Never has the democratic process been under more threat, this time from both liberals and populists. Let me explain why.

The argument that populists are undermining democracy and treating voters as fools is well documented. Populists apparently feign interest in voters’ concerns and rail against the liberal elite but in reality, don’t give a damn. They simply replace one elite with another and, in the process, damage the prospects of the very people who voted for them. Take Trump for example. It is not true that he said if he wanted to stand for President, he would stand as a Republican because they are “the dumbest group of voters”, but it is true that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, said in 2017, “He (Trump) just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it”.

The very people who voted for Trump are now suffering most from his appalling approach to the covid-19 pandemic, which is overwhelming America. The tax cuts he doled out have benefited the rich and now, to top it all, just three days ago Trump gave an interview saying he might not accept the results of the November election, admitting “he does not like to lose”. Some argue that voter suppression is now at the heart of his re-election strategy. He rails against postal voting and same day registration. Arbitrary purges of voting rolls and restricted voting times are now common in the minority neighbourhoods of Republican-run states.

In the UK, the same analysis could apply. The Brexit vote, which we now know might have been influenced by the Russians, has had the most detrimental effect on those who voted to leave the EU. Research from the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy at Warwick University, outlined in the FT, found that parts of the UK, such as the West Midlands, with high levels of low-skilled and manufacturing employment, have underperformed since 2016. Such areas heavily voted Leave in the EU referendum. Turkeys voting for Christmas but do those who ran the Brexit campaign care? No. Some pretty incredible porkies were told during the EU referendum as delivering on ideological aims outranked a commitment to democratic accountability.

Many argue that attacking the liberal elite and hiding behind ‘fake news’ is just a smokescreen. The argument goes that populists and populism is based on self-centred advancement founded on the belief that voters don’t deserve democracy and can be manipulated accordingly.

The challenge is that liberals are starting to share the same ground. There is a developing argument that if voters are stupid enough to vote for Trump, Brexit, Putin, Duda in Poland, Orban in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil etc, do they really deserve democracy when the outcome of such elections is mostly so damaging to their individual prospects and a nation’s health generally? There is also a growing suppression of freedom of speech among extreme liberals for anyone deemed not politically correct enough, worthy of a blog on its own. All this leads to mutterings that perhaps voting should be encouraged only for those educated enough to know what is best for them…

Against this background, it is worth being reminded of Churchill’s full quote on the subject of democracy: “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”.

Food for thought. The case for democracy and full voter participation clearly has to be re-made in these turbulent times and not just in the obvious places.

According to the IMF’s latest analysis of economic ranking, admittedly pre-Covid so it is likely to be flattering, the UK is in 7th place with a 3% share of the world’s nominal GDP. We have recently fallen behind India. The US accounts for a 24.7% share and China 16.9%. The EU, post-Brexit, accounts for c16%. On a per capita basis we rank 23rd. That hardly amounts to a powerful bargaining position as we forge our new post-Brexit global trading alliances…

And there is no clearer indication of our relative economic weakness than the rows and U-turn over the role of Huawei in helping to build our 5G network. The government announced this week, under some pressure from the Trump administration and its own backbenchers, that Huawei will be banned from supplying new equipment to the UK’s 5G network from the end of the year, reversing a decision made in January. In part this is due to a ‘reassessment of security risks’ prompted by fresh US sanctions. Huawei now cannot rely on the supply of US made chips and will have to rely on home grown ones. Then there is Hong Kong…

The impact of this decision will apparently be a 2 year delay in rolling out our 5G network at a cost of £2 billion and that is before any compensation to operators. It has also damaged our relations with China where inward investment to the UK has already fallen from a peak of over $30 billion in 2017 to less than $3 billion in 2019. The Chinese Ambassador warned such a move would damage Britain’s image as a proponent of free trade and cautioned that it was “not in the UK’s interest” to make an enemy of China. Strong stuff.

The purpose of this blog is not to debate the merits of keeping Huawei at bay but to highlight the economic vulnerability of our current position. We have been dragged, albeit reluctantly, into Trump’s confrontational trade war with China in advance of trying to secure a free trade agreement with the US. To what extent are the two linked? We are also being threatened by China. Our bargaining chip of 3% of the world’s GDP is looking somewhat meagre.

