search results

GERMANY’S IMAGE IN THE UKRAINE CONFLICT (DE April/May 2022) From the beginning, Germany was under massive pressure from within the country and foreign allies. The pressure boiled down to that Germany being told to withdraw immediately from the NordStream 2 contract because otherwise, it was financing Putin’s war and responsible for Ukraine’s deaths. Germany’s economic and political relations with Russia were actually to blame for Putin being able to invade Ukraine. Germany was accused of only looking after its economic interests and tended to put values aside. These and similar arguments were heard. Although I was critical of Germany conducting business with dictatorships for a long time, this “concerted action” of apportioning blame astonished and annoyed me. As if it were only Germany that acted in this way! And as if, for example, Saudi Arabia, with which the USA and Germany maintain intensive business relations, were a democracy that didn’t betray values! Many states do not take sides against Russia or only half-heartedly. Several states, especially in Africa, South America, and Asia, did not join sanctions against Russia. China does not renounce Russia but does not actively support it either. Xi Jinping can wait. India is dependent on Russia’s oil and gas. It, therefore, stands by Russia but does not feel entirely comfortable in its role, as it is currently under massive pressure from Western politicians. Israel and Switzerland avoided taking sides in the first few months. Neutrality is the usual behaviour for Switzerland, and it has always fared well. However, it could no longer afford to remain neutral after a while. Israel has domestic and foreign policy reasons for not getting on the wrong side of either Ukraine or Russia. Jews from Russia and Ukraine have emigrated to Israel and still have family ties to their countries of origin. Jews will remember that the Ukrainian fascists, together with the German occupiers, took part in the persecution of Jews during the Second World War. Israel depends on Russia, allowing Israel’s air force to target Iran via Syria. So many good reasons make it difficult to take sides. The world understands Israel’s dilemma! The world understands Switzerland’s proverbial neutrality. However, the world does not understand Germany’s restraint! In the summer of 2022, Germany is facing a gigantic energy crisis. This is because it does not want to and is not allowed to use NordStream2. Russia is sabotaging NordStream1, energy prices are rising immeasurably due to the market structure, and the resulting inflation is making life difficult for the population. Everyone is looking forward to the coming winter with fear. When a German politician suggested that we should now open NordStream2 to supply ourselves with Russian gas, war or no war, there was a moral outrage by a national and international Ukraine Solidarity Alliance. But I wonder why Spain was able to increase its import of Russian gas by two-thirds in June and July without the Ukraine Solidarity Alliance taking a moral lash out. German-Russian relations – a mistake? My country’s representatives of politics and media representatives take sides with Ukraine loudly, tirelessly, financially and compassionately. Yet there is a constant torrent of criticism and malice. At times, one even could get the impression that Germany is to blame for the Russian invasion of Ukraine because it maintained economic and cultural relations with Russia and insisted on diplomacy at a time when others, the USA, in particular, were ranting about Russia’s belligerence. The long tradition of good relations initiated by Willy Brandt (SPD chancellor) during the Cold War is now declared a mistake, a crime, and a conspiracy. So, who is accusing Germany? It is, of course, Poland that still has historically justified reservations towards Germany and makes reproaches! Then, of course, Ukrainian politicians, and above all, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk! American patriots, too! Also, many German politicians and many German journalists! Ex-Chancellor Schröder (SPD) is being massively attacked for his professional and personal relationship with Russia and President Putin. As a result, his staff is quitting. Furthermore, he is threatened to have his honorary titles revoked, and his salary as former chancellor cancelled. The public is snarling! The media pressure on the German President Frank Walter Steinmeier to be ashamed of his commitment to diplomacy, de-escalation and Nordstream2 was so intense that he finally apologised for his “mistake”. Has everyone forgotten why the European Coal and Steel Community (Montanunion), the first step towards the EU, was founded between France and Germany, the known arch-enemies after the Second World War? Economic relations – initially focused on coal and steel – were initiated to prevent future European wars. Over time, the alliance was expanded and strengthened politically and connected even more closely economically. A war in Europe? Unthinkable! So what is wrong if this political approach should also guide relations with Russia?! One could instead ask all those politically responsible why Europe-Russia relations have been so half-heartedly, so fragmentarily and hesitantly. Why, instead of openness, mistrust prevailed long before the Ukraine war? One aspect plays a decisive role here. The USA had nothing against the Franco-German connection but had reservations about Germany-Russia or Europe-Russia relations. If France had been so suspicious of dealing with Germany in the post-war period under pressure from the USA, there would be no EU today. Another event shows the pressure exerted on Germany to turn away from its peace-oriented policy based on diplomacy. Weapons seem to count more than humanitarian aid or peace efforts. German President Frank Walter Steinmeier, unlike any other European head of state, was not welcome in Ukraine initially because of his previous stance on Germany’s policy towards Russia. So when he planned to travel to Kyiv with the heads of state of some Eastern European countries, the German president was disinvited. In contrast, President Selensky happily received British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Ukraine. Germany has accepted over 380,000 Ukrainian refugees by the end of April 2022 and is still holding the gates wide open. The UK is the only European country requiring visas for Ukrainians to enter the country. At the same moment in time, 117,000 visa applications had been submitted. But only a few managed to pass the hurdles and enter the country. In May, it was reported that in many families, almost all members received a visa, except for one person, for example, a minor child or another family member. There is no need to explain the effect of this! Ukrainian families react like most families in such a situation: all or none! I wonder whether this is the intention of the UK government to regulate the arrival of Ukrainian refugees. However, the UK supplies weapons, which seems to be more important to President Selensky than the welfare of his refugee compatriots. Consequently, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a friend, and Frank Walter Steinmeier is not. This is because Germany had resisted and tenaciously against delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine for a long time. It legitimately did not want to escalate the war or be drawn into the war. The decline in taboos due to the war and war propaganda makes it acceptable that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Andrej Melnyk, publicly insulted the German chancellor as getting into a huff. He did so when Chancellor Olaf Scholz refused to consider a visit to Ukraine because of this insult towards Germany’s elected president. Such behaviour shows traits of a witch hunt. I feel challenged to “think outside the box”, which is best done by asking questions. (TA) Links to articles - War in Ukraine War in Ukraine - Series War in Ukraine - part 1 War in Ukraine - part 2 War in Ukraine - part 2/1 War in Ukraine - part 2/2 War in Ukraine - part 2/3 War in Ukraine - part 2/4 War in Ukraine - part 2/5 War in Ukraine - part 3

WHAT IF…? (De) (April/May 2022) In the course of my research and reflections, I have developed an urgent desire to ask questions that are currently taboo. I can live with being wrong and being forced to row back, but I don’t want to have scissors in my head that prevent me from making specific considerations. I’ve pondered over Russian objectives and interests. Now I am taking the liberty of running through corresponding intentions on the Western side. What if the USA and NATO wanted this war? This question is frightening and disturbing, given the destruction in Ukraine and the suffering of Ukrainians. It also starkly contrasts the declarations of those with political responsibility in Europe and the USA, avoiding being drawn into the war. It no longer seems absurd because the Europeans and the USA, and thus also NATO, have long been a party to the war. Through the massive financial support; the deliveries of heavy weapons even from Germany; training camps in Ramstein (Germany); the transmission of real-time data on the whereabouts of Russian units and officers by the USA to the Ukrainian army, and sanctions, Neither Ukraine nor the USA nor NATO started this war, but that does not mean that it was not provoked. There are unconfirmed isolated rumours in the media that plans existed for Ukraine to retake the separatist areas or the people’s republics in the Donbas and Crimea. Such allegations surface but are not being picked up by the major media. Perhaps because there is nothing to it, or this information would be counterproductive for a Western assessment of what is happening. However, the fact that a joint NATO manoeuvre took place in Ukraine in September 2021 is undisputed. The reasons can be derived from the dreaded threat posed by Russia, which, for its part, naturally felt threatened by the very fact of this joint NATO military exercise. This manoeuvre was definitely a provocation. However, nowhere in the media is a connection made with the attack by Russia a few months later. Most of the people I spoke to knew nothing about this manoeuvre. My consideration, however, is that by looking at the development of arms expenditures before the war, one could conclude there was a desire for war or at least an expectation of war or attack. So I consulted statistics to get an insight. -Global defence spending increased significantly between 2020 and 2021 https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36397/umfrage/entwicklung-der-weltweiten-militaerausgaben/ So, were they preparing for war? -Nato has been rearming heavily since 2015. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1001947/umfrage/militaerausgaben-der-nato-staaten/ -Ukraine was willing and able to more than double its military spending from 2016 to 2020 https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/315946/umfrage/entwicklung-der-militaerausgaben-der-ukraine/ And yet it was probably not enough. Ukraine’s arms demands were massive from the start and had nothing of a plea for support. It even asked to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine and guarantee its compliance. The fact that this would have meant a confrontation between NATO and Russia and thus the entry of the NATO countries into the war gave the Ukrainian president no comprehensible reason to reject this request. And again and again, Germany was put under moral pressure. It was argued that Germany had a historical responsibility towards Ukraine. The massacre of Babi Yar and the atrocities committed by the German Nazis in Ukraine during World War II were brought into play. Germany should, therefore, get more involved and supply tanks or anti-aircraft tanks and other heavy equipment. Well, Ukraine got its way in the end. The reasons for the armament are apparent. Russia occupied Crimea in 2014 and supported the aspirations of the separatist areas in the Donbas to join Russia. As a result, Nato and Ukraine expected a military confrontation with Russia. How about Russia’s preparation for its war of aggression? Russia is in 5th place among the 20 countries with the highest military spending in the world in 2021. However, Russia either saw no reason or did not have the financial means to increase arms spending. On the contrary. