The Times - UK (2020-12-02)

28 1GM Wednesday December 2 2020 | the times

Comment

L

ord Sumption, the former

Supreme Court justice,

describes recent lockdown

restrictions as “the most

significant interference with

personal freedom in the history of our

country”. One consequence has been

the unspeakable cruelty inflicted on

carers being denied access to their

loved ones when ill. I know this is the

case because I’ve been there.

I was found collapsed at home, was

admitted to a Covid isolation unit and

witnessed the care and dedication of

nurses struggling to cope. My family

was told I might not return home. I

am the full-time sole carer

of my disabled wife, and my sudden

disappearance led her to become

distraught and even more dependent

on me when I did return home.

A few weeks later she developed

“red flag” symptoms demanding

urgent investigations under

anaesthesia and referral to a specialist

hospital for surgery. We were told

that the policy would be to leave her

at the hospital entrance for her to

face surgery unsupported.

Our wonderful, empathetic

consultant and his patient liaison

nurse understood my anger and

said they would do what they could to

allow me to be there. I had

self-isolated for two weeks and had

been shown by swabs to be

Covid-negative. I was allowed in —

exceptionally, I was told — and with

PPE I was able to walk with her to the

operating theatre to keep her calm; I

was there to comfort her when she

awoke from the anaesthetic, and

encouraged her to drink, thereby

allowing us home much earlier than if

hard-pressed nurses had been

responsible for her fluids.

I have read the testimony of others

collected by John’s Campaign, which

argues for people with dementia to be

supported by their family carers. It

makes harrowing reading, including

confrontations with hospital security

staff, denial of a lasting power of

attorney and the grief following

unsupported death.

Historians in the future will look at

this era with the same incredulity

with which we regard the policy 60

years ago of routinely preventing

parents from being with their sick

children in hospital. It’s time to

confront this cruelty and I call on the

British Medical Association, the

medical royal colleges and patient

groups to get the facts on what is

actually happening now, and to draw

up a protocol for how carers can be

assessed for risk, and given rapid

Covid screening and PPE to allow

them safely into hospital settings.

While recognising the serious risks

of Covid we cannot allow

compassion, flexibility and the best

interests of patients to be eroded.

Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green was the

first children’s commissioner for England

and is a former president of

the British Medical Association

British Gas

idiocy leaves

me boiling

with rage

I

f you want a modern slavery

transparency statement, may I

recommend British Gas? Easy-to-

follow links on its website make

clear British Gas is against

slavery. If, however, you want to talk

about actual gas, forget it. I’ve wasted

two hours: on the laptop, phone, and

in a virtual chat room (67th in the

queue). My mission is simple. I am

renovating a derelict house and, as

gas boilers are to be phased out, this

is the moment to go all-electric with

an air-source heat pump. Even as I

write I’m still struggling with British

Gas, awaiting another agent to “chat”

with on the website. Hold my hand,

then, reader, as we venture together

into the howling sinkhole that is

British Gas’s customer relations.

The story so far: last night I spent

ages failing to make progress online.

They claim there are no FAQs (yeah,

right) that include the words

“discontinue”, “terminate”, “cut off”,

“end”, “close”, or “stop”. I tried an

online “chat” with Vintar. Helpful

Vintar did manage to close my

account, posting in his chat box a

number to call today to get the

supply disconnected and the meter

removed. This morning the chat box

had vanished, so I started again.

Ankar was helpful in the chat

department, and gave me a number

to call. But time flies and I’ve a

Notebook to write, so I’m dialling the

number on speakerphone and will

update when we get anywhere.

Meanwhile, on to my next item...

Cambridge folly

D

oes anyone have Stephen

Fry’s email address? As a

Cambridge graduate and

an honorary fellow of my college,

I want to join his campaign

against the university’s proposed

new “free speech” policy.

Dons vote this week on the

wording. It decrees that

opinions and opinion-

holders are to be treated

with “respect”, potentially

allowing anyone who

declares themselves

offended by an opinion

to censor others from

expressing it. Well, I

don’t “respect” the case

for female genital

mutilation, or hellfire for

homosexuals. I call

religion superstition.

Those on the other side of such

arguments may find my opinions as

bonkers as I do theirs, but isn’t

university the place for vigorous

battles of ideas? Crikey, Martin

Luther and his 95 theses would have

been drummed out of Cambridge for

“disrespecting” the Catholic church.

More power to Fry’s elbow.

Writing this, I was on hold to

British Gas for about half an hour,

listening to bleak electronic music

interspersed with pandemic-related

information-gobbets. Then I got

through. The agent said this was not

the number for disconnections,

and I should call “billing”. I’m on

hold again...

Punish the pedants

W

hich allows me to

continue this Notebook,

in support of the BBC’s

political editor, Laura

Kuenssberg. There may

or may not be a limit to

how much Britain can

borrow (it’s just hit

£394 billion) but there’s

evidently no limit to the

pomposity of academic

economists. Two dozen of

these self-regarding twits

(oops — that’s me expelled

from Cambridge) have made

a formal complaint to the

corporation’s director-

general about Ms

Matthew Parris My Week

Beijing knows that control of the area between Earth and moon will be key in future conflicts

US can’t afford to let China win new space race

more than a sentimental prize.

A senior Chinese general was

quoted in 2016 as saying “the space

between the Earth and the moon will

be strategically important for the

great rejuvenation of the Chinese

nation”. The head of the Chinese

lunar mission says “if we don’t go

there now, even though we are

capable of it, then we will be blamed

by our descendants. If others go,

then they will take over.”

