The Failure of the Elite in the UK (3): The Common-Sense Mantra
- lisaluger
- Jan 18, 2022
- 10 min read
Updated: Jun 9, 2023
(UK) In June 2017, a devastating fire raged through Grenfell Tower in London, killing nearly 80 people and injuring hundreds, some seriously. Many of the victims had complied with the fire brigade’s order to stay in the tower block and wait for the rescue helicopters. Due to adverse circumstances, this decision cost many their lives.
An enquiry report later condemned the fire brigade for severe shortcomings and systematic errors. In response, the Conservative politician Rees-Moog stated in a radio interview the victims themselves were to blame. Had they used their common sense instead of following the fire brigade’s instructions, they would have escaped the fire. (One of the Grenfell survivors later countered that common sense demanded that houses not be built with flammable materials).
This cynical view of Rees-Moog (Leader of the House of Commons and Cabinet Member) on a scenario in which citizens want to trust the competence and sense of responsibility of the rescue workers and the responsible local politicians shows the tendency towards irresponsibility of people’s representatives in crisis situations.
Common sense instead of crisis management
On 11th May 2020, as the first wave of the pandemic hit Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged the public to use British common sense to manage the risks of Covid-19.
In September 2020, the PM argued again that common sense is the best weapon against the coronavirus. But then, as the second wave of infections rose sharply in October, he undeterred and, against better knowledge, called on people to live “fearlessly, but with common sense” and vehemently dismissed the need for a lockdown.
When the infection figures rose significantly, the majority of the population and the opposition politicians were no longer willing to be satisfied with the mere use of common sense. As a result, Boris Johnson, or rather his Government, was forced to order another four-week nationwide lockdown a few weeks later reluctantly.
Just over a year after the first wave of the pandemic and 120,000 deaths later, the advice to the nation from the Prime Minister and his new Health Minister, Sajid Javid, was once again the same:
In July 2021, with the UK recording almost as many cases as the entire European Union, the English Government lifted all Covid restrictions, relying solely on the effectiveness of the vaccines and, how could it be otherwise, the common sense of the population.
Freedom day – free from government responsibility
On 19th July 2021, the Government decided to end most public health measures to reduce the risk of Covid infection, from mandatory mask-wearing in public spaces to social distancing. Sajid Javid, who tested positive for Covid a few days after taking office, said it is time to open a new chapter based on personal responsibility and common sense. Boris Johnson stressed the importance of changing the way the pandemic is handled. He wanted to turn away from the dictates of the state and rely more on people’s personal responsibility.
The opening came at a time of high and daily rising infections and hospital admissions, heavy occupancy of intensive care beds, the spread of vaccine-resistant mutations, low vaccination rates among young people and thus, the rising risk of long-covid disease.
These dangers, the Government said, can be countered with common sense. The British population is flattered by being praised for being smart enough to protect themselves. Who wouldn’t like to hear that?! But what is really behind this strategy?
It almost seems that the worse the situation gets in the UK, the louder the Government promotes common sense.
Ulterior motives – the real reasons
This reference by Tory politicians to common sense, which the mature citizen knows how to use, is more or less based on the views of the Enlightenment in Europe in the 18th century. The most famous representative in Germany, Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), called on people to free themselves from immaturity and use their intellect without guidance from others. However, these revolutionary approaches were directed against the God-given authority of rulers, especially in the absolutist system, against the monopoly of the wisdom of the church and against the rigid structure of a hierarchical society. They promoted human and civil rights in the state.
Today, however, when the representatives of the people, elected by responsible citizens, return the responsibility for care, protection and health to the electorate, it is like a declaration of bankruptcy. Therefore, the question naturally arises as to the motives behind such slogans.
Are conservative politicians, who grew up in the circle of the British elite and still move almost exclusively within it, simply overwhelmed by the task of dealing with complex crises such as the pandemic and Brexit? Is this to cover up the gaps in the pandemic strategy? Is the Government trying to escape responsibility by flattering the British people that they are smart enough to care for themselves?
The tactical thinking is that the Government is always on the winning side.
