From David Maughan Brown in York: Happy Birthday to the NHS

July 4th

Happy Birthday to the NHS on its 72nd birthday.   As everyone in UK who has made it to the Biblical cut-off age of three score years and ten knows only too well by now, 72 is a dangerous age in the Covid-19 era.   In this strange new world, people attain instant vulnerability on the day they turn 70.  In that respect people are actually rather luckier than the NHS, which becomes instantly vulnerable every time a Conservative government comes to power.  Right now, after a decade of Tory misrule, the NHS is more vulnerable than it has ever been, as the present pandemic has made all too obvious. 

So Boris, in his kindly way, has given the NHS an unforgettable birthday present, gift-wrapped, virtually if not literally, in the blue light that will bathe key buildings around the country in its honour this evening, and presented to the NHS to echoes of the applause that rang out around the country on Thursday evenings not so long ago. Boris’s present is to honour the NHS’s birthday by declaring it ‘Independence Day’ and encouraging us all to get out to celebrate it in the pubs which were opened in its honour today for the first time in three months.   Boris has suggested that we might want to ‘act responsibly’ in doing so, and has set the example when it comes to acting responsibly by boasting about going around shaking the hands of Covid-19 patients in hospitals, and regarding it as entirely reasonable for his chief advisor to go for thirty mile drives to test his eyesight.

So the NHS will be partying tonight to celebrate its birthday, with extra staff invited to come in to join the party.  The Independent reports that ‘all NHS trusts have been warned to expect levels of attendance usually seen during new year celebrations, and have been asked to prepare their A&E departments and free up bed capacity in their hospitals to manage the increase.’  A&E staff must be really bored by now with trying to save the lives of Covid-19 patients, so they are bound to welcome an influx of drunk and injured people, many with alcohol poisoning, instead.  Some of the drunks will be violent and abusive instead of singing Happy Birthday, as they always are, but that will give the police who always have to hang around A&E departments a good reason not to get themselves injured trying to break up the celebratory riots out in the streets.   Boris could, of course, have scheduled the opening of the pubs for a more boring mid-week evening, but that would have limited the opportunities for his compulsively grandiloquent rhetoric and for the close association of post-Brexit England’s ‘Independence Day’ with the USA’s Independence Day, and he would thereby have lost an opportunity to ally himself with his insane counterpart in the USA.

Dealing with drunks who might try to tear off their face masks will obviously heighten the vulnerability of NHS staff, so many of whom have died unnecessarily from Covid-19 already, but the vulnerability of the NHS goes far deeper than the immediate safety of its current staff.   Tory Party ideology fetishises the private sector and abjures large national organisations: privatisation offers more opportunity for private profit, profiteering, graft and corruption.   Adherents of the ideology maintain, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that it leads to greater efficiency and promotes productivity.  One only has to look at our railways and the UK probation service to see the absurdity of that idea.   The NHS was progressively, and I suspect deliberately, starved of the funds it needed to maintain the quality of its service for a steadily ageing population through the years of austerity, as seen, to take just one example, from the woeful shortage of PPE equipment and ventilators when a long-predicted virus struck.  The drying up of adequate funding enabled bits of the NHS to be carved off and handed to the private sector, as will have been intended. 

The government’s ideological mind-set blinded it to the need to look to local authorities and GPs in establishing an efficient track and trace system rather than relying on privatised central laboratories, with the result that England’s failure, even now on ‘Independence Day’, to have an efficient system in place has made us the subject variously of international pity and scorn.   But, in spite of all this, this government has shown itself to be incapable of learning from its manifest mistakes.  They are still careering towards a no-deal Brexit whose symbolic success depends to their blinkered minds on a trade-deal with the USA.  This government knows, and doesn’t care, that what the USA wants most out of a trade deal with the UK is for us to be carving nicely chlorinated roast chicken on our Sunday dinner tables, and for our government to reciprocate by carving our NHS up for them and handing the potentially profitable parts to Donald Trump on a plate.   Happy Birthday, NHS, I hope it won’t be your last.

