Comfort and Joy

Johnson and co want us to celebrate the trade deal and move on. But for the supporters of both Remain and Leave, it isn’t that simple, and the architects of Vote Leave have only themselves to blame.

Glad tidings! Boris Johnson has a present for the country. His draft EU/UK trade deal is a “feast” to follow the “starter” that was the oven-ready meal of the Withdrawal Agreement. Not just that. More than a mere gift, the deal finally resolves “a question that has bedevilled our politics for decades”. Like its illustrious architect, this deal deserves a place in history.

Set aside the astonishing denial of facts. Hard Brexit is far worse than the arrangement we had before, and far worse than anything suggested during the referendum campaign. It is “project fear” writ large and long. It entails an amount of red tape more suited to a bygone age, and a very significant, permanent diminution in the size of our economy. It is, as a matter of economic fact, anything but a gift. It takes rather than gives. It is the very opposite of Christmas.

Johnson once joked that voting Conservative would “cause your wife to grow larger breasts”. But we now know that, unless you’re one of their cronies, voting Tory has caused your wallet to shrink while everything else has, sadly, sagged.

Set aside, too, the astonishing hubris. The “World King” now adding “Glorious Solver of Political Schisms” to his self-styled grandiosity. Not to mention “Father Christmas”.

All that trolling and narcissism aside, what Johnson and co now appear to want is a pass to avoid scrutiny. To move on from what has, on anybody’s measure, been a disaster for our politics, our economy, and our society. Michael Gove, writing in today’s The Times, hopes the Brexit deal will end the “ugly politics”:

“Friendships have been strained, families were divided and our politics has been rancorous and, at times, ugly. Through the past four years, as a politician at the centre of this debate, I’ve made more than my share of mistakes or misjudgements, seen old friendships crumble and those closest to me have to endure pressures they never anticipated.”

Note the modest mea culpa in there too. The Brexiter politicians have got what they wanted. Now they want, with much fanfare and some token apology, to wipe away the damage, sidestep the scrutiny, and invite us, in the spirit of Christmas, to unite behind them. They want Brexit to be bookended, as if it began with Dimbleby’s referendum night “We’re out!”, and ended this week with Johnson’s triumphant, arms-outstretched “The deal is done”.

The weight of the evident desire to close a chapter is revealing. It suggests – doesn’t it? – that, for the Vote Leave politicians and their shady backers, the job is done. It suggests that getting here, in and of itself (and separately from any economic or social consequences for the country) has a payoff for them. It is the result. Now and not next year. You can speculate as to what that precise payoff is for them, but remember that Johnson’s own sister wondered if it was to do with protecting the UK’s network of tax havens from EU regulation. That job is surely done.

Whatever the true motive for such a dogged and harmful pursuit of Hard Brexit, it is clear that the Vote Leave politicians wish to bank this achievement, close the book on it, and roll on to the next item on their agenda for our unsuspecting country. History warns us that disrupters with this amount of power and this lack of regard for institutions, protocols and democracy, will have some nasty surprises up their sleeves. It also tells us they will only be stopped by force. It doesn’t bear thinking about.

But for voters it won’t be so easy. Because there is a fundamental tension between the politicians’ evident desire for Brexit to be over, and the way Vote Leave (the very same politicians) burmed Brexit into its supporters’ psyches. It did so, very substantially, by selling it as a working class fight with the middle class, whom it skilfully misidentified and branded as “the elite”. A section of society, typically without higher education, enjoyed a new-found power, through the leveller of the ballot box, to stick it to the comfortable, typically university-educated, middle classes. These Brexit supporters, it was at least plausibly argued, were Britain’s Left Behind, and felt it. They were, undoubtedly, harder hit by Tory austerity. They were inclined to believe suggestions that life, for them, would be better outside of the EU. And even if it weren’t, it was still likely that the middle classes would get a taste of suffering. It was the ugly inverse of “levelling up”. Nothing made them happier than mocking Waitrose shoppers fretting about the risk of losing their epoisses cheese post-Brexit, or People’s Vote marchers breaking away from genteel protesting to grab a prawn sandwich from Pret.

