Towards a new normal

There are two phrases that we keep hearing. The first is “we followed the science”. All I have to say about that is they didn’t. If they had probably half the people who are dead wouldn’t be. The second phrase is “we can’t go back to life as normal”.

Unfortunately, very few of the people pushing this line tell us what the new normal is going to be, or for that matter, what the old normal that we can’t go back to actually refers to. 

I started to think about what my normal was prior to the lockdown. It wasn’t that bad. I retired early last year. I’m by no means rich but I have enough money to live on (for the first time I even have a small amount in the bank for a rainy day). I run regularly (well, until recent heart surgery), I walk my dog, I go for walks on the beach with my partner, and we can afford a couple of trips out most week. I am, as readers of this blog will know, active politically though nowhere near as active as I was a few years ago.  It might  appear boring to some people but it’s a kind of normal life that many people of my age enjoy.

So, if I am to have a new normal I’d quite like it not to differ too much from the old one. Now, before you accuse me of being a selfish ***** (choose own epithet) I should say I am more than aware that for many people the old normal is nowhere close to being as comfortable as mine. I have experienced periods of unemployment, poverty and insecurity. Fortunately, I haven’t had to endure racism or sexism but I am more than aware that they exist and that a new normal that does not deal with these issues is not worth having.

A new normal has to confront racial and sexual harassment

The new normal has to see changes. A 2019 survey conducted by University of Manchester researcher Stephen Ashe for the TUC found that over 70% of ethnic minority workers had experienced racial harassment at work in the last five years, and around 60% had been subjected to unfair treatment by their employer because of their race. Meanwhile, a 2016 report by Safeline found that over half of women in the UK had experienced sexual harassment while at work. Whilst the ONS report that the Crime Survey for England and Wales revealed an estimated 2.4 million adults experiencing domestic abuse in the year to March 2019 (1.6 million women and 786,000 men). And, this is to say nothing of 14 million people in poverty, insecure work, homelessness or sub-standard housing. This is the old normal I would be happy to leave behind.

But, how are we to get to this new (and improved) normal. Some on the left see this crisis as an opportunity for change. Julie Hesmondhalgh told a People’s Assembly online rally:

“But some people, their eyes have been opened to the hypocrisy of a government that cheers the capping of nurses’ pay one week, and then cheer at the windows for our glorious NHS the next.”

Shadow Minister for Housing Mike Amesbury writing for Left Foot Forward has argued that we cannot return to a normal that fails to recognise the role that key workers play. But his new normal does not seem that far away from old normal aspirations based on state intervention. Invoking the spirit of World War II he argues:

“After the second World War the country was financially and physically broken, yet a visionary Labour government did not respond with austerity, it responded with bold state interventions which led to our welfare state and NHS, vital organs of our society on which we are depending on like never before.”

A new normal for social care?

But, we have a welfare state and an NHS now. Of course, it would be nice if they were properly funded but that in itself is hardly a break from “normal”, it is a return to “normal” but with a slightly friendlier façade.  The idea that all we need to do is to increase funding to the welfare state is quite common on parts of the left. As Nye Cominetti, Laura Gardiner and Gavin Kelly argue in Tribune:

“The necessary funding to raise pay levels isn’t going to be found via efficiency drives or in other parts of local authority budgets. If pay is to go up, taxpayers or those receiving care will need to meet the cost.”

In other words, there are only two options a public service funded by taxpayers or a private service funded by individuals. That certainly summarises the position regarding social care currently. But, if those are the options then in what way are we creating a new normal. Aren’t we simply adjusting normal to accommodate a threat from a virus that this time around has caught us unawares. The problem with prioritising the change as one which has to choose between privatisation and public ownership is that both can be achieved within a capitalist system which only values people as workers and in which human beings are reduced to vehicles for making money – either for themselves (in the form of wages) or for others (in the form of profits or to use the Marxist term ‘surplus value’).

The truth is we are faced with parallel crises. On the one hand we have a virus that is ruthless and deadly and for which, currently there is no known cure. On the other, capitalism is being plunged into a deeper recession than the one that was already coming. Those who support and are supported by neo-liberal capitalism want a new normal that restores profitability. They want stocks and shares that pay good dividends, and oil back up to $60 per barrel (it’s currently at -$35 a record low). They also want something that recently has seemed like a luxury – affordable and well resourced healthcare. They are desperate for a return to a low wage insecure economy for us, and wealth and opulence for them.

When I asked socialists on social media what they thought about a new normal, what struck me was how few people on the left held out much in the way of optimism. Terry Mac summed up well how many on the left feel:

“I know this term gets popularly overused now, but there is a cognitive dissonance where people generally know that they should have voted and supported Corbyn's Labour, but didn't, and now pretend that suddenly everything is different because of coronavirus, even though people like us were pointing out the problems way before this.

If anything, I think we on here would agree that things might actually only get worse when we've got to a point where the NHS is being viewed as a charity, funded by pensioners walking around their gardens and up and down their stairs.” (Terry MAC via Facebook LLA Discussions)

Others agreed with the view that the new normal would be the old normal but with social distancing. Dave Luxemburg told me:

“I want the new normal to be socialist revolution but I expect it will look a lot like the old normal but with more inflation, higher taxes and people nervous of handshakes.” (Dave Luxemburg via Facebook Left Wing UK)

Will the new normal just be the old normal?

Whilst Gloria Jones on Twitter (which proved rather useless in answering my question incidentally) gave a fairly cogent summing up of the issues facing us:

“I've thought long & hard about this and I've decided that the 'new normal' will be just like the 'old normal'.  The rigged system will still be here and the people who most benefit from and support the rigged system will not be giving it up anytime soon.” (Gloria Evans ‪@keepsayingit1  via Twitter)

If the new normal is to be different from the old normal it would require a change of direction so radical that the whole fabric of society would be threatened. For that to happen it would be helpful if the organisations of the working class were to take a lead. But, as Lindsey German, a leading member of Counterfire, argues:

“The temptation for Labour and the trade unions is to be too timid to challenge a government which is failing at every turn and which is getting an amazingly easy ride. But there is a major conflict going on, not least about class and who suffers – and pays for – the crisis. It will be hard for the Tories and big business to impose another major bout of austerity on the NHS, given the circumstances.”

