From the great people at Led by Donkeys
While the new coronavirus was spreading across China and then Italy and Spain, the UK, under our Brexit-obsessed and otherwise dysfunctional government, went about it’s business as usual. When it did arrive on our shores the plan seems to have been to allow people – expected to reach 60% of the population – to get the disease so that a ‘herd’, and they actually used that word, immunity would emerge. It appeared that the vulnerable people in the herd would have to take their chances.
The one day someone did the sums. Not difficult. With a population of about seventy million and the overall mortality rate of 1-2% it means that the number expected to need hospital treatment far exceeds the capacity of the NHS. It’s even worse for older people, with a mortality rate of around 3% for 60-year olds up to 15% for those in their 80s. Hence the change of tack. At long last Johnson’s government faced up to the potential disaster and did what most other countries had already done. Clearly with reluctance, ‘suggested’ restrictions on movement were introduced until, finally, at the start of this week we entered the nearest thing to a lockdown that a Conservative government could conceive.
This is a nasty virus. Coughing and a fever are the initial symptoms and for the young and fit this can be very mild. But the older and more vulnerable the patient the more likely it is that shortness of breath will follow to the extent that a patient may require a ventilator to help them survive. But it emerged that, along with protective equipment for NHS staff, there is a significant shortage of ventilators, with only a few thousand available to the NHS where tens of thousands will be needed.
This is where the Tory government showed it’s true colours. When existing suppliers of ventilators offered to provide all the machines they had access to, the suggestion was not taken up. Nor did it the government agree to be part of a combined EU purchasing programme which would have speeded up delivery. Instead, Conservative-supporting manufacturers were enlisted to start producing ventilators from scratch. The worst example is the case of Dyson, the vacuum cleaner manufacturer, who’s founder, James Dyson, has been an avid Conservative fan. Dyson is a vocal supporter of Brexit, despite having moved his manufacturing base from Wiltshire to Singapore in 2002 and last year announced plans for his HQ to follow. His company is known for redesigning the wheel into something a lot more expensive. This ventilator redesign, funded by our government, will cause a delay and cost lives.
Now I’m seventy years old and more at risk of a bad outcome from coronavirus than the majority of the population. It’s not that I’m afraid of dying. I would prefer a few more years but I quite accept that there are many people that are more of a priority than me. But I don’t want to die gasping for breath because no ventilator is available, particularly if that’s due to many years of chronic underfunding of the NHS and putting business the way of your chums. If I die, the fault lies fairly and squarely with consecutive Conservative governments who have failed to give the NHS the funding it needs, seek every opportunity to favour their supporters and have cut corners on disaster planning ‘red tape’.
How did we end up like this? Why do people keep voting Tory?
The Green Party has never had a hope of winning this election. But we’re now a multi-party democracy with no one party likely to achieve a majority of seats, despite the biased impact of our first-past-the-post system. Either the Tories or Labour will hold sway, but minor parties have a significant role to play in trying to limit extreme economic and other policies. The Green party does not have the people or the expertise to run the country, but should they get a seat at the table they have a set of policies that might help limit the excesses of ideologically driven politicians and point the country in the right direction (or at least help bring a bad government down).
This election is the first where tactical voting will be counter-productive. We need to learn from the Liberal Democrat’s actions after the last election, when they betrayed their ‘tactical’ support base. Hopefully one day a government will implement a meaningful proportional representation system so that the voters’ views are truly reflected in parliament. But until then we should vote for the policies we believe in so that minor parties can at least throw the right spanner in the works (although not the Lib Dems, of course, since they don’t seem to stand for anything).
The band is Phat Bollard – download the track (and others) here – https://phatbollard.bandcamp.com/track/millionaires-2
The headlines yesterday included the news that the UK unemployment rate has fallen to 7.1%, apparently the best since early 2009. But the comments and discussions that followed are a reminder of the dangers of using statistics as a shorthand for government achievements.
For a start the 7.1% is a national figure and disguises significant variations. For those under 24 not in education, 18.1% are out of work and more than a quarter of these have been looking for a job for over a year.
Nor does the headline figure mean that all problems have been solved for those people who have found work. The newsworthy figures don’t show how many more jobs are only part-time, temporary or on zero-hour contracts. If there’s no guarantees of actually work in a role that can be whipped away at a moment’s notice, it hardly counts as a success. The resulting low wages also mean that for the first time since records began the majority of people in poverty are actually in working families, according to a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published last December. And Ed Miliband claims that average wages have gone down £1,600 a year since the 2010 general election, making it tougher for everybody. Employment figures only tell part of the story of how well we’re doing.
Government figures always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. They can be selective and misleading after ministers apply their own spin. But they can also be just plain inaccurate or self-fulfilling.
Last week the UK Statistics Authority, the independent body who’s aim is to safeguard the production of official statistics, downgraded the crime figures for England and Wales because of a belief that the police figures may not be reliable. In its Statistics on Crime in England and Wales report the organisation refers to comments from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) that the problem in crime figures could be due to the fact that ‘a growing number of crimes reported to the police are not being captured in crime recording systems’.
Just today, the National Audit Office released a report into NHS waiting times for elective care in England which found significant errors and inconsistencies in how NHS trusts record waiting time, masking ‘a good deal’ of variation between trusts in actual waiting times.
