That politics is in a febrile state is one of the least controversial statements of all time. This has probably always been the case politically, but only feels relevant since the EU referendum. Though it was over five years ago, the shock, awe, intensity and often pure horror that exists within politically-charged arguments does not seemed to have slowed down, even if the form in which it has been presented can vary.
Its latest formation can be seen regarding the near complete easing of restrictions from Monday 19th July. Apart from in hospitals and other medical settings, wearing a mask will no longer be compulsory and instead just advisable. Social distancing, legal limits on gatherings and all other restrictions will fall to one side. I imagine this was always the government’s plan, but has only increased in intensity with the arrival of new Health Secretary Sajid Javid. What the UK government have decided is an immense social experiment. I so hope that the scale and speed of the vaccine rollout means that, while cases increase, these do not lead to hospitalisations and further deaths. That being said, the rate of vaccination has slowed, with scientists across the world fearing that the complete removal of restrictions will lead to vaccine-resistant variants to develop. The balance between what the state enforces and what the public decides will be intriguing to witness from Monday. I imagine many people will carry on wearing masks, businesses will enforce mask wearing and it will be a social convention. Instead of getting a fine, people will suffer social disapproval and wish to conform. That is only helped by an evidently authoritarian streak in the UK. Polling for the Economist which showed a fifth of people favoured a permanent night-time curfew while 26% wanted casinos permanently shut. I wouldn’t be surprised if calls for an autumn lockdown gained a large amount of support, given they are something we have, horrifyingly, become so used to. This surely cannot happen, given the immense damages we know lockdowns cause. Instead, there must be a focus on booster jabs for those who remain most vulnerable to the virus alongside preparing Nightingale hospitals for the winter crisis the NHS experiences every year. As for vaccinating children, I remain in two minds. On the one hand, children receive regular vaccinations throughout their school years. However, I don’t know how much research there has been regarding testing vaccines on children, who are far less likely to be affected by Covid. It is a conversation which requires further research. ****************************************************************************************************************** I felt saddened more than any other emotion by the government’s victory in locking in its cut to international development. 0.5% of Gross National Income will now be devoted to foreign aid, down from 0.7%. This looks set to be a cut of £4 billion, with £10 billion spent in 2021 compared to £14.5 billion in 2020. Just at the time the world’s poorest people have required our help more than ever, the UK, as one of the richest countries in the world, has turned its back on them. It’s so easily forgotten that the figure is always a proportion of GNI. Therefore, even if 0.7% had remained locked in, the figure would have declined *anyway* due to the economic costs of lockdown and the pandemic. Instead, to appease those who oppose foreign aid, an even larger reduction has been made. That Theresa May rebelled against a three line Conservative whip for the first time on this issue just demonstrates how it cuts to the core of divisions within Conservative thought. Yes, you can make the arguments about how it’s a brilliant form of soft power with Britain standing tall on the world stage. The more practical, and stronger arguments though, are the moral arguments. While the way in which foreign aid is spent should of course receive scrutiny, the principle of helping the poorest help themselves should be celebrated. This applies both in the distribution of vaccines around the world and other issues, like the expansion of education. I also can’t stand the way in which helping those around the world is presented as a zero sum game. You are either in favour of levelling up domestically *or* supporting those elsewhere. No: newsflash - you can support both. All the arguments about needing to tighten our belts economically forget what a small sum of money international aid is per head of the population. When the money is spent well, it helps so many. Indeed, individuals who take the most conservative views on immigration should be most supportive of foreign aid. If individuals and nations are provided with the financial resources that allow them to prosper and develop, they are surely less likely to economically migrate towards the UK. That logic, along with so much in this debate, appears to have completely vanished. ****************************************************************************************************************** One piece of news that has received hardly any attention whatsoever is the withdrawal of UK troops from Afghanistan. It is a war that began exactly two months after I was born, demonstrating just the scale and vast amount of time spent fighting...for what? 457 UK troops have lost their lives, while countless Afghans will have been affected, with many survivors fleeing to a safer country. Symbolically, the USA plans to withdraw all of its troops by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Given that the Taliban are resurgent, and that the war’s initial purpose was to overthrow them, can anything have really been achieved? While I am not a pacifist, a war must have an identifiable purpose on which can be judged. On surely every count, we in the West have failed. That is a damning indictment on the future of liberty and freedom for those we are leaving behind with our withdrawal. ****************************************************************************************************************** Back home, more focus was given to Boris Johnson’s announcement that an amnesty for all crimes committed during the Northern Ireland Troubles would be introduced. This was a logical extension of wishing to end supposed scrutiny of British veterans accused of wrongdoing in the troubles. If there is an amnesty for one side, it must apply for all sides. However, to say this has been poorly received would be a dramatic understatement. All of the five parties in Northern Ireland oppose this (for different reasons, of course) alongside the Irish government. The announcement reminded me of a recent edition of the Moral Maze looking at whether peace or justice was more important for territories post-conflict. For my money, there can be no road to peace - that is, living alongside individuals in harmony - without justice, accountability and recognition for those who have perpetrated crimes. Given that developed countries should be built upon the rule of law, this necessities a requirement for fair trials, evidence and those committing atrocities to face the full force of the law. That the alleged crimes happened a long time ago should be an irrelevance. The advances in DNA and data research have allowed individuals who have evaded justice to be found in cold cases. Similarly, that the cause they were fighting for was political doesn’t mean an individual should escape justice. Had Margaret Thatcher been assassinated in the Brighton Hotel, nobody would have allowed the IRA to evade justice simply because they were politically disagreeing with her. Indeed, Ireland’s foreign minister has even argued that such actions could go against the UK’s international obligations by simply placing justice as a secondary concern. No doubt the families of victims, who may continue to see or live alongside their murderers, are utterly outraged at the absence of accountability. This is one way to ensure justice is not reached. ****************************************************************************************************************** It’s possible to laugh at the struggles within GB News as much as the next person, but there is nothing nice about kicking an organisation when they are down. And boy, are they down, failing to take the media world by storm for the right reasons. While only a month old, you wouldn’t be wrong to expect slightly more radicalism from them. Instead, their setup still looks unprofessional and gimmick-like. The technical problems are not the only fault. Guto Harri, a presenter, has been removed until further notice for taking the knee in solidarity with England players. GB News have claimed it's a breach of their standards, despite supporting a diversity of opinion among their presenters. While Andrew Neil has tweeted his continued support for the station (despite being off air himself), John McAndrew, the director of programming, has quit his role. That is no wonder, when zero viewers were recognised at certain points. There is a clear and evident tension within GB News. On the one hand, the full on culture war warriors want to ensure their content is more right-wing. On the other, localised reporting was more of a priority, something which is much needed. Harri was forced off air after a viewer boycott and, whisper it, cancelled. At times like this, it’s important to remember that free speech is far more easy and acceptable when it’s your own. It’s when other people want freedom of speech that tensions can suddenly arise. Despite all its problems however, I still think it's too early to completely write off GB News.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|