Her view that we should turn the silences and claps into political protests may be fanciful for many, but the realisation that any debate about the post-Covid world is, by definition, political is a welcome corrective to those, including the LOTO, who seem to want to keep the politics out of it. It’s a view echoed, at least in part by CWU leader Dave Ward writing in the Morning Star.

“We will not go back to “normal” – we will create a new normal.”

What Dave Ward is less clear on is what this new normal will actually look like. Besides calling for the renationalisation of the Post Office new normal is to be found in “green shoots”, being “brave”, making it clear “workers will not pay for this crisis” and “a new model of collectivism”. None of which I disagree with, but none of which tell me how “new normal” differs radically from “old normal”.  Paul Callaghan on Facebook makes just this point:

“Saying things can’t go back to the way they were is a common trope after every major crisis. Economically the choice will be between austerity or a Keynesian new deal... As for Labour under Starmer sadly I can see (them) going for a watered down version of the Tory plan.”  (Paul Callaghan via Facebook LLA Discussions)

Most people avoid politics most of the time

Peter C Baker, writing in The Guardian, cites American writer Rebecca Solnit, who argues that crises can be vehicles for change, “Ideas that used to be seen as leftwing seem more reasonable to more people. There’s room for change that there wasn’t beforehand. It’s an opening.” This seems both overly optimistic and strangely true. What is true is that it will be very difficult to ignore the fact that in the UK the NHS has been the true hero, quite whether that translates into resources being poured in will not depend on whether we are optimists or pessimists, but rather will depend on how the Government senses the mood of the nation.

Those with an unhealthy obsession with politics, and I’m one of them, have a tendency to think that the debates, arguments and vitriol which are our everyday experience are mirrored amongst the vast majority of the population who really do not take the interest in politics that they should. However, those who are arguing that there is an opportunity to engage people in a debate about the type of society they want to live in may be on to something.

A recent YouGov poll (I know it’s YouGov and I’ve criticised their methodology in the past) found that only 9% of a sample of 4,500 wanted life to return to normal after the lockdown. Speaking to Sky News Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society of the Arts who commissioned the poll noted  "This poll shows that the British people are increasingly aware that the health of people and planet are inseparable and it's time for radical environmental, social, political and economic change."

Ipsos-MORI reported recently that the new normal could be a very nervous one with 71% of UK respondents saying that even when the lockdown ends they will be nervous resuming their day-to-day activities. A poll of Americans carried out by PYMNTS found that unless a vaccine was found 48% would be unhappy leaving their homes. Over half of their sample did not expect to resume their normal activities when the crisis ends, but there were marked differences amongst different age groups. Younger people were more likely to expect to return to normal, though the percentages still hover around half.

Cordwainer Smith via Facebook LLA Discussions

Although these polls give us some indication of people’s feelings during the crisis they are of less use in telling us what will happen if the virus becomes yesterday’s news. Incidentally, that will only happen in one of two ways. Either a vaccine is developed which is largely available, or the human body defence mechanism (antibodies) finds a way to defeat the virus. The first seems some way off, despite media assurances to the contrary, and the second highly unlikely as in the antibodies vs Covid-19 match, Covid-19 seems to be well ahead.

Brandon Ambrosino, has an interesting article on the BBC website questioning the whole concept of ‘normal’, but gives the game away when he says:

“So we kind of want to go back to where we were, but we also kind of don’t. We want things to be the same, but we also want them to be different. We want to return to normal but we know deep down that our journey won’t be a return so much as a departure.”

In a sense this is precisely what I have argued earlier. I like the life I was living and want it to continue. But, I don’t want it to continue at the expense of other people. Perhaps I am looking at a bigger picture than many middle class people who have been brought up on the dream of individualism.  At the same time as wanting change, they don’t want that change to alter all the things they like. One of the things they tend to like is their feeling of superiority which comes with their higher than average salary. So, doing away with poverty is a good aspiration, but not if it means giving up that second bathroom or caravan in West Wales.

It is hard for the left not to be affected by a media which seems to surround us and is all pervasive. In this sense, the demoralisation of the left is hardly surprising. We have seen our best hope of radical change in the UK literally sabotaged by our own side. We have seen the Sanders campaign in the US also sabotaged by his own party. And, we now have Joe Biden likely to lose against a man who thinks drinking detergent might be beneficial, and in the UK a Labour leader so lacking in charisma that the description of him as ‘forensic’ seems a very bad misspelling of anaemic.

Is it time for revolution?

Despite all this the current widespread enthusiasm for the NHS coupled with a disenchantment with elected officials who look less in control every second that passes provides an opportunity. It is by no means the ideal circumstances in which to take on the ruling class, but revolutionaries have rarely been accorded the luxury of choosing the time of the revolutions they end up taking part in. Many people reading this will not, of course, consider themselves revolutionaries, but to quote the now departed leader of the Socialist Workers Party, Tony Cliff,  “this side of the revolution, the revolutionaries are a minority.”

As Imogen Bowler put it: “this is literally our best chance for change right now” (Imogen Bowler via Facebook Labour Left). Putting some substance to what we might want to fight for Max Caley argues that a new normal might include the following: “A completely restructured economy. Similar to post WWII. Massive programme of nationalisation to the point where every industry that provides essentials for us to live a dignified and healthy life is nationalised and centrally planned by experts that are democratically accountable.” (Max Caley via Facebook Jeremy Corbyn: True Socialism)

Mike Ironside via Facebook Labour4MorningStar

It is never possible in advance to know what demands are going to tip a simple protest movement into a revolutionary one.  In France in 1789 political reforms were demanded but it was a call for bread that brought millions onto the streets, as the often mis-quoted “let them eat brioche (not cake)” reminds us. In Russia in 1917, the First World War was a significant factor but the slogan that brought millions onto the streets was “Land, Peace, Bread”. In other words, the demand for food, which you might see as a human right, has been the fuel of revolutionary movements. The point is that, hoarding notwithstanding, bread has not been an issue in the developed nations, but something else we take for granted, healthcare, has.