Earlier this week government officials admitted that the post-Brexit bureaucracy burden of trading with Europe, even if a trade deal is reached, would involve an extra 215 million customs declarations at a cost of £7 billion a year. Even Michael Gove confessed that any new arrangements would require the hiring of some 50,000 private sector customs agents to deal with these formalities. Such is the price of leaving the single market.

Over half the world’s trade is divided between 3 trading colossi, one of which is the EU. Our economic weakness relative to the other two, the US and China, has just been cruelly exposed with the prevarications over Huawei. It will be miraculous if we hold on to our current share of global GDP in the post-Covid years ahead which, in any case, has been shown to provide little protection. Against this backdrop, the cost of this Government’s ideological obsession of leaving the EU on its own terms is increasingly plain to see.

Two characteristics of the populist surge across the globe are evident. First, populist governments simply replace one elite with another, in the process possibly speaking to a smaller room of people than previous regimes…Second, they mostly seem to be manifestly incompetent and that is what will do for them in the end.

This has sadly become all too evident with the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. Let’s look at a few of the cast to see its impact. Note Putin and Xi are excluded from this roll call. You can hardly be a true populist when you don’t invite people to freely vote for you in the first place…

Trump. A second wave of infections, which is really just an extension of the first wave is engulfing the US, particularly in Republican led states who followed the President’s lead that lockdowns are an anathema to freedom loving Americans. Trump is now behind Biden by double digits in most national polls. Crucially in key swing states, including the populous Florida, Biden is ahead by 5-10%. Infections are heading towards 3 million, there are 130,000 deaths and re-openings are being reversed. The public are increasingly of the view that the pandemic will get worse dragging down any economic rebound. Trump’s general behaviour and lack of leadership is appalling even to some of his core base. To add insult to injury he has just withdrawn from the World Health Organisation. Of course, there is always a risk that law and order issues will drag some support back to him, but one feels his ability to enthuse is draining away.

Bolsonaro. His behaviour is perhaps even more extraordinary than Trump’s and this week he has tested positive for coronavirus. One hopes his infection is confined to his earlier description of it being sniffles or ‘a little flu’. Bolsonaro has consistently urged regional governors to ease lockdowns and only on Monday watered down face mask regulations. He has lost two health ministers in the process and other cabinet ministers due to his handling of the crisis. Meanwhile infections have topped 1.6 million with 65,000 fatalities, second only to his friend and ally, Donald Trump.

Johnson. It is perhaps unfair to club Johnson together with the above two. His populism is more nuanced but he is a populist nonetheless. Whilst mindful of the science, his libertarian instincts delayed the obvious need for an early lockdown. With over 60,000 excess deaths in the UK, topping the grim league table of worst affected countries on most measures, his popularity has fallen sharply, despite decisive economic intervention, in the face of a number of issues; his key adviser, Cummings, caught flouting lockdown rules and getting away with it, confused messaging, a failure to sort out a schools reopening policy and a growing focus on the mismanagement of the crisis in care homes.

Poland. This may be a little tangential but coronavirus delayed the presidential poll due in May until this month with the final round this Sunday. It is pitting the incumbent Law and Justice Party backed candidate, Andrzej Duda, against the liberal, current Mayor of Warsaw, Rafał Trzaskowski. The coronavirus induced economic downturn has helped narrow the race considerably and the Law and Justice Party’s cocktail of right-wing nationalism, social conservatism, now with a strong dash of homophobic rhetoric, is under electoral threat for the first time since 2015. If Duda wins, then the corrosive populism dominating Eastern Europe, in turn undermining democratic institutions, will remain unchecked but if there is an upset, then the tide may start to turn.

None of the above populists will go without a fight and there is still time for populism to reassert itself, particularly if the pandemic abates more quickly than seems evident today. But to use Johnson’s ‘Whack- a-Mole’ analogy, let’s hope they (and others) go down one by one and the coronavirus leaves at least one cloud with a silver lining.

