By the time we come out of the Coronavirus epidemic, the context of British politics may well look very different. It’s hard yet to tell how far the dominant narratives will have changed, but some shifts are already occurring – many positive for Liberals, some not so easy to adjust to. Positive changes include:-
- Recognition that government is a complex, and constitutional, process, not a matter for populist slogans. Boris Johnson on March 16th said that Britain’s strength as ‘a mature liberal democracy’ was that we could manage to bring together broad national consent to difficult measures to combat the epidemic. That’s a phrase he would never have used 3 months ago, when he was talking of ‘the will of the people’ and ‘people versus Parliament’. This will make it harder for Right-wingers to push through the curbs on parliamentary and judicial scrutiny they hoped for through the planned commission on the constitution.
- The libertarian drive to shrink government is over. The PM accepts that active government is essential, including economic planning and industrial strategy. 6 months ago Rishi Sunak was repeating the Taxpayers Alliance mantra that there’s a ‘natural’ ceiling to government revenue and spending at around 37% of GNP. Now he’s become a full-blown Keynesian, mobilising public spending to support economy and society.
- International cooperation has trumped nationalist assertion. Viruses don’t respect national sovereignty; sharing information with other governments, their health services and research laboratories, are self-evidently needed to combat the pandemic. Johnson’s conversion here is reluctant and incomplete; he’s still committed to leaving the European Medicines Agency (risking delay in access to new drugs) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (set up with UK support in the wake of the Sars epidemic). But we can mobilise this argument against our Vote Leave government.
- Experts have regained the government’s (and the public’s?) respect. The PM has to listen to the Chief Medical Officer and others, and restrain his instinct to crack jokes about serious and complex topics. Experts are ‘the liberal elite’ whom populists denigrate, who look at evidence rather than gut instincts.
- The idea of ‘the public interest’ is back; and of civil servants as working for the public, national interest.
- Public service broadcasting is demonstrating why it’s a national asset. The BBC is a trusted source of information, and a link between political leaders and public in a crisis – something that the USA lacks and is suffering from.
There’s at least one change that Liberals will not welcome, however, and that libertarians will choke on. A social crisis of this severity emphasises the value of community as against individualism. Grabbing as many packets of pasta and loo rolls for your own family, pushing elderly shoppers out of the way if necessary, is clearly anti-social. Committed libertarians in the USA have driven up gun purchases in recent weeks: no trust in government, and little cooperation with neighbours, for them. The strength of local communities pulling together, and of recognising the need for solidarity across our national community, is reinforced by a crisis like this.
Restrictions on liberty and privacy also become more acceptable: not only in Britain but across the world, with Chinese propagandists already beginning to claim that their strict social discipline has saved lives. Liberals are rightly hostile to such claims. But those of us who are social liberals by conviction have to strike a delicate balance between individual freedom and community safety and solidarity – which has always been one of the most difficult issues to resolve within the liberal tradition. Part of our response should be to champion local initiatives, local communities, and local democracy against overcentralised direction.
There’s a long way to go before we emerge from this national and global emergency. Meanwhile we should be looking for every opportunity to argue that our values, our approach to politics, fit what is needed to rebuild and recover far better than the populist simplicities that have debased politics in Britain and other democratic countries in recent years.
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
40 Comments
The article that has such a sensible point and puts this well, makes two big mistakes.
Individualism is of no interest to Liberals and, remember them in our party, social democrats. The philosophy of Libertarianism, left or right is keen on individualism. Liberals particularly believe in individuals, as people, not as an ism. We celebrate individuality. William does not allude to the Harm principle I talk about herein in two more recent articles of mine, but those ideas, have absolutely at their core, limits on liberty when it harms community, yes, many individuals, together, harmed, say be gone, to that harm, in a democracy that is the liberty expressed in votes.
Another minor yet important thing. Because you think that it is acceptable to favour one broadcaster, please, don’t push it as a way to force the way it is financed, upon the poor. Nothing Liberal can be found in the wretched tv licence. And there is not much in the way of a liberal attitude to be so against a range of broadcasters, thought or as terrific. Beth Rigby is superb. She works for Sky!
@William Wallace
This is a marvellous piece.