If, and this is a big if, the left can see beyond its own demoralised state and put aside its factional differences, the opportunity is about to arise where it will be possible to demand that things most people regard as simply ordinary become a tipping point for a system tottering on the edge. We need to put our efforts into developing a movement that sees beyond parliament. That is not to say that we should give up on parliament, but that the movement we need is beyond parliament. Far too much time is spent on trying to obtain parliamentary power (or even worse its mini-versions in council chambers) to the detriment of building a mass movement capable of taking on, and defeating, poverty, inequality, and discrimination. 

The problem with parliamentarianism is that it has developed a political class that looks after its own interests and which even its left-wing often regards itself as above ordinary workers. Labour MPs are happy to tell us what to think, they are less good at listening to what we actually think. We see this mirrored in trade union bureaucracies which too often protect themselves regardless of the impact on their members. In this sense, it is difficult to see either the Labour Party or trade unions as vehicles for change. However, neither is this the right time to abandon them entirely. In building the new normal we cannot simply replace these organisations which millions of people look to, but as the left we need to see them for what they are, and not have illusions in their commitment to change.

Gerry Riley via Facebook Labour Left

In building the new normal we will need to find demands that many people will agree with and support. A properly resourced NHS funded from taxation, workers on proper contracts with health and safety not seen as a burden but the minimum we should expect, an end to homelessness etc., and all of this whilst keeping our focus on the climate emergency which has not disappeared whilst we have been busy elsewhere. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of demoralisation or self indulgent reflection. The stakes are as high as ever but it is because the response to this crisis has had a socialist flavour that the left are being handed an opportunity to build a new normal. Our new normal will not be the old normal with social distancing, but a new normal with collectivism and compassion at its heart.

Please don’t forget I am also doing a regular blog on the Covid-19 crisis, mostly tracking the figures. You can find it here

In support of the NHS

It would be churlish not to applaud 99-year old war veteran Captain Tom Moore, who has raised over £25 million for the NHS by walking around his garden. Or for that matter, Geraint Thomas, the Tour de France winning Welsh cyclist who raised £325,000 by cycling for 36 hours non-stop in his home gym. Meanwhile, Lenny Henry is hoping to raise huge amounts for the NHS hosting a telethon featuring top stars including Peter Kay and Catherine Tate which is airing on Thursday as I write this. It will probably raise upwards of £100 million.

It is not just the rich and famous, of course who are “doing their bit”, the average donation is probably coming from ordinary people who want to do something in these unprecedented times. For “celebrities” raising money is both a way to give something back and to raise/maintain their public profile. Captain Tom has become an instant celebrity, with a chart topping record, and there is now a petition to get him knighted which has been signed by over 850,000 people. 

Strangely enough I did sign a petition this week which was asking Parliament to Increase taxes on high earners to fund emergency Budget measures, rather than expect pensioners to take a cut in their pensions. At the time of writing I was the 299^th person to sign. I also signed a petition calling for NHS workers to have a pay rise. That was doing slightly better and had just over 35,000 signatures, still some way below Captain Tom. So, how is it a petition to have a 99-year old knighted is so much more appealing than one to protect pensioners or even one to give NHS workers a pay rise?

The Captain Tom story has been all over the media. In a time of relentless bleak headlines this was a feel-good story. As far as I’m aware at no point did Captain Tom or any of those who surrounded him use their newfound fame to criticise the Government. Indeed he “appeared” alongside under fire Health Secretary Matt Hancock at the opening of a Nightingale Hospital in Harrogate. His was an act of solidarity with NHS workers, but one that had nothing to say about why they are so under fire currently. His age, his apolitical stance and the fact that it was all about charity made it an instant hit with the media who are obviously becoming quite bored with a story that is almost exclusively now about how useless their chosen Government is.

I have not sponsored Capt. Tom, or any of the others. This is not because I am too mean to do so, or because I lack the resources to do so, or even that I fundamentally disapprove of what they are doing. My reluctance to contribute to these fantastic efforts is based on my suspicion that for all this goodwill pouring toward the NHS at the moment, once this virus is beaten (if it ever is) people will return to their apathy about the NHS. For some of us who have been pounding streets, knocking on doors and signing petitions for the past how many years, what is happening now is simply the inevitable outcome of the years of ignoring the developing crisis in the NHS. It is, in short, rooted in a political crisis.

Good intentions are not going to change the fundamental issues that if we want first rate healthcare provision and we want that free at the point of use we have to start listening to the people who actually work in it. Politicians will always claim that “we are spending more on the NHS” and produce an impressive sounding number which supports their claim. Analysis by the Kings Fund, an independent health think tank, supports them.

What this chart shows is expenditure from 2008/09 through to 2020/21 (planned funding). The graph is pretty clearly rising. Which suggests all those of us who have been complaining about a lack of funding for the NHS were wrong. Or does it? The Kings Fund note that since 2008 the funding has been rising by just 1.8% each year on average, considerably lower than the 3.9% per annum rise in the years leading up to the imposition of austerity.

It is not just how much is being spent but whether it is being well spent. Most people would, no doubt, think “well spent” was on doctors, nurses, hospitals, and vital equipment. But, the current crisis has exposed chronic underfunding of, for example, PPE. One reason why we are sending our medical staff into a potentially lethal situation without adequate protection is that in an age of austerity updating equipment that might not be needed was not a priority. Until, of course, you do need it.

I have had rather more interactions with medical staff than I would have liked in recent times. I spoke to one cleaner who explained to me that the major problem with the NHS was not funding as such but poor purchasing. He told me of top of the range vacuum cleaners bought for the cleaners which stayed in the cupboard because they were domestic cleaners that continually broke down when used on the wards. A nurse said to me that it was not more money but getting the money where it was needed. “I don’t need another management consultant standing behind me with a clipboard telling me how to do my job,” she explained “What I need right now is protective equipment.”