It was 2016, I was in New York on business, and I found a spare day to campaign for the Democrats, so horrified was I by the concept of a Trump presidency. Some good it did! I spent my time ringing voters in Florida and the message was clear. Anyone but Hillary Clinton.

Move on four years and it seems like Groundhog Day except, now, it is anyone but Trump. A recent opinion poll out yesterday by the New York Times and Siena College has Joe Biden ahead by 14%. There is no room for complacency. Candidates in the past have been further ahead in polls, only to lose at the last minute to the incumbent but it feels different now. Certainly, the mood has changed from pre-coronavirus days when the economy was booming and the Democrats struggled to reach any consensus on their nominee, with a potential drift to the harder Left.

Biden may be a somewhat mediocre candidate and, at 77, permanently shielded from the coronavirus, but he is not The Donald and that may ultimately be all it takes, particularly if he appoints a rejuvenating Vice Presidential running mate. He is consensual, moderate, and respectful of minorities and US voters may just be in the mood for a bit of healing after the last four tumultuous, divisive years.

And the seemingly self-defeating rampage of Trump just goes on. He has sacked the independent US attorney, Geoffrey Berman, for having the temerity to investigate potentially corrupt Trump associates; he has just accused his predecessor of ‘treason’ for ‘spying on his campaign’ whilst providing no evidence to back up his allegations, and there is the book by ‘sick puppy’ John Bolton highlighting the sheer ignorance of Trump’s forays into foreign policy and cringing support for ‘favourite’ dictators seen appreciatively as strongmen.

Then there is Trump’s response to the Black Lives Matter campaign and his management of the coronavirus pandemic. Oh dear. He has attempted to divide his country racially but seems to have created a consensus among most voters that his actions have been appalling. On the coronavirus pandemic, things only seem to be getting worse. The early unlocking of predominantly Republican states, supported by Trump is proving a disaster. Cases of Covid-19 are now rising in half the country. With medical leaders looking on aghast (why don’t some of them just resign?), the death toll exceeds 120,000 with 2.4 million infections. Both are still rising sharply. Things are going to deteriorate before they get better, but Trump sees everything through the prism of his re-election chances with potentially more tragic consequences.

Trump has emasculated his country internationally and tried to divide it domestically. Anyone but Trump? It might not be enough, but it should be.

Faced with an unparalleled pandemic, the initial response of most governments could be forgiven for falling short. The main hope was that they learnt from their mistakes and raised their game in the process. It is what we have seen frequently overseas, confirming that it would have been unhelpful and unfair to judge a government’s actions too early in this crisis.

We are further through the pandemic now, at least in Europe, and the focus is gradually moving to a review of past actions and managing the way out of lockdown. Comparisons are being made and the UK is not coming out at all well so far. Things only seem to be getting worse for Johnson’s administration and the charge sheet continues to mount.

It is not helped by the commonly held view that this is not a pleasant government. Under the guidance of Johnson and his adviser, Cummings, it is building a reputation for bluster and self-defeating bullying in equal measure. It is given less leeway by commentators for its character but, even then, all could be forgiven if it were competent. It appears not.

To be fair, under the able Rishi Sunak, the government has performed well economically and protecting an unprepared NHS succeeded although, as we now know, at an immense cost to care homes. But there have been too many unenforced errors, and this is changing public opinion. Several are listed below:

• Late to lockdown. A government with a libertarian heart could not bring itself to lockdown early. Modelling data forecasting up to 500,000 unchecked coronavirus deaths was available from 2nd March. Playing with the concept of herd immunity and with little capacity for testing, it was 3 weeks later before shut-down even though the evidence was clear of its benefits, as was the severity of the virus.
• Care homes and lack of testing. This is a disaster. According to the National Audit Office, some 25,000 patients were discharged into care homes untested in March/April, in haste to free up hospital beds. Testing was either unavailable, not even to care home staff, or not deemed a priority. This will be the tragedy of Covid-19.
• Statistics. These make grim reading. Who can argue the management of the crisis to date has been good when we have the highest excess deaths in Europe?
• Cummings debacle. No more to add.
• Managing our way out of lockdown. U-turn after U-turn with the Cabinet barely consulted. First, having to reverse a policy of charging overseas NHS and care home staff supplementary fees for using the health services here. Having praised their contribution, how could the government be so crass? Second, opening schools and then announcing closures until September at the earliest with a £1bn emergency fund announced today to plug the gap. Chaos. No planning, with the poorest children suffering most. Third, a reversal on food vouchers over the Summer for some of the poorest families. Having tried to tackle Marcus Rashford on this and failing, then praising his initiative, the government looks hapless and out of touch. Fourth, an abrupt reversal on the track and trace system which may not be fully up and running until the Autumn at the earliest. We now await the reversal on quarantining. Oh dear, and all this as a backdrop to possibly the worst recession faced by any developed country.

