The Economist - UK (2022-04-02)

The Economist April 2nd 2022 Britain 25

BorisJohnson

By jingo!

R

ussia’sinvasionofUkrainehashigh­

lightedone ofthelessattractiveas­

pectsofBorisJohnson’scharacter:a will­

ingnessto squeezeanyissue,nomatter

howgrave,if it mightyieldtheslightestpo­

liticaladvantage. And thereisnodoubt

thattheprimeministerissqueezingthe

warforallit isworth—aidedbysomeofhis

moreimpressivequalities.Hehasa capac­

ity for boldness, dispatching anti­tank

rocketstoKyivbeforemostotherEuropean

countrieshaddecidedwhatsupporttoof­

ferthecountry’sdefenders.Hecanbean

impressive orator. After a well­judged

speechtoa UkrainianchurchinLondon,

congregantsrosetotheirfeetandchanted

“Thankyou!”,tearsontheircheeks.

MrJohnsonneededa boostfromsome­

where.InJanuaryhefacedbeingkicked

outofofficeina parliamentaryrebellion

afteritemergedthatraucouspartieswere

held in Downing Streetduring covid­19

lockdowns.Hisapprovalratingsfelltothe

lowestofanyprimeministersinceJohn

Majorin1994.OnMarch29thhehosteda

kiss­and­make­updinnerforTorymps at

theParkPlaza,a hotelacrosstheThames

fromParliament.There,helaughedoffthe

lettersofnoconfidencehisopponentshad

sentseekingtotriggera leadershipballot,

declaringthatifRussia’spresident,Vladi­

mirPutin,hadtofaceanythingsimilar,he

wouldnotbeso“deludedandisolated”.

MrJohnsonhadsimilarlyindulgedTory

solipsismina speechonMarch19thtothe

party’sspringconferenceinBlackpool,lik­

ening Ukraine’s struggle for freedom with

Britain’s  decision  to  leave  the  European

Union. (This made sense to those Conser­

vatives who regard the eu as a tyranny; ma­

ny  Ukrainians  found  it  gravely  offensive.)

Referring to the Labour Party, he asked: “Do

we  want  them  running  up  the  white  flag?

Do  you  see  them  standing  up  to  Putin’s

blackmail?”  (For  his  part  Sir  Keir  Starmer,

Labour’s leader, has used the crisis to stress

his  commitment  to  nato membership.)

The  Conservative  Party’s  head  office  has

produced jaunty Instagram graphics about

the anti­tank missiles sent to Ukraine, em­

blazoned with the party logo. 

Some Tory mps suggest that the Ukraine

conflict could give Mr Johnson a bounce to

rival  that  enjoyed  by  Margaret  Thatcher

after her quick and decisive victory in the

Falklands  war  (see  next  story).  That  ap­

pears fanciful. But the prime minister’s po­

sition  does  seem  more  secure,  in  part  be­

cause  of  such  jingoism.  Several  mps  who

wrote  letters  calling  for  a  no­confidence

vote have withdrawn them, declaring that

a  war  is  no  time  for  a  leadership  contest.

His  net  approval  rating  has  recovered

somewhat, rising to ­33 from a nadir of ­51

in  mid­January.  Voters  overwhelmingly

support  arming  Ukraine.  The  Tories’  gap

with the Labour Party has narrowed.

Equally important for Mr Johnson’s job

security is that Rishi Sunak, his chancellor

and  chief  rival,  has  faltered.  A  budget  up­

date  on  March  23rd  was  widely  criticised

for  doing  too  little  to  ease  the  impact  of  a

squeeze on household incomes. The com­

ing year will be painful: state benefits will

fall by almost 5% in real terms and energy

bills are expected to rise by a total of 130%.

A  series  of  inept  public  appearances

have confirmed Tory mps’ suspicions that,

despite a slick start, Mr Sunak is too inex­

perienced for the top job. Asked the price of

a loaf of bread—a standard interview ques­

tion used to probe ministers’ understand­

ing  of  the  hard­pressed  worker—he  re­

plied:  “We  all  have  different  breads  in  my

house.” The Labour Party intends to exploit

Mr Sunak’s prudence, or tightfistedness, in

order  to  claim  that  the  government’s  pre­

election  promises  in  2019  of  largesse  for

poor constituencies count for nothing. 