It seems that the problem is not one of money as such but poor management making bad decisions with no recourse to the people most affected by them. This, I should point out was in Wales which, of course like Scotland, has a devolved budget for health and so is not obliged to follow the example set by England. To be fair, the Welsh government led by Labour, was quick to ban parking charges, make prescriptions free and allow free eye tests for the over 60’s. But, there is only so much you can do with an ever shrinking budget.

Those currently raising money for the NHS and those giving are well intentioned but there is an element of conscience salving going on. I should say here that I looked for some academic articles that took a critical perspective on charitable giving, but couldn’t find many academics that didn’t see charity as anything other than a form of altruism and therefore to be encouraged. That was slightly disappointing but hardly surprising given that the majority of academics are safely embedded in the middle class for whom the act of charitable giving is a form of positive self-affirmation. Think about it, when you raise money for charity it brings with it the affirmation that you are a good person. Somebody prepared to give up their time for the greater good. With positive affirmation comes positive acclaim. If Captain Tom Moore had not raised money for the NHS do you think you or I would have heard of him? And, without that feat of charity would he really be in line for a knighthood? A knighthood he is probably not going to get, incidentally.

I have no idea of the class make-up of those currently giving to the NHS, but I’ll hazard a guess that those struggling on universal credit aren’t at the front of the queue. I rather suspect that there are a couple of things going on both with these charitable donations and the clap for the NHS which we are all encouraged to do every Thursday. First and most importantly, these are acts of solidarity with workers who, in the context of a dangerous and potentially fatal virus, are highly esteemed at present. But, secondly, they provide a sense of doing something positive whilst at the same time, for many of those taking part, being able to claim that the crisis is not political. Or, at least, only political in a way which we cannot influence. More so if we voted for the very government who are now proving so inept both at managing the crisis and managing the public perception of their ability to manage the crisis.

Twenty five million pounds sounds a lot of money. It is a lot of money. Or it would be for an ordinary person. And, in charitable terms it is an extraordinary amount for one person to raise. But, to put it into context the health budget for the UK in the current financial year is £166 billion. The money raised by Captain Tom is 1/6640^th of the annual budget of the NHS in England. If you were on a wage of £50,000 it is the equivalent of getting given £7.53. You wouldn’t turn it down, but it wouldn’t change your life.

As I watched these charitable exploits unfolding I did wonder what would happen with the money. Captain Tom never said what he wanted it spent on, but I assume he would approve of a ventilator as those are desperately needed. They are approximately £50,000 each for the high grade ones used in ICU, so he could afford around 500. There are around 1,200 hospitals in the UK, so that means that Captain Tom can not afford a single ventilator for each one. But even if he could where would he buy them? If the government can’t find any, what chance an enthusiastic volunteer?

Of course, when Captain Tom Moore decided to do something to honour NHS workers he had no idea he would become the story of a weekend news cycle. Nor, I suspect was he thinking what to do with the money he raised. Besides he was only aiming to raise £2,000. And, all those people who sponsored him probably never stopped to think how their pounds and fivers would actually get spent. They saw an NHS under pressure and wanted to do something about it. And raising £25 million was beyond all their expectations.

Some further context. As of the end of December 2019 the NHS in England employed 1,270,619 people. Of those 667,965 were qualified clinical staff. That includes doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics etc., the very people the nation is so grateful to at the moment. If the £25 million were divided between them they would receive £37.43 each. Or if not money then equipment equivalent to that amount. It would buy about 5 or 6 surgical masks at current prices. That would be a fine gesture and would be much appreciated by the medical staff. Unfortunately, they are in short supply, so any masks that were bought with the £25 million would simply prevent the British government from buying them. But, unfortunately the NHS has rules that would not allow the purchase of ventilators or PPE. NHS Charity NHS Together says: "PPE is part of the core operation of the NHS and is funded by government."

My point is not to denigrate those that raise money nor to suggest that the money will do no good, although it may not do quite the good that people think. My point is a simpler one. The NHS, whether in England, Wales or Scotland is a core part of our social fabric. At the moment it is being stretched to breaking point. This, of course, is a consequence of an unprecedented pandemic, but it is also, and primarily, a consequence of years of budget reductions and poor management. To normalise charity as a means of funding the NHS, or any part of it, is a huge political gamble. Charities cannot hope to replace the billions spent through our taxes. Nor should they be expected to.

Clapping NHS workers, walking or cycling for donations or giving money is a gesture that makes people feel better about themselves but it does nothing to overturn years of neglect of the NHS. Nurses and ambulance workers are heroes now, but how long before we go back to the party of Government cheering as they vote against a pay rise for those heroes. I don’t want to accuse the middle classes of having caused the crisis that they are now making charitable donations to overcome but every person who spent any effort undermining and ridiculing the Labour Party over the past three years helped to facilitate the election of a government that will call health staff heroes whilst at the same time planning another wave of austerity cuts to pay for the crisis which will inevitably impact negatively on NHS staff.

That over half of the population, including many no doubt that are out clapping every Thursday and donating to 99-year olds as they walk around their garden, intend to vote Conservative at the next opportunity, tells us just how morally bankrupt the UK has become. Those same people tell us that the crisis is not political and I suspect if they were to happen on this blog would accuse me of being deeply cynical. Perhaps that is true and I look forward to marching with those people to demand better pay and conditions for our healthcare heroes. But, to be honest, those people only march when they feel their own interests are threatened not to defend others. One of the most successful marches of recent times was to prevent Brexit (remember that?) The people on it were nice, middle class people but a good portion of them had the most ire not for the Tory government which was and still is determined to have the worst possible Brexit, but for the Labour Party and particularly Jeremy Corbyn, who they suspected of not being enthusiastic enough about a peoples vote, so called.

Those people who actively undermined a Labour victory because they fell into the trap of hating who the establishment told them to, are now clapping for NHS workers and raising money for the NHS. Had they have been a little less self-centred they could have had a government with a commitment to the NHS. But, let’s put all that to one side. After all we’re all on the same side now. For our NHS heroes and against the virus.