If, as Javid says, tackling the pandemic is a matter of personal responsibility and common sense among citizens, the public would be responsible for failure itself. But conversely, if the course of the pandemic had been positive, the Government would have made this success possible.
Such an approach is convenient for the Government. But of course, it is irresponsible in a pandemic with a new and unpredictable virus and the uncertainty that comes with it. Moreover, it is almost cynical for a responsible government to call on the people’s common sense in the face of rising infection rates, an overstretched health system, and enormous economic problems without offering a plan, a concept, or a strategy.
This approach effectively means that the elected representatives of the UK government are flatly refusing to govern during the greatest crisis of our generation.
Source: 19th July 2021: Against common sense. In: LRB, Samuel Earle https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/july/against-common-sense
Common sense unfolds within a framework
The Government has also deliberately forgotten to mention something important or is not aware of this mechanism in societies:
To be able to use common sense, the population must find certain framework conditions that the state has to provide; that the Government and Parliament have to develop and implement. And that includes, among other things, legally defined resources, rules and broad-based support from the population.
The worrying thing about Boris Johnson’s policy is what Boris Johnson does not explicitly say:
We, the members of the Government of the United Kingdom, take no responsibility for protecting your health and lives in the pandemic should there be outbreaks and deaths.
We, the members of the Government of the United Kingdom, see no need for support measures in the crisis, as it is up to you to avoid emergencies with your common sense.
We, the members of the Government of the United Kingdom, do not feel responsible for your security because it is in your hands.
We, the members of the Government of the United Kingdom, believe that you should be on your own.
And that is precisely what it does not mean for responsible citizens to use their common sense.
Of course, each individual should act on their own responsibility (e.g. wear masks in public areas, reduce social contact and keep their distance). But the fight against Covid is not just a matter of individual choice. Covid is a community problem and thus requires shared responsibility.
The success of one’s own efforts also depends on how others behave. What good is personal responsibility if others do not wear masks or keep their distance in public transport or supermarkets? Regulations and measures are benchmarks for the importance and appreciation of certain behaviours in the fight against the pandemic.
For example, before the introduction of mandatory mask-wearing, when wearing masks was only recommended by the Government, less than 30% of the population wore masks. Only when the Government made the wearing of masks compulsory did the number of mask wearers increase.
Common sense obviously needs an informative binding framework set by the elected representatives of the people, who are conscientious and responsible in their duty to protect the people from harm.
But what is the message of several ministers, including Sajid Javid, to the British people?
They announced immediately after the Freedom Day proclamation that they would no longer wear masks on public transport in future. Never mind the fact that these government ministers rarely use public transport, the question arises as to what message this is supposed to send. Is this common sense talking?
However, it is not only about information and a message that enables individuals to behave responsibly. The legal framework must also provide practical and existential support so that everyone has a chance to put their common sense into action.
For example, early testing is essential to prevent the virus from being transmitted by isolating infected people. However, for testing to be successful, testing needs to be free, and testing services need to be widely available and accessible. There also needs to be a functioning warning system and controls. Moreover, quarantine mustn’t lead to loss of earnings and so on.
It is only the framework that makes the application of common sense meaningful. In a democracy, the representatives of the people, more precisely, the parliament and the Government, are responsible for setting and shaping this framework. They act on behalf of the people and can only free themselves from this responsibility if they resign and no longer stand for election.
Does common sense work for responsible politicians?
In this discussion about the importance of common sense, the focus is naturally also on how politicians’ common sense is doing.
The WHO’s Covid expert described the decision to abolish almost all infection control measures in the UK in July 2021 as a policy of “moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”. Indeed, the incidence of infection was picking up again at that very moment.
Was this a decision brought about by the Prime Minister’s common sense?
In any case, leading medical experts condemned this decision as irresponsible. They warned of the devastating consequences and pointed out that this decision deviated from the Government’s promise to be guided by science and to protect the NHS.
Source: Mass infection is not an option: we must do more to protect our young. 7th July 2021. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01589-0/fulltext
One might conclude that it would also be advisable for politicians to accept a framework within which they should use their common sense.
In any case, it cannot be common sense that led Health Minister Sajid Javid to urge people not to cower in the face of the virus.