From David Maughan Brown in York: A Cunning Plan

June 25th

Anyone with nothing better to do in lockdown than browse the Gov.UK website will find truncated biographies of the members of the current UK cabinet listed under ‘Ministers’.  No length of lockdown could possibly end up being boring enough to induce me to do something so self-lacerating without some good reason.  In this instance I was interested in finding out precisely which Higher Education establishments we can hold responsible.  Unsurprisingly, it turns out that almost 50% of them went to either Oxford or Cambridge, while a further 20% or thereabouts went to one of the other Russell Group universities.  Interestingly, many of those who didn’t illuminate the rarefied cloisters of those supposedly ‘top’ universities appear to be sufficiently ashamed of the fact to avoid any mention at all of their education in their potted biographies.  Although recent political developments in both England and USA raise serious questions about universal ‘education’ in general, and precisely what steadily expanding Higher Education is supposed to have done for national analytical capability, in particular, our cabinet cannot all be as stupid, or even as incompetent, as they seem.  There has to be a cunning plan.  If lockdown allows time to read Ministerial biographies, it must also allow time for speculation.

It was obvious from their reactions that the leaders of the Leave campaign, Johnson and Farage in particular, did not expect to win the referendum in 2016, in spite of the populist lies their Little Englander campaign was built on. Johnson and company also knew by mid-2019 that the majority of the electorate did not support Brexit, in fact never had, and successfully managed to evade the dreaded second referendum.  The government’s own advisers were indicating that any form of Brexit was going to be economically damaging, and the much-derided independent ‘experts’ were almost all saying the same.  This meant that the puppeteers in the cabinet knew they would not be able to blame a credible cohort of specialist economists for the financial fall-out from Brexit, in the way they are all too obviously going to try to evade responsibility for the deadly fall-out from Covid-19 by bleating over and over again that they were just ‘following the science’.  

Who, then, is there to blame?  The obvious answer is the EU.  But that only really works provided you don’t enter into serious negotiations or accept any compromises.  The EU has to be so blameworthy that you are morally obliged to walk away from the table without any deal.   So you have to reject any extension of the transition period, and you know that Dominic Cummings can be relied on to invent a narrative that will sound plausible to your core support.   You need to do this by January 1st 2021 because the Covid-19 virus, bless it, has ensured that, no matter how much additional economic damage a no-deal Brexit will result in in the long term, 2021 can only be better for the economy than 2020.  If you delay departure for an extra year while you pretend to negotiate a deal, the specific damage occasioned by Brexit, as distinct from Covid-19, might become too obvious.

In the meantime the cunning plan will work even better if 2020 can be made even more memorably awful.  People have short memories and by the time, in our version of democracy, they get to vote again four and a half years hence, they will have forgotten just how much responsibility you bear for the awfulness.   So impose a two-week quarantine on people coming into the UK from less infected countries to put extreme financial pressure on airlines, and ensure tens of thousands of redundancies, just before you agree to institute air “corridors” or “bridges” which might have helped to avoid such redundancies.   Watch news coverage of shop managers, restaurant and pub owners, and numerous others spending tens of thousands of pounds and hours of work preparing their premises to open in July on the assumption that two-metre social distancing will be compulsory, and then make them do it all again by changing your mind at the last minute, against scientific advice, and saying that one metre will be fine after all.  Make sure you avoid consulting with leaders in the different sectors, and especially with the unions, before taking decisions in crucial areas, such as sending children back to school, before you change your mind about that too.   It is all grist to the mill of making 2020 so bad that even a no deal Brexit has to seem like an improvement.