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/150888/umfrage/militaerausgaben-von-russland-seit-2000/ Was Russia waiting with its war of aggression until Ukraine and the NATO states were optimally equipped? That would be a highly peculiar strategy! But there is a qualitative aspect to consider! Russia has a military advantage as it has had hypersonic missiles since 2019, which are controllable despite this speed, can be equipped with nuclear warheads and have a range of 2,000 kilometres. Especially since the Western powers have nothing like that, although they have long been working on such weapons systems. Moreover, the West has no defence systems at its disposal, so it is relatively helpless. Did Russia possibly invade Ukraine as long as it still had this “miracle weapon” as the only party to the war? But then, where are the military successes? Did the Russian president expect the Nato states to hold back because of this fearfully? So far, the course of this war does not give the impression that a well-prepared warlord has deliberately descended on a neighbouring country to subjugate it. Another incident makes me doubt that Russia voluntarily launched a war of aggression “on a whim”. According to Express UK, on the Russian anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War, on 09 May, a former colonel of the Russian Air Defence Forces, Mikhail Khodaryonok, spoke on Russian television. He said that with its outdated weapons, Russia had no chance against Ukraine, which the West had highly armed. Headline: Putin humiliated on state TV as Russian colonel admits military “cannot compete” with Kyiv Link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1607220/Vladimir-Putin-state-TV-Russia-military-colonel-Victory-Day-mobilisation-latest-news-vn/amp The BBC also picked up on the Russian colonel’s criticism almost two weeks later. BBC’s Steve Rosenberg reports on the unusually harsh criticism on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61484222 No other media has acknowledged this news, which is a sensation in two respects: Firstly, the military inferiority of the Russian army is an aspect that was never communicated in this way either by President Putin or the Western powers. Secondly, how can it be that in a country where war must not be called a war but a special operation, a retired colonel is allowed to make such defeatist statements about his country’s military publicly? Politicians and the media have reportedly noted the non-escalation in Putin’s 09 May speech with relief. However, with the colonel’s statement on Russian television, this could be almost a peace offer, or at least a signal of willingness to negotiate, even considering that the war in Ukraine continues unabated, as reported in the German media. What conclusions could we draw from the fact that not every opportunity, however small, is being used to end the war through negotiations? Either I overinterpret the signals, or Russia’s potential willingness to make peace does not fit into the concept. What if there were reasons for the West or the USA to escalate this conflict? Like all the highly armed Western states, US President Joe Biden predicted, increasingly urgent, that Russia would invade Ukraine. No one could comprehend this, considering all the facts available to the public. I have already pondered Russia’s and President Putin’s possible objectives and motives. However, it would be very one-sided if I did not also consider the potential objectives and motives of the big and powerful adversary, the USA. Close economic ties between Russia and Europeans, especially Germany, have always been a thorn in the side of the USA. Nordstream 2 had been completed just before the Russian invasion, ready to be connected. The USA had torpedoed this project for years because it meant that Europe, above all Germany, would be closely linked to the enemy Russia, indeed downright dependent on it. Germans and Europeans would not be able or willing to participate in a trade war or even in military proxy conflicts, in which Russia, in the opinion of the USA, would have to be sanctioned. If the liberal, peaceful, economically strong, and politically influential Germany was weakened, the EU as a united force would also be weakened and could be much better influenced and manipulated. Right at the beginning of this war, not only was the use of Nordstream 2 made impossible, but a strong Ukrainian support alliance also demanded the enforcement of a complete gas and oil embargo against Russia. Such an embargo was a significant problem for Germany’s economy and the Germans with even more inflation, rising costs, supply shortages and provision difficulties as consequences. This would possibly even lead to a destabilisation of the country in the medium term. Ukraine and Poland are at the forefront of those countries vehemently demanding this. However, the Biden government held back and showed understanding. Just like in any detective story: good cop, bad cop! The closing of Nordstream 2 also meant substantial financial losses for Ukraine, as they would lose transit fees in the billions. Despite Germany and the EU wanting to make compensation payments, this project would be a loss-making business for Ukraine. Whichever way you look at it, for the Europeans, this war means weakening their economy, increasing debt, more arms spending and closer ties to the US. So a Europe that is economically weakened, loyal to the US, and separated from Russia would be good news for the US. Annihilating Russia would also be a worthwhile goal. Russia has been aligning itself for some time with the USA’s other adversary, China. If Russia were involved in a war with Nato, it would no longer be eligible as a partner for China because it would be completely useless. The words that US President Joe Biden let slip during the closing speech of his trip to Poland on 26 March 2022 about President Putin, “For God’s sake, this man can’t stay in power!”, could be part of a programme. However, regime change in Russia cannot be achieved with the help of propaganda alone, nor with the help of sanctions alone; it can only be achieved with violence from within (coup, revolution) or from outside (war). Is the world mentally preparing for a world war? Russia has now wronged the world with this war. Putin is evil par excellence. All war atrocities are portrayed as specifically Russian atrocities and attributed to Putin’s specific war criminality. The fact that such atrocities happen in every war and are carried out by all warring parties is irrelevant. So if Putin were to be stopped by force of arms, it would be a good deed, like the fight against Hitler’s fascist Germany in the Second World War. I find the continuation of this train of thought extremely disturbing. Will we reach this point soon? Should the US have an interest in escalating or expanding the war, then not only Ukraine and Russia would be destroyed, but probably large parts of Europe as well. Would there be beneficiaries in such a scenario? What if the arms industry sensed an opportunity? Germany’s government, above all Chancellor Olaf Scholz, tried continuously and increasingly desperate to resist the general mood of war. No war participation! No delivery of heavy weapons! In the meantime, all that is more or less history. The pressure was so gigantic that Chancellor Scholz had to agree to a weapons ring swap. Although Ukraine had accepted direct payments, they were considered far from sufficient. This ring swap – sending old, originally Soviet weapons, for example, from Slovenia to Ukraine and delivering new modern weapons to these countries as compensation – directly benefits the arms manufacturers. A classic scenario: destroy the old weapons stocks in the war and order new ones from the arms industry! A great deal! You almost can’t believe that this is happening. In my youth, such scenarios were patterns. Real politics was considered more complex. That no longer seems to be true. German politicians, media, and foreign opinion makers called the German government hesitant and a coward if it did not deliver the demanded “Marder” or “Leopard” directly to Ukraine. On 28 April, almost all parties in the German Bundestag, except for “Die Linke” and the “AfD”, voted to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine. Well done, arms lobby? The arms companies will have been pleased. Since the end of the Second World War and the Cold War, Germany has never shown such readiness for war! What if it is not democracy that is being defended in Ukraine? In political speeches, it was and is always emphasised that it is democracy that has to be defended in Ukraine. But is that really the case? Does Ukraine stand for democracy and Western values (whatever they are!)? In 2021, Volodimir Selensky had all oppositional broadcasters and media closed down by decree. The news about this can be found in German media, even in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which cannot exactly be accused of pro-Russian agitation. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/ukraine-weitere-sender-der-opposition-geschlossen-1.5497836 I don’t remember Western media and politicians getting publicly outraged about this or even standing up for freedom of expression in Ukraine. Now there is war in Ukraine, and there is only the voice of the government. Even the Ukrainian former Minister of Education and MP for the liberal party “Voice” is surprised that there seems to be more or less only one opinion in Ukraine. “We don’t criticise our president in international media,” she apparently told the Süddeutsche Zeitung in an interview on 09 August 2022. The whole interview can be read at: www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/krieg-ukraine-fake-news-medien-1.5636261 Is this the kind of democracy Putin is looking so fearfully at that he has to go to war with the country to contain the democracy movement at home? (TA) Links to articles - War in Ukraine War in Ukraine - Series War in Ukraine - part 1 War in Ukraine - part 2 War in Ukraine - part 2/1 War in Ukraine - part 2/2 War in Ukraine - part 2/3 War in Ukraine - part 2/4 War in Ukraine - part 2/5 War in Ukraine - part 3

(EN) That night, I must have slept deeply and woke up very slowly. It is as if gentle waves were flushing me from the realm of dreams into reality. Curled up like a cat, I lie on my pillows when I finally open my eyes. Daylight is already seeping in thin streaks through the cracks of the closed blinds. Softened by the heavy red curtain, the room is bathed in dull twilight. My gaze wanders over the dimly discernible furniture: to the left of my bed, the old chest of drawers with shiny brass fittings; on the wall opposite, my desk with the Chinese vase that my Asian lover gave me as a farewell gift many years ago. Under the window with the red curtain is my little chaise longue with the richly embroidered Indian throw and the beaded decorative cushions. On the wall above, you can see the matt gold frame of a painting whose motif is still hidden in the dark. To the right is a delicate bookcase with turned feet and struts, where my favourite books have their place. The green lily also feels at home there and sends its arching spurs into the room. A small chandelier that I bought at a flea market a long time ago hangs from the ceiling. Narrow crystal rods are attached to the round brass ring, which breaks the light into many facets and hangs down like glittering fringes when the light is switched on. Now you can only guess how pretty this lighting looks in the evening when it casts shadows on the ceiling. Not a single sound penetrates the room from the outside. This is unusual, and for a moment, I smile, imagining that the world has ended without me noticing. No birds chirping, no noisy neighbourhood children on their way to school, no engine noise from the road passing nearby - nothing, simply nothing. I listen into this silence and sink into a kind of trance. A deep inner calm spreads in me. I remain motionless and hear myself breathing steadily. A rarely experienced feeling of happiness and deep inner contentment flows through me. It is a wonderful start to a new day. Then I get up and go down to the kitchen. I prepare breakfast and turn on the radio. I catch my breath: the morning news reports a further spread of the pandemic. The curfew and the lockdown that have been in place for weeks are being extended. Schools remain closed. Employers are asked to allow home offices as far as possible. The wearing of FFP2 masks is now compulsory. A new, even more contagious variant of the virus has been discovered. The silence will probably last for a long time, and the feeling of happiness is over for this day. 30 January 2021 (Monika L.)