This class warfare, or higher- versus school-educated warfare, or culture war as it is variously described, has become entrenched. As many Remainers have noted, 2016’s winners were not suddenly happy. They had won, but they still wanted to fight. They wanted to rub Remainers’ noses in their victory. They may have said, repeatedly, “You lost, get over it,” but it appeared that the very last thing they wanted was for anybody to get over it. They wanted it to hurt. They wanted Remainer tears. They pushed and prodded until they got them. Then they started all over again. Much of this was, and still is, sustained by a number of high-profile provocateurs, with links to Vote Leave, whose social media accounts thrive on a shock-and-awe, professional nastiness which has come to define the tone of political discourse in our times.

The referendum victory did not deliver for the people who voted for it. It did not resolve any issues that had “bedevilled” them for decades, not least because many of them had little idea of, or care for, the EU’s role until they were whipped into a Cambridge Analytica-induced frenzy in 2016. The win changed nothing, except to embolden their baiting, at least in their eyes giving an intellectual endorsement to the Brexit position: it must have been right, because it received more votes. It must have been right, because the Government was now enacting it. And yet there was no pleasure in the content of the win. No pleasure in the consequences of Brexit. No identification of benefits for the country beyond a nebulous notion of “sovereignty” – sovereignty which, on any proper analysis, has been not so much restored as sacrificed.

The pleasure in Brexit for so many of its supporters on the ground was not, and is not, answered by the reality of Brexit. It is answered in seeing the pain of those who feel its consequences most acutely. It is answered in the ongoing stimulation of that pain. If the Brexit story were ever to be closed, that ongoing pleasure would be taken away. If the Remainers ever really accepted loss and “got over it” – if they ever truly “moved on” – the Brexiter public, as distinct from its instigators, would lose their sensation of power. They can no more accept Brexit for what it is and move on than the Remainers can.

For the Remainers, moving on from a Hard Brexit – mocked as absurd alarmism in the early days, but now wrapped in a Christmas bow – is not going to happen any time soon. Even if this had been a soft Brexit, retaining full membership of the Single Market and Customs Union, a trade deal is only a trade deal. Just as the Brexit-voting public don’t appear to be as bothered by commercial harm as symbolic freedom – the much-vaunted emotion of Brexit – so it is with Remainers. The trade deal could be fantastic, but the emotion of membership would always be missing. Remainers and Leavers alike have associated freedom with their cause. And belonging. Identity. You don’t “move on” from that kind of stuff in a hurry, and certainly not just on the basis of a trading arrangement. The key drivers of the Brexit debate – emotion and identity – are wholly untouched by a trade deal.

Perhaps the Vote Leave cabal realises this. Perhaps a mighty dread has seized their troubled minds. If not, and they really think they can gaily and without consequence skip to the next chapter, it would only go to show how little they understood the division they’ve been stoking these last few years, and the reckless cynicism with which they have stoked it. Either way, God rest ye merry, gentlemen. God rest ye.

Thanks for reading. Please help me reach more like-minded readers by using the sharing buttons below. Thank you!

All eyes on the prize. The wrong one.

It should have been different.

The start of May, traditionally a day of celebration around the world, marking the coming of spring, the moving of cattle out to summer pastures – a new season of life and warmth and hope – should have been a turning point in our national conversation.

The opportunity was there.

Last Monday, 27th April, Boris Johnson promised a new tone in his government’s relationship with the public.

I want to serve notice now that these decisions will be taken with the maximum possible transparency. And I want to share all our working, our thinking, my thinking, with you, the British people.

– Boris Johnson, Monday 27th April

In an otherwise infuriating speech, this pledge was welcome. On the previous Friday, the playwright David Hare had struck a chord on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme with an urgent plea for an end to the “dodging and waffling” of ministers. There was, he suggested, a quid pro quo: “in return for lockdown, isolation, commercial disaster and social distancing” the government had to start shooting straight.

