Government policy on Covid 19; Up and down like the whore’s drawers

Artist Lyndsey Dearnley

To what shall I liken the government’s decision partially to ease the current restrictions concerning lockdown, house-arrest and solitary confinement? It is as if the Mother Superior had solemnly assembled all her nuns and, with great severity, told them: “And remember, you must all remain virgins – except on Saturdays.” 

Government policy from the day it was realised the country was under threat from the coronavirus has been so variable that it barely exists. First, they declared there was no need for wholesale restrictions on the ordinary traffic of public life and interaction. Instead, they were banking on herd immunity. Then, to use the vile and slovenly jargon employed by the media, the government “came under pressure” and introduced the draconian measures which virtually abolished our freedom.

After a few weeks, the public got sick of this so the government again “came under pressure” and this time it was the pressure of the demand to ease the restrictions. So they did. And they will continue to change the rules each and every time they “come under pressure.” At the moment the pressure is from the millions thrown out of work, from dying businesses and the need to come to the aid of “the economy.” And of course, the dismal economists are telling the government that it cannot go on printing toytown money indefinitely. So, to change the analogy, the government is like a man who puts a bet on a horse, then halfway though the race moves his money in favour of another horse. He keeps on doing this until the race is over, the horse has been unsaddled, the jockey has weighed in and the result announced. Then the gambler says, “See, I was right all the time! Give me my winnings, please.”

Of course. the government dare not be seen to be operating such a scam, so they risk boring the people to death, more certainly than any virus might do, by subjecting us to a homily every evening at five o’clock in which they repeat that everything they are doing is “guided by the science.” This is a lie. If the great C.H. Sisson were still alive, he would tell us the truth: that every decision made by politicians is a political decision. Bluntly: which policy will lose our party the fewest votes?

And it is a necessary part of this sham persistently to give the impression that the government is “doing something.” Does the NHS urgently require more protective clothing? Very well, we have ordered 100,000 – or millions, if you like – PPE items from Turkey. Result? The people are reassured for about five minutes. Then it is discovered that the protective clothing is no good. Of course it’s no good. It’s from Turkey! You might as well buy your face masks from Wuhan.

The only rational appraisal of all this time-serving vacillation is that the government has swindled the people. And the swindle continues day by day. Only the marked cards are perpetually reshuffled. This swindle will not end until the virus has abated. Then, like the dishonest gambler who kept changing his bets, the government will proudly announce: “There you are you see: our policy worked!”

The dog returns to its vomit.

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

11 Comments on Government policy on Covid 19; Up and down like the whore’s drawers

  1. Well said!
    The politicians, their media fleas, and the publicity shy but power hungry civil servants/’scientists’ have crushed the joy that we Britons felt upon leaving the EU. They have used this virus as an excuse to control us, punish us, and spy upon us. The milk monitors, prefects, managerialists and technocrats take their six figure salaries, and manoeuvre to gain power, whilst we are denied the right to worship (except before the druids of the NHS), meet our friends and family, travel where we like within our own country, and even drink a pint of beer. Worse yet, like a bullying schoolmaster about to strike a pupil, they tell us it is for ‘our own good’! We must ensure that everyone of the our liberties, so hard won by our ancestors, is returned to us, of serfdom in the age of the technocrats.

    • Yes Raven, well put.

      Perhaps when the virus has passed, as all things do, we should put the state on lockdown… One that is permanent.

  2. There’s an interesting moral problem that has arisen Peter that I wonder what your thoughts are thereon.

    If lifting or easing the lockdown now will produce infection-related deaths that might have been avoided, and keeping the lockdown will result in more deaths than otherwise down the line (including illnesses, stresses, suicides brought on by economic ruin) how does the PM decide what to do? What scheme of ethics or religion could guide him?

    There was briefly a related problem when it was thought we were short of ventilators. Would it be right to take one from an oldie who was dying anyway and give it to a youngster who might be saved? It never came to that, but one wonders what might have happened if it had, and how whatever decision was made would have been explained.

    • I hardly think Peter, or Raven, will have an answer to that. It’s related to the trolley problem, or better still, the hospital ward problem (4 sick patients requiring urgent transplants of heart, lungs, liver and pancreas vs. one patient in for a check-up with 4 healthy organs – you choose).

      There are people who have to make decisions and then there are those who will criticise those decisions. Pointlessly.

      This is not an attempt by a repressive, authoritarian regime to permanently subvert its people, much as I despise the lying, devious bastards (the government, not the people). In fact, we’re all still involuntary subjects of the queen.

      • It is the trolley problem as you say – though I think some people (like those on the 15.17 Paris train who jumped the terrorist) would leap to stop the trolley, however futile that might be. Others, most of us, would just freeze with horrified disbelief.

        There is a moral lesson to draw surely? that we should beware of being too certain and inflexible in our answers to ethical dilemmas: live and let live and be cautious, tolerant (up to a point).

        • What are you talking about? There is no pressure to return to freedom.

          The public want to continue being paid to play in the sun, pretending the knob-head boss and dreary job don’t exist. There’s even a hashtag for the holiday to continue.

          This would have gone differently with heavy rain and food vouchers.

      • Werdna,
        I wasn’t suggesting that those benefitting from the lockdown instigated it, though some may have, nor yet, that the virus doesn’t exist, though it surely isn’t the existential threat that it has been portrayed as.
        What is true is that the beneficiaries of the lockdown, the power hungry, those who feel that democracy gives ‘us’ far too much influence, wish to continue the lockdown for as long as possible which leaves ‘us’ powerless, whilst ‘they’ manipulate the system to their own ends.
        Recall that when the PM announced the lockdown it was for three weeks to allow the NHS to regroup, why has it since changed into this endless restriction. The broadcast media speak with one voice, dissention is repressed, if you think I exaggerate there have been two attempts to raise petitions against lockdown, and thus force a parliamentary debate on the ‘You Gov’ website, both have been stopped by ‘You Gov’.

        • Those most benefiting from being paid to saty away from work and do nothing are all the public sector workers. Their Unions will fight tooth and nail to prevent them going back to where they should be. The teachers have already said so for a start. Plus those being paid 80% of earnings funded by me who is living on hard-earned savings which are being eroded by Government-inspired inflation. There was more social justice in Victorian times. Much more. People generally got what they deserved. It’s exactly the opposite now.

          • The irony is that teachers – at least those in tough/poor areas were opposed to the closures when they happened, and they’ve struggled to get the kids who ought to be in to turn up. One school I know is only seeing 5% of those who should come in for a meal at least.

            I fear you are right about who is going to pay for all this. Either immediately through a 10% wealth tax (inc house value) or over the next few years through inflation, it’s the prudent who will pay the bills.