But I return to my earlier point about the character of this government. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a polarising figure. Some have and continue to claim that once his Prime Ministerial ambitions were fulfilled, he would be a little lost in the role.

That may be unfair, particularly mid-pandemic, but what is clear is that his administration, under the guidance of Dominic Cummings, believes aggressive campaigning techniques will win the day, even while in power. The weakness of this approach has been uncovered in this crisis and the government’s satisfaction ratings have suffered accordingly. Confusing policies, messaging and U-turns have been savaged by even the most sympathetic media. We have been treated to the propaganda of superficial phraseology such as ‘ramping up’, to unattainable targets, PPE equipment counted singly rather than in pairs and a raft of ministers refusing to admit any mistakes, even the obvious ones. SAGE deliberations and its membership until recently have mostly been kept secret.

As argued before, if Johnson and his ministers showed more humility, admitted to mistakes with a focus on learning from them, invited the media more readily into deliberations and had generally been more transparent, many more missteps would have likely been forgiven. None of this has happened to date and that promised independent review may consequently be brutal.

This is the most unTory of UK governments. The Conservative Party used to be a party of pragmatism; conservative with a small ‘c’, defending the institutions of state, a mixed economy, accepting and sometimes initiating social and economic change as a necessity in its own right, and/or for maintaining power. Whilst always a coalition of the authoritarian right, economic and social pragmatists, pro and anti-EU supporters and some free market libertarians, it stood mostly on the centre-right ground.

No longer. The rot, so to speak, started under Thatcher who, whilst sometimes tactically pragmatic herself, encouraged right-wing, libertarian free market ideologues to enter the Party from the grass roots up. I saw several of them in student politics, some of which now hold or have recently held senior positions in the Conservative Party or government. They believed in the smallest of States or, at the extremes, hardly any State at all, allowing people to survive, prosper or fail with little government intervention. What was particular about their style was their refusal to compromise or brook any dissent and this led to what one would politely call ‘hard campaigning tactics’.

Move on to recent history, and many of those with a libertarian philosophy could be found at the heart of the Brexit campaign, believing in the concept initiated from Thatcher onward, that the EU was a socialist institution intent on shackling people to a super-state and, as a concept, ultimately doomed to failure. Brutal campaigning techniques won the day (that is not to dispute some valid arguments) and the rest is history as they say. The architect was one Dominic Cummings, ‘the great disrupter’. He is allegedly not even a member of the Conservative Party for which he has very little respect and is apparently almost anarchic in his beliefs.

Today, many Conservative moderates have chosen voluntarily or otherwise to withdraw from the Party, driven out predominantly by the hostility of the EU debate. There is a real vacuum left by the likes of David Gauke, Dominic Grieve, Oliver Letwin, Sam Gyimah, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ruth Davidson and Justine Greening to name but a few. The libertarian inclined Brexit team now lies at the heart of government and has a blank canvas to paint on which they have exploited ruthlessly. It is called Boris Johnson.

However unfair, Johnson is repeatedly criticised for having no guiding principles except to reach the top. It was victory at all costs, starting with weaponising the EU. Consequently, this is now a (Tory) government that has attacked Parliament, the courts, allegedly misled the Royal Family and generally treated institutions, and, until the coronavirus epidemic, experts, with contempt. Revolutionary in its zeal, it has ignored the potentially dangerous, longer term consequences of its actions, to shape a shorter term, impressive General Election victory.

