THE ALLEYNIAN 708 | OUT OF THE ORDINARY
THE ALLEYNIAN 708 | OUT OF THE ORDINARY
Image: Siwoo Ryu (Year 10)
OPINION, INTERVIEWS & FEATURES
BRAVE NEW WORLD
THE WORLD OF POLITICS WE RETURN TO WILL LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE LEFT BEHIND US, WHAT SEEMS LIKE A LIFETIME AGO
The Coronavirus pandemic has propelled us into a new era of politics, argues Luke Jensen-Jones (Year 12)
E vents, my dear boy, events.’ That famous line, allegedly quipped by Harold Macmillan when he was asked what was most likely to blow a government off course, now seems more appropriate than ever before. Coronavirus is perhaps the single biggest political ‘event’ of the modern era, overshadowing even the 2008 financial crisis in the scope and scale of its impact. As the last few heart-wrenching weeks (I write this in early April) have made clear, failure to meet this crisis with anything other than the full seriousness and attention it deserves will result in untold pain and suffering across the country. It is evident that the primary impact of the virus on our health, and its secondary effects on the economy, deserve our foremost attention. However, the political implications of the virus are also worth considering because – if there is one certainty in this sea of uncertainties – the world of politics we return to will look very different from the one we left behind us, what seems like a lifetime ago. The most obvious way in which our politics will change will be with regards to the legislative priorities of the government. If Boris Johnson had hoped that his overwhelming victory and substantial majority in Parliament would make the first five years of his prime ministerial tenure relatively plain sailing, then this crisis has served as a sobering reality check. Whilst an 80-seat majority in the Commons might be a great advantage when arguing over HS2 or chlorinated chicken, it is not particularly useful when it comes to dealing with a crisis on the scale of Coronavirus. Rebuilding weakened areas of the economy such as the hospitality sector and the airlines industry will take substantial amounts of time and resources, while in the immediate term, the provision of emergency relief to individuals who have become unemployed or are unable to pay rent will be as much of a logistical challenge as an economic one.
Coronavirus will challenge Britain’s political leaders as much as anyone. The usual Boris shtick – acting like a harmless buffoon while occasionally mumbling something in Latin – will be of no more use than Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred strategy of hiding in the corner and hoping it all goes away. Those people who face potentially irreversible damage to their livelihoods, whether that be because their business has been forced to shut or because they have been made redundant, seek clarity from public figures. They want not just reassurance but also clear explanations as to how they will be affected and what is being done to help them. You need only to look across the Atlantic to see the potential consequences of failing in this regard. Donald Trump, in a televised address, falsely stated that the US travel ban on European nations would apply to cargo shipments as well, causing a mass panic before a hasty correction was issued. Britain’s government needs to learn from Trump’s mistakes, and indeed their own. The revolving door of messengers tasked with providing updates on Coronavirus, from the PM himself to other cabinet ministers, to a series of top civil service and medical officials, has resulted in a lack of coherence, meaning even the useful economic provisions made by the government have not been fully taken advantage of, and remain cast in uncertainty. Calmness and clarity are not words even Boris’s foremost supporters would readily associate with his government, but that will have to change if he is to succeed in steering the nation through such turbulent times. Ideologically, too, politics are changing as a result of this epidemic. Socialist principles are increasingly being adopted, as countries reckon with the fallout of Coronavirus, and plan to deal with its consequences. In the US, politicians like Bernie Sanders, who have repeatedly called for an end to the privatised, insurance-based healthcare system and its replacement with an NHS-style alternative, have
‘
been vindicated, as the need for universal access to testing and treatment becomes ever clearer. In Britain, the decision to expand statutory sick pay to encourage those with symptoms to stay at home demonstrated that forcing unwell employees to put their own health – and the health of others – at risk in order to avoid losing their only source of income is less than ideal, and clearly unethical. Perhaps most enlightening of all, the incredible economic relief packages adopted across the world to deal with this crisis have faced little opposition over cost, and the famous refrain of ‘how are you going to pay for it?’ has rarely been invoked. For all the talk of austerity, of ‘living within our means’, over the last decade, the prospect of human and economic catastrophe has made clear that money is
no object, if we are serious about solving problems. We can only hope that this same stance is taken in the future, whether in relation to climate change, the expansion of the welfare state, or even future support for the NHS. If Coronavirus has had one impact on our politics, it is to underline the importance of the state. From efforts to ramp up testing, to economic relief, to the implementation of quarantine programmes, government has been at the heart of ensuring a robust response to this public health disaster. Ronald Reagan once said that sometimes it is the government itself that can be the problem. If we learn one thing, let it be this: when it comes to times of crisis, government must be at the forefront of the solution.
28
29
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker