Wallpaper, Parties and Chicken Shit

As the media finds its ability to continue draining the cup of plenty that has been Covid paranoia, over the last two years, its has reverted to some old hunting grounds for sensationalism and gossip. The stories attacking Boris Johnson and his government over expensive wallpaper in Downing Street followed by Summer parties in the garden of No.10, at a time when the rest of the country was supposed to be in lockdown, have fitted the bill admirably, for political stories completely devoid of politics, and fully in keeping with the salacious stories about the rich and famous. Of course, such stories also completely fill the needs of a Labour Opposition that also wants to attack Boris and his government on any basis other than politics too!

The first non-political politics story that the media ran, and that the Opposition chased, was the redecoration of the Downing Street flat, which, we are told, ran into tens of thousands of pounds, including ridiculously expensive wallpaper. Really? The media tell us that the general public are up in arms about it. What that really means is that the media itself is up in arms about it on behalf of the rest of us, who, as with most of these stories, really do not give a toss. The only reason any of us might have been concerned is if we were actually paying for it, but, then, most of us would think that this is, after all, a government building, used by the Prime Minister, and as, with the accommodation of the Speaker, previously, which the media also were up in arms about, we probably wouldn't expect that its going to be decorated with stuff bought from the local B &Q.

In fact, of course, it turns out that we were not, actually, being given the bill for the redecoration anyway, but that it was being paid for by one of Boris's Tory mates, for whom the cost is chump change. So, why would any of us care a hoot about how much it cost? So, the media shifted the story on to another tack, which was the extent to which this might lead to those providing such favours obtaining preferential treatment themselves, and of course, the Opposition, never slow to chase after such non-political bases upon which to attack the government, set off like a hound behind the rabbit.

But, again, really? Is there anyone out there in politics land that is so naïve as to think that this isn't the way bourgeois-democracy works day in day out, whether those in government are Tories, Liberals or Labour? The whole system is based upon lies, corruption, and preferential treatment, and so long as the politicians can keep the news stories focused on such trivia and chicken shit, as each takes it in turns to expose the malpractice of the other, so the rest of us are distracted from asking questions about real politics, and the lack of any real political differences between the contending parties, who simply engage in a Tweedle-Dee Tweedle-Dum alternation of which one will take its turn in office to carry out basically the same policies.

This kind of sleaze has always existed, and exists in all bourgeois-democracies. The whole system is based on patronage, the most obvious example, in Britain, being the existence of an unelected House of Lords, whose members are there solely on the basis of patronage by the Leaders of the main parties. Talk of buying peerages goes back even before bourgeois-democracy itself, and throughout the last century, cases of it occurred every few years. In the 1990's, its said that John Major's government was brought down by sleaze, as it suffered regular exposures in the press about the antics of people like Neil Hamilton and co. But, in fact, it wasn't sleaze that did for Major's government, but the fact that it had become irreconcilably split between two opposing class camps in relation to Europe.

And, when Major was replaced by Blair in 1997, the sleaze did not go away. It was manifest in Labour's taking money from dodgy millionaires and billionaires, in amending its policies on tobacco advertising, in the number of top Blairite politicians and advisors that had free holidays on the yachts and in the villas of said billionaires, and so on. And, of course, the allegations of the buying of peerages, and so on continued too. As for the media, they are in no place to throw stones. Media tycoons are the first to try to buy influence with politicians, and to threaten them if they don't get it. The very highly paid newsreaders also operate via a revolving door with the top flights of business and politics, with this week's Economics or Business Editor being next week's, Chief Investment Officer of this or that large bank or finance house, and the next week being the spokesperson or Press Officer of a party leader, and so on.