And it is this libertarian influence which will be identified as one of the reasons of a late lockdown and its terrible consequences in terms of excess Covid-19 deaths. Johnson and his team simply couldn’t contemplate government telling the public what to do in such an extreme fashion. They felt it was a deeply continental European trait and there was a superior English way of doing things…

The contradiction to this argument is, of course, an almost socialist, deeply unTory approach to spending public money, identified before the arrival of Covid-19. These policies, many of which have merits post austerity, were also about upending the Establishment, protecting a new power base but leaving room to be radical elsewhere. Such policies are now rightly set in stone in exaggerated terms to recover from this crisis; but it will not stop the march of the breaking down of institutions, freeing markets on a US style basis (watch the EU withdrawal negotiations closely) and accepting the consequences of the rupture of the Conservative Party with glee in a drift to the Right.

But the triumphant libertarians in government should tread warily. Cummings has already tripped up once, the review of actions running up to the lockdown will be brutal and the consequences of a complete, almost contemptuous break from the EU will be plain to see. The essentially English view of being free from the yoke of Europe and showcasing the glorious days ahead of unfettered, home grown, competent government are currently hard to see…

If the Labour Leader, Starmer, becomes a real threat and incompetence becomes the hallmark of the libertarian approach shown to date, then Johnson’s hold on power will weaken. He is not widely trusted or liked by his colleagues but was seen as an election winner. It is very early days but at least one, not unsympathetic former Tory Cabinet Minister, predicts a possible Labour victory at the next election. As we emerge from this Covid crisis depressingly in some disarray, and if such disarray continues, then the Old Conservative Party might just find its teeth. But it is a long shot…

What a farce. Parliament opened to normal voting procedures this week without a single nod to 21st Century technology. The Government, despite a rebellion of some 30 Tories, used its majority to scrap the UK’s virtual parliament, forcing MPs to only vote in person, socially distanced of course.

This could lead to queues of up to a kilometre for every vote, each one taking up to an hour. Johnson’s excuse for this in PMQs yesterday (another strong performance by the Opposition Leader, Starmer, by the way which is apparently infuriating Johnson) was that MPs should make the same sacrifices as the public during this pandemic but this is a lot of nonsense. Many MPs are vulnerable just like the public and should not be expected to put themselves at risk by voting in person, any more than vulnerable members of the public should be expected to give up their shielding to continue to work.

Then, to top it all, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, after PMQs, displayed what seemed to be Covid symptoms whilst making a statement in Parliament. If positive, how many MPs will now have to go into self-isolation, possibly bringing part of the parliamentary process to a halt anyway? The Johnson Government seems increasingly to be either unlucky or stupid, probably a bit of both, but more on that another time.

The innocent explanation for the Government’s stance in now forcing MPs to vote in person during the pandemic is stubbornness and a desire to reassure the public of a return to normal. A darker note is that it reduces the accountability of Government when it is most needed as MPs stay away or votes become increasingly chaotic.

Parliament is already a joke in the minds of many voters. Few understand its arcane procedures. The braying of MPs at a fully attended PMQs is embarrassing and, more than most things, has contributed to the low esteem in which politicians are held. It is time for it to be reformed. Less confrontation, electronic voting and simplifying parliamentary procedures are long overdue to re-establish confidence in voters’ minds. Holding on to increasingly meaningless traditions is, well, traditional and old-fashioned.

And there is an opportunity. The Houses of Parliament are falling down and require extensive building works, possibly with politicians having to vacate the premises. The House of Lords is mooted to be moving to York. In addition to reforming the Lords, how about building on changes made when Parliament was ‘virtual’, starting with the continuing use of electronic voting, considering eradicating procedures that make no sense to the public in a modern world and thinking of redesigns where possible (rightly, impossible to argue for a new parliamentary building in the current climate) so that the ‘English Parliament’ reflects the more discursive ‘horse shoe’ style of the Scottish and Welsh debating chambers. Certainly, the recent polite exchanges between leading politicians as they make greater efforts to search for consensus in the face of this pandemic has been a refreshing change.

Just a thought. It would be a small, but positive legacy as we start to emerge from this crisis.