Except it doesn’t feel like one side to me. It’s as if our side – those that didn’t wait for a pandemic to champion the NHS – has been drowned out by an assortment of liberal minded Tories and Tory minded liberals. Perhaps, if they have any sense of shame they realise that over the past few years they have failed to protect the NHS because it just was not as high on their personal agenda as lower taxes or cutting red tape or getting their kids into the best schools. Whatever the reason the NHS did not sit high in the priorities of those who now sing its praises in successive elections dating back to 2010 (perhaps before).

I have a genuine admiration for the likes of Tom Moore who give up their time to, in their eyes, give something back. But a part of me cannot get away from this feeling that what is being constructed as a matter of charity, is and always has been a political matter. The NHS is a marvellous institution, it is staffed by some of the most selfless individuals you will ever meet. But, it makes no sense to fund it other than through taxation. And, to do so at a level that provides adequate staff, paid a decent wage and with the correct equipment. Charity suggests that the NHS is a luxury which we can fund if we wish. 

Each year around £600 billion is raised through taxation in the UK. That money has to fund all the things the state provides including healthcare. Of this total about £181 billion is raised through taxation. David Cameron, remember him, when he was introducing austerity (often standing alongside Liberal Democrat Nick “I’m not like these two” Clegg) was keen on saying “all we are asking for is a saving of 1p in every pound”. It sounded so easy but it was that simple economics that ensured that PPE was not updated, that new ventilators were not bought, that nurses bursaries were scrapped and that pandemic training did not go ahead. 

A 1% increase in income tax (forget about corporation tax for the moment) would raise 72 times what Captain Tom managed by walking around his garden. And it would do it year after year. Moreover, because taxation is progressive those with the most would pay the most. At the same time as we were being distracted by a 99-year old walking around his garden, billionaire Richard Branson was in the news seeking a government handout to keep Virgin Atlantic afloat. How much do you think he contributed to Captain Tom? From a man who previously tried to sue the NHS perhaps that is an unfair question.

The NHS is a national asset. It was there for the Prime Minister when he needed it. It was there for me recently when I needed it for urgent heart surgery. And, it was there for the homeless woman I heard brought in whilst I was waiting in A&E. No part of the NHS (or social care system for that matter) should rely on charity. Whether it’s protective clothing, decent vacuum cleaners to keep wards clean, prescription drugs, decent wages, or proper training so that a pandemic we were being warned about for years does not become a crisis, the NHS should be properly resourced.

 This is why the current crisis is political. People have been playing politics with our health and our chances of surviving this pandemic for years. From successive Ministers of Health who were not prepared to take warnings seriously, presumably wary of headlines about waste from papers owned by the billionaires whose main interest in the NHS is how much they could make by privatising it, to those who thought paying less tax and worrying about health and social care later, was a wise economic move. To those who rejected a Labour Party committed to raising money for the NHS not through charity but by raising corporation tax. We currently have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in Europe. A 5% increase, as proposed by Labour would still leave us below Germany, France, Spain and Denmark, and would yield something like £2.8 billion, around 109 times what Captain Tom raised. 

Leaks, traitors and unity

So, the Labour Party was sabotaged from the moment that Jeremy Corbyn became leader. I’m shocked. Actually I’m not shocked. If I’m shocked at all it is that people on the left are shocked. Anybody who was involved with either the 2017 or 2019 General Election should have known that shadowy forces were working within Labour for a Conservative victory.

The latest leaked document simply confirms what most of us suspected. It is, if you like, the smoking gun, and the people named in it do not come out of it well. That Ian McNichol turns out to be a malicious anti-leftist is hardly a major revelation. He was appointed during the Miliband years (although he had been a regional officer for the party until 1997 when he became a full time officer with the GMB). He built a bureaucracy in his own image. Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott have been in the party long enough to know full well how much contempt they were subject to by those who should have been working with them.

For many people who joined the party in 2016 and beyond it feels, no doubt, like a knife in the back. For many of us who have taken part in this dance before it is simply business as usual. We have seen the left vilified by the right in the past and expected nothing less from the remnants of that sad, dying breed, the Blairites. 

Younger members are likely to be most demoralised

I suspect that many younger members are particularly hurt because their naivety and idealism have been shattered by these revelations. Many of them, not just younger in age but political activism, had no idea how deep the hatred of the left went among the right of the party. Many would have expected such hostility to, at least, be put on hold during the election where we were all on the same side. They had no idea or way of knowing quite what real politics is like.

That many of these same members have just delivered a victory to somebody whose first act was to reward the very MPs who were plotting behind the back of the last leader should at least help them to realise that calls for unity are empty rhetoric, especially when made by individuals who are so dishonourable that they would stab an entire class of people in the back for their own political and professional advantage.

Let’s be clear the people named in the report are all functionaries of the party. They are the employees whose job is to help deliver a Labour government. Now it may be that they were working on their own and this conspiracy, and there really is no other word for it, was all their own doing. Ask yourself, does that seem plausible?

We know from the leaked documents that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party was being protected by this group. What we don’t know from the documents is how deeply Watson and other MP’s were involved with the conspirators. But, it beggars belief that these treacherous individuals were not working with people in the party with a wider profile: MPs and peers. It also beggars belief that this was not an organised coup orchestrated by those who declared their hostility to Jeremy Corbyn. In particular Mandelson, Campbell and Blair are highly likely to have played a role in this.

How involved were these men in the plot against Corbyn?

Remember, that some of those named had close personal links to the old order. It seems highly unlikely that given how close this group were to the Blairites and Brownites that they were not in touch with them throughout this period. It is no secret that Blair, Mandelson and Campbell hated Corbyn and were, by their own admission, working to remove him as leader. Mandelson told The Times that not a minute went by when he was not working against Corbyn, Campbell encouraged people to vote Liberal in the European elections and Blair said that those voting for Corbyn needed a brain transplant.  None of these people who had dominated the Blair governments had actually retired from public life, even if we think that as war criminals that some of them should be ashamed to show their faces in public. The suspicion has to be that this conspiracy was more far reaching than just a handful of functionaries.

