The return of a free society? Almost...

At last. We finally have the prospect of once again living in a free society based on personal responsibility rather than one where hitherto mundane daily rituals are prohibited by the

state. “We can say that our long national hibernation is beginning to come to an end,” announced the Prime Minister. Suitably enough it will happen on “Independence Day”.

Some restrictions have already been eased. Others will remain after July 4th. But it does feel like a breakthrough. That the crisis is more or less over. Even the press conferences have

stopped. Yet there is no great mood of euphoria. Boris Johnson’s reference to hibernation is apt. It reflects a sleepy, hesitant response many have shown to being released from captivity.

Claims that policy is following “the science” are not credible. Firstly, because “the” science is all over the shop. Many predictions have proved way off the mark, including, thankfully,

Professor Neil Ferguson’s flawed computer modelling which had projected half a million British deaths. There is no consensus. Thus the boffins have ended up with different conclusions — on

whether face masks are of any use, on whether social distancing should be one metre or two, and, even, on whether the rude policy of a general lockdown was effective at all.

Secondly, politicians can’t just follow “the science” even if such a thing did exist. Such advice must be balanced with other considerations such as social and economic well being.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the views of scientists are trumped by those of the public. This has been the most important constraint. If the Government really only cared about “the

science” why is Downing Street spending so much money on focus groups and polling?

Some have been exasperated by the Government timidity. The argument — from business leaders and many Tory MPs — is that a proportionate approach, considering the emerging evidence from here

as well as from other countries, would have meant liberalising more quickly. Yet while the Prime Minister acknowledges he has been taking “baby steps” he has still been ahead of public

opinion. He has expressed surprise at how acquiescent the public was at having their freedom removed and how resistant they are to getting it back.

The spirit of nervousness has been illustrated by the reopening of schools. There has been plenty of evidence to show not merely that children are of minimal risk to themselves but are also

highly unlikely to spread the virus. Yet many children who could return to school have been kept at home by their parents.

Contrast this with the indulgence shown to the large Black Lives Matter demos. Lots of references were made, including by the PM, to a “right to peaceful protest”. Such comments forgot that

this has been suspended. Public gatherings of over six are banned. Even inciting such gatherings is an offence. But political sensitivities meant no attempt was made to enforce the law.

Despite the substantial flouting of “social distancing” there is no sign of the demo prompting a “second wave” of coronavirus. In London, where the largest number were marching, the virus

has been rapidly disappearing.

All this expediency, duplicity and gradualism from Boris Johnson might not seem terribly heroic. It also has the risk of pleasing nobody. The scope for specific grievances is vast. Let us

take the example of cricket — which is to remain an illegal activity for the time being.

Greg Clark, the Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells, protested in the Commons: “Cricket is perhaps our most socially distanced team sport. We have lost half the summer, but there is another

half left to be enjoyed by players and spectators alike.” The Prime Minister responded that “the ball is a natural vector of disease, potentially at any rate.” We also risk being struck by

lightning on the cricket pitch should a storm break and we fail to retire to the pavilion in time.

Why are swimming pools to stay closed — given that chlorine in pool water kills the virus?

Why should those lucky enough to have second homes not get in their cars and drive off to them now, instead of waiting until July 4th? If social distancing is maintained then why is the risk

any greater?

The irony is that should someone else happen to be Prime Minister surely Boris Johnson would be busy debunking such nonsense in lively columns for the Daily Telegraph. An instinctive

libertarian and risk-taker, he would be a merciless critic of such pusillanimous behaviour.

Still, he finds himself as our Prime Minister and operating within those constraints. Rousseau proposed that we should be “forced to be free”. Johnson might have some sneaking sympathy. I

would like him to have shown bolder leadership, to have moved further and faster. If he feels that would have been the right course then he could have expected to be vindicated and any

popular dismay would have proved transitory. Yet it is the nature of a democracy that politicians like to bring people with them as much as possible. That might be a frustrating aspect of

the democratic process. But the alternative would be far worse.

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add [email protected] to your safe list.