14 Daily Express Wednesday, April 8, 2020
ONE of the most
frequently heard
justifications for the
lockdown is “lives are more
important than money”. But
it is surely a false distinction.
How do we think we are going
to pay for all the lives that will still
need saving after coronavirus?
That question remains no less
pertinent because of the seismic
unnerving felt across the country
by the Prime Minister’s admission
into intensive care.
People refer to “the
government” – as in “the
government must do more”- in the same way they speak of
“the economy”: as if they are
abstract entities, or machines
which can be switched on and off
with the ease of a TV.
But what will be left of that
economy once this currently
indefinite effective house arrest is
over? The peremptory “stay in”
message is more easily observed
by those for whom working from
home is relatively easy and
comfortable. But not for already
lonely pensioners whose weekly
human contacts have become even
rarer; or single parents cooped
up with frustrated children in
high-rises with no gardens; or
those in abusive relationships (with
increases reported already in
domestic violence cases).
Nor is it for the small businesses,
whose continued existence is
dependent – as it is for all of us- on the myriad interactions,
economic and social, that make up
the complex nervous system of
everyday life. What else pays for
“the government” we are forever
exhorting to do more?
Truly heartbreaking cases of
lives ended before their time, and
isolated examples of stupidity - like the crowds who gathered
in a London park at the weekend - suggest no alternative to the
current restrictions.
But we ought to be very careful
what we wish for – and we must be
able to debate it much more freely.
Where is Parliament when we
need it?
It is horribly possible that
countless jobs and lives will be
ruined once this is over. And
if or when that happens, it is very
unlikely that we shall hold our
hands up and say then that it
was unavoidable.
Dutiful Keir shows his class
LIKE many of the PM’s opponents, Sir Keir Starmer was gracious
in wishing him well soon. The new Labour leader wouldn’t be
human if he didn’t heed the vast outpouring of goodwill towards
Boris Johnson as simply adding to the scale of the task he now faces.
It doesn’t help that his image is that of a Brahmin lawyer who looks as
if he’d suffer a nosebleed the moment he left north London.
Who’d have thought that the most immediate task for the leader of
a party that claims to represent working people would be to foil the
impression that he’s more remote than an Old Etonian?THE latest lockdown viewing in our household has been
the dramatised series The People Vs OJ Simpson on Netflix.
I know it was also on BBC2 a couple of years ago, but we
didn’t bother with it then, decided to give it a go this time, and
watched all 10 episodes compulsively over a couple of nights.
It’s a brilliant re-creation of that astonishing case which divided
the US and gripped the world – not least the press room at the
Labour Party conference in Brighton I was covering at the time,
with every hack crowded around the TV screens for the verdict.
The news bulletins that evening relegated new Opposition leader
Tony Blair’s keynote speech to their second items as a consequence,
infuriating his spin doctor Alastair Campbell.
And then it dawns on me that this year marks the 25th
anniversary of those events. How did that happen?Court up in gripping drama
HE’S frequently the
subject of unflattering
caricature, but Wayne
Rooney argued eloquently
against Matt Hancock for
“scapegoating” wealthy
footballers by calling on them
specifically to take pay cuts.
That’s a matter for them, their
clubs, and their consciences.
Very few succeed so purely
on merit – without recourse to
family ties or inherited wealth- as footballers do. Why single
them out – and not, say,
bankers? Or even Tory party
big business donors?
Kelly’s
Eye
BY FERGUS KELLY
Picture: PA