(DE) It was a hot summer, and I went almost every day to swim at the quarry pond. The lake is hidden in a forest and yet easily accessible. It is best to park the car at the edge of the busy main road. After crossing it, turn right into a forest path. Immediately, the shade of the tall spruces and firs envelops you in a soothing silence. The fresh scent of the trees and the cheerful chirping of birds makes me breathe deeply. Every time I come here, I am filled with deep gratitude. After only a few hundred meters, you can see the deep blue of the water glistening on your right. The gravel plant that used to be located here has long since become unprofitable. The iron winding towers had long since been dismantled, and the gravel piles were removed over time. What remained was a large, coarse sandy beach that nature gradually reclaimed. The lake spreads out at its full length and beauty in front of the spacious place heated by the sun. Here mainly families and retired couples settle down, equipped with sunbeds, umbrellas and filled picnic baskets. I, however, strove toward the wooded northern shore, past small bays where anglers had moored their colourful wooden boats, past pink-blossoming water lily carpets and spots overgrown with dense reeds where frogs hide but give themselves away by their loud croaking. A narrow path leads through the forest along the shore. Sometimes I stopped to let the beauty of this spot affect me. A pair of swans proudly and majestically made their circles in the middle of the lake. The warning chirp of a great crested grebe mingled with the tangle of different bird calls and the buzzing of insects. In the distance, I heard the call of a cuckoo. Large iridescent blue dragonflies danced in the sun, diving into the water again and again. Dry leaves rustled under my footsteps; although I had walked this path countless times before, I kept discovering new things. It seemed as if someone hovering over everything was thinking about how to surprise and delight me every day. A wide variety of flowers, grasses, ferns, mushrooms, fruits and fragrances caused an almost childlike amazement at every moment. After about a quarter of an hour, I turned right into an even narrower path surrounded by bushes and undergrowth, which led to a small peninsula. Most of the time, I settled here. This place had been the secret tip for nude bathers many years ago. In the meantime, many nature lovers have discovered it for themselves, and over the years, a colourful crowd has gathered that regularly comes here. They know each other, at least by sight. Friendships have developed with some of them, and they know each other's fates and life stories. They had seen each other grow old and learned about their preferences and vulnerabilities. One meets each other friendly and respectfully. You greet one another and otherwise leave one another alone. You can always find entertainment if you feel like it. That, too, was the magic of this place. On one of those afternoons, I noticed a man I had never seen here before. He pushed his bicycle through the bushes, carefully locking it up and rolling out a narrow mat next to it. He was of medium height and relatively slim. I had difficulty guessing his age because he wore a big floppy hat that almost completely hid his face. Naturally and unabashedly, he took off his clothes and put them in the saddlebags. Somehow he seemed introverted and aloof. I took no further notice of him and turned back to my book. When I looked up again, I saw a pair of swans waddling to the shore. They had lost their young. A few weeks ago, they had always had three of them in tow. It had been a pleasure to watch as a whistle from the worried parents was enough to call them to order. But, despite their best efforts, perhaps they had fallen victim to a fox. In any case, it was better not to get too close to them. I had once observed them hissing and flapping their wings wide open, threatening a boy who had invaded their territory. In the shallow water, they began to preen themselves extensively. Then, disregarding the bathers, they set about foraging on the tufts of grass along the shore. They were magnificent animals that almost reached my size when they stretched their necks. Even in the water, I preferred not to encounter them and swam briskly to shore when they approached. Everyone here knew it was wiser to stay out of their way and keep a distance. Usually, after a while, they would leave of their own accord - not without first putting a considerable green pile on the sand. Usually, they stood on their high, strong legs in the shallow shore water for a while and looked around. It seemed as if they arranged themselves with a strange whistling in which direction their journey should go. That afternoon I saw the strange man walking towards the pair of swans. He had taken off his floppy hat and tied his long silvery hair into a ponytail at the top of his head. His nose was covered with a thick layer of white sunblock. From behind, his body looked graceful, like a woman's. It was an absurd sight of incredible beauty, etched in my memory like a painting by a surrealist painter. The other bathers were now also watching the stranger approaching the swans. Step by step. Slowly and deliberately. "Is he crazy - what is he doing there?" a woman shook her head. A murmur became audible, and everyone was now looking at him anxiously - waiting to see what would happen. He was now already between the swans. The air was still, and nothing happened. Nothing threatening, anyway. The pair of swans turned their heads towards him - a bit astonished. When he took a few more steps between them into the deeper water and began to swim, they flanked him like their young had done before and swam alongside him. One on the left, one on the right. The sun was high by now, casting a glistening streak across the lake. As if spellbound, I watched as the man and the swans moved toward this strip in the glittering water, only to dissolve in the glare of the sun. Dazzled, I had to close my eyes. I let myself sink back onto my blue blanket to let this almost magical moment seep into my memory, stretched extensively and enjoyed the warmth on my skin. I felt light and happy. After quite a while, I saw the man wading back to shore, breathing deeply with an utterly relaxed expression. He pulled his mat further into the sun and settled on it. He turned his back to me. He rested his head on his bent arm and looked pensively out at the water. Drops of water glistened like glass beads on his shoulder and hip before running in little rivulets over his skin. It was hard for me to take my eyes off him. I would have loved to walk over to him and nestle my sun-warmed body against his back. Instead, I got up and went into the water. In long strokes, I swam to the middle of the lake. The swans had disappeared. I drifted on the surface of the water for a while before swimming back to shore. The man had disappeared. A few white swan feathers were stuck in the grass, all fluffy and soft. I bent down and picked them up. (ML)

(DE) A few months ago, I quit my job as a social worker. I was tired and burnt out and fed up with taking care of other people’s problems. After all, I had enough of my own that needed to be solved. Besides, I wanted to finally live again, have fun, meet friends and girlfriends, go out until late without any remorse, and not think about getting up early the following day and being fit. Summer was approaching, and I wanted to catch up on everything I had missed. Be outside a lot, wander around on foot or by bike and enjoy nature. When the temperatures allowed, I’d go to my favourite pond in the forest to swim naked and doze in the sun for hours afterwards. When I had returned home seamlessly tanned and refreshed in the evening, I would prepare a delicious meal and end the day sitting in the garden with my husband and enjoying a glass of wine. I would also pay more attention to my appearance: take care of myself, visit the hairdresser more often, invest more time in sports and yoga to strengthen my neglected muscles, wear fancy clothes regularly and much more… That was my plan. The phrase, “If you want to make God laugh, talk to him about your plans,” hit me with full force. There was nothing to distract me now from the problems in my own life. Often the strain of my job had provided an excellent excuse to avoid having to deal with even more unpleasant things. Now not only was my job gone, but so was my income. I had not earned much in my job in the first place. So now I had to get by with even less money. Well, at least I had reckoned with that, and if I cut back a bit, I would manage. However, I hadn’t reckoned that I couldn’t easily get rid of the rhythm ingrained into me over the years. Even after several weeks, I still woke up every morning at 6.00 a.m. at the latest. The light penetrated through the closed blinds and the outrageously cheerful chirping of the birds got on my nerves to such an extent that I gave up in resignation and started the day already tired. I usually stayed in bed for a while, sat up and waited until the front door had slammed shut and my husband had left for work. I didn’t want to cross his path disgruntled and sour mood early in the morning. I sneaked past the cross trainer every day, ignoring that I had always wanted to start my day with sun salutations. Instead, I first went down to the kitchen. As usual, my husband’s breakfast dishes had not yet been cleared, and the daily newspaper lay tattered and covered with coffee stains and crumbs on the table. The cat peered through the patio door, grumpily meowing, waiting for food. I put on the kettle and would have liked to light a cigarette right now. But I wanted to give up this vice as soon as the stress of my job was over. So I gave it up, turned on the radio, brewed fresh coffee and chewed slowly on my jam sandwich while skimming the regional news and the obituaries in the stained newspaper. No special events. Everything went on as usual. The weather forecast for the coming days was not exactly exhilarating. It was supposed to be a rainy summer, and it was. When it wasn’t raining, the earth was steaming, and it became humid and oppressive. In the garden, everything grew and grew at a frightening pace. The dense, lush green of the ivy that had already climbed to the top of the trees was entwining and smothering everything! The knotweed seemed to have formed an alliance with the wild vine and had almost completely enveloped the old tool shed. Even inside the woodshed, the shoots grew in a wild tangle between the cracks. You could literally watch the grass grow, and overripe, thick corn apples plopped to the ground. Myriads of wasps rejoiced over the rapidly rotting morsels. It seemed as if everything was calling out tauntingly, “Where are you? Get a move on, get the machete out, start the