"Guided by the science"? Really?

It`s little wonder that, as Anthony Costello tells us, "the public health community were perplexed" when the government, "informed by Sage", stopped "community testing and tracing" at a time  when there had been fewer than 10 deaths in the UK and less than 500 confirmed cases of coronavirus (No 10`s secret science group has a shocking lack of expertise, 28/04/20). The only explanation has to be that another "political decision" was then made, but the depth of Cummings`s influence on the "science" leading the ministers` decisions will only be revealed when the minutes of all Sage`s meeting are published.

     The bafflement of the public heath community can only have been compounded by the decision to allow so many flights to land in Heathrow throughout the lockdown from all parts of the world, including coronavirus hotspots like Madrid, Rome and New York, without any testing or quarantining measures in place. Government excuses like the virus "freely circulating", testing would have had little effect, ignore the point that, apart from urgent repatriation flights, all others should have been cancelled, as in other countries. Now that the country`s deaths total the highest in any European country, the government apparently intends to impose "quarantine restrictions on all arrivals at UK airports", (PM returns to face critics and talk of a "new normal", 27/04/20)!

    Labour must demand those minutes are published!

Whilst it "would probably have been good", as Sir Patrick Vallance says, to "have published sooner" the names of all the people attending Sage meetings, the important point now has to be the immediate publication of the meetings` minutes (Cummings "could be briefing ministers on scientists` meetings", 28/04/20). The country needs to know whether the government has in fact been "following the science", as it  has repeatedly claimed, or following a version of "the science" better suited to the political ideology of the right wing Cummings. The conclusions and recommendations of the Sage meetings have to be checked carefully, especially to ensure that it was their "science" which caused the delayed lockdown and the lack of testing, rather than a political adviser`s preference for a "herd immunity" approach!

The trouble is that we can all see our prime minister back in February, after having been handed four sides of A4 covering the main findings of the latest meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, casting the report to one side, and asking Cummings for his conclusions (Revealed: Cummings sits on secret science advisory group, 25/04/20). It`s no wonder questions are being asked "about the independence" of the group`s advice, and Labour is absolutely correct to demand seeing the minutes of all of Sage`s meetings. Of particular interest will be whether the group advised some form of lockdown prior to March 23, and how it reacted to the WHO`s advice to "test, test, test". Could it be that the failure to "join an EU medical supplies consortium" was not the only "political decision" made in recent weeks, despite the government`s repeated insistence on being "led by the science" (UK government accused of cover-up over EU scheme to buy PPE, 22/04/20)?

MPs` Easter break irresponsible!

Polly Toynbee ends her article on the prime minister`s "cavalier incompetence" by stating that " as parliament returns, it`s time to challenge the failures of these renegades" (Johnson is the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time, 21/04/20). Advice from the WHO on testing was ignored weeks ago, shortages of PPE were obvious at the start of the outbreak, whilst the daily briefings revealed little more than obfuscation and waffle from day one.

         The biggest health crisis in over a hundred years demanded that parliament, even in a skeleton form, be recalled at the end of March.  Excuses about social distancing problems in the chamber are irrelevant as is obvious, both from what is happening this week, and also from the "verbal question time" held in Scotland with Sturgeon before Easter. Possibly, this government could then have been forced into taking preventative measures, rather than the belated and botched remedial measures we witness now!

In the biggest health crisis in over a century, the country`s parliament is still on holiday! As the daily briefings have shown all too clearly, there is, as Keir Starmer says, "no substitute for parliamentary scrutiny", but why has the "chorus of cross-party calls for the recall of parliament" taken so long (As virus death toll nears 10,000, parties unite to demand the recall of parliament, 12.04.20)? It`s not as though the government took the advice of the World Health Organisation on testing, dealt with the problems of insufficient protective equipment promptly, or even ordered the lockdown quickly enough!

 Excuses about the problems associated with social distancing in the House of Commons are irrelevant, as it is patently obvious that debates and questioning could have been taking place before Easter along the lines of the "virtual question time" held with Sturgeon in Scotland. Possibly then, this government could have been forced into both taking preventative rather than belated remedial measures, as in the case of care homes, and into debating an exit strategy which considered all aspects of the effects of lockdown, including those on mental health! 

Heathrow open for business!

The failure of the Health Secretary to "guarantee that NHS and social care staff would have enough personal protective equipment" this weekend is hardly surprising, in view of this government`s incompetent and arrogant handling of the crisis (Star,17/04/20), Ignoring the advice of the WHO on testing, and failing to provide basic equipment means that the silence surrounding any plans for easing the lockdown has to be at the very least, worrying. Can we really be expected to believe that there will be sufficient testing and contact tracing in place in three weeks to enable a safe return to work for perhaps a million workers? Of course not, especially when one considers that, although there has been a national lockdown for over three weeks at a time of the country`s greatest health crisis for over a hundred years, thousands of people from all over the world, including virus hotspots, have been entering the country.