Alas, however, most conspiracy theories have a fatal flaw.  This cunning plan requires January 1st 2021, the Brexiteers true ‘Independence Day’, to mark the beginning of the post-Covid post-EU era, and depends on its authors betting the house on there not being a second spike of the virus.    If that is what the whole devilishly clever wheeze depends on, you don’t release lockdown too early, against the advice of your scientific advisers, and you don’t allow your Prime Minister’s compulsively bombastic self-display to extend to a grossly premature declaration of  a subsidiary lockdown-release ‘Independence Day’ on July 4th which encourages tens of thousands of people to flock to unsocially-distanced beaches and street parties.  Perhaps there was no cunning plan after all; perhaps they really are as comprehensively clueless as they seem.

From David Maughan Brown in York: Britain’s Got Talent At Being Racially Offensive

Cecil Rhodes from Punch 1892 (wikicommons)The Rhodes Colossus: Caricature of Cecil John Rhodes, after he announced plans for a telegraph line and railroad from Cape Town to Cairo.

June 18th Scientists the world over are using their analytic skills to discover more about Covid-19 every day, but they appear not, as yet, to have come to any conclusions as to why the virus, or perhaps the resulting lockdown measures, appear to be having a seriously detrimental effect on the intelligence of prominent ‘leaders’ in our society, even when they don’t show other symptoms.  The last couple of days have evidenced so highly-charged a competition to see who can make the most offensively tone-deaf statements about the ongoing manifestations of the Black Lives Matter protests that one could be forgiven for thinking that one had inadvertently dropped in on the preliminary rounds of a national Britain’s Got Talent At Being Racially Offensive competition.   Boris Johnson’s scintillating record in the field would obviously have guaranteed him a pass directly into the final.

On the off chance that anyone can begin to compete with Boris when the competition gets to that final, my bets are currently on Dominic Raab to come third, and the light horse in the field, Louise Richardson, the current – for how long one wonders – Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, to come second.

Dominic Raab, our Foreign Secretary until such time as the Tory party changes the designation because ‘Foreign’ is such a dirty word, has just been gifted the Department for International Development by Boris because ‘International’ and ‘Development’ are also dirty words, and our English Nationalist Cabinet apparently thinks charity should begin at home.  Other people might think it is ‘Dominic’ that is the dirty word.   Anyone but Boris might even think that a degree of racial sensitivity could be a good idea in a Foreign Secretary, even when his role must be assumed now to include doing away with foreign aid.  But Raab’s latest entry in the competition involves suggesting that the Black Lives Matter symbolism of  ‘taking the knee’ derives from ‘Game of Thrones’ and asserting that he would only do it for the Queen (having once done it for his wife).   That level of crassness does, of course, equip him very well to lead a Little Englander drive to limit International Development. A drive that is so unutterably stupid in its long term implications as to rival the Tories’ parallel obsession with Brexit.   The only way to stem the tide of people flowing towards Europe from Asia and Africa, whether fleeing wars and oppression or driven by climate change, is somehow to make staying in their own countries a better option than trying to get to Europe.   Cutting the funding for foreign aid and international development is a very peculiar thing to do for people in Europe who dislike foreigners and are paranoid about immigration. 

Professor Louise Richardson’s entry for the competition this week was by way of invoking the name of Nelson Mandela as an ally in her argument that the Rhodes statue high above the entrance to Oriel College should not ‘Fall’.  This was in spite of the fact that, after four years of resistance, the governing body of the College has finally voted to remove it.  The Independent carried a report today to the effect that Professor Richards was arguing that Rhodes was a man of ‘great nuance’ and that Mandela had recognised “that we have to acknowledge our past but focus on the future,” and said that hiding history was not the “route to enlightenment”.   Museums, as Professor Richardson obviously knows full well, are buildings which exist for the purpose of ‘storing and exhibiting objects of scientific, cultural and historical interest’, as the OED puts it.   Far from ‘hiding history’, putting that statue, like the infamous Cape Town one, in a museum, would make it possible to contextualise it and confront and understand that history, in all its ugliness.   You can’t do that when the statue is stuck in a niche high above the street, usually noticed only by those who find it profoundly offensive.