They must own up to their mistakes, stop dodging and waffling and start to trust us with the truth.

Otherwise, said Hare, the lock-down could not be expected to hold.

He was bang-on right, and Monday’s pledge suggested that the Johnson government had heard him.

Of course, those who heard the Prime Minister promise a new levelling with the British public might have hoped it would be a new beginning not just for the conversation around our collective response to the coronavirus outbreak, but also for our post-truth politics in general.

How about, for instance, some honesty around the challenges for our trading relationships come the end of the Brexit transition period? Our economy clearly can’t cope with another major shock at the end of this year, and yet the government has held the line that it must, and it will.

Would a newly-transparent Johnson government move quickly now to release the Russia Report, helping to restore confidence in our democratic process? Would a newly caring, sharing Johnson government move away from the reliance on patronising, and deeply misleading slogans of recent years? No deal is better than a bad deal. Get Brexit Done. Oven-ready deal.

Sure, even the most optimistic of us wouldn’t seriously have hoped for such a dramatic sea-change, even from a Prime Minister who’d had a brush with the brink, even from a Prime Minister who suddenly seemed to understand what the NHS was for. Even from a Prime Minister who suddenly understood that immigrants are not spongers but great people who will save your fucking life.

We were never going to get a new, humble, sackcloth-and-ashes Johnson, inviting us into No 10, holding up his homework and asking us to help him with some of the thornier questions.

But there’s one thing we could have had. One thing, which might have restored a bit of faith for us all. Something which might have brought us together a little bit. And from that little bit of togetherness, perhaps next week new shoots of unity could have grown. And the week after that. After all, if there’s one thing that’s abundantly clear, it’s that the virus – while its impact varies alarmingly across class and income groups – has to be tackled together, and with unity of purpose.

That one thing is this. May 1st 2020 could have been the day when the government was straight with us about its Covid-19 testing failures.

We all know the story. In setting itself a random target of 100,000 tests, it built a rod for its own back.

In a world where the government binds itself with few, or at best generic and distant targets, communicates mostly with meaning-free slogans, and ducks accountability by sowing confusion wherever it goes, setting a concrete target with a firm end-date was unusual.

The pattern of the crises of the last few years has been one in which our somewhat befuddled and supine press rarely knows which way to look, and ends up looking where the government tells it to look – over here! Over there! Over here! Before any issue can properly be interrogated, the crisis has taken a new turn, and news cycle has moved on. And the public is none the wiser. It’s a pattern which – if you are a failing, flailing government – you might wish to preserve.

In that smoke-and-mirrors context, Matt Hancock’s crisp, numerical promise of 100,000 tests, with a solid Judgement Day of the last day of April, was a political kamikaze mission.

It looked for a while, too, that Johnson’s government was going to throw him under the bus for it, casting him as a man panicked into the promise by public clamour.

“He’s not had a good crisis,” said one senior Tory. “The Prime Minister will say he has confidence in him but it doesn’t feel like that. Matt was extremely unwise to come up with such a high and round figure and to make a dogmatic commitment rather than an aspiration.”

“He was under pressure at the time. It is pretty clear that he is not going to hit the target.”

A ‘Number 10 insider’ told The Daily Telegraph: “The problem is with this arbitrary target. There is a faint irrationality behind it, just because there was a clamour for mass testing.”

In the end they decided to stick with him. The machinery of government went into overdrive to help him achieve his target. Or if not to achieve it, to be able to argue that he had achieved it.

First they tried to convince us that capacity was the same as testing. They suggested that they “could have done” more tests than they actually achieved, so they were delivering on their ambition.

This didn’t wash. It was widely ridiculed online, with one person on twitter suggesting that her bank account had “capacity” for millions of pounds, even if she only had a couple of hundred quid in there.

They tried blaming health workers for not showing up to get tested at those out-of-town car parks they keep showing us on the TV, because they wanted their Easter weekend at home with the family.