Was that supposed to be a motivation? Was that supposed to mark the sceptics as cowards? Was that supposed to be a pull-yourself-together message? To what end?
His remarks have been criticised as profoundly insensitive and hurtful to the bereaved. Those who worked to protect others from the devastating consequences of this pandemic also felt snubbed. As a result, the Health Minister was forced to make a public apology.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57961870 Sajid Javid apologises for ‘cower’ Covid remark, 25th July 2021.
He probably still lacks the insight that he has made a mistake. But this is not a question of common sense but of empathy.
There was no excuse, however, for the mess the Government made of opening up at high incidence and, at the same time requiring quarantine following an alert by the NHS app.
In July 2021, the law was that anyone alerted by the Covid app because they had been in contact with an infected person for an extended period of time would have to go into quarantine. With the simultaneous removal of lockdown restrictions, such as home office and mandatory masks in public transport and in shops and restaurants, this rule led to significant problems in everyday life and partially paralysed the economy. For example, at times, tube train lines could not be operated at the usual frequency because too many employees of the transport companies were in quarantine. The move to abolish Covid restrictions while maintaining strict quarantine rules is more akin to a prank than a well-thought-out measure and was mocked by the media and the public as “pingdemic”.
Perhaps, if one had thought for a while, common sense would have recognised the problem beforehand. One does not know. But surely, a team from different sectors and walks of life could have identified this critical point based on experience.
It is understandable if complex correlations are no longer fully grasped in long-lasting crisis meetings. Therefore, in retrospect, a modification or even a withdrawal of decisions may have to be made afterwards. For example, at Easter 2021, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had to withdraw the directive of a wholly insane and counterproductive partial shutdown before Easter, agreed upon in endless meetings with the federal state prime ministers. The day after, she apologised for the chaos and took the blame.
But it is not an overly complex problem to recognise that when the infection control measures are withdrawn at a time of significant increase in the number of infections, the number of people in quarantine naturally will increase significantly, thus creating gaps in care. People with common sense would be able to assess such a development, even more so if it were pointed out to them from various sides.
MPs don’t need to wear masks because they know each other
Despite the pandemic, the leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Moog, probably expects common sense more to be applied to people in burning tower blocks rather than in the House of Commons.
During debates in parliament, you can hardly see a mask on the side of the Conservative MPs. Opposition politicians, on the other hand, wear masks. So the opposition demanded the ruling party to wear nose-and-mouth protection in parliament. Otherwise, the politicians would set a bad example and fail to live up to the risk of infection. Jacob Rees-Mogg replied in all seriousness that conservative MPs did not need to wear a mask because “we all know each other and have a convivial fraternal spirit.”
Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-face-masks_uk_61714ce3e4b010d9330d2bda
A few days later, in an updated guide, the House of Commons authority stated that all staff, visitors, contractors and the press must cover their faces to combat the spread of Covid. However, it is up to individual MPs whether they wish to follow this rule. Many conservatives decided against it.
Boris’s mixed messages on masks put others at risk
The mask saga continues, and Boris Johnson’s lax attitude to mask-wearing puts others at risk. Masks remain mandatory on the London Transport system, and wearing masks is recommended in enclosed spaces. Still, since “freedom day” three-quarters of frontline transport workers have faced abuse or have been assaulted or spat on when they asked passengers to put on face coverings on tubes and busses. They criticised Boris Johnson for sending mixed messages. Moreover, they felt it was not encouraging commuters to wear masks when Boris Johnson himself could repeatedly be seen on TV flouting the rules. For example, he paraded around maskless when visiting hospitals for a photo opportunity, despite being asked several times by hospital staff to put one on. He was also photographed sitting maskless beside the national treasure, the 95-year-old broadcaster and naturalist David Attenborough, at the UN climate summit COP 26.
Where is his common sense here?
Sources: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/metro-uk/20211110/281638193442348, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prime-minister-boris-johnson-criticised-maskless-next-to-sir-david-attenborough-b963812.html
No need to comment on this. Or what do you think?
More articles on this topic:
(LL.)
Comments