Professor Richardson’s enlisting of Mandela in her defence of the Rhodes statue is deeply offensive not just to black people but to all those of us, particularly those of us who were lucky enough to know him, who regarded Mandela with boundless admiration and affection.   He was for many of us, pace the boarded-up statue of Churchill, without question the greatest moral and political leader of the twentieth century.   In response to the ‘hiding history’ brigade, I’ve heard it argued that Germany does not need to have statues of Hitler all over the place in order to confront its 20th century history.  That is obviously true, but the analogy is worth dwelling on.  Rhodes was not responsible for anything equivalent to the holocaust, but it is a fact that he was greatly admired by Hitler who is on record, according to Rhodes’ biographer Antony Thomas, as saying that Rhodes was the only person who understood the historical conditions for maintaining British supremacy, but had been ignored by his own people.  According to the same source, Hitler’s admiration for Rhodes is further evidenced in the former’s statement of his belief that ‘the German people are called by the divine destiny to be the leaders of the world for the glory of the German being as well as for the human race.’  This was, word for word, but for two key words, a direct quotation from the ‘nuanced’ Rhodes:  Hitler had replaced Rhodes’ ‘English ‘ with ‘German.’   Professor Richardson should have known better.

from David Vincent in Shrewsbury, UK: miscounting

June 3.  The puzzle is why Matt Hancock thought he could get away with it.

Everyone knew that his claims for the level of coronavirus tests included multiple swab tests for the same individual, posted tests, pregnancy tests, driving tests, eyesight tests (the last two another form of double counting in Cummings land).

Yesterday he received a magisterial rebuke from the chair of the UK Statistical Authority, Sir David Norgrove:

Statistics on testing perhaps serve two main purposes [lovely use of mock diffidence in the ‘perhaps’].  The first is to help us understand the epidemic, alongside the ONS survey, showing us how many people are infected, or not, and their relevant characteristics.  The second is to help manage the test programme… The way the data are analysed and presented currently gives them limited value for the first purpose.  The aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding.  It is also hard to believe the statistics work to support the testing programme itself.  The statistics and analysis serve neither purpose well.

Hancock and his fellow ministers seem to have forgotten that in earlier moments of virtue, previous governments have set up a series of bodies to keep them numerically honest – the UK Statistical Authority, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), amongst others.  These are staffed by competent, principled, number-crunchers who appear at times to take a positive pleasure in pointing out the official misuse of data.

It is not that Norgrove himself is new to the game.  He has been in office since 2017, and on 17 September 2019, he wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, one B. Johnson, about the Brexit Bus: 

I am surprised and disappointed that you have chosen to repeat the figure of £350 million per week, in connection with the amount that might be available for extra public spending when we leave the European Union.  This confuses gross and net contributions.  It also assumes that payments currently made to the UK by the EU, including for example for the support of agriculture and scientific research, will not be paid by the UK government when we leave. It is a clear misuse of official statistics.

The explanation of these repeat offences is not innumeracy, but rather a varying approach to the function of figures.  In the case of the bus, Cummings had correctly calculated that it did not matter if the numbers were challenged.  The mere act of discussing the claim, up to and including Norgrove’s letter, anchored in the public mind that there was a substantial cost to EU membership.

Similarly, Hancock, desperately trying to defeat the coronavirus, seems to have calculated that the only way to mobilise action is to set and report huge targets, so as to create a boiling mass of activity amongst those charged with delivering outcomes.  As anyone involved in running large organisations knows, there are more sober, disciplined, forms of project management, but Hancock seems entirely to lack the mental or practical resources to use these.

I came across this process when working on my book on solitude.  As I reached the present, Theresa May published the world’s first strategy for tackling loneliness.  When I examined the figures she was using, I found that her claim that 20% of the population was lonely was contradicted by data in the same document from the ONS, which had calculated a figure of 5% (the same figure as lately reported by the Nuffield / UCL study discussed in the diary entry for May 27).  But it was the larger headline figure that featured in the press release accompanying the strategy, and in the subsequent public discussion.   Statistical accuracy was subordinated to the need to dramatize a newly foregrounded social condition.

It was not difficult for a toiling researcher into the past to work this out.  Historians can count when they need to. 

Guess what is the subject Sir David Norgrove’s Oxford degree. 

Look it up if you don’t believe me.  

from David Vincent in Shrewsbury, UK: the divided golf course

May 14. A month ago, on April 14, I wrote a piece on ‘Borders’, describing the ‘insane’ prospect of different lockdown regulations on either side of national borders within the UK.

Now it has come to pass.  The picture above is the view from the bottom of my garden.  Below the field is the Severn, hidden by the trees on the bank.  Almost unnoticed in the current crisis, we have been enjoying a warm, dry Spring and the river is unusually low for this time of the year.  Beyond it, across a few more fields, is Wales, with the Breiddens in the distance.   Were I to go for a walk on the hills, as we often did in peacetime, I could now be stopped by the police.  It is legal to drive to take exercise in England, not in Wales.  It is permissible for people to go to any kind of work in England, not in Wales.  There is a golf course in the border village of Llanymynech, a few miles away, where 15 holes are in Wales, 3 in England.  According to the new rules, only the English holes can be played. 

Some of this is just a trivial irritation.  But there is a more serious event taking place.  The leaders of Scotland, Wales and even Northern Ireland, have publicly condemned Johnson’s broadcast on Sunday, where he announced a partial, if very confused, relaxation of the rules ‘in the UK’.  The nation leaders were quick to point out that they had not been consulted about the new regime and did not agree with it.  They were free to go their own way and intended to do so.  This is partly a matter of local calculation about the state of the pandemic and the risk of relaxing the lockdown.  It is also a consequence of the growing perception that the Westminster government is fundamentally incompetent.  The electorates of the other nations are looking to their own representatives for a road map out of the crisis, and practices are likely to diverge still further in the coming months.

The coronavirus pandemic did not invent the break-up of the UK, but amongst the consequences will be a significant acceleration of that process.  And Brexit is yet to come.

From David Maughan Brown in York: Majesty

May 9th

The abiding memory of yesterday’s 75th anniversary of VE day will not be of the socially distanced wreath-laying ceremonies, or the archive footage of the 1945 celebrations, but of the four-minute speech delivered at 9.00pm by Her Majesty the Queen.   Exactly a month ago, after she had delivered her subtly modulated Coronavirus speech, I expressed my admiration for that speech and, while making it clear that I am not instinctively a monarchist, suggested that, if the current President of the USA and our Prime Minister are anything to go by, we can be thankful we have a queen as our Head of State rather than a president.  Those who are sensitive to such matters might have noticed that I omitted the formal ‘Her Majesty’ title when referring to the Queen at that time.

My Concise Oxford dictionary gives ‘majesty’ as ‘impressive stateliness, dignity or authority, especially of bearing and language’ as its primary definition, and adds, as its secondary definition, that it ‘forms part of several titles given to a sovereign’.  Last night the Queen demonstrated her usual, wholly understated, dignity, authority and stateliness entirely independently of her title.  Many of the women, and probably some of the men, watching on television will have noted that being a Majesty is clearly the key to having access to a hairdresser in these socially distanced times, but few are likely to have resented her for that. 

The carefully choreographed timing of the Queen’s speech to commence at 9pm to echo the timing of her father, King George VI’s, ‘victory’ speech 75 years ago served perfectly to underline the continuity of the monarchy, as I have no doubt it was intended to.  The speech itself was brilliantly crafted as a piece of rhetoric, illustrating for the benefit of some of our politicians that rhetoric doesn’t have to show itself off as being rhetorical to be effective: ‘At the start the outlook seemed bleak, the end distant, the outcome uncertain.  But we kept faith that the cause was right.’ No direct reference was made to the current Covid-19 pandemic, there was none of the crude battle-related imagery we have become wearily inured to, but the analogy with World War II was implicit in, ‘Never give up, never despair – that was the message of VE Day.’