lawnmower, do something; you’ve got all the time in the world now!” My husband didn’t mind all that at all. “Our green hell!” he would shout with a laugh when he returned from work in the evening, opened his well-earned after-work beer and settled down in the deck chair. In general – since I was home, he often and gladly forgot that he also was expected to contribute to the housework. To not endanger the harmony, I swallowed a lot during this time. Arguing was the last thing I needed right now. So I did what I could and what my strength allowed me to do and resigned myself to the circumstances. After all, I had chosen it myself. The days passed tediously and uneventfully, like clouds driven by the wind. Sometimes I met up with a friend in town for a glass of wine in one of the numerous street cafés. But most of my friends had gone on holiday with their children and families somewhere by the sea. As a result, I often felt lonely and useless. The sultry days slowly became less, and sometimes, in the morning, when I took the kitchen scraps to the compost heap in the hidden part of the garden, it already smelled like autumn. The light was changing, and you could feel the days getting shorter and the evenings getting cooler. It made me nostalgic and sentimental to say goodbye to summer. Sometimes we tried to escape the approaching autumn for a while and spent a few days in more southern climates. But this year, things were different. It was a day at the end of October when I was hanging up laundry in the basement. Before I had even showered and got ready for the day, I stuffed the dirty laundry into the washing machine and thought about what other chores lay ahead. Work lurked in every corner of this house. The stained walls gaped at me, begging for a fresh coat of paint. The paint on the shutters had peeled off and was desperate for a replacement—all things we had put off from spring to autumn year after year. Now would be a good time. No longer too hot, not yet too cold, everything would still dry wonderfully, and I really couldn’t complain about a lack of time now. While I was hanging up a load of laundry, lost in my thoughts, I heard footsteps on the stairs leading to the entrance, and the doorbell rang. I wasn’t expecting anyone – who would visit me in the morning? Excitedly, I hurried to the front door and unlocked it. Standing in front of me was a man I had never seen before. He was of sturdy build and had his dark hair, made docile with brilliantine, combed tightly out of his forehead. He had beautifully arched eyebrows and an open, sympathetic gaze. The most striking thing about his appearance was the dark sideburns, shaved razor-sharp across his cheeks, almost reaching his chin. It was extremely rare to see a man like that here in our idyllic village, and my surprise must have been written all over my face. He greeted me with a smile and apologised for obviously frightening me. He held a worn plastic folder in his hands, which he opened before my eyes. It was from a travelling circus that had set up winter quarters a little way outside our village. Faded pictures in the folder showed a small circus tent, touchingly old-fashioned and as if out of time. Other photos showed him as an MC in a uniform with gold strings and ornaments across his chest, standing on a white horse, riding through a small ring with a flowing cape, then as a juggler – obviously a circus prince! Other photos showed a female tightrope walker, clowns and a magician about to cut up a lady. Also seen were a scruffy dromedary, a couple of donkeys, little monkeys gambolling on a scaffold and several ponies grazing in a paddock. In short – he was collecting donations for food for animals and humans to get through the winter with no shows and thus no income. I had no money in the house – apart from a few coins. Besides, I was short of cash myself and could hardly afford a donation. Nevertheless, I was a bit embarrassed when I explained my situation to him. He didn’t seem to hear my words. He just looked at me with calm eyes and smiled. Then he said a sentence that literally pulled the rug from under me: “You are a very beautiful woman. May I kiss you?” I did not expect that. I started to stammer and stutter. My mouth was dry, and I swallowed before the words tumbled out of me. No, no, no! For God’s sake, go! As I walked back into the house, my eyes fell on the dressing room mirror as I passed. I looked terrible. This morning I had only slipped into a pair of old baggy sweatpants and a discarded T-shirt. I had carelessly pulled my long hair up into a bun, which was already unravelling, revealing messy strands. I was not wearing make-up. I usually did that before I left the house to go shopping or wherever. Only my eyes had a strange shine today, or perhaps only at that moment. I couldn’t find anything beautiful about me…. I was confused and agitated and amused at the same time. I don’t know why this strange man upset me so much. When I’m so upset, and inner chaos breaks out, it sometimes helps me to reach for the hoover and cleaning rag and at least keep my home environment tidy. So I put on music, traced all the cobwebs with the duster, vacuumed the carpets, scrubbed the bathroom and kitchen, and did a little dance with the broom. I even had enough energy to clean a few windows. I had done a lot and was satisfied with my work. However, I felt tired, and a glance at the kitchen clock showed that I still had time for a short nap before my husband returned from work. So I lay down on the couch in the living room, tucked myself in, and I must have fallen fast and sound asleep. I stretched out with pleasure and felt someone lying next to me and nestling against my back. A hand slipped under my waist and pulled me closer. The hand gently rubbed along my thigh. Warm, moist breath stroked the back of my neck. Someone sniffed my hair and breathed into my ear. A pleasant shiver flooded my whole body. Slowly I turned around and looked into a pair of warm brown eyes. Our gaze was like a promise and a deep understanding of what was about to happen. Our lips sought each other with incredible tenderness and gentleness. We heard our breathing grow heavier, and the world around us sank into a passionate kiss…. Mercilessly, the doorbell shrilled in a continuous tone. I startled up and was abruptly sobered. There was no Circus Prince – my husband had come home from work in the meantime. I had locked him out. I hurried to the front door and opened it for him, still sleepy-eyed. “What’s wrong with you?” he asked, and I replied, “Nothing, nothing at all! I fell asleep on the couch”. “Ah, I can see you’ve been busy today. It’s all sparkling clean. You’ve really earned a nap. Luckily, I brought pizza for dinner.” Yes, really lucky! I often thought of the circus prince. What would have happened if I had invited him in? What if we had really kissed? How often in life does it happen that a man rings your doorbell and wants to kiss you? Last weekend I went shopping with my husband at the supermarket. At the exit, there was a wooden notice board with the picture of a clown asking for donations for a travelling circus. Above his picture was a tin cash register with a slot for inserting money. I had not brought any money and asked my husband to help me out. He gave me a two-euro coin. I said, “No, please, it should really be a note.” Astonished at my generosity, but without asking, he slipped me a note. After dinner, when we had a glass of red wine, I told him the story. (ML)

-A Bus ride from Taunggyi to Nah Pyi Taw, Myanmar, April 2018- My husband and I were returning from Taunggyi to Nay Pyi Taw. After a few day’s holidays over Easter at Inle Lake, we wanted to return to the capital of Myanmar by minibus, as I had to be back at my job as a volunteer at the Ministry of Health the following day. The journey should not take more than 8 hours if all goes well. Travelling in a foreign country is sometimes complicated, especially when you don’t understand the language. However, many things are more manageable if you know certain aspects of customs and traditions. This, of course, is also the case in Myanmar. Travelling by minibus in Myanmar, you just had to know. You have to know that about 14 people sit crammed together in a Myanmar minibus like sardines. There is hardly any room for the feet, at least not enough for long-legged Europeans like us. Therefore, we deliberately booked our seats five days in advance to ensure we got seats that offered reasonably enough space for our long legs. This was smart of us, and we felt up to the challenges of the bus journey. However, when the bus arrived at our stop, our seats were taken. A frail elderly lady who, in retrospect, was probably around 60 years old, hence younger than us, and her companion of the same age had taken our seats. When the bewilderment of the first moment had passed, we looked around for alternatives. After all, one is a guest in this country and does not want to appear self-righteous and rude! But the only two seats left were in the elevated last row above the tyres, where there was even less room for our long legs. We could not spend the 8-hour journey with our knees up to our chins. So we insisted on taking the seats we had booked. But although we showed her our tickets, the little old lady didn’t budge. She simply ignored us. Eventually, we had to call the bus driver to get our rights. When he threw his authority into the balance, the little old lady and her companion reluctantly moved to the back. The other passengers seemed to be discussing the matter at length among themselves. We did not understand the language, but the expression on some people’s faces showed displeasure. Others seemed to sympathise with us or didn’t care. But we felt uncomfortable anyway because we had demanded our rights with so much emphasis. Now again, one must know that such displeasure does not last long. A little later, the interest in us and our bad behaviour disappeared. We calmed our bad conscience, and so we rocked through the landscape in harmony – happy to be able to move our legs at least from time to time. Drive through a wonderful landscape in Myanmar While we drove along well-paved roads and attentively watched the passing villages and landscapes, the woman behind us shouted nonstop into her mobile phone. Obviously, there was cause for intense anger, and the longer she ranted and raved, the louder she became. Like the other passengers, we resigned ourselves to our fate and tried to ignore her. If only we had brought our earplugs. That’s just something you have to know. Shortly after we turned off the well-built road onto a dirt track with many potholes, the belligerent lady broke off her loud argument. Before we could enjoy the peace that had returned, we heard suspicious noises behind us. Our angry fellow traveller had become nauseous and was vomiting. This