This is all good for Mr Johnson’s short­

term survival, which depends on his party.

But it is bad for his party’s prospects, which

depend  on  voters.  Meanwhile  the  scandal

over  lockdown  parties  is  flaring  up  again.

On March 29th the Metropolitan Police an­

nounced it would issue 20 fines. The force

has refused to name recipients, but Down­

ing Street said that if Mr Johnson were to be

handed one, that would be made public. He

would  then  face  renewed  calls  to  quit—

which  he  would  surely  face  down.  Over

their  chicken  dinners  at  the  ParkPlaza,

mps may have recalled one of Thatcher’sfa­

vourite phrases: there is no alternative.n

War in Ukraine—and floundering

rivals—shore up the prime minister

“Sourdough or ancient grain?”

No  one  claims  that  childbirth  is  easy.
When  at  rest,  the  diameter  of  the  average
woman’s cervix is less than 1cm—less than
the  length  of  the  word  “cervix”  written  in
this font. The average baby’s head has a di­
ameter a little over 10cm. To get the second
through  the  first  is  hard,  and  always  has
been.  Roman  gynaecological  manuals  ad­
vised on tools such as the “embryo­crush­
er”,  used  to  remove  babies  who  had  be­
come  stuck.  In  the  worst  countries  in  the
world  maternal  mortality  lurks  at  over
1,100 deaths per 100,000 births; in the best
it is still two.
But  disaster  need  not  strike  anywhere
near as often as in Shrewsbury and Telford.
Ideology  was  one  culprit.  Childbirth  is  a
biological  process  that  has  become  pecu­
liarly  politicised.  Jeremy  Hunt,  who  or­
dered the inquiry when he was health sec­
retary,  says  that  the  “natural­birth  ideolo­
gy” that flourished at that time “proved to
be  absolutely  catastrophic  in  Shrewsbury
and Telford”. It was not the only problem—
Mr  Hunt  also  cites  a  reluctance  to  admit
mistakes—but it was a dominant one.
Ever since Grantly Dick­Read, an obste­
trician,  published  “Natural  Childbirth”  in
the 1930s, there have been people who have
argued vehemently that because childbirth
is  “natural”  it  should  be  endured  without
pain  relief  or  medical  intervention.  The
natural­childbirth  movement  gained  sup­
port  not  only  among  mothers  but  also
among medical professionals. In 2008 the
Royal College of Midwives launched a cam­
paign  for  “normal  birth”,  in  which  it  ad­
vised  midwives  to  “trust  your  intuition”
and “wait and see” before intervening. The
relentless  rise  in  Caesarean  sections  in
Britain  in  recent  decades  has  often  been
greeted with hand­wringing. 
Without doubt, there are advantages to
giving birth without drugs and scalpels. A
Caesarean is a gruelling operation. Ideally
it would be followed by weeks of bed rest;
instead it is followed by months of broken
nights,  and  days  spent  lugging  a  grizzling
baby about. If one can be avoided, it should
be.  But  only  when  all  relevant  factors  are
taken into account—and a target for natu­
ral childbirths is not one of those. 
Few  women  give  birth  today  without
having  been  at  least  exposed  to,  at  worst
oppressed  by,  the  notion  that  a  “natural”
birth is not merely physically superior, but
ideologically  superior,  too.  This  dogma
seems  to  have  held  sway  in  Shrewsbury
and  Telford.  Mr  Hunt  observes  that  the
trust “made a big deal” of its very low Cae­
sarean­section rate: in 2005 it was around
14%,  compared  with  a  national  average  of
23.2%.  When  one  woman  pregnant  with
twins  requested  a  Caesarean,  a  doctor  is
said to have replied: “We’ve got the lowest
Caesarean  rate  in  thecountry  and  we  are
proud of it and we plantokeep it that way.”
One of her twins died.n