferable to a crisis that drags on indefinitely.

I have some cause for that suspicion. There have already been Malthusian voices in the Torygraph looking forward to the "cull" of the ill and elderly and the fillip that will give the economy, a view that the writer weirdly calls "disinterested" - as if untrammelled greed were as much a given as gravity.

Then there's Boris Johnson's lauding of the mayor in Jaws, who risks the citizens' lives in order to preserve the town's economy: "I loved his rationality. Of course, it turned out that he was wrong. But it remains that he was heroically right in principle." And what about Dominic Cummings' recent attempt to hire a full-on eugenicist as an aide at No. 10?

None of these things give me confidence that the government is prioritising the well-being of those most vulnerable to the virus: the old and the ill. It makes me wonder whether some of them at least aren't rubbing their hands a little (and not with soap). On the other hand, most of those who will die are Tory voters, so that's a consideration.

In any case, at the end of all this we will have a very clear measure of each government's preparedness, competence and priorities, in the form of the mortality rate. If Britain's is markedly higher than other countries', there won't be anywhere to hide.

It's not been a great few days, obviously, but I wonder which of these will have the longest-lasting consequences?

a) Brexit.
b) Congress abdicating its role in the Constitution's system of checks and balances.
c) Jared Kushner's "peace plan," which looks about as peaceful as the Indian Removal Act.

Well, I promised a sequel to yesterday's post, so here it is. This one is a bit more future orientated.

Corbyn and Labour
One thing I've heard a lot is that Corbyn personally was a major (negative) factor on the doorstep. Not the manifesto policies he espoused, which (outside Brexit) were generally popular, but Corbyn the man. I made my own criticisms of his conduct of the campaign, but I remain an admirer and admit I find it hard to understand the visceral nature of some people's reaction to him; or why, if Corbyn's character flaws were a decisive negative factor, Johnson's much more obvious and fundamental character flaws would not be. Corbyn's faults are generally the negative form of his virtues: the point at which "sticking to one's principles" becomes "a stiff-necked inability to listen to others" is a matter of debate, and perhaps of standpoint. Johnson's continual lies, racism and hypocrisy, don't really have a positive aspect. There's also always been a fundamental incoherence to the criticisms of Corbyn: both an ineffectual geography teacher type, and a sinister, ruthless zealot. (It sounds trivial, but I suspect that Corbyn's having a beard will also have been a factor with some, especially older Britons: see the opening pages of The Twits for a rare articulation of this prejudice.)

It's hard to know how much part the constant attacks on Corbyn played, both from inside and outside the party. Certainly he has been more consistently vilified than any leader in my time (including Blair at the time of the Iraq war). I remember being shocked by a Conservative Party Political broadcast in 1983 that showed deliberately unflattering pictures of Michael Foot, Tony Benn and others, but it was a world away from this kind of thing. And while many people will feel themselves too sophisticated to be taken in by such crude propaganda, I've seen too many Derren Brown specials not to know that even apparently self-aware people can be influenced by subtler signals disseminated by social (and other) media over the course of years. If you think the Tory party hasn't been doing that, you need to get real; but they've been ably abetted in the (yes, I'll say it) cult-like anti-Corbynism of many on the Labour right.

Anyway, Corbyn is going, and the question now turns to his replacement. Of course the centrists would like one of their own, so that they can return us to the glory days of 2010 and 2015 (oh, wait), but the membership is unlikely to oblige, especially if the preferred candidate is someone like Jess Phillips, who has spent most of the last four years dissing their previous choice. One thing I will venture to predict is that the new leader will be a woman. Keir Starmer is the only man with a shouting chance, but he is strongly associated with the Brexit policy, and there are several women with an excellent claim. The party now has more female MPs than male, while two thirds of the Tory MPs are men and they are led by a misogynist dead-beat dad who can't even say how many children he has: a female leader could more easily underline and exploit that difference. (Also, Labour is still the only major party never to have had a non-interim female leader, and I think they will be keen to correct that.)