Just to build on a few of your many good points:
– we should resist attempts by Chinese propagandists to promote authoritarianism (and recognise that an authoritarian clamp-down on whistle-blowers played an important part in the creation of this pandemic)
– we need to strike a delicate balance between individual freedom and community safety and solidarity. This echoes our constitution. And when striking this difficult balance we should be respectful of others when they call for a different balance.
Amid the horror of this crisis, your post offers a rare note of optimism. As you say, there are things to welcome. Including these three:
– experts have being treated more seriously now
– the drive to shrink government is over
– and the BBC is being recognised again for the enormous asset it is
The bad aspects of the situation is that democracy is under threat. The danger is that to criticise the government will be called no supporting the fight against the virus, and making the virus a political issue when people are losing their lives.
I know that people are panic buying. They may be – or have been asked – to stay at home for two weeks. Under these circumstances when they are not able to have meals out, and they see the lack of any real information, except that Johnson will not hesitate to take firmer measures – what should they do?
I have not investigated toilet paper, but suspect that a smaller fraction of weekly sales is on display at an one time because it is so bulky – so people draw the wrong conclusions – and then the idea spreads.
Why on Earth should people trust politicians – or for that matter experts -when things are not going well.
Visited local Waitrose today, not just for the free parking, nor for the free newspaper, nor even for the free coffee which I did not have. Empty shelves and no reserve stocks, but masses of unsold flowers and flowering plants, some with yellow price-reduced labels, bought one for home, bought milk for the foodbank, must not be date-expired.
One green button for local charities, different every week.
Emails show £1,000 off an electric car. Tempting.
So good to agree with and support the many points raised by Lord Wallace and the other contributors with regard to the possible outcome in the aftermath of this terrible coronavirus, it just proves how important our friends and partners in Europe are to us in so many ways, the Liberal Democrats must keep pushing for the closest cooperation possible with the EU.
One other problem from a Lib Dem perspective is that democratic controls are being rapidly dropped at a stroke without any time-limit or compensating measures being adopted. Indeed I doubt if any compensating measures are even being suggested or even considered in most cases.
I hope democratic scrutiny of officers and the executive does not disappear over the horizon and that councils like our good friends and trailblazers in Eastleigh are working on them as we speak.
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/fears-for-democracy-amid-widespread-coronavirus-meeting-cancellations-18-03-2020/?eea=&n_hash=628&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpWa1l6a3laak5sTVdGayIsInQiOiJTU2RYa29EdFBoUjRVRjV4dHArbjVrV0xlc3BEUnU0aEZ2UzAzZ0hkZkxcL2w1bUdnWGZrdWl2T21CaHFaNm1yaHE2NE9nRFwvWnJ3Y0JPdEk2cmppOWJXMGVPMHBvTnZTNFFLVk15T0cyTHZ0UmpZSlZaaFJZdlBzV21uM2pVZmFrIn0%3D
Agree with colleagues, especially on the need to secure the merits of the state in ways, to mitigate harm.
The organisation the BBC, has great people, but so does channel 4, superb team on their news, the Guardian, etc, can we not trust these as much as the national broadcaster, as it is called, they are to be trusted every one of these and many besides.
Is anyone else concerned that the banning enforcement was announced like this?
The NHS and the police are stretched at the best of times on weekends.
By telling businesses that they do not have to close until after business tonight it is going to be carnage on the streets tonight. It is going to be like the Millenium with millions of clubbers up and down the country cramming as much drinking and partying in as they can.
I am in no doubt that we are going to see papers full of article tomorrow morning of police and ambulances being overstretched at a time when the NHS can least cope with it.
This really is a bad call by the government.
The decision should have been made that all businesses had to close at 6 pm tonight, I do not know what Boris is thinking here or if he is at all
Lorenzo: the Liberal tradition has always contained a number of thinkers and politicians for whom freedom was defined in terms of the least possible interference with individual choice, and the least regulation by government. I joined the Liberal Party as others left to set up the Freedom Association, the Institute of Economic Affairs and other liberal/libertarian groups. On media, the BBC plus regulation keep Sky ‘clean; its News Corporation equivalent in the USA, Fox News, is shamelessly partisan. There IS a public interest, and the BBC is a public service broadcaster first, and an entertainer second. It provides a shared public space for national debate and communication which helps to hold our national community together, which the USA now lacks.
I confess to being a little confused (not for the first time). We are told that the libertarian dream of the small state is dead. This is a good thing. The defeat of classical liberalism. And so on.
