Yesterday’s session
of the Covid inquiry heard suggestions
that Boris Johnson saw the virus as “nature’s way of dealing with old people”.
For once he may have been, albeit only slightly, unfairly quoted. What he
actually said was that his party believed that to be the case; as for himself,
he merely said that he wasn’t entirely sure that he disagreed. It’s an
important distinction, and it’s one that does make a difference. Whilst the
rats seem to be quite happy to desert a sinking ship those who were closest
to him seem quite happy to heap the blame on one man, the issue which should
worry us more is that the phrase reflects the thinking of the government party
as a whole. And it really isn’t that surprising.
Covid has been just
one example of a mindset which thinks that the only important people in society
are ‘working people’, and especially ‘hard-working people’ (and it’s worth
noting in passing that on this point, as on so many others, the difference
between the Tories and Labour is striking mostly for its absence). It is a philosophical
viewpoint which, as often commented on this blog, places the needs of ‘the
economy’ above those of ordinary people, and sees most of us as nothing more
than resources to be exploited in the interests of that ‘economy’. But the ‘economy’
isn’t some amorphous undefined general good; from their perspective, ‘the
economy’ is all about companies and businesses, not people. Enriching those who
own and run those companies is the main purpose of economic activity; others
simply sell their labour. And if people have no labour to sell – the old and
the vulnerable – then they are disposable. Johnson may, on behalf of his party,
have put it in starker terms – more honest terms, even, an unusual word to use
in relation to Johnson – than his colleagues, but it would be a mistake to let
the others off the hook just because of his rare burst of honesty. ‘Eat out to
help the virus spread’ was simply one example of that philosophy in action –
the interests of the businesses concerned were seen by the then Chancellor as trumping
the interests of those who would die as a result. Sunak may not have put things
in such forthright language as Johnson, but he’s every bit as guilty, and we
shouldn’t allow anger with Johnson’s insouciance to cloud that fact.
Another thing we
learned yesterday is that the PM’s then communications chief, Lee Cain – a man
whose principal claim to fame is having dressed
as a chicken to pursue David Cameron around the country during the 2010
election – believed that Covid was the
wrong crisis for this particular PM (i.e. Johnson). ‘Wrong sort of crisis’ might
make it sound as though he’s competing with Thérèse Coffey for that job at
Network Rail, but while it has a certain air of truth, it leaves one very
big question unanswered – exactly what sort of crisis would have been the right
one to have someone like Johnson in charge?
3 comments:
I remember it being said at the time that Mr Johnson seemed to manage OK as London mayor because he had decent support staff. His problem as PM wasn't so much his own laziness, incompetence and mendacity, but that he had surrounded himself with people who had similar qualities, or otherwise were just weird.
I see you have picked up on the sensational bits of the evidence which to my mind underlines the complete joke this entire process (not surprisingly) is turning out to be.
The whole construct is straight out of ‘Yes, Minister’, where Sir Humphrey and Sir Desmond are sitting in high-backed leather chairs in their club agreeing to an inquiry and setting up the terms for the Prime Minister to sign off. They go on to agree that the Chairman will be a respectable figure, but not too bright that they could cause trouble.
Latest figures have indicated that the cost could be as high as £500 million which is a bit of an overrun, but like the Iraq report ‘these things do happen’. One great benefit is that over three hundred barristers are registered to work on this, which will give the poor dears a much-needed income boost and like another old profession, they work on the clock, so no early finish here with that kind of money around – why would they.
Sweeden has finished their report and its delivered, but the trick here is to extend it, so when it sees the light of day some years from now, the whole subject will have no news legs and will be only used for academic interest.
Spirit,
I can't disagree with "the complete joke this entire process ... is turning out to be". So we may as well just look at the sensational bits to see just how dysfunctional the government was. The most sensible conclusion to the inquiry will be that if you elect clowns, you get a circus - which means that it will all be the fault of the electors. Whilst the dysfunction may be inherent to the UK system, there are no conceivable recommendations which can prevent a party from choosing a leader utterly unsuited to the role, or prevent said leader from causing chaos and appointing other, equally unsuitable, people to government roles. The way in which the civil service has 'protected' the populace from its own choices should ring many bells, but probably won't.
Post a Comment