That seemed like a cheap shot too. We all knew tests were desired, and the process of getting them had to be opened up and made easier.

Eligibility had to be broadened. Effective demand had to brought up to meet supply. They tried offering tests online as way of attempting to reduce the gap between theoretical testing “capacity” and actual tests done. Online test booking crashed the systems in minutes.

In the last week we’ve had reports of tests for key workers being done in the field, but with no intention of actually giving the results to the individuals. If true, this appalling treatment of individuals speaks to a mad dash to get tests “done” for the sole purpose of meeting an arbitrary target.

Screenshots began to appear online of emails to Conservative party members exhorting them to apply for tests – more evidence of desperation to massage figures.

Then yesterday came the reports that the 100,000 target had been met – but only by sending out tens of thousands of home test kits. Have those 27,000+ test kits arrived? Will they be properly handled by their recipients? (If you’ve had a Covid-19 swab test, you’ll know how invasive it can be – a LONG cotton bud has to be put deep into the nasopharynx, and it feels like it’s probing your very mind. It’s not clear that individuals will be able to achieve this by themselves.)

Will home tests be sent back in good order? There are reports of packs containing no return label. Will those that are returned be sent back in time, for the test to work, and to be meaningful? If an individual does have Covid-19, and performs the test correctly, and returns it successfully, when might that individual receive a result? Covid-19 is massively infectious just before symptoms present themselves, and in the first three or four days after; speed matters.

For the thousands of posted tests, there seem to be thousands of unanswered questions.

In any case, “tests sent out in the post” are clearly not “tests carried out”. In any ordinary, honest interpretation of the Hancock promise, it has not been met. On the last day of April, 73,000 people were tested. That’s the bottom line.

There is a number in a column marked “Number of Tests” which exceeds a hundred thousand. As we’ve seen, tt is almost meaningless. Really, let’s cut to the chase – it’s a lie.

But it gave Johnson’s Tories what they needed to set about bragging that they had met their target.

The BBC and others duly generated the headlines and disinformation the government has come to rely on.

Johnson’s Tories know it’s a lie, of course. They know that anyone with an enquiring mind knows it’s a lie. Yet still they cannot resist the cheap twisting of truth; the headline for today designed to undermine and undercut the deeper analysis of tomorrow; the cynical, habitual instinct to confuse, gaslight and demoralise the public.

It could have been different. They could have delivered on a much more important promise – the Prime Minister’s one – to engage honestly with the British public.

It could have gone something like this.

Sorry, we didn’t quite reach the target we set ourselves. We’re trying. We’re working not just to achieve it, but to surpass it, because testing on an unprecedented scale will be required for us to move to the next phase.

Once we have the virus under control, we will need huge testing capacity as part of a “track, trace and test” package to keep it contained and avoid any “second wave” of infections.

We could have claimed to have met our target, for example by adding in the numbers for home tests sent out, but we did not. This is because, as the Prime Minister indicated on Monday, we are in this together, and our dealings will now be undertaken ‘with the maximum possible transparency’.

From now on, as Boris Johnson promised, we will share our working, our thinking, and our successes and failures, with you, the British people.

Would that have been so hard? If so, why promise on Monday what you cannot deliver on Friday?

The truth is that the 100,000 tests target, achieved or not, is nothing but a random number plucked out of the air by a cornered politician. It means nothing to criticise him for failing to achieve it, or to compliment him for having achieved it. The long, exhausting battle with the virus goes on regardless.

But that new tone of honesty Johnson promised us on Monday? That could have meant the world – for our handling of the pandemic, and for our politics as a whole. It could have meant a May Day with the beginnings of unity, setting out together for new, summer pastures.

There was a big, bold promise made this week. A remarkable pledge for which it truly would have been worth holding the government to account.

As ever, we focused on the wrong one. It was never the new tests that mattered, it was the already jettisoned, already risible, new order of political transparency.

Thank you for reading. Please help me to reach like-minded readers by sharing this article using the buttons below. Thanks!