A quick look at the Heathrow website reveals that on this Saturday, 18th April, the incoming flights included three from Rome, three from New York, and one from Barcelona, with many from Madrid earlier in the week! We know these passengers were not tested for coronavirus on arrival, and none quarantined! More came from countries where details of the extent of the virus are either limited or dubious.

     How many scientists and health experts think the country`s major airport should be open for "business as usual" at this time? Yet the government frequently maintains it is being "guided by the science". 

         Guided by big business, as usual, and the profit motive, more like!

The 91% support in Britain for the lockdown isn`t that "remarkable", as Jonathan Freedland says, when there is clearly no alternative, other than carrying on as normal and multiplying the already horrendous death-rate (Only a colossal shift of political imagination can end lockdown, 18/04/20). Having sufficient testing and contact tracing facilities in place to enable a safe easing of the restrictions, however, does, indeed, appear extremely "daunting", especially for a government lacking in sufficient competence to deal with such an obvious problem as people still entering the country from all over the world, including virus hotspots. 

       A quick look at the Heathrow website reveals that on Saturday the incoming flights included three from Rome, three from New York, and one from Barcelona, with many from Madrid earlier in the week! We know these passengers were not tested for coronavirus on arrival, and none quarantined, yet thousands have been arriving throughout the weeks of so-called "national lockdown", including from countries too, where details of the extent of the virus are limited!

     The government frequently maintains it is being "guided by the science", but how many scientists can possibly think the country`s major airport should be open for "business as usual" during the country`s worst health crisis for over a hundred years?

Weller on the Beatles in the 70s

How ridiculous of Paul Weller to say that the Beatles "couldn`t have gone on into the 70s ("I was shattered. They were my universe", 09/04/20)! Just by looking at the songs recorded on solo records, Beatles` albums emerge which would have been as highly regarded as Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper. An early 1970 album could have included such songs as Instant Karma, Cold Turkey and Isolation from Lennon, Maybe I`m Amazed and Every Night  from McCartney plus any three or four of Harrison songs from his All Things Must Pass album, leaving at least another three for the second Beatles album of the 70s. By then, Jealous Guy and Imagine would have been written, McCartney songs like Back Seat of My Car and Another Day could have had, as Alan Johnson says, their "whimsy tempered", and decent Ringo songs like Photograph and It Don`t Come Easy would have been available.

   The rivalry/chemistry between McCartney and Lennon would have improved many of their solo offerings, and with Harrison`s reputation as a song-writer established, the incomparable quality of Beatle albums would undoubtedly continue. What on earth was Weller talking about?

Need for parliament`s recall

With the country facing its biggest health crisis in a century, and with evidence clearly suggesting that "shutting down Britain earlier would have saved lives", it is incredulous that parliament is still in its Easter recess (Britain`s government is failing to protect its citizens, with lethal results,14/04/20). Why haven`t the opposition parties, as well as all aspects of the media, been demanding its recall, especially since it has been clear that the daily briefings with journalists have failed to hold the politicians to account? If Nicola Sturgeon could hold a video questioning session last week, one would have thought that even our antiquated parliament should not still be working on the plans for "how parliament can adapt its proceedings" ("Hybrid" virtual parliament plans to be put to MPs next week, 14/04/20)! 

   Under a truly democratic system, Starmer and a few others would be asking the questions in the televised briefings, and MPs would have already worked out how to debate and vote on legislation without having to break social distancing rules. Of course, the confusion suits a government determined to avoid scrutiny, but the lack of urgency evident in the other parties does not augur well!

n the biggest health crisis in over a century, the country`s parliament is still on holiday! As the daily briefings have shown all too clearly, there is, as Keir Starmer says, "no substitute for parliamentary scrutiny", but why has the "chorus of cross-party calls for the recall of parliament" taken so long (As virus death toll nears 10,000, parties unite to demand the recall of parliament, 12.04.20)? It`s not as though the government took the advice of the World Health Organisation on testing, dealt with the problems of insufficient protective equipment promptly, or even ordered the lockdown quickly enough!

 Excuses about the problems associated with social distancing in the House of Commons are irrelevant, as it is patently obvious that debates and questioning could have been taking place before Easter along the lines of the "virtual question time" held with Sturgeon in Scotland. Possibly then, this government could have been forced into both taking preventative rather than belated remedial measures, as in the case of care homes, and into debating an exit strategy which considered all aspects of the effects of lockdown, including those on mental health! 

"No substitute for parliamentary scrutiny"

In the biggest health crisis in over a century, the country`s parliament is still on holiday! As the daily briefings have shown all too clearly, there is, as Keir Starmer says, "no substitute for parliamentary scrutiny", but why has the "chorus of cross-party calls for the recall of parliament" taken so long (As virus death toll nears 10,000, parties unite to demand the recall of parliament, 12.04.20)? It`s not as though the government took the advice of the World Health Organisation on testing, dealt with the problems of insufficient protective equipment promptly, or even ordered the lockdown quickly enough!