But, I hear people say, where is your evidence? Aren’t people innocent until proven guilty? They have a point the documents released do not implicate Blair et al, or any current or past MPs. But, I would just point out that there has been no proper investigation as to who the functionaries were working for or with, and in all honesty there is unlikely to be one. There is plenty of smoke, we just can’t quite locate the fire.

Jeremy Corbyn was clearly a threat to the establishment and the neo-liberal order in the UK. Perhaps in reality he was not quite the threat that they imagined. But, his vision of a people-powered social movement which sought to empower ordinary people and run society for the benefit of the many worried the establishment to the extent that they mobilised extensively to undermine and destroy him. He was vilified in the papers, hounded by the broadcast media, lied about and smeared almost from day one of his leadership.

These kinds of movements do not happen by accident. When every mainstream newspaper carries similar accusations against a political party, its leader and its members, that is not an accident. When trumped up charges are amplified by people who should be defending their own party, that is not an accident. When members are thrown out of the party on the flimsiest of evidence and then vilified for holding views that are anti-establishment that is not an accident.

What these leaked papers show is a small group of extremely malicious individuals with an utter contempt for those they disagree with. That makes those individuals loathsome and treacherous. But, what those papers indicate is a wider attack on the British left. Yes, they sought to prevent a Labour government, a government with a programme that was badly needed in order to ameliorate the immense suffering that has been caused by 10 years of Tory rule. 

Jess Phillips devastated on election night

But, the plot had a deeper and more significant aim. It was to humiliate and demoralise the left. The goal was not simply to defeat Corbyn, but to ensure that the left would never again be in a position where it was just 2,200 votes away from power. We had to be taught a lesson. Taking on the establishment has consequences. For many members caught up in false allegations of anti-semitism the lesson was a Kafkaesque system of justice in which they were forced to prove that allegations against them were not true rather than have the allegations against them proven beyond doubt. For the rest of us it was designed to silence us. Some will argue that it was to silence criticism of Israel in its treatment of Palestinians. That was certainly a side effect, but I don’t think that was the main aim. 

The plot against Corbynism alighted on anti-semitism having failed to ignite on charges of terrorism links, foreign government links or allegations of bullying levelled against members usually without a scrap of evidence. If it hadn’t been anti-semitism it would have been something else. Anti-semitism simply stuck and became, because of the left’s historic defence of the Palestinians, a really useful stick to beat us with.

These attacks may well have been orchestrated by McNichol, Oldeknow etc, but that is not exactly proven by the leaked documents. It is just as likely that they were part of a network which included embittered Blairites and current members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The stories which found their way into the press were most likely being fed by people with close links to the papers and broadcast media. Who knows? 

What is certainly true is that a swathe of Labour Party MPs actively and maliciously turned on Jeremy Corbyn and anybody seen to be loyal to him. They attacked him personally and by attacking the members who joined in the wake of his unexpected leadership victory. Every MP who amplified the AS allegations, who sided with those making unfounded allegations against the leadership. Every MP who signed letters calling for the expulsion of people on trumped up charges. Every MP who joined in undermining Jeremy Corbyn during the coup of 2016. Every single one of them should be investigated to see how close their links are to the group that have now been exposed.

Keir Starmer: unifier or plotter?

They won’t be and there is a simple reason why. That list of MPs include the current leader of the party who won the support of people who had previously supported Jeremy Corbyn. That leader who was instrumental in developing a policy that had the net effect of losing Labour key seats. What chance that any investigation will be thorough going?

So, what to do? Personally I think what we have learned is something those of us who have been around for awhile will have always known. You cannot take for granted the notion that everybody in the Labour Party is on the same side. These documents prove without a shadow of a doubt that there are party members who prefer a Tory victory to a left victory. In light of this anybody calling for unity is in a state of delusional naivety. There can be no unity with people who believe that a Boris Johnson victory was a cause for celebration. There can be no unity with those whose hatred of socialists and socialism is so deep that they would lie, bully, humiliate and intimidate in order to prevent it from taking a hold in the Labour Party. 

If unity is not on the cards then what? For now, we should in my view stay in the party and continue to use our numerical advantage to hang on to the little bits of democracy we have won over the past four years. However, we should be careful where we put our efforts. I would suggest that those on the right can campaign for their own victories. The left need to be more ruthless in our treatment of right wing councillors and parliamentary candidates. Not every donkey with a Labour sticker is worthy of our support. In future, if we are not actually driven out of the party, we should campaign for and vote for only those candidates that support the socialist values which motivate the majority of the members. They can take their unity and place it where the sun does not shine. We are not falling for their tricks again.

The improbability of probability

"The critical thing first is to get case numbers down, and then I'm hopeful... in a few weeks' time we will be able to move to a regime which will not be normal life, let me emphasise that, but will be somewhat more relaxed in terms of social distancing and the economy, but relying more on testing."  Professor Neil Ferguson (Imperial College London) suggesting that physical distancing could be relaxed in the next week to seven days

We are being subjected to an unprecedented amount of speculation from the science community at the moment. With the government, indeed most politicians, clearly having no clue whatsoever about the coronavirus. With the public largely confused by the various numbers and the methods used to calculate them. The vacuum is being filled by scientists. Including the Chief Medical Officer, their various deputies and particularly the team from Imperial College, London. What is less clear is whether Government policy is being dictated by the science or whether the science is being dictated by Government policy.

From a government that includes somebody who once declared that “the public have had enough of experts” the fact they are listening to scientists at all is quite the turnaround. As a socialist, but also as somebody who taught social statistics for a number of years, I have always argued for evidence-based policy making. Which actually is the exact opposite of what generally happens. 