Many politicians pursue a career based on sound, honestly-held views, and should be accepted as fundamentally good people, even if you don’t always agree with them. But politics can be a dirty business… A successful career often involves extensive, sometimes hypocritical compromises to obtain and maintain power, and progress up the ‘greasy pole’ is driven by deeply competitive instincts. Power can also corrupt.

So, what keeps governments and individual politicians on the straight and narrow and why is this current administration failing the test?

It is the checks and balances of colleagues, the Opposition, the media, voters, and the principles of individual politicians involved which hold governments and the overall political process to account. What happens if some of these influences are missing?

Boris Johnson has been caught telling blatant untruths throughout his career either as a journalist or as an MP, particularly when leading the Brexit campaign. To date, as Prime Minister, Johnson has continued to avoid the checks and balances applied to other politicians, which has led to this vacuum at the heart of his government.

In the face of the hopeless Opposition leader, Corbyn, voters, devoid of a competitive choice, forgave his untruths and gave him a free hand to ‘get Brexit done’ even though the courts and the rights of parliament had been undermined in the process. The size of his majority led him to hand pick mostly weak and dependent cabinet ministers with their advisers, in turn, overseen by his senior special adviser, Cummings. It has been excruciating listening to them defend the PM and Cummings’ alleged breaking of lockdown rules in the past few days, repeatedly reading out identical messages like a widely distributed bot.

Then there is the media. Johnson is undoubtedly a polarising figure and some media are short on objectivity, but their role as scrutineers has been ignored and even denigrated, with the BBC publicly threatened. Johnson and his ministers boycott programmes they dislike and view many journalists simply as ‘enemies’.

Lastly, Johnson, himself, has very few personal, well documented principles to hold him back. Strong Prime Ministers and senior ministers in the past had some sort of moral compass and knew there was a line not to cross; had powerful colleagues, viewed the Opposition warily, feared the press (sometimes too obsessively), and, heaven forbid, even resigned on matters of principle. Not now.

A Johnson premiership was always going to be a high wire act and the Cummings affair has uncovered its weaknesses. Johnson appears to have little understanding of why he is in politics, except as a competition to reach the top, which is why he is so reliant on his bullying key adviser to give him his lines and framework for policy priorities. Huge amounts of political capital have been expended simply to save Cummings’ skin in recent days. Crucially, the whole affair risks undermining social distancing and maintaining control over the future trajectory of this damn virus and it is scandalous that announcements of measures to ease the lockdown are partly timed to drown out condemnation of the government’s response to the ‘architect of lockdown’ breaking his own rules.

But things will, and are, changing. Voters are waking up to the seemingly unacceptable levels of hypocrisy and incompetence in managing this pandemic to date. Cabinet Ministers will be more emboldened to challenge Johnson after this recent debacle. We finally have a decent Opposition leader beginning to offer a genuine, alternative choice and even normally sympathetic journalists are angry and determined to hold this government to account.

The last blog called for more humility from the government. Clearly wishful thinking. Democratic processes, however, have a way of correcting imbalances of power and, if you believe the polls, this appears to be underway quicker than Johnson would have expected. What is also certain is that vacuums get filled, even moral ones…

This has been an incredibly difficult time for the UK Government, indeed any government, as the scale of the pandemic has stretched health, economic and political resources to the limit.

But in the UK, as the incidence of Covid-19 begins to recede, things seem to be getting tougher for those in control, despite palpable success to date in managing the NHS through the crisis. Evidence of errors made as the pandemic emerged is starting to mount. A complacent initial response to the crisis, a brief dalliance with herd immunity, insufficient supplies of PPE and poor testing capabilities have all been well-documented. But as the UK registers the highest death toll in Europe, the scale of errors made in social care, which now account for almost half the recorded deaths make gruesome reading. It seems care homes may have been sacrificed to protect the NHS. The Government is on the back foot and Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is ruthlessly quoting back to ministers their initial, misguided, advice.