Indirectly, and without in any obvious way crossing the forbidden boundary between the political realm and the business of that other realm she is Queen of, Her Majesty’s speech managed to make crystal clear what she thinks about the UK’s departure from the EU: ‘The greatest tribute to their sacrifice [those who fell in the war] is that countries who were once sworn enemies are now friends working side by side for the peace, prosperity and health of us all.’  Why on earth, she didn’t need to go on to ask, would anyone in his right mind want to stop working side by side with those other countries for the peace, prosperity and health of us all, and selfishly try to go it alone in friendless and self-defeating isolation?

The inclusiveness of that ‘of us all’, where the Queen locates herself alongside all her subjects, makes me wonder, as I often do, what she thinks every time she hears our embarrassing national anthem, for which she, of course, is not responsible.  If there were to be a global equivalent of the Eurovision Song Contest into which all 195 independent sovereign states in the world (I also watch ‘Pointless’ too often) were to be obliged to enter their national anthems, ours with its sycophantic banality would be likely to come out at the very bottom, with ‘nul points.’ Rather than praying fawningly for the victoriousness and gloriousness of a lone monarch, the national anthems of other countries tend to focus more, as the Queen’s speech did, on the wellbeing of all the people of those countries.

The Queen has seen off a motley procession of 13 Prime Ministers during her reign, and ended up now with Boris Johnson, from whom God might recently have had to resist the temptation save her.  Monarchy is a very much less than ideal political system, and there is no guarantee whatever that the Queen’s successors will be able to match her when it comes to majesty.  But then, as Johnson and Trump demonstrate all too clearly, democracy also has the potential for disastrously bad outcomes.  I didn’t think I would ever say it, but in the present context and after yesterday evening’s four-minute tour de force of a speech, long live the Queen!

From David Maughan Brown in York: Reflections on VE Day

May 8th

The bunting is strung, the Union Jacks are flying, recordings of Churchill’s Victory in Europe Day celebratory speech, ‘Land of Hope and Glory’, and Vera Lynn songs are being played on the radio.   The Queen will be giving a speech at 9.00pm – this time not so extensively trailled that we know exactly what she is going to say.   Footage of London in the Blitz, of women working in factories, of children being evacuated and of the crowds celebrating in Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus is being shown on television.  There was a two-minute silence at 11.00am to ‘remember’ those who died during World War II, whom the Prime Minister was quoted this morning as saying ‘we will never ever forget.’  It is VE Day.

The ending of the war in Europe with the surrender of Nazi Germany is unquestionably a very hard-won historical moment that fully deserves to be commemorated.  And, although the vast majority of the UK population was born after 1945, there are enough people still alive 75 years later for ‘remembering’ to be a literal remembering, not a ritualized metaphor.  That is not the case with the annual insistence on ‘remembering’ on Armistice Day those who were killed in the ill-named ‘Great War’ .  The statement that ‘we will never ever forget them’ is, however, an obvious, if pious, exaggeration.  So far today we have been spared the nauseating hypocrisy of Laurence Binyon’s ‘They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old…’ with its pretence that those who were slaughtered in the mud and stench of the trenches were the lucky ones, to be envied by the rest of us. 