I have often said in relation to climate change that it would help if we listened to the science. In saying that I’ve not really distinguished science and scientists, tending to see them as the same. But, actually over the past few weeks I’ve come to the conclusion that probably we should trust the science, but not necessarily the scientists. Indeed, we should only trust the science on condition that we can actually understand it. What I’ve felt since the lockdown is that the science has become more and more obtuse as the government have come under increasing pressure.

According to a report by Reuter’s the mishandling of the current crisis can be laid at the feet of the scientists advising the Government. According to John Ashton, a clinician and former regional director of Public Health England, the government agency overseeing healthcare, the government’s advisers took too narrow a view and hewed to limited assumptions. They were too “narrowly drawn as scientists from a few institutions,” he said. That comment about institutions points to institutional rivalry between people studying similar things. It will be familiar to anybody who has ever worked in a university. However, in most instances the failure to listen to others does not cost lives.

The problem according to Reuters was two-fold. First, the scientists who inform governmental policy continued to regard Covid-19 as flu-like in its behaviour long after it was obvious that this was not the case. Second, those same scientists were slow to react to events elsewhere and raise the threat level to high. This early reticence to raise the risk level only changed when Neal Ferguson’s team at Imperial College changed their mind about how many deaths were possible following the ‘herd immunity’ strategy as opposed to the containment strategy now being pursued.

“The catalyst for a policy reversal came on March 16 with the publication of a report by Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College team. It predicted that, unconstrained, the virus could kill 510,000 people. Even the government’s “mitigation” approach could lead to 250,000 deaths and intensive care units being overwhelmed at least eight times over,” Reuter’s reports.

The idea that government policy is being made by scientific experts may be reassuring to a public who have lost faith in politicians, but this places public policy away from democratic, and thus accountable, institutions and into the hands of people whose public persona is of detached pursuers after the truth. Besides we should not forget it is the Government’s job to make decisions, it is the scientists job to give them information on which to make the decision. If the Government don’t understand what the scientists are saying, then it is their responsibility to keep asking for explanations until they do understand. It is not their job to hide behind the scientists because that is easier than taking hard decisions themselves. Part of the problem is that all you have to do to justify a decision is say something like “experts from Imperial College, London” and we are all supposed to roll over and accept that this must be an objective truth. But, scientists not only make mistakes, they are also not always the objectivists we are led to believe.

In 1962 Thomas S Kuhn, a philosopher of science, wrote an influential book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This book argued against the idea that scientists were somehow objective seekers of new knowledge in pursuit of discoveries. Kuhn argued that most of what he called “normal science’ was not looking for new knowledge but rather confirming existing knowledge. What this means is that the majority of scientific activity during these periods of normal science is focussed on affirming that which is already known. According to Kuhn normal science worked within what he describes as a paradigm. Only when it becomes absolutely clear that the data no longer fits do we enter a period of what Kuhn calls “revolutionary science”. This is when a fundamental shift in our way of thinking occurs and this revolutionary period establishes a new dominant paradigm.

None of this should be taken to mean that science cannot come up with new knowledge but if that is going to happen it will be in a particular paradigm. Modelling reality, which teams from Imperial College amongst others do is very much normal science. That is one reason why many people were sceptical when on March 16^th the government changed strategy claiming the science had changed. It is also why Reuters can, with some justification, say that the scientists were slow to act. They were, put simply, carrying on as if Covid-19 was business as usual. Or, to use Kuhn’s terms, they were simply not accepting the challenge to their dominant paradigm. They only did so as it became more and more obvious that the available data did not fit their preconceptions.

It is important not to read too much into 1 or 2 day's data

Based on a one-day fall in the number of deaths recorded in the UK the media began running stories suggesting that the curve was flattening. The following day the number of deaths reached a record daily high, record that is until the following day when it again jumped upwards. Far from flattening the curve was clearly and very visibly rising ever upward. The shape of the curve is important because if the lockdown is having an effect, and scientists estimate that without it around 500,000 would die, the peak will happen at around the mid-point. 

Neil Ferguson is a key player in all this and in terms of death rates he told the Financial Times:

“We will be putting out updated estimates, probably in the next week, both on intervention impact and on growth rate, but we hope that the two cancel out really. We hope we’re in the same sort of regime of mortality — somewhere between about 5,000 and 30,000 deaths, and probably closer to 10,000-20,000.”

I think what is important to note here is the highly speculative numbers being cited. Somewhere between 5,000 (a figure we have already reached) and 30,000 is quite a range particularly for the 25,000 additional dead and their families. The language used is also very speculative: "updated estimates", "we hope" and "somewhere between" do not sound like the phrases of somebody who is totally confident they know what is happening. The problem is, as Neil Ferguson is aware, that in order to accurately model what is likely to happen it is necessary to know at least three things: the size of the population, the infection rate among the population and the death rate of those who contract the virus. We know only one of those and it is the size of the population.

There is a paper which is the basis of what Professor Ferguson said freely available on the internet. It is not easy to read if you are not familiar with academic scientific writing, but it explains if you take the time to read it, not only how they arrive at their figures, but in their own words that there “remains a high level of uncertainty in these estimates.” (p.6).  The paper explains that it uses “a novel Bayesian mechanistic model of the infection cycle” a phrase that is written for other scientists (as most scientific papers are) not for Ministers, journalists or the general public. A simple translation would be “there is a lot we don’t know, so we are using our best educated guesses”. 

Some of the problem with the Imperial College data is its speculative nature. Ministers do not like uncertaintly, neither do the British media. They want figures that they can rely on and which the public will understand. They don’t necessarily have to be right, but reassuring is always good. There is an important statistic which the media have not seized upon largely I suspect because in the UK it does not sound very dramatic. It concerns the number of deaths that they estimate have been avoided as a result of the lockdown. The figures for the UK are not dramatic because they refer to the period when the curve was only just beginning to rise. Nonetheless they say: “Even in the UK, which is much earlier in its epidemic, we predict 370 (73-1,000) deaths have been averted.” (p.10) That is 370 mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, wives, husbands etc who are alive because the Government implemented the lockdown. (The numbers in brackets refer to the margin of error figures so it could be as low as 73 deaths averted or as high as 1000, but as is usual in science the figure of which they are 95% confident is the one quoted).