There are other errors too. The Johnson broadcast on 10th May was unnecessary and caused confusion. It should have been made after a detailed parliamentary statement on the gradual easing of lockdown. Then there are the devolved regions. The lack of consultation with them, and the breakdown in consensus of how to manage this next phase of the lockdown, was careless in the extreme. You can understand that there are issues of trust when the devolved regions are run by other parties than the Westminster government, but a less arrogant, less careless Prime Minister, could easily have avoided the pitfalls. And what is it about the patronising secrecy of keeping SAGE membership and key advice to ministers away from the public?

In addition, there are questions about the readiness of the test, track and trace strategy and quarantining visitors flying into the UK. The latter seems odd to say the least when there has been no quarantining before! Today, the government mean-spiritedly also refused to back down on charging the highly praised overseas health workers for their use of the NHS.

The whole premise of this UK government, post Brexit, was to lead the country to a glorious and superior future compared to that of our continental European neighbours; but it seems that we have managed to significantly under-perform most of Europe in our response to this pandemic, uncovering all sorts of relative institutional weaknesses. The government refuses to admit errors to date, hiding behind propaganda based on phraseology such as ‘ramping up’. It shamefully denigrates parts of the media (albeit some of the questioning has been poorly targeted) when they are critical, believing good relations are not needed with an 80 seat overall parliamentary majority. It is now starting to move the blame of errors made in managing the pandemic to the scientific advice received. And to cap it all, it arrogantly pursues Brexit negotiations apparently without fear of a No Deal, when a longer transition period would help crippled businesses.

There is much for the Government to learn from the past few months and indeed in the months ahead. You can understand that being in office currently is a brutal experience and there will be the added unpleasantness of facing accusations that ministerial decisions aided a higher death toll than there could have been. But admitting to mistakes, publicly learning the lessons from them, rebuilding consensus with the devolved regions and preparing to extend the transition period for leaving the EU, would all help dispel the lingering unpleasant taste left in the mouth by those in charge.

There is one solution for Johnson and his government to rescue at least some, indeed perhaps a good deal, of its reputation in the coming months. Show humility.

With a sigh of relief, we can say Britain’s Official Opposition is back. After 5 years of Marxist mediocrity and chaos, the arrival of Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour Party is hugely welcome. A grown up with the appropriate intellect is in charge.

And my, is it needed. We are mid-pandemic so an in-depth assessment of the government’s performance and lessons to be learnt is not yet appropriate, but the indicators do not look good. And Keir Starmer, whilst scrupulously polite, is starting to apply the proverbial scalpel to Johnson’s bluster.

A chaotic announcement outlining the start of the end of the lockdown made by Johnson on Sunday (Why do this in advance of a detailed parliamentary statement?) quickly unravelled. Starmer had 6 minutes in the Commons to question the Prime Minister on Monday. He skewered him. A late start to managing the pandemic based on sympathy for the concept of herd immunity and an overall laissez faire philosophy, a general lack of preparedness which encompassed a failure of testing capacity and the initial abandonment of care homes is all forming part of what may be a merciless narrative. And that is before the break in communications with the devolved governments in coordinating the coming out of lockdown.

Having watched Prime Minister’s Question Time today, Starmer was point perfect in his analysis although both leaders to be fair struck the right tone. He took apart the government’s approach to statistics, both in terms of international comparisons and in particular, how they related to care homes. Johnson won’t be able to rabble rouse himself through PMQ’s when attendance is back to normal like he did with Corbyn.

A bright note for this Government is Rishi Sunak who is impressive as Chancellor and surely a potentially worthy successor to Johnson at some point. The rest of the Cabinet is somewhat patchy, but it is perhaps difficult to make any positive impact mid-crisis. What is noticeable, however, is Labour’s improving front bench with Anneliese Dodds as Shadow Chancellor and Lia Nandy as Shadow Foreign Secretary to name but a few stepping up. People with good intellect are appearing/returning and politics will become more competitive as a consequence.

At a leadership level, comparing Johnson to Starmer certainly feels like comparing equals on intellect but perhaps not charisma. Charisma, however, has a certain shelf life and this is shortened if plagued with incompetence. Voters may want a very different style in due course…In the meantime, a stronger Official Opposition creates better government all round. With this in mind, welcome back!