Beautiful Virgin Islands

Tuesday, Jun 03, 2025

As UK's parliament returns, Covid-19 shows why we need more constructive politics

As UK's parliament returns, Covid-19 shows why we need more constructive politics

A semi-digital Westminster will mean less posturing and preening by MPs. That suits the crisis we’re in
When politicians think they are writing history they are often just doodling in its margins. Even when obviously momentous things are happening, it isn’t easy to know in real time what mark will be left by specific actions – or inaction.

One day Boris Johnson might look back and wish he had done more, faster, to avert the spread of Covid-19. He might wish he had hastened the country into lockdown sooner; gripped tighter the logistics of testing and supplying protective equipment. How much he wishes those things will depend on how harshly he is judged in the future. He looks safe enough today. Polls showing about 50% support for the Tories suggest a lenient court of contemporary opinion.

Maybe a catalogue of government negligence just isn’t what the public feels like reading right now. There is an instinct to rally around incumbent authorities in an emergency, and an invisible viral enemy is uniquely unsettling. The idea that our lives might be in the hands of political chancers or fools is so alarming that people project competence where they want to see it. The wish for good leadership begets the belief that we are well-led.

Johnson’s infection by the virus also made his physical vulnerability more salient than his professional fallibility. It bestowed some immunity from public scorn. As with pretty much everything about the coronavirus, we can only wonder how long that will last.

Ministers naturally want to wrap themselves in the blanket of national solidarity woven by collective trauma. They rebut the charge that bad choices cost lives with the assertion that those choices were the best ones available at the time, based on what (some) scientists were saying.

Defending the government’s record over the weekend, Michael Gove promised that “profound lessons” would be learned, but that such a reckoning should come “at some point in the future”, as if it would be tasteless to ask who is responsible for avoidable deaths when people are still dying.

It is true that hard decisions look easier with hindsight. And it is reasonable to presume that ministers were trying to do the right thing and not, as hysterical online critics allege, conspiring to euthanise swaths of the population. It should be possible to think the government messed up while also appreciating that it is staffed by human beings under stress, not evil warlocks. But Britain has never been great at measuring political performance with nuance. The two settings are hard-boiled contempt and soft-soap indulgence.

The deployment of wartime metaphor in Whitehall further narrows the space for constructive criticism. The blitz analogy implies that there is something unpatriotic in the exposure of government errors. That would be true if the disease was emboldened by political dissent, but it doesn’t care. There is no fifth column of pro-virus agents poised to exploit divisions and weaken our defences. The government doesn’t like reports of its bungling in this crisis for the same reason that governments have always hated scrutiny. Turning up the martial mood music is meant to drown out awkward questions.

The return of parliament this week, albeit in semi-digital form, ought to change the dynamics. It helps that Labour has a leader capable of scrutinising government through a lens not skewed by dogma. Keir Starmer has conspicuously foresworn petty point-scoring and is respected enough by sensible Tory MPs that his judgment counts for something in the House of Commons. Whether such ecumenism can counteract the centrifugal force exerted by party fringes is less clear.

Yet even a capable opposition might struggle to hold government to account by video link. Remote debating and voting systems are works in progress, and Westminster culture does not lend itself to sudden innovation. Technical difficulties are exacerbated by the arcane procedures that have grown out of the architecture of the building itself – the lobbies, tea rooms and corridors. The labyrinthine Gothic palace has sprouted thickets of peculiar ritual. Modernisers have long wanted to scythe through the impenetrable tangle, but traditionalists fear damage to the organic fibres of British democracy.

New arrangements are supposed to facilitate something called “hybrid scrutiny”, but there is a risk that they recreate only a synthetic tissue of scrutiny that ministers can wear for show, without being discomfited by persistent questioning. On the upside, there might be less of the am-dram preening and sycophantic posturing that pad out a lot of analogue parliamentary proceedings.

There are already signs of an improved political tone outside parliament.

BBC Question Time is more watchable in its sober, socially distanced format. It is sad but not surprising that banishing the studio audience brings out the best in politicians. That isn’t meant to sound elitist. It isn’t the fault of the public that guests on a politics show crave applause too much to dare giving a straight answer.

The absence of a crowd can make politics less gladiatorial, but so does scientific uncertainty at the heart of the issues being discussed. It is still possible to argue about the coronavirus response from behind the old partisan lines, and plenty of people are trying. There is a current of libertarian impatience with lockdown that flows through ideological channels already carved by supporters of a hard Brexit. There are Labour tribalists who refuse to believe that a Tory prime minister could be sincere in admiration for an NHS that saved his life. But the majority appears content to accept that this is not a moment that fits the familiar binary templates. There is no pro-virus party whose candidates have to be invited on to the BBC for balance. There are not two sides to the question of whether we want the disease.