was not surprising for us, as one must know that this happens quite often on bus trips. However, for some unknown reason, in Myanmar, more passengers than usual seem to suffer from motion sickness. Therefore, the passengers who know this are always well prepared and carry a plastic bag just in case. Others have other strategies. For example, the lovely lady next to me dabbed her nose and forehead with Olbas oil from a small bottle from time to time during the journey, and she survived the trip reasonably well. I don’t usually suffer from motion sickness, but I don’t want to put unnecessary strain on my stomach on long journeys. That’s why I don’t eat much; I only nibble on dry biscuits when I do. It’s a mystery why many people eat heavy, greasy food during breaks in truck stop restaurants that tastes good but lingers in your stomach for ages. If the bus then drives a route full of curves, ups and downs, the stomach quickly starts to rebel. That’s what seemed to have happened to our noisy fellow passenger. Then, when her stomach had calmed down again, she fell asleep exhausted and snored loudly to herself while the full plastic bag tied at the top dangled from her finger in the rhythm of the potholes until the next stop. So a bus ride in Myanmar is definitely a strategic challenge. You have to know not only how to keep food down but also what and how much to eat. A few biscuits instead of sumptuous food is a good idea. How much you drink is strategically important, too. The rides are long, and there are few breaks, usually every 3 to 4 hours, for a toilet visit and refreshments. So, balancing not getting dehydrated in 50-degree heat on a bus without air conditioning and keeping your bladder in check for three or four hours is an art. Workers in a rice field near the road Our little minibus did have air conditioning, but, s is often the case, its weak cooling effect did not extend beyond the driver’s seat. So the passengers had to open the windows to get some air into the passenger compartment. Again, one must know that air is not the only thing that gets inside the vehicle while driving. Such a bus journey usually takes 6 to 10, sometimes 14 hours, depending on the route and road conditions. Moreover, drivers are expected to drive alone without a substitute driver with whom they can take turns. This is exhausting. Therefore, most drivers in many South Asian countries, whether bus, truck or taxi drivers, turn to an amphetamine-like remedy called betel quid. This is a mixture of betel nuts, tobacco, spices and a paste of slaked lime wrapped in strips of betel leaf. This mixture is chewed for hours. Some do it to stay awake, others just like the taste. Betel chewing is common in Myanmar and neighbouring countries and is enjoyed mainly by men and older women. Chewing fills the mouth with saliva, making conversation almost impossible. When the mouth is too full, the red saliva is spat out onto the street in a splash. In first-class air-conditioned buses, the drivers and other betel nut lovers spit into a small plastic bag they carry for this reason. In minibuses, however, the driver spits out of the window. And this is what you need to know because it is advisable to keep a close eye on the driver. Because when the passengers behind the driver see his cheeks puff out like a frog’s and he leans his head out of the window, the whole row behind the driver’s seat automatically leans to the side, ducks and holds a cloth in front of their faces to avoid the red droplet shower. We learned quickly and joined in this choreography without complaint. You just have to know! Sometimes, however, knowledge is of no use. Then you have to accept what is happening with composure. Once I had to take a motorbike taxi at night to get home. The driver was very talkative, although his mouth was full of betel nut saliva. I sat behind him on the motorbike and felt a spray wetting me throughout the ride. There was no escape! At home, my reflection in the mirror looked as if I, including my glasses, had suffered a violent measles outbreak. I don’t remember it fondly. Of course, I could have hidden behind the driver’s back to avoid the red spray, but I still had to keep an eye on whether he was taking the correct route. On this bus ride, I also observed the driver’s driving skills. I admired how he steered the bus over the sometimes very narrow roads where the rain had washed away parts of the road, past deep drops, and how he confidently took one tight curve after another for hours. I went to him when we stopped for our comfort break after 4 hours. He saw me coming and stiffened, perhaps expecting a complaint from the strange white woman who had so firmly demanded her seat earlier. It almost looked as if he wanted to hide from me. But I did not complain, of course, but complimented him on his driving skills and thanked him for driving us so safely. We had few words at our disposal, but sign language made up for the lack. He understood, and a broad smile exposed teeth stained red from chewing betel. (LL) #busstories #travellingbybus #travellingstories

A bus ride in the rainy season, Ecuador, April 1980 When the rainy season arrives in Ecuador, it pours down for hours. On one such rainy day in April, I sat on the bus and looked at the landscape through a veil of rain. The bus drove through big puddles, and the water was splashing. The world around us was soaking wet, but we were sitting on the bus in the dry and felt like we were beating the weather. Slowly the rain dried up, the heavy black low-hanging clouds moved away, and the sun came out. An incredible spectacle of light and shadow amid tropical nature! Then suddenly the bus stopped. In the middle of nowhere! Of course, all the passengers immediately tried to find out why the unscheduled stop was. One look out of the window made it clear to everyone that we were in trouble. Shortly afterwards, the bus driver and some passengers were standing quite helplessly in front of a large lake into which the road dipped and only reappeared about fifty metres further on at the other bank. The small trickle that one could usually cross without any problems had turned into a wide river due to the rainy season, which now crossed our path. The bus driver and some male passengers tried to find out with sticks how deep the water was. Maybe we could drive through slowly. But the water was waist-deep, so this option was off the table. What to do? All the passengers discussed and argued, promoting their solutions and rejecting those of the others. Some did not want to stand idly by, so they dragged boards along whose purpose was unclear. They stood helplessly with their boards in front of the floods, not knowing what to do. Eventually, it became clear that we would have to wait until the water receded, at least to the point where we could cross it. So everyone waited for the water level to drop. But that could take days during the rainy season. In the meantime, a fully loaded Chiva had arrived on the opposite bank. This kind of bus is mainly used by the rural population. There are benches on the loading area of a truck, and the rural passengers are transported on it to the local markets with their goods such as chickens, pigs, vegetables and other things. These passengers were now also standing perplexed on their side of the river. They had probably come to the same conclusion as we had: Wait and see! Then, I, the only gringa (foreigner) among the passengers, had a thought that might help us out of this situation. So I joined the group of men around our bus driver and suggested that although the bus could not be taken through the water, the passengers and their luggage could. So I proposed a bus exchange of passengers, which could be reversed later when the river was passable. But in the meantime, the passengers could reach their destination relatively on time, and everything would be fine. That was my proposal! The element of surprise that a woman, especially a gringa, was proposing a solution to a group of men meant that I could present my idea to the end. However, the response to my proposal was resounding laughter! The men could only shake their heads. Now, what did that gringa think of? Such a stupid idea! You can’t do that! We are the passengers in a first-class bus, and the vehicle opposite is, at best third class. An exchange was impossible! This solution was simply not feasible, decided the self-appointed experts present, including the bus driver. I couldn’t understand their reaction, as I thought it was a brilliant idea and the only way for us to continue our journey. Frustrated, I trotted back to the waiting fellow travellers and spent the next three hours with them, keeping an eye on the level of the river. But absolutely nothing happened, and soon it would be dark. The bus drivers on both sides of the river and their “teams” tried to communicate through gestures and find a feasible solution. Suddenly, a flurry of activity broke out on both sides of the river. Finally, a decision was made, instructions were given, and preparations were made! But what were we to prepare for? What exactly were we supposed to do? All passengers on both sides were to strap their luggage onto their backs and make their way through the river, then board the waiting bus or chiva on the other side and continue their journey. Aha! That’s all I could think because now we were urged to set off swiftly. So we took off our shoes and waded through the water. Strong men helped weaker women to drag their suitcases and other luggage through the water and bring them as dry as possible to the other bank. And that was sometimes tricky because the water was up to the hips of the taller passengers, but smaller men and women sank to their chests in the floods. I tried not to think about what else might be floating around in the water. Instead, I concentrated on not tripping and getting to the other shore in one piece, without my backpack taking a bath in the warm mud. The Chiva passengers also made their way through the river and waded past us in the opposite direction. The chickens travelling with them flapped their wings in panic and could hardly be restrained. One woman lost her plastic slipper and frantically tried to fish it out of the water until a young man successfully got it out. No one slipped or came to any other harm. We all managed to get to the other shore without any significant losses. Now we could board our new vehicle and begin our onward journey. For me and my backside, it was a new experience to rock through the landscape on the wooden boards of a chiva. I would have liked to know who had finally decided to return to the gringa’s suggestion, which everyone had laughed about before. No one talked about it, but I suppose that was a new experience for the men present, that the gringa’s idea was workable. (LL)

