Boris Johnson has now proved himself capable of U-turning on his own legislative decisions, passed only months ago. In that case it has to be asked where the next U-turn might be, and the answer seems to be obvious. It will be on coronavirus.
As Larry Elliott has noted in the Guardian, it is easy for economists to come up with figures showing that the cost of the coronavirus lockdown exceeded the benefits in terms of lives saved, and it should not happen again as a result.
I am quite sure that the government always thought this: the debate on herd immunity during March did not happen by chance. But now I suspect that they will be back on this theme with a vengeance, fuelled by their overriding desire to balance the government's books. So, I expect another U-turn, and soon.
In this U-turn the government will say that it got coronavirus wrong. They will claim that they followed the science in March, but the scientists misled them. The government will say that the risks were of nothing like the scale that scientists claimed, and that the excess deaths were significantly less than forecast is evidence of that.
They will also now say that the risk from COVID-19 has virtually disappeared unless you are (to quote Donald Trump) "a sucker". This will include the foolish, of course. More significantly it will (without it being explicitly stated) include those who have to go to work because they have no choice, most of whom are on lower pay; those who live in more crowded households, because they too are on lower pay, and those who cannot afford home testing kits and other protective measures because, once again, they are on lower pay. All of these groups will, in the event of the U-turn I predict, just have to accept the risks that their situation brings and get on with it. That's because what I am now expecting the government to do on coronavirus is to back away from any responsibility for it.
They will, of course, still issue some public health warnings, created at considerable cost by agencies run by their friends. But thereafter they will not be providing any further additional funding to the NHS, or to education, or to any other public service that is suffering extra costs as a result of the reasonable desire to protect staff, patients, pupils and others from the risks of infection. Instead I very strongly suspect that the government will say that coronavirus is now the new normal, and that the government has no funds available to it to cover the costs that it gives rise to and that they will, therefore, have to come out of existing budgets.
To put it another way, the government U-turn will be to say that we are all on our own with regard to coronavirus. This will now be an issue for individual, and not collective responsibility. And if anyone cannot afford to take steps to protect themselves, well, so be it.
Am I being harsh? I very much doubt it. Nothing is beyond this government. No U-turn is now impossible. And the desire to protect the Treasury budget is overwhelming. The willingness to tell a lie also knows no limit. And, anyway, this is what they always wanted to do. It was a massive shock to Cummings to find that people worried about their relatives dying. But now they'll just say experience has shown that the state cannot afford to prevent that now, so it's all down to us, after all.
At the heart of this claim is a lie, of course. The state can afford to protect us from Covid-19. All the money required is available at a drop of a finger on a keystroke in the Bank of England, just as it was when £300 billion was made available to save financial markets earlier this year. But there is a difference. The government wanted to save financial markets. And this government is indifferent to saving us. That means that we must pay the price even though financial markets did not.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Jesus how can anyone have got covid right. The scientific evidence was massively confusing. Look at the predictions you made in print!! So where we are now it definitely looks like lockdown was overkill but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Best try and move forward positively and I suggest you try and score political points elsewhere.
I think it’s you who might need to be elsewhere
There have been something in the order of 65,000 ‘excess deaths’ (a statistical measure of the UK death rate over the COVID-19 period that is probably a more accurate measure of the effect of the pandemic on UK mortality than the official coronavirus stats) in the UK over the pandemic. I cannot think of a more inappropriate description of the facts than the phrase: “looks like lockdown was overkill”, but it does perhaps provide an insight into the quality of the thinking that accompanied the phrase being written.
I rest my case. To what a pass we have come.
There have been many others making comments like that Arif made
They are all in the spam box
“There have been many others making comments like that Arif made.They are all in the spam box”
So you obviously advocate suppression of opinion and discussion when it is different to yours and the fellow members of your “echo chamber”..a very very typical trait of the hard left.
No, we just don’t like trolls with nothing to add to debate
If you actually had something to say and it was not put offensively you can readily disagree
But you fail those pretty basic tests
“…. the fellow members of your “echo chamber”..a very very typical trait of the hard left.”
You, sir know precisely nothing about me, but it clearly does not prevent you writing unmitigated guff. Your remarks, however provide us all with a piercing insight into the quality of your judgement, and the value of your opinion.
Arif
Look at the speech Boris made at Greenwich this year and the way in which he didn’t take Covid seriously. He lost time in dealing with it and so he panicked and brought in lock down.
Things got off to bad start and that is the truth of the matter – not political point scoring.
The simple fact of the matter is this – the Tories are intent on demolishing the British post war state – finishing off what Thatcher started. To do this, these fanatics need to centralise control of the country – particularly using the under-financing of services and the regions to do it. And that is what they have done over the last 10 years.
This deliberate act was totally at odds with how this pandemic needs to be fought which is best fought locally using local knowledge and well funded services.
The Tories had begun to wind down the British state AT RISK. That is to say they simply did not take any external threats into account in their over confident and arrogant behaviour. They have been caught out.
It is not the case that events have simply taken the Tories over Arif.
They have engineered their (and our) troubles. And hopefully their downfall. And they know it- after all, why do you think they are blaming young people for spreading it now?
“The scientific evidence was massively confusing.”
Not in my mind and the majority I believe of other UK citizens. Where’s your evidence for stating this? Where indeed was a National Strike or some other form of mass protest against the governments’s Covid-19 restrictions? I think you’re shooting the breeze!
i have been in communication with some members of Independent Sage, who have consistently advocated a strategy to suppress the virus to as near zero as possible, to protect lives, and to pave the way to open up the economy. The government have steadfastly avoided having an explict strategy on suppressing the virus. You are probably right the ‘herd immunity – kill the old’ faction is probably still there – but hopefully the Independent Sage authoritiavie analysis is also reflected somewhere within government.
https://twitter.com/IndependentSage/status/1301860738609238016
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KroVlVDVlUIlfEsJciQrBAR5w7aTSfFL/view?usp=sharing
I hope so
But I am not convinced
I can’t really believe this, at least not in quite the form it’s expressed. I think it would be presented as only a minor rowing back, rather than a radical rethink. They will still be learning from the science etc, but the science would
have changed.
But even if you are only partly right, you have to ask what the Starmer led Labour party would do, if even half of what you suggest became policy. You seem to be a Starmer admirer, but I have to say I can’t see any sign that they would do anything to seriously challenge it, and I think you would be fooling yourself to think otherwise.
I am not sure I am a Starmer admirer. I have no clue what he is doing on economics, for example, and think that unwise on his part. I stress, not just to give a hint to me, but everyone
What does annoy me are those people claiming he is a right winger or Tory because I don’t agree. He isn’t. He may we’ll be to the right of me, but that does not make him a Tory and to achieve change a mighty broad church is going to be needed, anyway
I came across this line by Martin Luther King yesterday:-
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”
What matters more than the Labour Party finally acknowledging after all these years that Britain operates a reserves based monetary system in which the government has a monopoly in creating those reserves which in turn means the government always has “money” of its own?
It would help