There is, then, a sense of urgency

on the part of the Chinese. And of

indifference on the part of the

Americans. Donald Trump rubber-

stamped the creation of a dedicated

space force, drew brickbats when he

had them kitted out in jungle

fatigues (despite the disappointing

lack of vegetation in outer space) and

then lost interest. Biden, whose

metaphorical moonshot may be a

Covid-19 vaccine rather than a head-

on technological race with Beijing,

could well be happy to let the

competing tycoons Elon Musk and

Jeff Bezos take on some of the heavy

lifting of space exploration.

But even their multibillion-dollar

fortunes are likely to fall short. China

is playing for higher stakes than the

Musk v Bezos my-rocket-is-bigger-

than-yours stag-rutting. It considers

a foothold on the moon to be a form

of future-proofing, part of a plan to

thwart the US in all domains should

their great power rivalry hurtle out

of control.

If you believe the speech bubbles

coming from the Chinese top brass,

command in space is now deemed to

be an existential issue. The new US

president needs to pay attention. The

race for the moon is still on.

near-Earth space. Who controls near-

Earth space dominates the Terra.

Who dominates Terra determines

the destiny of humankind.”

An expanding naval power like

China understands the merits of

space surveillance: satellites can

detect deep submarine activity and

can warn surface fleets of changing

weather. And it understands the

principle of naval blockade when

applied to space. Just as warships can

block sea lanes, so a space force can

prevent the enemy using celestial

communication.

The incoming Biden

administration thus has to decide

whether the US is approaching a

Sputnik moment. In 1957 the Soviet

Union rattled the US administration

by launching the first Earth-orbiting

artificial satellite. It triggered a space

race. Engineers and mathematical

geeks flocked to Nasa to work (for

not very much money) on the

clinching argument for US technical

superiority: the landing of men on

the moon. That took 12 years and it

remains today a benchmark of what

can be achieved by fully funded,

goal-oriented science.

In the meantime, though, the

distinction between Earth and space

has been blurred. Geopolitics used to

be Earth-bound, world war was war

between continents. Now it isn’t.

China is ahead on this. Clausewitz is

taught in its military academies and

so too is the Prussian argument for a

Feldherrenhügel, the mound from

which commanders can direct

battles. Space is the ultimate “higher

ground” from which all strands of a

battle can be monitored and

directed. That is why the moon is

T

elevision scriptwriters in

China have been banned

from writing about time

travel lest viewers get the

impression that all is not

well in the here and now of Xi

Jinping’s realm. Going to the moon,

on the other hand, is something to

be celebrated as part of the great

technological power struggle

with America.

Since the first early 20th-century

translations of Jules Verne, the

Chinese have had their eye on

colonising the moon, a romantic

dream but also increasingly a sense

that it is the place where future wars

will be played out.

This week they are set to land

there again, setting down a robot in

the Ocean of Storms. It’s not yet a

manned flight — the Chang’e 5 will

dig up two kilos of lunar dust,

reconnect with an orbiting mother

ship and return to Earth in about a

fortnight — but a Chinese man or

woman on the moon is likely to

happen within a few years.

Last year China landed on the far

side of the moon, the part that is

perpetually invisible from Earth.

Everything points to China wanting

to establish a base in the south pole

of the satellite, which has 200 Earth

days of sunlight a year, a zone

hospitable enough for Beijing’s

taikonauts. What is China up to in

space? Perhaps there is a bit of the

old romance — Chang’e is named

after a moon goddess — and

scientific curiosity, a sense of trophy-

hunting too against Russia and the

US. But the sum of its recent efforts

since 2007, when it destroyed one of

its own weather satellites in what

appeared to be a bit of target

practice, is that there is a complex

military operation under way.

This summer marked the final

launch of China’s equivalent of GPS

satellites. It has seen how GPS can

win wars for America and doesn’t

want to be at a disadvantage. Xi has

ordered the upgrading of an army

strategic support force for anti-

satellite warfare, for jamming and

dazzling America’s eyes in the sky.

Preparing moon expeditions is a way

to test space applications of 3D

printing and artificial intelligence.

They help to build co-operative

networks between commercial

operators and the military.

The strategic aim is to control

what is known as cislunar space, the

stretch between Earth and the moon

that controls the access lines to

deeper space. The space war theorist

Everett Dolman, professor of military

strategy at the US air force command

college, has come up with an

apocalyptic-sounding formula: “Who

controls low-Earth orbit controls

China sees a foothold

on the moon as form

of future-proofing

It is inhumane for

carers to be barred

from hospitals

Al Aynsley-Green

Kuenssberg’s use of the idea of

“maxing out” the nation’s credit card

when discussing the Office for

Budget Responsibility’s report about

Britain’s finances. These (said the

report) are “significantly adrift” from

any previous idea of balance. But the

economists are shaking their tiny

fists at Kuenssberg’s implication

there might be a limit to what we can

borrow, or that we might be near it.

Oh for heaven’s sake, nitpickers,

she’s a journalist: she has a mission

to put things across in words people

actually use. Even the chancellor

says we’ll soon have to deal with our

eye-watering overdraft... oops, that’s

me in the doghouse along with

Laura. How about “red ink”? I have

this mental picture of a pit full of

these puffed-up pedants, with Laura

and me shouting “Debt!” “Never-

never!” “In hock!” “Bailiffs!”

“Bankrupt!” “Bust!” “Queer Street!”

while they, their little eyes popping

out in apoplexy, rage, claw and spit.

Computer says no

A

fter 25 minutes in the new

phone queue, disaster. The

lady at “billing” says no, it’s

definitely not them. She’s putting me

back through to where I started.

Back on to speakerphone misery. So

how about putting a pickaxe through

the supply pipe and calling gas

emergencies? Apparently a real

person answers that one, promptly.

Roger

B oyes

@rogerboyes