That doesn’t remove the need for scrutiny. Starmer can seek the same outcome as Johnson without deferring to his methods. It is ridiculous to think having a common goal means suspending opposition, but it was also ridiculous in pre-Covid times to think that having different goals demanded constant, enraged, polarised debate.

Conditions of lockdown and the atmosphere of national emergency make it harder to hold government to account, but they also expose how bad British democracy already was at doing grownup scrutiny. The crisis is showcasing the potential for a more deliberative, constructive way of doing politics. It could catch on, but only if we recognise it, embrace it, cultivate it – and don’t leave it as a doodle in the margin of these historic times.
Newsletter

Related Articles

Beautiful Virgin Islands
0:00
0:00
Close
China Accuses US of Violating Trade Truce
Panama Port Owner Balances US-China Pressures
France Implements Nationwide Outdoor Smoking Ban to Protect Children
German Chancellor Merz Keeps Putin Guessing on Missile Strategy
Mandelson Criticizes UK's 'Fetish' for Abandoning EU Regulations
British Fishing Boat Owner Fined €30,000 by French Authorities
Dutch government falls as far-right leader Wilders quits coalition
Harvard Urges US to Unfreeze Funds for Public Health Research
Businessman Mauled by Lion at Luxury Namibian Lodge
Researchers Consider New Destinations Beyond the U.S.
53-Year-Old Doctor Claims Biological Age of 23
Trump Struggles to Secure Trade Deals With China and Europe
Russia to Return 6,000 Corpses Under Ukraine Prisoner Swap Deal
Microsoft Lays Off Hundreds More Amid Restructuring
Harvey Weinstein’s Publicist Embraces Notoriety
Macron and Meloni Seek Unity Despite Tensions
Trump Administration Accused of Obstructing Deportation Cases
Newark Mayor Sues Over Arrest at Immigration Facility
Center-Left Candidate Projected to Win South Korean Presidency
Trump’s Tariffs Predicted to Stall Global Economic Growth
South Korea’s President-Elect Expected to Take Softer Line on Trump and North Korea
Trump’s China Strategy Remains a Geopolitical Puzzle
Ukraine Executes Long-Range Drone Strikes on Russian Airbases
Conservative Karol Nawrocki wins Poland’s presidential election
Study Identifies Potential Radicalization Risk Among Over One Million Muslims in Germany
Good news: Annalena Baerbock Elected President of the UN General Assembly
Apple Appeals EU Law Over User Data Sharing Requirements
South Africa: "First Black Bank" Collapses after Being Looted by Owners
Poland will now withdraw from the EU migration pact after pro-Trump nationalist wins Election
"That's Disgusting, Don’t Say It Again": The Trump Joke That Made the President Boil
Trump Cancels NASA Nominee Over Democratic Donations
Paris Saint-Germain's Greatest Triumph Is Football’s Lowest Point
OnlyFans for Sale: From Lockdown Lifeline to Eight-Billion-Dollar Empire
Mayor’s Security Officer Implicated | Shocking New Details Emerge in NYC Kidnapping Case
Hegseth Warns of Potential Chinese Military Action Against Taiwan
OPEC+ Agrees to Increase Oil Output for Third Consecutive Month
Jamie Dimon Warns U.S. Bond Market Faces Pressure from Rising Debt
Turkey Detains Istanbul Officials Amid Anti-Corruption Crackdown
Taylor Swift Gains Ownership of Her First Six Albums
Bangkok Ranked World's Top City for Remote Work in 2025
Satirical Sketch Sparks Political Spouse Feud in South Korea
Indonesia Quarry Collapse Leaves Multiple Dead and Missing
South Korean Election Video Pulled Amid Misogyny Outcry
Asian Economies Shift Away from US Dollar Amid Trade Tensions
Netflix Investigates Allegations of On-Set Mistreatment in K-Drama Production
US Defence Chief Reaffirms Strong Ties with Singapore Amid Regional Tensions
Vietnam Faces Strategic Dilemma Over China's Mekong River Projects
Malaysia's First AI Preacher Sparks Debate on Islamic Principles
White House Press Secretary Criticizes Harvard Funding, Advocates for Vocational Training
France to Implement Nationwide Smoking Ban in Outdoor Spaces Frequented by Children
×