Now no one would argue that in times of national emergency the state must play a bigger parts, bigger perhaps that it would in more settled, benign times. But what should our overall approach, as liberals, be ?
A number of recent posts on this site have looked back to Jo Grimond for inspiration and a way forward for the party. Not being quite old enough to remember his leadership I thought I should do some research. I was a surprised to see Jo referred to in the Progressive Review as a “small state liberal”. Then I came upon this quote, “liberals must stress at all times the virtues of the market” (The Future of Liberalism 1980)
Now I don’t want to get into a pedantic dispute about what Jo did or didn’t think (though I bet some wont be able to resist). My substantive point is that it is Ok to be a liberal who doesn’t think more government is always better, indeed that there is a perfectly respectable strand of liberal thought that has always believed that, and that one day normality will return and we will need to ask just how much power has been ceded to the state.
Chris Cory: Jo was writing when large parts of the British economy were nationalised. We’ve moved a very long way from that. Meanwhile the demands on public expenditure have increased, partly because we now have a much larger older population, but also because we need to spend more on education and research in the high tech economy. Jo argued for more local public spending, less national direction, as well as for striking a careful balance between markets and public provision.
As always, International cooperation is essential. National governments share information and resources and cooperate over repatriation of people caught up in border controls and travel restrictions. Claims that the UK would retreat from the world stage after Brexit were unfounded.
It is the EU that has disappeared. As we have seen before, at times of crises, populations turn to their national governments. This is a natural and understandable reaction. Each nation must do whatever it takes to protect its citizens and the sacrifices expected of the latter will only be acceptable if requested by the national government rather than a distant political autocracy.
Whilst mentioning sacrifices, our health workers are to be admired and supported. Many are working long shifts in direct contact with those infected. Many have inadequate personal protection. Some are subjected to abuse by patients. But worst of all, when they return home, drained and exhausted, they find that their local shop has been stripped of all essential products.
A large number of our fellow citizens are selfish, moronic, uncaring individuals who think that looting supermarkets is made acceptable by possessing a credit card. There is no shortage of food except for the one created by these idiots. The army should be deployed to enforce rationing in supermarkets.
Wonderful to hear Rishi Sunak on the No.10 Press Conference praising the government’s constructive partnership with the CBI and TUC. That’s a comment that will stick in the throats of Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove, and their like. We must start to compile as list of the number of previous statements that have had to be swallowed as the government comes to terms with the current emergency.
“The libertarian drive to shrink government is over.”
“There’s at least one change that Liberals will not welcome, however, and that libertarians will choke on. … Restrictions on liberty and privacy also become more acceptable: not only in Britain but across the world, with Chinese propagandists already beginning to claim that their strict social discipline has saved lives.”
I suspect that both the retreat from small-statism by the Right, and from individualist rejection of social discipline by liberals and Liberal Democrats, will both ultimately prove to be temporary. We are now at war. In wartime, civil liberties are drastically reduced, on the general understanding that once peace has been achieved, they will be reinstated. In wartime, ambitions for contentious political changes are temporarily shelved, because their divisiveness detracts from the war effort. Once war is over, political differences surge back and flourish.
Churchill’s success as a war leader notwithstanding, the overwhelming political demand after WW2 was that a victorious Britain should rebuild to recompense the ordinary working people who had fought and won. The mood will be different when – and to whatever extent – we have defeated CoVID-19.
Our best response to the civil liberties dilemma will be to accept, with the overwhelming majority, that wartime is special, and that our sacrifice of liberties will be temporary. To march alongside the libertarians who insist on their right to shop selfishly and clear the shelves would merely stain our reputation and that of liberalism.
Our best response to the temporary suspension of political conflict will be to recognise that it will return, and prepare to win the peace. The lesson of WW2 is that it is not the war leader’s reputation that matters. Whilst Churchill’s imitator will be a pale reflection of the real Churchill, the nation will ultimately first and foremost simply recognise as its heroes those who fought on the front line. Meanwhile, what will most likely bear fruit will be the development of a practical political programme which – echoing Beveridge, Attlee and Roosevelt – lays the foundations for a better peacetime future.
Small-statism will bounce back if we let it. The rich never give up their quest for enrichment. A better alternative, with a wider consensus from the “centre” and “left”, is what we need to stop that happening.
As always, International cooperation is essential. National governments share information and resources and cooperate over repatriation of people caught up in border controls and travel restrictions. Claims that the UK would retreat from the world stage after Brexit were unfounded.