Even if reported government figures are correct, they may not be all that they seem. My own favourite example also relates to the NHS and the government’s aim of ensuring that patients can see their GP within 48 hours. In the case of my local surgery, the initial response was to ensure they fulfilled the target by not allowing appointments to be booked more than two days in advance. If there were no slots available, tough. It resulted in a Glastonbury-like phone scramble every morning as people speed-dialled to try and book an appointment – heaven help those too ill to participate. But it helped the government to claim that the 48-hour rule was being complied with.
Another example of figures not quite being what they seem is the recent panic over immigration, now that Bulgaria and Romania are in the EU and their citizens entitled to work in Britain. Leaving aside the way the government has spread panic about an invasion of workshy foreigners, it turns out that the goal for reducing immigration is actually based on net migration, i.e. those arriving minus those leaving the country. So the target can equally be met by getting more people to leave the UK, which means there are alternative solutions. One springs to mind. Bankers are continually threatening to leave the country if their bonuses are cut or taxes increased. So with one piece of legislation we could simultaneously prevent the increasing wealth inequality in the UK and at the same time reduce immigration. A win-win.
When you hear the claims of government success based on a set of figures, it pays to look more closely. Check, if you can, to see if the numbers are accurate, what they actually mean and if they tell the whole story. Remember, the police can’t even get the crime figures right.
Before the last general election I advocated staying away from the polls. It seemed to me that there’s no real choice, so why bother to vote.
But I’m a concerned citizen. I studied politics in the dim and distant past, stood as a party candidate in local elections, although safe in the knowledge that there wasn’t a snowflake’s chance in hell of being elected where I lived, and sometime later was co-opted onto a (non-party) Parish Council, where I was part of the fight against fly tipping and dog fouling. So when it came to the voting crunch I took the ‘undecided’ option and put my cross against the Liberal Democrat candidate. I should have taken my own advice.
The coalition that formed after the last election has reinforced my non-voting stance. It’s become obvious in recent years that the governments we now elect in the UK only have two goals. The first is to stay in power and the second is to further their party ideology (provided that it doesn’t interfere with the primary objective).
Now call me stupid, but I thought the role of government (via parliament) was to do the best it can for the people it represents, i.e. all of us, although they may have different ways of going about it. Not now. The coalition government’s aim is unashamedly to pursue its own ideological view of how the country should be run.
We, as a nation, are in debt. Fair enough, we need to do something about it. (And let’s not waste time and energy bickering over whose fault it is – just look around and it’s clear we’re not the only ones). If you or I get into debt then we cut back on spending until we’re solvent again and then stay within our means so it doesn’t happen again. Life may be hard in the meantime, but there’s light at the end of the tunnel. Stick at it and things will get better when the debt’s paid off.
That’s how you would expect it to be for the country as a whole. Chancellor of the Exchequer George (Gideon) Osborne insisted that government cutbacks needed to be drastic because of the level of debt the country’s in. We all need to tighten our belts. That makes some sense. But last month, in a speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London, David Cameron said:
“We are sticking to the task. But that doesn’t just mean making difficult decisions on public spending. It also means something more profound. It means building a leaner, more efficient state. We need to do more with less. Not just now, but permanently.”
So there it is. The light at the end of the tunnel has been officially stamped out. Cuts will continue until government spending reaches some pre-determined level set by a handful of millionaires. It’s not about the lives of the people the government is supposed to represent, it’s some ideological view of the way things should be done. The NHS will never get any more money, libraries forced to close will never reopen, support for the arts and local communities will wither away and many more jobs will be lost. If David Cameron gets his way, it’s not going to get any better. Ever.
This is not what representative government is supposed to be about and it undermines any belief that it’s worth voting. Maybe if we all withhold our vote we can shame the politicians into research-based, citizen-centric policy implementation. I don’t see how else we can do it.
There’s nothing I can add to the tributes to Nelson Mandela that have been made in recent days, culminating in his memorial service in South Africa. But it’s very hard to imagine anyone who’s been locked up for 27 years and then emerges to worldwide acclaim and support not looking to get back at his captors in some way. It was that focus on negotiation and reconciliation with those that might have been his enemies that marked him out as great.
It gives some satisfaction to know that the UK was active in the anti-apartheid movement that led to global sanctions, Mandela’s release and the ultimate end to the regime. Support was not always official – the Thatcher government maintained that he was a terrorist throughout – but popular support for the movement, of which Peter Hain was a prominent figure, held sway.
I remember it well. While a young student at a small northern college I made my own pathetic gesture against the 1969-1970 Springbok rugby tour. But the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign, of which Peter Hain was chairman, caused major disruption to the South African team’s visit and resulted in sporting isolation for the country. That hurt the sports-loving nation.
It’s hard, now, to remember the strength of feeling that apartheid raised for many years and the protests and demonstrations in the UK against the regime, but if you were there then the memory lives on. The involvement of Barclays bank in South Africa, for example, led to a student boycott and I’m probably not the only person that has never been in a branch of the bank since.
Hain played a significant role in raising awareness and organising protests, for which he doesn’t get as much credit as he deserves, at least from some quarters. And it was at no little risk to himself. He was once sent a letter bomb (which failed to go off) and was also acquitted on a bank robbery charge, allegedly framed by the South African Bureau of State Security.
At least he must have got some satisfaction this week in Parliament when he told it like it was – who among the politicians and parties of the day supported the anti-apartheid movement and the release of the ANC’s leader and who were against it. There were some shamed faces in the House. The fact is that if it hadn’t been for Peter Hain, others like him and the mass support they generated, Nelson Mandela may never have had the opportunity to show how great he was.