Over the weekend I read an article written by Christopher Snowdon.
He observes a correlation between the Brexit debate and attitude to how the government has managed the coronavirus outbreak in the UK and particularly the lockdown. In fact his headline is "The lockdown debate has morphed into a rerun of the Brexit wars!"
His observation is whether a person is a hawk or a dove on lockdown restrictions can be predicted with a fair degree of confidence by how they voted in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Simply put and in extremis - those that think lockdown should only end when we have a bomb proof vaccine are most likely to be remainers - and those that want life to get back to normal asap are leavers.
Is he right? Why should there be any link?
He suggests attitude to risk might be the explanation ie Brexiteers embrace risk almost by definition - where remainers feel safer with the status quo and are risk adverse.
There can be no doubt that the whole covid debate has been politicized by many. If you were against the Tories over Brexit (seen as a Tory project rather than a democratic imperative) it is quite likely (and sadly) that you do not want to support them - or make life easier for them over the Coronavirus challenges. Attitudes could simply reflect objective political posturing or blind hate ( as often represented evidenced by the #FBPE twitter mob.). (I say sad because this is a national issue that affects us all - and it would be better if we were united and working together in its defeat.)
He also suggests it could also be about settling old scores and I am sure he is right about that. He observes there are some political journalists in this country who will go to their graves convinced that the biggest news story of 2020 was Dominic Cummings driving to Barnard Castle. He says it would be difficult to imagine them getting quite so upset about a special adviser possibly committing a minor breach of a regulation if he had not run the Leave campaign.
My take is Christopher Snowdon is on to something and I am sure there is a correlation.
I think it is why the "liberal elite" media - most notably the BBC has failed to understand the majority of people want/wanted a national effort (a war time effort) to respond to the complex challenges that would be posed to any government by the coronavirus epidemic. Instead the media has served up a carry over of an anti Boris anti Tory anti Brexit mentality. The resultant negativity has fuelled / exacerbated further division within our society. Many feel it has been against the national interest. Consequently attitudes have further polarized - been further entrenched and there are no winners. I remember reading a pithy tweet along the lines of "if this was the second world war now - many in the media would be cheering for the Germans! Sadly this is what it has come to for some.
For myself - man in the street - man on the Clapham Omnibus I would make these further objective points -ha! :
He observes a correlation between the Brexit debate and attitude to how the government has managed the coronavirus outbreak in the UK and particularly the lockdown. In fact his headline is "The lockdown debate has morphed into a rerun of the Brexit wars!"
His observation is whether a person is a hawk or a dove on lockdown restrictions can be predicted with a fair degree of confidence by how they voted in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Simply put and in extremis - those that think lockdown should only end when we have a bomb proof vaccine are most likely to be remainers - and those that want life to get back to normal asap are leavers.
Is he right? Why should there be any link?
He suggests attitude to risk might be the explanation ie Brexiteers embrace risk almost by definition - where remainers feel safer with the status quo and are risk adverse.
There can be no doubt that the whole covid debate has been politicized by many. If you were against the Tories over Brexit (seen as a Tory project rather than a democratic imperative) it is quite likely (and sadly) that you do not want to support them - or make life easier for them over the Coronavirus challenges. Attitudes could simply reflect objective political posturing or blind hate ( as often represented evidenced by the #FBPE twitter mob.). (I say sad because this is a national issue that affects us all - and it would be better if we were united and working together in its defeat.)
He also suggests it could also be about settling old scores and I am sure he is right about that. He observes there are some political journalists in this country who will go to their graves convinced that the biggest news story of 2020 was Dominic Cummings driving to Barnard Castle. He says it would be difficult to imagine them getting quite so upset about a special adviser possibly committing a minor breach of a regulation if he had not run the Leave campaign.
My take is Christopher Snowdon is on to something and I am sure there is a correlation.
I think it is why the "liberal elite" media - most notably the BBC has failed to understand the majority of people want/wanted a national effort (a war time effort) to respond to the complex challenges that would be posed to any government by the coronavirus epidemic. Instead the media has served up a carry over of an anti Boris anti Tory anti Brexit mentality. The resultant negativity has fuelled / exacerbated further division within our society. Many feel it has been against the national interest. Consequently attitudes have further polarized - been further entrenched and there are no winners. I remember reading a pithy tweet along the lines of "if this was the second world war now - many in the media would be cheering for the Germans! Sadly this is what it has come to for some.
For myself - man in the street - man on the Clapham Omnibus I would make these further objective points -ha! :
- For many their default position - their reflex is to find fault in everything the government does regarding Covid.
- The MSM media has continually tried to play gotcha with the government - particularly during the questions part of the Daily Briefing. Far from being constructive to keep the government on their toes it was clear their only purpose was to score points and try and put government efforts in the worst possible light. Many in the public were totally turned off by their approach.
- MSM repeatedly tried to force the hand of government to pronounce on what might happen in the future especially about lockdown. They then cited speculation they had created as the government creating a confused picture!
- Too many people unashamedly are prepared to use hindsight when pontificating about the way the coronavirus challenge has been handled.
- Comparison with covid death/infection/testing rates in other countries was/is used to criticize our government response. However the average person understands every country is different - particularly in population density and anyway it is highly likely data was collected in different ways. When this is all over and proper analysis can be carried out it will be no suprise if the UK comes out as having done well.
- Too many people demand certainty from the government in a very uncertain and fast changing situation.(they are being deliberately perverse?!).
- Many people accuse the government of being intractable and then when policy changes arise as a response to changing circumstances or interpretation they accuse the government of being weak or indecisive.(they are being deliberately perverse?!)
- While the furlough scheme / closure was necessary to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed it is now being used as a way by some to avoid the necessity of working. This is particularly evident in the public sector - most notably by the teachers unions. They can accuse the government from a position of public sector privilege of putting economic considerations ahead of people's health.
- Economic considerations are a reality.
- The BBC has lost the public trust and are out of step with the electorate. Their status as the premier public service broadcaster has been thrown away and it will rightly end in the loss of the BBC licence fee privilige.
No comments:
Post a Comment