– On the journey from Santa Marta to Barranquilla, Colombia, February 1988 – During my various stays in South America, I usually travelled by bus. There are large and more luxurious buses for tourists and better-off locals and smaller or simple and not necessarily comfortable, somewhat outdated adventurous vehicles. On this day, I sat in one such minibus full of 30 passengers next to a small fat man and enjoyed the landscape as usual. At first, we had driven along the coast, but now the road led a bit inland, past the Sierra Nevada mountains of Santa Marta, which also offered magnificent views from my seat at the window. And that’s when I saw it! A lone car tyre was about to overtake our bus! Of course, anyone who has ever experienced something like this knows that one is more willing to believe in ghosts than the likelihood that one’s vehicle has lost a tyre at full speed. But that’s probably what happened because seconds later, the bus tilted to the right, and the driver struggled to keep the bus on track. The tyreless steering knuckle was dragging sparks across the tarmac. It smoked and stank terribly. The passengers, who had been holding their breath at first, now panicked, screaming and shrieking. They were afraid that the bus would burst into flames and they would be caught in a deadly trap, which was a very realistic scenario. But the bus driver knew how to help himself. He steered the hard-to-steer bus to the side of the road so that the steering knuckle no longer rubbed on the asphalt but on the sand. This action stopped the frictional heat and, thus also, the flying sparks. Consequently, the danger of fire was largely averted. Finally, he halted the bus, hanging askew on the side of the road. So far, so good! The bus driver opened the door and asked all passengers to leave the bus. Panic-stricken, 30 passengers now tried to get out through the only door to safety, together with their belongings. But, of course, the isle to the door was immediately wholly blocked, which increased the panic. There was excited pushing and shoving and loud, impatient urging of those in front to finally move on, clear the way, and move faster! My little fat neighbour saw the way to the saving door blocked, and, driven by flight instincts, he tried to get out through the bus window. But in his panic, he had misjudged. The window was too small for his abdominal circumference, and he got hopelessly stuck. His upper body was sticking out of the bus. The lower half of his body hung, wriggling inside the bus. Nothing could be done, neither forward nor backwards. Some passengers and I now tried to support him and push him outside. But that didn’t work. We also discussed whether the risk of injury to him would be too big if he fell onto the road. So we decided to pull him back into the bus. This, however, caused the little fat man in the window to panic. Determined, he fought back, bracing himself with his hands and whole upper body against the fellow passengers pulling him back into the supposedly burning bus. We, who were tugging at his feet in the bus, talked at him. The passengers who, in the meantime, had gotten off the bus tried to talk some sense into him from outside. It was a massive palaver about saving the stuck little fat man. To no avail! When I resignedly walked through the now empty aisle with my backpack to the bus door and got off, he was still hanging in the window. Meanwhile, some passengers had recaptured the runaway tyre and brought it back. Other bus riders stopped and contributed muscle and some nuts to the repair. As the journey continued, the little fat man sat next to me again, completely exhausted and very quiet. Which way he had gone off the bus, I never knew. (LL)

A bus ride from Riobamba to Cuenca, Ecuador, May 1980 I had been sitting on the bus for an hour on the six-hour ride from Riobamba to Cuenca across the Ecuadorian Andes, watching the dusk on the horizon with fascination. When we had left at 4 a.m., impenetrable darkness still lay over the land. But now, I could slowly make out the outlines of the magnificent landscape. On the bus, most of the passengers had fallen asleep shortly after departure and were snoring more or less loudly to themselves. It was Monday morning; therefore, some uniformed soldiers were also on the bus. They returned to the barracks after spending the weekend with their families, friends and girlfriends. Presumably, they had gotten little sleep in the last two days because their sleep was deep and sound. Even in the seat in front of me, a young soldier slept completely soundly. But whatever his mother had cooked him, the after-effects could be heard and smelled. He constantly farted in his sleep. The stench formed an expanding aura around the young man and included me, who was sitting immediately behind him. It was becoming more and more unbearable. Since I was sitting along the aisle, I could not open a window to neutralize the foul odour with fresh air. So I surrendered to my fate and dug out my little bottle of China oil, which I, as an experienced traveller, always have with me for just such cases. It helped defuse the situation odour-wise, but the oil scent also kept me awake. Actually, I was grateful that I didn’t fall prey to sleep as well. The Andean landscape that spread before my eyes was spectacular. The road led over mountains and through valleys, often passing deep gorges. I could make out the Chimborazo volcano in the twilight with its snow-capped peak. It was overwhelming, and I felt blessed to be able to experience it. I was fascinated by the bus driver as he skillfully manoeuvred the bus along steep slopes and around curves. But then I stumbled. I could watch the driver’s eyes from my seat in the rearview mirror. It almost seemed as if his eyelids grew heavy from time to time. No! That couldn’t be! But I could clearly see that he was struggling to keep his eyes open. I could not believe what was happening. The route through the mountains was hazardous. The lives of the 50 passengers on the bus depended on this driver. Then, in the twilight, I realized that we were slowly approaching a very tight curve that would require the driver’s full attention. And apparently, of all people, his eyes were constantly falling shut. I was the only person on this bus who was awake, and I didn’t know what to do now! I could scream out loud?! I could jump up and clap?! By doing so, I would startle the bus driver and all the other peacefully slumbering passengers. Would I make a fool of myself? The crazy gringa! Typical, hysterical and overly anxious! She doesn’t know her way around and still interferes everywhere! However, if a local would see the danger too? He would be treated with respect. Panic-stricken, I looked around. But I was actually the only one who recognized the impending disaster. It is strange, not to say completely insane, that in such a life-threatening situation, one is concerned about whether one would make a fool of oneself if one attempted a rescue. But that’s exactly how I thought and felt as the bus approached the curve with a driver almost asleep. I finally overcame my paralysis of shock, jumped up, clapped my hands as hard as I could a few times, and immediately sat back down as if nothing had happened. A few passengers looked up briefly but immediately fell asleep again. Not so the driver! He pulled the wheel around in time and took the curve without any problems. He was now wide awake, and I was shaking all over. In the mirror, he searched my eyes, and I could see his relief and gratitude in them. We understood each other! (LL)

Chris Ham, the former CEO of the King’s Fund, analysed in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) the reasons for the UK’s poor record in tackling the pandemic. Among the Government’s numerous other weaknesses, he exposes its inability to incorporate knowledge about the virus into decisions for or against any measures. Chris Ham sees this as the leading cause of the massive mistakes the UK has experienced in these crisis years. Boris Johnsons’ autocratic governing style was responsible for the fact that the expertise of a vast spectrum of experts went unheard. The experiences of other countries, especially those of European states, had also received little attention because the Prime Minister and his cabinet were convinced of their superiority. Thus, opportunities that could have saved lives and livelihoods were lost. Source: BMJ 2021 The UK’s poor record on covid-19 is a failure of policy learning. The King’s Fund. BMJ 2021:372.n284. 10 February 2021. This elitist arrogance and know-it-all attitude of individual politicians prevent genuine expert and experiential knowledge from being incorporated into planning and strategy development and implementation. The consequences are devastating. Do they know that they know nothing? Politicians, like all leaders, are not expected to be a walking encyclopaedia with a wide range of expertise, as they were in the Middle Ages and the early Modern Era. The mark of quality in the 21st century is knowing which gaps in knowledge need to be filled by experts to solve a task or problem. Moreover, the complexity of our globalised world and our interconnected society means that almost every action generates many interlinked reactions. To reasonably assess these consequences, you don’t need a flock of head-nodding staff and consultants who don’t dare to disagree or are unwilling to question strategies. What is required is a team of diverse theoretical and practical competencies that can look at a problem from different angles and work together as equals. However, this insight of being just as dependent on practitioners as on academics was mostly absent among government representatives. Instead, they were convinced that the SAGE advisory group, consisting mainly of medically trained academics, could best advise the Government on the pandemic. Unfortunately, initially, the pandemic was interpreted solely as a medical problem. Therefore, its far-reaching impact on all sectors of society was not understood. Practitioners such as social scientists, public health workers, social workers and caregivers, professionals experienced in dealing with pandemics, and education and business experts were left out. As a result, whole sectors and essential areas of society were not consulted. Together we are wiser The consequences of government measures that have not been sufficiently thought through because various affected social groups were not included in the strategic planning can be seen by the effects of the school closures. Schools were closed and reopened without the consultation of headmasters, teachers and parents. Also, without warning. Had the responsible experts been consulted, some hardships could have been avoided. For example, online supervision of students during the lockdown would have been better planned, and thought would have been given to