It is the EU that has disappeared. As we have seen before, at times of crises, populations turn to their national governments. This is a natural and understandable reaction. Each nation must do whatever it takes to protect its citizens and the sacrifices expected of the latter will only be acceptable if requested by the national government rather than a distant political autocracy.
Whilst mentioning sacrifices, our health workers are to be admired and supported. Many are working long shifts in direct contact with those infected. Many have inadequate personal protection. Some are subjected to abuse by patients. But worst of all, when they return home, drained and exhausted, they find that their local shop has been stripped of all essential products.
Theses efforts may help those with contracts who are expensive to ditch, but they really don’t help the preceriate on zero hours or the self employed contractors. If you are permanent, costly to make redundant your employer may very well keep you on especially as the government will effectively pay part of your wage, if you are on zero hours why bother (management see you as instantly replaceable and any cost to keep you is too high), as to contractors why the ability to hire and fire them is often stated to be one of their main advantages.
Now being cynical if the self employed and zero hour staff where but a small part of the work force no one in power would care, but they are not and unless something is done to support them the economy will tank.
I’ll finish by painting a picture of a contractor I know, a veritable epitome of Tory man and small government. Came from nothing but has made a fortune in IT contracting, no time for the scroungers who leach his taxes. He has a house abroad, sublets it during the summer to “friends”, will move there one day after selling his big house and will live the live of Riley on the the money he makes from the sale and the money his pension invested in shares makes. That was last week, now he’s gone all socialist, he can’t rent his foreign house, his pension has “evaporated”, the contract market is looking very shaky and he isn’t young, so government must help. He is far from alone the small staters are happy to have a small state until they need the state, at which point it can’t be big enough for their tastes.
The small government argument looked weak in 2008. For This crisis just exposes the folly of it again. But we’re probably also looking at the end of frictionless movement, cheap flights and the belief in globalization. For all the talk of international cooperation what’s actually happened is travel restrictions, hard borders and intervention by much boosted national governments. When the crisis is over it will not be business as usual because the reliance on Chinese industry and the just in time supply chain has had its weaknesses exposed. I also suspect the era of involvement conflicts like Syria is over. It’s the end free market utopianism.
Bless two Brexiteers disagreeing. Peter thinks the UK will stride into a world of International cooperation of nation states, Glen thinks we will retreat to our little village. Of cause they can’t both be right but they can both be wrong; my money is they’ll both be wrong and will be puzzled why the EU marches on.
Anyway chaps (especially Glen of it is only flu) shouldn’t you both be down sinking a few pints to keep your leaders business going. As Sir Tim of Wetherspoons said “very few catch corona virus in a pub”.
matt 20th Mar ’20 – 6:05pm………….The decision should have been made that all businesses had to close at 6 pm tonight, I do not know what Boris is thinking here or if he is at all…………..
C’mon matt, the closure of pubs couldn’t take place until Boris’s dad had finished his pint.
William, thats a good response.
With libertarianism, left or conservative, their stance is as you said, better to not call them Liberals, now, or really ever since ww2, most Liberals are able to see the best in the democratically supported state.
Please understand my fondness for public interest broadcasting. I loathe the way it is funded with compulsory fees that hurt the poorest. I prefer libertariansn arguments to authoritarian on that alone. And, with an American origin wife and family there, we must not, in denigrating the lousy Fox, do that to PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN……….
Do not think it good to call Mike Wallace, Tom Brocow,Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Chistianne Amanpour, Farid Zakaria, Woodward and Bernstein et al, lacking in public spirit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve changed my min on the coronavirus, My earlier views were base on the outbreak on the cruise ship where about 700 people tested positive and there were 7 deaths (1 per cent amongst an enclosed population with a markedly older demographic) and the early reports from China. But please show me where I’m wrong about travel restrictions, harder borders, and stronger national governments. What I’m not seeing is the small government interlinked cross border market place dominated response favoured by the utopian vision of globalization. This is because the globalization argument forgets that national governments have physical , social. political and legal heft. Where as suppliers of car parts and cheap trainers don’t, not really. Plus of course the environmental disaster of air travel is something that should be tackled and is probably not going to go back to how it was anytime soon. This will inevitably mean less travel because as far as I know you can’t walk across oceans.