Why are scientists not pushing the case for testing?

The paper has little to say about testing (perhaps that is covered elsewhere) but accepts that testing figures are likely to be an under-estimate “due to the focus on testing in hospital settings rather than in the community.” (p.12) This means that the populations in most of Europe are nowhere close to herd immunity. Some scientists continue to push the case that the lockdown is actually prolonging the fightback against Covid-19 by reducing herd immunity, which needs to be close to 60% to be effective. For example, Knutt Wittkowski has a video on YouTube in which he states:

“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won’t even have recognized that they were infected, or they had very, very mild symptoms, especially if they are children. So, it’s very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus..”

This may or may not be true but it is certainly a dangerous strategy. It relies on the fact that a) children won’t die, except some have already done so; b) that the elderly can be protected by keeping them away from children, which is great in theory but much harder to do in practice without a lockdown; but c) only the elderly and vulnerable should be put in lockdown, which presupposes that the rest of the population is safe from infection when we are daily seeing younger people dying from the virus.

The thing that both the Imperial College team and Professor Wittkowski do not mention is the World Health Organisation’s advice that the only way to defeat Covid-19 is a rigorous testing regime. Although the Imperial College paper notes that Sweden, with one of the lower mortality rates in Europe, is an anomaly because it has implemented no full lockdown their answer is to regard this as “an artefact of our model”. In other words, a case which clearly challenges the model is forced into the model because to do otherwise would clearly undermine the whole basis not just of the model, which may or may not turn out to be correct, but also significantly British government policy. I cannot say with any certainty that the Imperial College team are bending their public pronouncements in order to maintain their own credibility with the Government. But their failure to include a proper testing regime within their model or to allow for the fact that perhaps this explains both Sweden’s and Germany’s far lower mortality rates does seem to be a case of Government policy driving the science, and not science driving Government policy.

Scientists have no more idea than you or I how many people in the population are actually infected, partly because the UK government ignored World Health Organisation advice to “test, test, test”. Since March 5^th when the first person in the UK died from Covid-19 around 6,000 people have been tested each day. To date just under a quarter of a million people in the UK have been tested in a month. In Germany, which started testing much earlier they are capable of testing half a million people a week. In the UK testing has not been carried out in a systematic way allowing for any analysis of which sections of the population are most at risk, or the calculation of a reliable death rate for those testing positive. Testing was originally carried out only on those admitted to hospital and was ramped up, under political pressure, to include NHS workers.

Professor Chris Whitty told the daily press briefing a couple of days ago: “We all know that Germany got ahead in terms of its ability to do testing for the virus, and there’s a lot to learn from that.” Germany did not just do tests because they thought that would be a good idea they learned from China and particularly South Korea, lessons which were there for the UK to learn, especially considering the virus reached Germany before us. Chris Whitty only made that comment to correct his colleague, the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who had replied: “The German curve looks as though it’s lower at the moment, and that is important, and I don’t have a clear answer to exactly what is the reason for that.” Here we have, if we need it, evidence that the scientists have one eye on the Government and see their role, in part, as not embarrassing the Government by pointing out that they could have acted much earlier and much more decisively and saved a lot of lives in doing so. But, perhaps we should note as well that the scientists themselves were trapped in their own version of “normal science” and were equally unable to give the advice that the Government needed. 

Science is difficult. It is difficult for scientists to conduct and difficult for non-scientists to understand. Nonetheless, we should not be bamboozled by science. Journalists and opposition politicians need to be prepared to understand the basis of the science in order to do their job of challenging Government. Scientists need to do their jobs free from Government interference to produce the “right results”. What is right from the Governments perspective might well turn out to be wrong from everybody else’s and if scientists don’t feel able to say so, then they really are not scientists at all, but Government propagandists. I don’t know if that is currently the case. Journalists need to ask searching questions and not just accept either scientists or Government versions of events. At the moment, although some journalists are starting to ask questions of government they seem ill equipped to question the science. This relates to a problem I have written about earlier that it is political journalists who are, in the main, covering the story, not journalists with a background in science. And, finally, opposition politicians, particularly in the Labour Party, need to step up and question Government policy rather than, what appears at the moment, to be grovelling for a place in a National Government that is never going to happen. To be fair Keir Starmer has asked about the exit strategy, but we are clearly a very long way from that being relevant. He is not challenging the science neither is he repeating at every opportunity that the UK should be following the lead of Germany or Sweden or South Korea. 

My conclusion from all this is that although we have the right policies in place currently, they took too long to be implemented. That was not an accident and ultimately the responsibility lies with the Government, even if the scientists do not come out of this covered in glory. People are dying because of the Government’s early inaction which was supported enthusiastically by a press which seems to see their main job as being Tory cheerleaders (to the extent that they promoted a clap for Boris event which was actually an insult to the clap for NHS workers who are genuinely putting themselves at risk, rather than somebody who adopted a totally foolhardy approach to the virus and managed to contract it), rather than asking and keep asking questions which make the Government justify both its early inaction and its current inaction over testing. There is a failure too of the Labour Party since Jeremy Corbyn  stepped down as leader. to be fair, in his final days as leader he tried to ask questions but was simply ignored by the press. The main preoccupation of Keir Starmer is to be seen to be responsible and sensible. That means backing the Tories in a time of crisis, which would be fine if it was self-evidently the case that the Tories knew what they were doing, and were acting in the national interest. In fact, the Tories self-evidently do not know what they are doing and although they may feel that they are acting in the national interest (we should not always doubt their sincerity as hard as that seems) they are also clearly continuing to act in the interests of the Tory Party and big business. The Covid-19 virus is a unique and unprecedented attack on our way of life. Many people in the UK will likely die as a result of our ill-preparedness. It is nobody's fault that the virus has occurred. That is simply nature doing what nature does. It is legitimate to argue that people will die who might have survived because of the way this crisis has been managed.  Government failed to act on the science and scientists, the press and the opposition failed to press the Government to do so.