providing disadvantaged students with resources such as laptops. Teachers and parents would certainly not have forgotten that the lockdown would mean that school meals would be discontinued, and underprivileged children who depend on the free daily school meals would have to be fed in other ways. Unfortunately, government members did not climb down into these lowlands of everyday problems. It took footballer Marcus Rashford to campaign for the free school meals system to continue during the lockdown. Schools were due to reopen after the 2020/21 Christmas holidays. So parents, teachers and children were preparing for the start of school. But after two days of opening, the then Education Minister, Gavin Williamson, decided it would be better to close the schools again. Many problems could have been avoided had he worked with teachers, headmasters, and parents before deciding. For example, schools were left sitting on tons of food for school lunches and parents, whether at home offices or their workplaces, did not know how to supervise their children who were sent back home. When hospitals ran out of beds due to the volume of covid patients, the Minister of Health decided that elderly sick people should be discharged early to their nursing homes to free up beds. Social workers and geriatric nurses would have warned against this measure. They would have pointed out the risk that the virus could be brought into the nursing home along with the discharged residents. They would certainly have insisted on testing the patients for Covid before their release. This oversight has led to vast Covid infections and over 20,000 deaths in nursing homes. Better communication and collaboration between ministers and school and care home leaders, GPs, hospitals and public health teams would have been crucial to learning from the experience on the ground and developing a robust, well-thought-out pandemic response strategy with appropriate and workable measures. However, during the first lockdown, Boris Johnson and his ministers were also reluctant to draw on the expertise and knowledge of the devolved administrations, regional and local government leaders and experts on public health issues, etc. The mayors of the most populated cities, such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, had not been consulted before far-reaching lockdown measures had been put in place. These local politicians only found out via Twitter or newspaper what measures the Government had decided. However, they were expected to implement them. Was this a party political decision (because the mayors of most big cities are Labour members) or an oversight? In any case, this approach has a stale taste. If, however, there was no intention behind it but carelessness, then this would indicate maximum incompetence on the part of the Government. Mayors are responsible for the well-being of millions of people in their city and many large and small businesses, shops, workplaces, pubs, restaurants, hairdressers etc. In addition, they are responsible for public services such as police and transport etc. Yet, they were left out of the loop when the national Government decided on a regional or national lockdown. Didn’t the decision-makers realise that life goes on despite the lockdown? Not all workers could retreat to the home office. Many still had to make their way to work, travelling on buses and subways that had to be made as Covid safe as possible. People needed food and services. This had to be provided, and sufficient resources had to be made available. For example, the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, complained about insufficient financial help for business people in Manchester. The £60 million promised by the Government would only cover 66% of the costs, Mayor Burnham said. In business, this would be called a management error. A more inclusive management style with close cooperation between regional and local leaders and the devolved administration would undoubtedly have been more effective. Decision-making in a crisis The Covid pandemic requires difficult decisions in challenging circumstances and makes it hard to craft sound policy. However, the UK government has an unfortunate habit of delaying decisions and making unclear or short-sighted decisions that then have to be quickly withdrawn when it turns out that their implementation is not possible. It is, therefore, essential to have a clear goal and a clear planning concept on how this goal is to be implemented. In April 2020, the Institute for Government examined government decision-making on some decisions in the early stages of the pandemic. The report shows that decisions work best when the Government knows what it wants to do and how best to implement what it wants to do. Source: Institute for Government (April 2020) Decision making in a crisis. Report. April 2020. – Test-and-trace programme – a disaster This was not the case, for example, with what was supposed to be the world’s most successful test-and-trace programme. Matt Hancock, the then Minister of Health, obviously under pressure to succeed, set a target for the programme to reach 100,000 tests per day. Unfortunately, there was no strategy to achieve this arbitrary figure. It was unclear where to set priorities and who should be tested first. Should the professional groups and people who are particularly exposed to the virus go first? Or those particularly vulnerable due to pre-existing conditions and their age? There was no plan to meet the suddenly high demand for additional laboratory capacity to process the tests. There was also no plan for how to organise cooperation with external testing laboratories to create the necessary capacity. There was also no consideration of how to ensure access to a local testing centre for people willing to test. How can people be forced to travel 250 km by car to the nearest test centre? People without the luxury of a car had to use public transport, regardless of the risk of infecting other passengers with Covid. These problems were caused because the Minister of Health took decisions without consulting the diagnostics industry, the NHS, or other relevant experts. Without planning and implementation strategy, the test project was doomed to fail. – Economic support package – a prime example of collaboration However, when it came to putting together a package of measures to support the economy to avoid a flood of unemployed people and company bankruptcies, the government officials in charge worked quickly and effectively. The Job Retention Scheme or Furlough, the Self-Employment Income Support and the Corona Business Interruption Loan Scheme were developed in a short time and put into practice swiftly with few problems. The success was because government ministers and officials consulted those affected through their advocacy groups. In addition, they worked closely with businesses and trade unions and planned jointly for implementation before making a decision. The approach was pragmatic. The priority was to provide quick and non-bureaucratic financial assistance to millions of workers and employers. Individual tailoring of the financial aid to different needs was not crucial in this approach. Close cooperation with companies, associations and trade unions significantly boosted acceptance among those affected. Another decisive factor for the programme’s success was that the programme’s implementation had been considered from the beginning. The cooperation between the treasury ministers and officials with the HMRC, which was ultimately responsible for implementing the most critical measures, was effective, efficient and, therefore, successful. As a result, the feared a blatant increase in the unemployment rate was avoided. What can we learn from this? As the Institute for Government’s research has clearly shown, decision-making in a crisis does not necessarily have to result in a series of wrong decisions. On the contrary, with the right input and the consultation and participation of relevant stakeholders, a government can be perfectly capable of reacting quickly and effectively. But this would require ministers to communicate more clearly the objective of their actions. A broad range of experts needed to be consulted in advance to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the situation and develop adequate solutions. The expertise and advice of different actors are essential for decision-making in complex situations and for creating a viable strategy from different perspectives. But again, as mentioned earlier, know-it-all and teamwork do not go together. Vaccination campaign – a successful project Another positive example is the vaccination campaign that the United Kingdom carried out on its own. UK immunisation data as of 7 January 2022: A total of 134.8 million vaccinations have been carried out, of which received: First vaccination: 51.9 million, received, a second vaccination 47.6 million, booster vaccination 35.3 million Source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations Why was this vaccination campaign so successful? The responsible decision-makers of the newly established vaccination task force seem to have learned from past mistakes. They relied not only on their connections but predominantly on the know-how of experts from the field. Boris Johnson appointed Kate Bingham to develop and procure Covid vaccines in May 2020. Then, in the of summer 2020, he entrusted Sir Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, to plan, manage and deliver the national vaccination campaign, which included vaccinations for the entire UK population. The challenge was to avoid the problems posed by the Test and Trace programme, which was carried out mainly by external contractors and largely ignored local and practice expertise. Kate Bingham worked closely with scientists in research institutions and the pharmaceutical industry who had already been working on vaccine development since the beginning of the pandemic. She supported them with the financial resources they needed. Kate Bingham took a considerable risk by ordering 500 million vaccines from several manufacturers even before the vaccines were officially licensed. However, taking this risk paid off, as the UK was the first country in the world to receive, approve and use Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Sir Stevens relied on NHS experts and networks. He involved associations of GPs, i.e. primary care networks, each caring for an average of 50,000 patients. They had to agree to be available 12 hours a day for vaccinations. In addition, 30,000 NHS staff and 100,000 volunteers signed up to help organise the 1,500 vaccination centres in football stadiums, gyms and other large buildings. well-accessible Fifty military logistics experts were called in to perform logistical tasks at NHS headquarters. This included establishing vaccination centres in well-accessible locations to allow broad access, organising the distribution of vaccines and securing the delivery of vaccines and the vaccination process. The vaccination was distributed according to the principle of ensuring equal access. Call for vaccination and documentation of vaccination completion was done using the NHS database. Priority was given to the elderly and at-risk groups and medical staff and social workers, followed by age prioritisation. The process of the first vaccination was accelerated by extending the time until the second vaccination. In this way, the existing capacity was optimally used for the first immunisation. Sources: UK vaccine rollout success built on NHS determination and military precision. 