The NHS is now inviolate but possibly restructured to some degree, the country is definitely going to need its farmers more than ever, and possibly UBI will replace welfare as it is both fairer and more resilient at times of stress (it will take some years to bring in). I think the new mantra will be resilience of the various systems that the govn controls and, also, flexibility of its workforce (the army more concerned with civil stuff than killing people).
I do think borders are going to be slammed shut and air travel will end up being heavily taxed (the govn’s going to need the money!), possibly with heavy testing of passengers at both ends of the travel. On Brexit, what will the govn do if the EU says no food exports if they don’t extend the transition period as there may be food shortages in the EU zone and they have to stay in if they want the grub?
Leaving the EU killed a lot of opportunities for normal people, post virus I expect such opportunities will be even more reduced.
Barry Lofty
“it just proves how important our friends and partners in Europe are to us in so many ways, the Liberal Democrats must keep pushing for the closest cooperation possible with the EU. “
Ask the Italians how they feel about their friends and partners in Europe.
Italy in a crisis, asked their European partners for medical equipment, plus protective masks. They got nothing but the sound of silence from their ‘EU friends’. Luckily for the Italians help came in air-flights from China with all the stuff they needed in their hour of need.
I wouldn’t be the least surprised if those EU Commission numpties, tried to impose ‘anti dumping tariffs’ on Italy for accepting Chinese help.
So much for EU solidarity?
I am increasingly worried about the *lack* of real political debate and comment on the Conservative’s handling of the crisis on all sides. The Conservatives are clearly taking knee jerk reactions, day after day and then bluffing their way through with misleading slogans like “The Right Thing at the Right Time” trying to imply this is a clear plan which they have in place which is steadily being rolled out.
Already it is clear that they have at last come up with a half workable plan for paid staff, throwing huge amounts of money at them via reverse PAYE to pay 80% of wages, but haven’t got a clue how to handle the needs of the self employed except stopping stuff that hasn’t started yet, offering loans they don’t want, and saying they can go on Universal Credit.
Quite simply the Conservatives are desperate and are saying anything in the hope it will quell the criticism from the British people affected by panic buying and the shutdown of huge parts of the economy. Meantime Labour are watching with glee secure in the knowledge that it will all unravel at some time over the next few weeks or months as the tidal wave of money announced turns out to be more like a trickle.
We need to develop a narrative very quickly so we can act as a voice for all the country as a whole and not one side or another based around, “we support the government in what it is trying to do, but the mess they are making of it all shows it is not “The right thing at the right time” but far too little far too late followed by a unthought out uncontrolled rush to try to cover up their lack of planning.”
Surely someone can up with a carefully crafted narrative in Head Office which Ed and everyone else can use.
All we then have to work out is how to get people to notice us, but that is a problem we have had for most of the last five years …
Thank you William for your article; it brings many of the salient issues together.
It is important that we emphasise that self-isolation and severe movement restrictions are privations aimed at preventing harm to others, including others more vulnerable than ourselves.
You are looking at longer term consequences. We can hope for a more (socially) Liberal concept of government, but this is by no means guaranteed, in fact the crisis can just as easily lead to a more dirigiste, centralised, ‘government knows best’ governance.
Liberal principles assert the value of individuals personal contributions, but this is heavily dependent on the presumption that individuals have sufficient knowledge and understanding to make informed decisions. In recent years it has been alarming to Liberals how right wing political movements in the UK, in the US and elsewhere have co-opted populism to disrupt, disparage and suppress an informed understanding. Even less than a fortnight ago, these tendencies in the US and the UK were dismissing the dangers of a CoVid 19 pandemic, even putting out that it was a hoax, hyped up by their opponents.
There is no guarantee that society will emerge the better from this health and economic crisis; unless Liberals can find a strong narrative, can convince of the dangers of populist myopia and can project a vision for a socially responsible, liberal society, the outcome could serve to entrench the populist manipulators.
Dilettante Eye,, When this crisis is over, and it will one day, and we are looking to rebuild trade and develop vaccines against such devastating pandemics as we are experiencing at the moment I rather put my faith in the cooperation of our European neighbours than the insular politics of people like Donald Trump, but you are entitled to your view.
@dilettante Eye “Italy in a crisis, asked their European partners for medical equipment, plus protective masks. They got nothing but the sound of silence from their ‘EU friends’. Luckily for the Italians help came in air-flights from China with all the stuff they needed in their hour of need.”