In Other Prediction News
My record in predictions is patchy. Three years ago, I correctly predicted that Theresa May would become Tory leader. Two years ago, buoyed by this, I made a prediction about the likely course of Brexit negotiations and got it badly wrong, although the underlying analysis was sound. (I knew that the Irish would be betrayed, but I picked the wrong group - it was the Unionists by the Tories, not the Republic by the EU). I hesitate to predict anything about the rest of this year, let alone parliament, but I will note in passing something I've not often seen acknowledged, which is that the EU has played a blinder throughout this whole process. Seriously, they've scarcely put a foot wrong. Admittedly they were negotiating with incompetents who were divided among themselves, but that's not always the easiest position to be in. I see no reason to think that will change. (And I say this as one with no special love of the EU.)

Of course the NHS will not be "sold off" in a visible way, but the processes already long in train will be accelerated, especially now Tory cupidity has the extra incentive of a Trump trade deal. The NHS will be scooped away from the inside, until it is just a shell. Queues will lengthen, services decline, choice (except for those with money) disappear. For the Tories, all this is a feature, not a bug. Also, Johnson lied (of course) when he said he had a plan for social care; he will follow Cameron in postponing action indefinitely.

Similarly, we will not see the next election cancelled, but Johnson will do everything he can to stack the odds in his favour: boundary changes are already in train, but he will also be tying the hands of the Supreme Court, using ID to suppress voting by the poor and the young, abolishing the fixed-term parliament act so that he can call an election whenever it suits him best, and of course cancelling Leveson II (a little-remarked feature of the Tory manifesto, but an obvious bribe to the press for their continuing partisan support).

All right, those were all predictions - but they are at the level of "the sun will rise tomorrow."

The BBC
Finally, I have been and will no doubt continue to be critical of the BBC, but I would caution those few friends I've seen suggesting a boycott and licence fee cancellations. The BBC is comparable to the NHS in terms of its importance as a cultural institution: you can't reduce it to its UK political reporting, which is a tiny (if important) aspect of its overall activity. You do realise that all your alternatives (Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) are private companies owned by American billionaires, right? Do you really think you'd be better off left to their tender mercies? (You would not.)

I had no idea until today that the word "Anglo-Saxon" was in any way controversial. Apparently it's because I hang out in the wrong part of the internet.

Anyway, I learned from a colleague that "Anglo-Saxon" has been co-opted by white supremacists in America, and that because of this there are demands that the term be dropped by scholars (e.g. historians of Britain between 500-1100C.E.) generally. My colleague is writing about just that period, and is having difficulty finding acceptable alternatives.

Is that a fair summary of the situation, or am I missing important context?

I feel fairly conflicted. On the one hand, if a term is being used by racists I'd rather avoid it, to avoid a) giving them credibility and b) appearing racist myself.

On the other hand...

a) I'm not sure what alternative terms are both available and widely understood.
b) Racists have also adopted terms such as "English" and "British," but there's no demand to drop them: why is this different? (Also, letting racists effectively dictate what words can be used seems like a kind of capitulation.)
c) There seems something imperialist in the idea that because something is unacceptable in the USA it must be so throughout the world. (I was sad to read that the Japanese government intended to efface the swastika symbol from tourist maps - where it indicates a Buddhist temple - because it might be misinterpreted by Westerners. Isn't this similar?)

Anyway, I'm sure neither of the facts nor of my own opinion, so I'd appreciate any help in clarifying either.

Jo Swinson rubs me up several wrong ways which I won't detail here, but I do want to mention the new Lib Dem policy to revoke Article 50 should they win a majority at the next election. It's a very unlikely contingency, admittedly, but policies shouldn't be adopted on the basis that they'll never have to be carried out.

The justification is that, if they win a majority in Parliament standing on that policy, they will have a mandate to revoke. However, they're comparing chalk and cheese. Typically, Westminster governments get around 42-45% of the popular vote: no party since the War has had more than 50%. The Lib Dems know this better than most, since they have used the fact to campaign for voting reform for decades. The referendum Leave vote, as we know, got 52%.

