Every Lockdown Day provides more hints for an insidiously promoted political realignment of our society. It’s not just here in the UK – it’s also taking place in the EU. This ought to be another reason for Johnson not to even think about an extension to the transition period – not even of the variety proposed by a former May Brexit negotiator (here, if you must).

Staying with the EU, there’s the proposal by a former German MEP, namely that Italy should leave the €urozone, asking ‘their own rich citizens to help with the Italian bailout’ rather than demand money from Germany and the other Northern EU member states (link). Which political groups  demand that ‘Teh Rich’ must pay? Just so!

Meanwhile Ms Merkel and M Macron have come up with a fabulous plan: the EU should find funds in the financial markets (i.e.: get into debt) to create a “Wiederaufbaufund”, a fund to help EU member states to rebuild their CV-19 hit economies. It’s only a cool €500bn. This is in addition to the already pledged €500bn EU fund for small and medium businesses. You do the maths … This sum ought to be paid back by all member states during the next 20 years – but Merkel and Macron were very coy about the actual time and who would take on how much of this financial burden (German paywalled link).

You have three guesses as to which country would be asked to ‘participate’ should there be a transition period. Odd, isn’t it, how our beloved Remainers never worry about where, in the end, this money is coming from. We know that it won’t be ‘Teh Rich’.

Today’s CV-19 Lockdown articles in ‘Our MSM’ show that the Westminster Bubble dwellers have no idea what effects the proposals by entities such as Network Rail or the air industries will have on ordinary people. The Times reports that, to stop overcrowding, part of the rail network could be closed:

“Sir Peter [chairman of Network Rail] told BBC Breakfast that […] some stations could close if passengers could not maintain social distancing.” (link, paywalled)

Trains are only running at 60-80% capacity, so workers relying on public transport to get work should use their cars or get on their bikes – and if there are too many having to use a restricted service, overcrowding it, the service will become even more restricted.

There’s an accompanying opinion piece in The Times where the author explains that ‘social distancing’ and ‘mass transport’ cannot be reconciled:

“Instead of trying to adhere to the social-distancing concept, the railways should have insisted on masks or face-coverings for all users, mandatory use of hand sanitiser, temperature checks and other protective measures. For their part, passengers would have to assess their own risk.” (link, paywalled)

He concludes that recovery for the rail services, even if a vaccine can be found in the next year or so, may be too late:

“By then, the railways’ message of “Go away, don’t use us” will be so well entrenched that there may be no path back to viability.” (link, paywalled)

Well, that won’t matter, will it, because ‘people can eat cake’, ahem: work from home. Those who cannot – tough, the plebs will just have to lump it, unlike teachers who cannot possibly go back to school doing their job (link, paywalled).

Then there’s the inane proposal of creating ‘air bridges’ to e.g. France or Spain, so that we can have some sort of summer holiday without having to go into quarantine:

“Holidaymakers could be able to travel abroad this summer after the Government announced plans to create “air bridges” with other nations. The proposal, announced by Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, would mean that holidaymakers would be able to travel to foreign resorts and return to Britain without entering quarantine.” (link)

And lookit here – this is the reason for those ‘air bridges’:

“The details on Britain’s “air bridges” emerged as airlines said that they would be unable to increase flight schedules significantly while the blanket quarantine requirements remained in place. […] British Airways has said that it will not increase flights while the requirements are in place, and at the weekend Virgin Atlantic said it would take a similar stance because of concerns it would be unable to fill seats.” (link, paywalled)

So they ‘can’t fill seats’ because of CV-19 and quarantines, therefore services must be cut or not increased to pre-Lockdown times. A bit like Network Rail. Therefore: ‘give us ‘air bridges’ so seats can be filled. Our great transport industrialists apparently cannot contemplate to ‘serve’ the public if it costs them. ‘Tis only us peasants who should bear any costs.