Then, in recent weeks, we have had the stories about parties taking place in Downing Street, in the Summer of 2020, and at Christmas, during which time, the country was supposed to be in lockdown. The likelihood is that the inquiries into these events will not find that any laws were broken. Again, the media has tried to dismiss the argument of Johnson that these were, in fact, work meetings, which were combined with the provision of food and drink. For many people, particularly those that work in manual jobs, such an idea, of course, seems untenable. The closest you would come to it, is eating a snack whilst at the workbench. But, the reality, is, of course, that, for many people, such work meetings are not at all uncommon. That the media should pour scorn on the idea is particularly hypocritical, because the garnering of information and stories over a boozy lunch has been standard practice for journalists from the start of journalism itself.

As both a councillor, and as a council employee, I have attended many meetings, at which, food and drink was also provided. Training days for employees, and particularly for trades union representatives, frequently encompass such arrangements. So, there is nothing at all preposterous about the suggestion that what was a work meeting was also combined with the provision of food and drink and a social and collegiate environment. The opposition know that too, and, again, their seizing upon this non-political politics story simply shows the extent to which they are desperate to attack the Tories on any grounds other than that of political difference, given that there is virtually no difference in actual politics, once again, between Starmer's new New Labour, and Boris's Tories.

Of course, Boris has created a rod for his own back in relation to this latest line of attack against him, because he is the one that created all of the ridiculous rules and regulations in relation to social interactions and lockdown in the first place. If he hadn't introduced all of those unnecessary and idiotic rules, in the first place, he could not have been accused of having breached them! But, of course, he and the Tories are not the only ones to have done so. Kay Burleigh and Beth Rigby, were suspended by Sky for having breached the rules by attending a birthday party for the former, for example. The likelihood is, rather like traffic laws, most people in the country have infringed them at some point or other, whilst only a tiny proportion of those that have are ever found out.

The media have revelled in presenting it as one law for the rich and privileged, and another for the rest of us. In actual fact, that's not true either. Over the last two years, if you went to many council estates across the country, you would find large numbers of young people, who are neither rich nor privileged, who were ignoring the laws in relation to social gatherings. In some cases, the police tried to take action against them, frequently, they didn't bother. The young people saw the regulations as idiotic, and having no relevance to them, because, being young, and mostly healthy, Covid posed no actual threat to them. Its a point that Professor Mark Woolhouse, makes in his forthcoming book, ‘The Year the World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir’. Lockdown, he says, ‘was a lazy solution to a novel coronavirus epidemic, as well as a hugely damaging one”.

Now, the media, like The Guardian that has favourably reviewed Woolhouse's book, as well as Labour are decrying the damage that the lockdowns and other restrictions caused, over the last two years, as those restrictions inevitably disappear, and attention switches to the damage they caused. Yet, it was precisely that same media, as well as Labour politicians that, over the last two years, were the ones demanding even more draconian restrictions, who simply waited to see what the Tories proposed, and then demanding even more of it! Now, as the dire consequences of lockdowns and other such measures begin to be investigated, and the failure of those same policies to do anything meaningful to address the issue of Covid itself, both the media, and Labour are seeking to escape from their culpability.

As Woolhouse states in his book,

“We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt. All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.”

Largely voluntary behaviour change worked in Sweden and it should have been allowed to progress in the UK, argues Woolhouse.

Attacking Johnson and the Tories over the non-political issues, diverts attention from the culpability of both the media and New Labour in relation to the disaster that has been caused by the idiotic and unnecessary lockdowns and other restrictions that were imposed over the last two years; it diverts attention away from the fact that there is no real political difference between Starmer's New Labour Parliamentary Labour Party, and the Tories; it diverts attention away from the failure to raise any real political issues in relation to the chronic underlying failures of an NHS that is a Stalinoid, bureaucratic monstrosity, unfit for purpose, made worse by chronic underfunding over the last ten years, and in relation to the almost complete lack of real democratic control over it, or over large swathes of people's lives, including their lives at work, where control over their labour process is exercised by non-owners of their means of production, by shareholders who have no immediate interest in it, but only in maximising their capital gains from asset price inflation pumped up by liquidity injections, themselves, over the last two years, justified on the back of Covid paranoia, and a deliberately induced slowdown in economic activity resulting from lockdowns.