Not true. The French and Germans stopped exports, but the EU made them start them again.
Lorenzo Cherin, Glenn, expats, frankie, William Wallace – I think I have to tell you about one effective measure, but it is most likely will be very controversial here.
South Korea and Taiwan have been tracking covid cases via credit card and mobile phone, and this has been effective in monitoring and isolating/quarantining them. This is very problematic from a civil liberty perspective, as this is very similar to the Snooper Charter bill that we used to heavily oppose. However, from a pragmatic perspective, it is effective.
The question is: are you ready to go this far?
Glenn,
I’m glad you have seen sense on the danger of the corona virus ( from now on I’ll just call it the virus ). I’ll now address your other points ( you may be shocked that I even agree in part).
Do we need the ablity to lock down boarders, yes we do and countries in the EU are ( why individual states in the US are too), which means you can be part of a bigger whole without giving up that right.
With regard to states well if you are a small state you pretty much do what the big ones tell you too. As part of the EU we could have told Huwai to do one, without that combined power we sat dithering afraid to upset China or the US.
Your desire to return to a simplier time isolated from the rest of the world has an appeal but reality doesn’t care what we want, it just trundles on and has time has gone on like it or not the world has shrunk in size and become more interconnected.
As to why jobs got sent to India, China et al and the rights of the majority of us all got trashed, well that was just greed and stupidity because when times get tough you realise that if there is no society ” Shoutting we are all in it together” doesn’t work as everyone takes the ” devil take the hindmost” approach. Ironically those that gained most from the approach of greed find themselves in one of the groups at the highest risk; perhaps the one upside of this is we can finally bury the Thatcherite message
“They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
@Chris Cory it always makes me laugh when the lefties quote Grimond and Beveridge without realising that the former was a supporter of markets and a small state, and the latter in favour of contributions being required to qualify for benefits.
The value of community against individualism, which as William points out in his excellent article is vital in a time of national crisis, will need to be reasserted from today. Today social interaction is set back, the familiar meeting-places and meetings are cut off, and ‘social distancing’, that grave threat to community, is the order of the day. Our narrative, which posters above are asking for, must be that we will protect and enhance community, now and always.
Ed Davey has given us a lead, with his Coronavirus Community Task Force, intending to guide local Liberal Democrats helping the most vulnerable in their areas through the crisis. An obvious application of this is that those of us fit and well and not obliged to self-isolate can offer to get food and other necessities for neighbours who are having to stay in. I imagine it may be useful to collaborate with other local councillors, whoever they are, in offering help.
Looking to the future beyond dealing with the immediate effects of the crisis, it will be relevant to pursue the idea that a new social contract should be established between government and citizens. Our belief in freedom as well as social justice asserts that nobody is free who has to live in poverty, so that the first duty of our government should be to pledge to lift the 14 million of our citizens who already lived in relative poverty before the crisis, and thousands more who may fall into it this year, out of that state of unfreedom. Then the further duties of government to lift the evils of our time, as William Beveridge demanded in the war, should be worked out. We have time now to take a lead in this thinking, to restore finally the community of our nation.
It would be nice to think that William is right, and that public trust in experts has been restored. Certainly Johnson would like us to think so, as he was careful to flank himself with both the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Officer in his early pronouncements. Presumably that was an insurance policy so that he can share the blame if things go wrong, which they seem to be doing.
There is increasing evidence that the original experts consulted got it wrong. The initial laissez faire approach of letting the virus run its course so that we could reach “herd immunity” was abandoned after a few days, and since then, as David Evans (above) describes:”Quite simply the Conservatives are desperate and are saying anything in the hope it will quell the criticism from the British people affected by panic buying and the shutdown of huge parts of the economy.”
The ineptitude of the government, and its slowness to react, is described with authority by Dr Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet, in the Guardian on 19th March
“@Chris Cory it always makes me laugh”.
Unfortunately it doesn’t make me laugh when the anonymous TCO trots out his predictable right wing stuff…. often based on partial or distorted evidence to suit his view of the world. It’s people of your persuasion who crashed this party up post 2010.
I actually knew Jo Grimond, TCO, did you ? You’ve obviously not read the comment by William (who worked with and for Mr Grimond) about the context and the time of the words you like to quote.
This is the last time I’m going to respond because It’s time to fess up about whether you are (or ever have been) a Liberal Democrat supporter – and for how long. I suspect not…. but do prove me wrong. You’ll be giving us a lecture on the ‘Nanny State’ and the ‘Magic Money Tree’ next as the country struggles to cope with the current calamity.
Thank you again William for an excellent article. I have noticed a tendency amongst some people, including Lib Dems , to think that we shouldn’t criticise the Government during this unprecedented crisis. However, I believe we have an extra duty to do so. This isn’t war, when criticism can help the enemy, because what we are up against is a virus. Criticism may make the Government think again and thus save lives.
At the moment there are two main holes in the Government’s approach. One is the lack of protection for frontline workers. Although stocks held for a flu pandemic are now being released, I doubt if there will be enough for this pandemic because vaccination against flu for elderly and vulnerable people will have been expected to reduce the numbers of people hospitalised at any one time. We need manufacturers of clothing and leather goods to switch to producing protective clothing and masks. There is no point in providing extra beds and breathing equipment if the staff to monitor and treat patients are themselves ill because they haven’t been properly protected.
The second is testing. Again the Government hasn’t responded quickly enough to vastly increase our capacity to do this so we have no idea how many people are already infected with the virus. There seem to be hot spots where the virus develops more quickly and severely than in other areas. This means that sampling tests will be inaccurate in their predictions of the spread of the virus.
I was very pleased to see Ed Davey criticising the Government for this kind of mistake and those based on adhering to Tory ideology rather than taking pragmatic action, for example turning down the EU’s offer of help.
In times of crisis the Lib Dems’ instinct is to cooperate and help. The Coalition to tackle the 2008 economic crisis comes immediately to mind. However, in this situation I believe we have a duty to publicise any shortcomings in the actions of the Government because this will save lives if the Government responds to public pressure.
Joining this debate a bit late, but the issue of community and individualism needs much careful thought. The opening section of the consultation paper on Liberal Democrat values (that was to be discussed in York) does not get this balance right in my view. That paper needs to be discussed.
@David Raw “Unfortunately it doesn’t make me laugh when the anonymous TCO trots out his predictable right wing stuff…. often based on partial or distorted evidence to suit his view of the world. It’s people of your persuasion who crashed this party up post 2010 … This is the last time I’m going to respond because It’s time to fess up about whether you are (or ever have been) a Liberal Democrat supporter – and for how long. I suspect not.”
Comments like this say more about the person making them than the person they are about. But for the record, I’ve been a party member for over 30 years. Including running a campaign that got the largest LD->Con swing in the country at the time. What a strange thing for a right-wing member of “Tory Central Office” to do. Another thing I find funny is the exclusive tone of many posters who are supposedly in favour of tolerance and inclusivity. But it’s a funny old world, isn’t it.
@TCO – Thank you. You point out the intolerance of some who post here. The illiberal attitudes sometimes expressed are quite amazing.
As a party member of over 30 years you will probably get away with it. I get the cold shoulder treatment or scathing comments from my good friend frankie.
TCO, Peter – you know what, your centre-right policies have now come back to haunt us. One of the reason why Britain is so vulnerable is because the Tories and Orange Bookers have been determined to slash the bureaucracy and organization of government institutions for the sake of efficiency and “value for money” and “reducing the size of the state” (this is also the case for many European countries over the past decade, or in Ontario since 2018). Countries that are currently successful are those with strong and robust government bureaucracy and institutions, not ones that have been cut to the bone.
@Thomas
“TCO, Peter – you know what, your centre-right policies have now come back to haunt us.”
In what way?
“One of the reason why Britain is so vulnerable is because the Tories and Orange Bookers have been determined to slash the bureaucracy and organization of government institutions for the sake of efficiency and “value for money” and “reducing the size of the state” (this is also the case for many European countries over the past decade, or in Ontario since 2018).”
Which organisations, what bureaucracy, which European countries? What do you mean by “slashed”?
“Countries that are currently successful are those with strong and robust government bureaucracy and institutions, not ones that have been cut to the bone.”
Which countries? How do you define “successful”? How do you define strong and robust? How do you define “cut to the bone”?
Nigel Jones. Hi, Nigel, I liked your comment on the issues of community and individualism, which indeed deserve to be explored. Could you tell us why you think that the opening section of the discussion paper on Principles and Values does not get the balance quite right? At first reading it seems unexceptional.