I think we've learned pretty thoroughly by now that Parliamentary democracy and democracy by direct plebiscite don't mix - but, partly for that very reason, having opened the Brexit worm can in one way, it can only be closed the same way. If I were a Leave voter, already resentful that my voice is ignored, having the referendum result discarded by fiat, by a Government with (as it would likely seem to me) less legitimacy, would make me feel that democracy had died altogether.

And that's a feeling that could very easily be exploited.

I put this up on Facebook, but thought I would save it too here for future reference.

For a while now, I’ve been seeing quotes to the effect that Islam is an aggressive religion intent on conquering the Western world. To that end, I thought it might be helpful if I made a list of majority Christian countries that have been invaded, occupied or ruled by majority Muslim countries at any point over the last century. Here is that list…


... okay, I couldn’t find any. Feel free to fill in the blank.

It’s strange, because it wasn’t hard at all to find majority Muslim countries that have been invaded, occupied or ruled by majority Christian countries over the same period:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Bangladesh
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Chad
Djibouti
Egypt
Gambia
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Niger
Palestinian Authority
Morocco
Pakistan
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Tunisia
Turkey
Mali
Mauritania
Senegal
United Arab Emirates
Western Sahara

And yet Islam is the aggressive religion of conquest - or so we’re told. Quite the puzzler, isn’t it?

In the early 1940s they drowned the village of Derwent in Derbyshire to make the Ladybower reservoir, to slake the thirsts of Sheffield and Nottingham. Shortly afterwards, the new reservoir was used by the "Dam Buster" squadron, as practice for destroying the Möhne, Edersee and Sorpe Dams.

This year the dry weather revealed part of the village again, and it drew tourists, some of whom amused themselves by drawing graffiti or taking stones from walls. This has caused quite a lot of angst. For example:

There's a fair amount of graffiti and defacement on the ruins. It's a huge part of our history and now "Cheryl" and "Steve" have scratched their names in the rock. We need to look after it, we have a responsibility like you would at any historical site. (Steve Rowe, Edale Mountain Rescue Team)

Whilst we understand that people are fascinated by the appearance of these usually hidden ruins, the structures remain an iconic archaeological feature of the Peak District National Park. As we wouldn't expect people to vandalise any of the National Park's many heritage buildings or other archaeological features, the remains of the homes and other submerged buildings are no exception. We urge people to leave these features intact to open a valuable window onto history, not just today, but for future generations to enjoy. (Anna Badcock, Park Authority Cultural Heritage Manager.)

Well yes, I kind of agree, and yet it wasn't "Cheryl and Steve" who destroyed the village in the first place, nor bounced bombs on top of it shortly after. If Derwent is such a valuable part of our heritage, why is it at the bottom of a lake?

The answer is of course that it's only valuable because it was destroyed - or rather, its destruction led paradoxically to its partial preservation. We must be grateful to the large-scale municipal vandals of 1940, even as we condemn the small-scale private vandals of 2018.

Similarly, if I marched into the British Museum and took an axe to the Lindow Man I'd be arrested - but it is only thanks to the actions of the people who did the same thing 2,000 years ago that we have his body at all. We owe those people a debt, it seems, for killing him and leaving him to our mercies, tender or otherwise.

The first time I drove to the Gower, I was listening to a parliamentary debate on the radio, in which it seemed very likely that they were going to bomb Syria (which was obviously what that country needed more of). After an off-grid couple of days, I emerged to find that that had not happened after all, and was happy.

It's amazing how little world events impinge when you're out TV, radio, mobile and internet contact. The sheep bleat mockingly at all human endeavour good or ill, though without much indication of understanding - rather as if someone had scattered the 1922 Committee randomly over the hillside and given them woolly tails to match their minds. There appears to have been plenty going on, though: on football fields, at Chequers, in flooded Thai caves, and equally flooded Japanese hillsides. Still no bloody rain here, though.

Meanwhile, I asked this question on FB, but so far have had no suggestions there. Is there any country apart from the USA where one is ineligible to be head of government/state if not born a citizen of said country? I'm having difficulty coming up with an example. It seems strange that a country (mostly) of immigrants should be the only one to have distrust of immigrants enshrined in its constitution.