 Excuses about the problems associated with social distancing in the House of Commons are irrelevant, as it is patently obvious that debates and questioning could have been taking place before Easter along the lines of the "virtual question time" held with Sturgeon in Scotland. Possibly then, this government could have been forced into both taking preventative rather than belated remedial measures, as in the case of care homes, and into debating an exit strategy which considered all aspects of the effects of lockdown, including those on mental health! 

Observer getting the knives out

Observer readers are doubtless, as your editorial states, "relying on Starmer to get Labour" into government, so isn`t it rather early to be getting the knives out (Competence and clarity are key, but Starmer needs a persuasive vision, 05.04.20). Andrew Rawnsley criticises him for "keeping it vague" during the campaign, yet a paragraph later, acknowledges that Starmer did issue "10 pledges" (Keir Starmer won the party handsomely. Now he must start convincing the nation, 05.04.20).. Perhaps the real problem is not that they lacked detail, but that they contained "a lot of Corbynite policy"? 

     Corbyn attracted much criticism from the media, including the Guardian and Observer, because his left-wing policies were seen to be too divisive. His replacement`s attempts to placate both sides of the party at least deserve a fair hearing! Corbyn`s critics stressed how his appearance affected his "electability", yet when his successor does "meet the conventional expectations of what a potential prime minister ought to look like" , this is deemed insufficient! 

   Rawnsley singles out "the optimists in Camp Starmer" for special mention, but at this time of crisis, that description should apply to us all.

Optimism surrounding Starmer

Your recent editorial on Starmer`s leadership was far too pessimistic (Star,06/04/20). Of course, we all have some misgivings about his victory but rather than assume that he will try to "reverse support for public ownership, real action on climate change and the redistribution of wealth", why not accept his determination to avoid "business as usual" after the crisis?

   He has stated already that now we know who the key workers really are, how they have been "overlooked and underpaid", and how "they`ve got to be first". That doesn`t sound too bad to me!

    it would mean having future policies, in some cases, more radical than Corbyn`s. Minimum wage would have to rise inexorably, probably by over 50% for the likes of cleaners and shop-workers, whilst pay rises for nurses, carers, doctors and teachers would be also very significant. Massive ax rises for the wealthy individuals and corporations would be necessary, as would more quantitative easing.

      Refusing to join any coalition during the crisis is important, but insisting that any loans and bailouts to large companies must be conditional on a whole series of targets related to carbon emissions, pay ratios, and ending tax avoidance should be an early Labour policy.

     Too much pessimism these days is demoralising. Let`s hope instead Starmer can prove his doubters wrong.

Starmer needs to be careful!

It is difficult to disagree with your recent editorial which said that if Labour allowed "things to revert to normal or near normal" it would be "disastrous" (Star,29/03/20). Allowing business and finance to control the economy again cannot be allowed, and the new Labour leader`s first job must be to deliver this message in the most stringent way. 

    What is needed too is for involvement with the government in policies for the current crisis, but there is a major danger in getting too close. With the government`s policy coming under incresed attack for the lack of both testing and adequate personal protection equipment, it is  understandable why many "senior Conservatives" are seeing the need for "a national unity government" : the unpreparedness of the NHS caused by a deliberate and unnecessary decade of callous austerity policies, resulting in underfunding and understaffing, will sadly lead to hundreds of preventable deaths, responsibility for which the Tory party will be keen to share with the Opposition. Further inevitable problems involving the police and prisons will have their origins in austerity, too, while job-cutting at HMRC and DWP will cause delays in getting much-needed  benefits to laid-off workers and the self-employed. By "dragging Labour in", blame can be shared!

     Of course, Labour cannot be seen to shirk away from sharing some responsibility for decision-making, but any form of "Covid coalition" must be resisted. At the vey least, the new leader should issue a firm statement on the effects of the Tory austerity measures on the crisis, and how Johnson`s mistakes and miscommunications have left the nation dangerously exposed, before showing a willingness to guide decision making!

Herd immunity by the back door!

Weeks into the crisis, politicians, according to your editorial, avoid admitting "when they have no answers to a question for fear it shows weakness" (Needless political spin risks corroding trust in No 10 crisis strategy, 02/04/20). In this case, I`m afraid it shows instead downright arrogance allied with gross incompetence, the former because Johnson and Cummings clearly ignored expert advice from the World Health Organisation about testing, and the latter because they appear incapable of providing the correct protective equipment .Booze-ups in breweries spring to mind!

      In times of crisis audiences do indeed "need good news", and certainly not that the real government policy apparently is  "herd immunity by the back door", When ex-colleague, pro-austerity, pro-NHS cutting and doctors` critic, Jeremy Hunt, is the "government`s most effective critic", it really is time to worry!