The Empty Chamber

Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQ) was interesting this week. In a nearly deserted chamber – MPs were observing social distancing – new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer asked Dominic Raab a question. Raab answered and Starmer responded, dissecting Raab’s reply without having to compete with the normal braying from backbenchers on both sides of the House. It was unusually dignified and grown-up and in stark contrast to the atmosphere of the bear pit that is normal for PMQ.

When Boris Johnson returns to the despatch box – and I imagine that for Dominic Raab that cannot come a moment too soon – it may be that the blustering style with which he normally approaches such occasions, and especially when he is asked a question which he would prefer not to answer, will not serve him well in the more courtroom like atmosphere of the nearly empty chamber.

The fact that the Prime Minister recently contracted, and subsequently recovered from coronavirus may make the government place a different emphasis on how we move forward. It is my hope that Johnson’s brush with COVID-19 will make him more cautious and less gung-ho about releasing the country from the current lockdown, which is scheduled for review on 7^th May. My expectation would be that it will roll over in its current form for at least another three weeks after that, and more likely for many weeks to come in three-week tranches. This was borne out by remarks made by the government’s chief medical advisor, Chris Whitty who said that it was "wholly unrealistic" to expect life to suddenly return to normal soon.

This will presumably be greeted with dismay by Nigel Farage, who recently used his radio programme on LBC to describe the renewed lockdown as "house arrest" and "another three weeks of hell." Despite Farage having frequently invoked the Blitz spirit and given the impression that he believes that this country (and presumably he himself) can deal with any adversity thrown at it, it seems that the minor inconvenience of having to spend a few more weeks confined to quarters in order to stem the spread of coronavirus and try to turn the tide in the number of deaths is a cross that is too hard for him to bear.

Coronavirus has polarised opinions among those whose views on how best to deal with it differ in terms of whether herd immunity, lockdowns, or testing, track, and trace are deemed the most appropriate method. We also see, as has become increasingly common, a conflict between those who marshal their arguments with facts and those who believe that their opinions and instincts carry equal weight, even if they are mere conjecture. There is a certain orange-hued politician on the other side of the pond who has been this way inclined through much of his time in office, and coronavirus has not changed his way of thinking, as his recent touting of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19 proved. A subsequent medical study showed that not only did the drug have no benefits, use of it may result in higher rates of death.

There has been much praise for New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the country’s early lockdown policy which has resulted in just 14 deaths associated with coronavirus. Ah yes, the contrary argument goes, with a population density of just 46 people per square mile, New Zealand was in a much better position to deal with the pandemic than countries where the population density is much higher. Except the USA has a population density of just 94 people per square mile, but nearly 43,000 deaths, and Greece has suffered only 121 coronavirus deaths despite a population density of 211 people per square mile. Singapore, where the population density is an astonishing 21,646 people per square mile, has recorded just 11 coronavirus deaths. These figures alone don’t paint the full picture, Singapore has adopted a very rigorous test, track, and trace policy in addition to lockdown.

It is easy to get sucked in by stories that appear respectable and plausible, and which are crafted in a way that gives them an air of credibility. Such was the story about the NHS sock-puppet Twitter accounts which the Department of Health and Social Care was accused of creating. It seemed believable, so I retweeted it (the fact that it had already been retweeted by an account that I follow and which is generally very reliable and scrupulous in what it posts definitely lowered any scepticism I might otherwise have had). I was inclined to dismiss the denial since the original story seemed so credible; until I read Full Fact’s investigation (you can read it here for yourself, https://fullfact.org/online/evidence-network-fake-nhs-tweets/). Just shows that no matter how sharp one thinks one’s critical faculties are, it’s still possible to be deceived.

Whether it is incompetence, genuine confusion, or a simple lack of transparency, there is the matter of the government’s mixed messages over the EU ventilator scheme. Whatever the truth of the matter (and I have no idea what that is), the inability to communicate a simple, coherent answer that the public can place faith in is worrying in the extreme. Likewise, incoherent and conflicting stories about PPE raise doubts about the competence of members of Her Majesty’s government. Having mentioned in a recent blog that Home Secretary Priti Patel had been conspicuous by her absence from government briefings, she promptly popped her head above the parapet, but was struck by an awkward bout of dyscalculia – one even more embarrassing than her Shadow, Diane Abbott’s well-publicised arithmetical blunders – and was quickly put back in whichever Whitehall cupboard she had previously been self-isolating in. Truly at present, I find it difficult to think of a single member of government in whom I have faith.

When a highly critical piece appeared in The Sunday Times last weekend, the government issued a 2,000-word rebuttal. Were times normal, and were the matters exposed by the newspaper some run of the mill affair, this would be unprecedented enough, in the current crisis it is unedifying and inappropriate for government to be squabbling with the press.

I appreciate that we face an unprecedented crisis, and it is perfectly understandable that there have been mistakes and false starts in dealing with it, but what I find difficult to accept is the government’s apparent inability to accept and acknowledge those mistakes, and to learn from them. In all walks of life, whether it is government, commerce, or merely in personal relationships, the best measure of maturity and effectiveness is not taken when things are all going well, but when they go wrong, and how the organisation or individual reacts. In that respect – regardless of their actual response to coronavirus – this government could do better.