If I sound less than effusive in my enthusiasm for the day’s celebrations, the flags and the bunting, it is because history is seldom invoked neutrally, entirely for its own sake.  On the 8th May 2020 the celebration of VE Day just happens to be particularly useful for Johnson and his Cabinet.  In the first place it serves as a very timely, if I suspect very brief, distraction from the mounting evidence of the homicidally negligent and incompetent way in which they have handled the Covid-19 pandemic.  Secondly, it plays directly into their nationalistic Brexit narrative.  Plucky little Britain standing alone against the dark forces lined up against her in Europe, and eventually ‘wrestling them to the ground’, in Boris’s immortal words, and coming out on top, victorious, happy and glorious. Don’t mention the indispensable help in that endeavor that came from the Commonwealth and USA.  Even without the fervor of celebratory street parties, they will no doubt hope that VE Day celebrations will re-energize the Brexit faithful to support them in gleefully pushing ahead with the deranged business of burning our bridges with our major trading partner when the Brexit ‘transition’ period ends on December 31st.   The Covid-19 pandemic is confronting us in UK with a 30% shrinkage in our GDP and a massive increase in unemployment, why should that stop our government shooting itself in the other foot?  

Because Covid-19 is getting in the way of street parties, we are being encouraged to have ‘1940s-themed tea-parties’ instead.   Those presumably are the ones where there is no milk and sugar, there wasn’t any flour to bake celebratory cakes, and even the tea-leaves are rationed.   It is never too soon to start getting used to life after Covid-19 and a ‘no-deal’ Brexit. 

from David Vincent in Shrewsbury, UK: on National Pride …

April 21stBritish readers will recall the carefully crafted address by the Queen on 5th April.  It studiously avoided saying anything about the Government whose leader had so embarrassed her over the proroguing of Parliament last Autumn.  Instead it concentrated on national character:

I hope in the years to come everyone will be able to take pride in how they responded to this challenge.  And those who come after us will say the Britons of this generation were as strong as any. That the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country. The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.

The question of whether we still have any right to take a national pride in the response to coronavirus has been thrown into relief by the revelations in the press over the weekend, particularly the 5,000-word piece in the Sunday Times.

The generalised ‘attributes of self-discipline, quiet good-humoured resolve and fellow-feeling’ remain valid.  Indeed, they have proved stronger than the Government initially feared as it hesitated about imposing a lock-down.  The street protests against restrictions on movement in the USA reported this week demonstrates what can happen in the absence of such resolve.  That said, there are also worrying reports about a sudden growth of domestic abuse inside closed-down families which may yet disfigure the celebration of fellow-feeling.

In terms of public policy, however, shame is the more appropriate sentiment.  Just ask yourself this question, of all the countries fighting the pandemic, which are seen as a model to be followed?  South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, Germany and some others.  No-one is viewing the daily British news conferences for lessons about what they should be doing.

It is not as though we have no inherited strengths.  We have an economy strong enough to withstand emergency bail-outs worth many billions of pounds.  We have a sophisticated production and distribution system which has ensured, unlike many developing countries, that there is still food in the shops.  We have a health service which, in contrast to Trump’s America, covers the whole population.  And once we led the world in the specific field of pandemic resolution.  No longer.  According to the Sunday Times:

“Several emergency planners and scientists said that the plans to protect the UK in a pandemic had once been a priority and had been well funded for the decade following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. But then austerity cuts struck. “We were the envy of the world,” the source said, “but pandemic planning became a casualty of the austerity years, when there were more pressing needs.”  [to judge from a TV interview I saw, that ‘source’ is Sir David King, a former Chief Scientific Officer]

The planning had atrophied.  The funding had been cut.  And once the crisis began, the wrong decisions were taken by a Cabinet whose members had been appointed solely on the basis of their attitude to Brexit.  Its leader fulfilled all the expectations which his career had predicted:

“There’s no way you’re at war if your PM isn’t there,” the adviser said. “And what you learn about Boris was he didn’t chair any meetings. He liked his country breaks. He didn’t work weekends. It was like working for an old-fashioned chief executive in a local authority 20 years ago. There was a real sense that he didn’t do urgent crisis planning. It was exactly like people feared he would be.”

What we still have is a world-class scientific community (though universities, including Imperial, are going to be very hard hit by a combination of the pandemic and Brexit).  It may yet be that those working on a vaccine at Oxford and elsewhere will come up with the solution that will save the world.  Then, and only then, will we have a cause for national pride in how we responded.