Meanwhile, the broadsheets are running a two-pronged attack on the government generally and Johnson particularly. The Times has, firstly, an interview with yet another scientist:

“Ministers should not say “we are simply doing what scientists tell us” over coronavirus and be more open about the advice they have received, the incoming president of the Royal Society has told The Times. Sir Adrian Smith, a statistician, said that the “extraordinary amounts of uncertainty” with new viruses had been played down in a political environment where ministers felt they needed to appear decisive. He said that any backlash over the handling of the coronavirus outbreak would not be aimed at the scientists because politicians made the decisions.” (link, paywalled)

Ah – so he acknowledges that there was ‘uncertainty’ but elegantly overlooks that the ‘political environment’ was created by ‘Our MSM’, screeching daily that ‘ministers must do something, now!’. Furthermore, he elegantly passes the buck because apparently politicians ought not to have relied on scientific advice because of those uncertainties. Only ministers can make mistakes, not scientists!

And so we come to the Care Home scandal. Both the DT and The Times demand that Johnson should admit he and his government have made ‘mistakes’. For example The Times writes:

“The evidence suggests that ministers were too slow to recognise the risks to care homes and too quick to discharge vulnerable patients from hospitals to the care system without testing them for Covid-19, and that they compounded the dangers to residents and staff by failing to provide adequate protective equipment.” (link, paywalled)

It’s irrelevant to the authors of that piece that it was the NHS and PHE who discharged patients, as many comment posters under that piece point out. Neither Hancock nor Johnson ‘ordered’ ‘Our NHS’ to do so. It’s however  the old and trusted Lefty strategy of forcing government, the PM and ministers to ‘apologise’ – a written ‘gotcha’ moment, if you wish. The writers then graciously and ironically concede:

“Of course ministers may not be personally to blame for these mistakes. Some may reflect the scientific advice available to them at the time; others may reflect institutional problems, for example in the role of Public Health England. These are issues to be addressed at a future public inquiry. But to pretend that no mistakes have been made is not credible.” (link, paywalled)

Of course mistakes were made – but force Johnson to apologise anyway! Perhaps the MSM ought to look closer at who actually made mistakes before demanding that blanket apology. The DT’s editorial is along the same lines, quoting Sweden as example:

“Ministers […] might take a leaf out of the Swedish health minister’s book who conceded on television “We failed to protect our elderly.” Sometimes, acknowledging what everyone knows to be the case is the right course to take” (link)

Odd, isn’t it: across the EU care home patients were dying in their droves but let’s not go into those details! Instead, Johnson must apologise. Care Home owners must not be blamed, not when the MSM can blame ‘ministers’, as this report in the DT shows:

“Coronavirus in care homes will be thrust into the spotlight again amid reports ministers knew a month ago that temporary workers were helping spread the killer disease. […] The Guardian claimed a leaked Public Health England study found workers who transmitted coronavirus across six care homes had been brought in to cover for staff who were self-isolating to prevent the vulnerable people they looked after from becoming infected.” (link)

This is followed by reporting on the finger-pointing already going on, between NHS (‘we didn’t do nuthin wrong’) and care home providers, finishing with demands for more money. I wonder if the MPs – and indeed the DT – were conscious of the rather disgusting irony behind those demands when they queried Mr Hancock:

“The calls [for funding] follow questions put by Conservative MPs, including Sir Graham Brady, chair of the influential Tory backbench 1922 Committee, to Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Monday about what support would be provided to care homes who are experiencing “unusually high vacancy rates” at present.” (link)

Good grief! How insensitive is that: “unusually high vacancy rates”. As if the elderly were dying of CV-19 on purpose, just to thwart the economic models of those care home providers! But it’s all made from the same cloth: ‘business’ must have government money to provide their much reduced services to us peasants – who will bear the costs, one way or another.

As if that weren’t sufficient, we have a ‘new scientist’, a new ‘model. Enter ‘The Tony Blair Institute’, as reported in the DT. I’ll only give you the headlines – you can make up your own minds if this is just woolly thinking of the reporter or woolly thinking of that ‘Tony Blair Institute’ report:

“Regional lifting of lockdown needed to prevent coronavirus flare-ups, new modelling suggests – Tony Blair Institute study shows variation in ‘R’ rate across Britain and says easing of measures could cause acceleration in some areas” (link)

Confused? Me too! But there it is:  listen to Blair, to Starmer, to Labour who would have done ever so much better. Socialism is the answer! Let the plebs bear the burden of paying for all those ‘funds’ for service providers, for ‘working from home workers’.

I’ll leave you with this Churchill quote:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

That’s what our Westminster bubble dwellers want. Heed Churchill’s warning.





Photo by Arlette

Print Friendly, PDF & Email