12 February 2021. https://www.ft.com/content/cd66ae57-657e-4579-be19-85efcfa5d09b . How the UK vaccine rollout delivered success so far. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421. Covid-19: As with any mass campaign, there were undoubtedly glitches and a few unhappy people, but on the whole, the campaign was a success. Unfortunately, only two projects can be described as goal-oriented and thriving in these crisis years. So, even this Government, which is resistant to consultation, must realise that, in the end, it knows nothing and must therefore call on the expertise and experience of the most diverse sections of society. – Provided it really wants to govern for the good of the country and its citizens. Government’s relationship with science It seems that the British Government has developed a somewhat ambivalent relationship with science and scientists during the Covid crisis. The expert findings usually serve as a justification, sometimes as an excuse, and throughout, they are readily interpreted as a suggestion for political action. But on the other hand, the government members are also prepared to exert pressure if the scientific results do not comply with their aspirations. -Science as justification only works to a limited extent Every time the Government was criticised for failing to deal with the covid crisis, it pointed to the scientists. During interviews, the respective government representative said that scientific findings guided them and that they see no reason for an apology. So they conveniently pass the buck to the scientific advisors. However, this has nothing to do with responsible action. A government clearly must consult scientific advisors and take their findings into account in the decision-making process. However, not the scientists are the people’s elected representatives but the MPs and the Government. The responsibility lies with them. They have the task of drawing on the wealth of knowledge of science, taking into account different societal interests, to generate conclusions that result in laws and measures. Scientists inform policy-makers but do not make policy. Ministers bear political responsibility and must be aware of the limitations of science. For example, the scientific advisors to the SAGE Committee were reluctant when the Government representatives expected them to recommend wide-ranging restrictions at the beginning of the pandemic. As experts in medicine, they did not feel competent to make recommendations that had far-reaching economic and social implications. Apart from the fact that science needs competent, open and responsible politicians to serve society, the British politicians’ alleged faith in science is situational. -Advice from science? – No thanks! The Government’s favourite justification, “We have been guided by science”, is no longer even remotely applicable in December 2021. The scientists’ advice goes unheard because it does not fit into the Government’s concept of doing nothing. In the last months of 2021, scientists vociferously expressed their concerns about the increasing Covid infections in the country and called on the Government to implement its Plan B. This plan envisages a series of more stringent measures, such as wearing masks in public places, social distancing, and working in home offices where possible. But government ministers stoically stuck to their decision to rely on vaccination and booster shots alone. More recently, top scientist and director of the Wellcome Trust, Sir Jeremy Farrar, warned that the UK’s progress in combating Covid was now being undone and lamented a lack of political leadership in the pandemic. Farrar had resigned as a Government’s scientific adviser in November 2021 to focus more on international research to combat the virus. He said measures such as wearing masks indoors, increased testing, social distancing, isolation if positive with appropriate financial support and vaccination were urgently needed to contain the virus. Sir Jeremy Farrar calls this strategy “vaccination plus”. However, the Government stubbornly refused to implement Plan B, insisting that vaccination, or boosters, is the solution! Scientific advice is clearly ignored if it does not fit the Government’s mindset. -Science under pressure – independence is sometimes a farce The population wants to trust government decisions, and they want to believe in the findings of science, especially in times of crisis. Second, the people want to be sure that scientific statements are made without political pressure. Third, the public wants to rule out the possibility that conflicts of interest have influenced reports and measures. Finally, the public wants scientists to research and publish independently and neutrally, especially when a crisis needs to be tackled with the help of science. Transparency is necessary to meet this need. However, governments can control science and suppress its results. They can do so by arguing that this is in the public interest, e.g., speed up the availability of diagnosis and treatment, promote innovation, or save lives. This is precisely what has happened in the UK. Kamran Abbasi, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, argued that science in the UK is suppressed for political and financial reasons. He cited several examples of how the Government pressured science during the pandemic in the UK and how inconvenient truths were ignored and concealed. Source: Covid-19: Politicisation, “corruption”, and suppression of science. When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die. BMJ 2020;371:m4425. 13 Nov 2020. For example, government advisors were inappropriately involved in the SAGE committee. SAGE is a politically and economically independent committee of scientists who provide their expertise to the Government and advise it on managing the Corona pandemic. The regular presence and participation of government officials and Boris Johnson’s political advisors, such as Ben Warner and Dominic Cummings, could compromise the committee’s independence. On the other hand, it could also facilitate communication between the committee and the Government, enhancing collaboration. The fact that the list of participants in the deliberations was secret until it was leaked and published in a daily newspaper, however, supports accusations of lack of transparency and fuels suspicions of undue influence by the Government. At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientists were praised by politicians, the media and large parts of the population. The mood has now changed. Used by politicians as scapegoats when something had gone wrong (“We followed the advice of scientists”), headlines in some pro-government British newspapers blame government scientific advisors and members of scientific committees for the collapse of the economy, the rise in unemployment and the destruction of livelihoods. The Government does not defend them. They are no longer considered impartial and independent scholars. They are accused of leaking documents to journalists, representing their own personal views and collaborating with opposition political parties. Behind these accusations is the Government’s assumption that a scientist who is a member of an expert group advising government members has decided to be part of the government team. Therefore, this scientist must abide by the rule of collective responsibility, which means that this absolute loyalty should also be reflected in the research results. Of course, against this background of expectations, autonomy is no longer guaranteed. The loss of trust between scientists and politicians is so significant that government officials prevent even high-ranking public health representatives from speaking to reporters, even on topics that have nothing to do with COVID-19. For example, researchers from Public Health England (PHE) and cooperating institutions found that the antibody tests purchased by the Government for Boris Johnson’s favoured prestige project, the controversial and costly Moonshot mass screening operation, fell far short of the manufacturers’ promises of performance. This study was the first independent evaluation of these tests. The authors wanted to publish their findings, which clearly question the accuracy of this leading Covid antibody test, before the Government spends £75m on buying a million of these tests (That means each test costs £75, which was a hefty price even in November 2020 when tests were more expensive). However, the Department of Health and the Prime Minister’s Office blocked their publication until the purchase of the tests was complete. Source: Covid-19: Government buried negative data on its favoured antibody test. BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4353 (Published 12 Nov 2020) So much for being guided by science! And the question must also be allowed, what priorities other than test accuracy might have played a role in this deal? In the meantime, Boris Johnson has refrained from his pet project. A few weeks later, the British Government quietly abandoned plans to invest £100 billion (almost the entire annual budget of the NHS) in a massive expansion of its national testing programme. The ambitious Operation Moonshot programme planned to run 10 million tests a day from the beginning of 2021 to boost economic activity and support a return to normal life through mass testing. However, this plan would have been on shaky ground if the questionable tests had been carried out, and the measure’s goal would have been jeopardised rather than furthered. But perhaps the Government changed its plans because the Good Law Project threatened to take the Government to court for ignoring scientific evidence and spending a tremendous amount of public money without transparency in its decision-making. Source: Covid-19: Government shelves plans to invest £100bn in mass testing. BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4112 (Published 23 October 2020) Similarly, the publication of another study by Public Health England (PHE), this time on inequalities in the risks and outcomes of Covid infection, was delayed by the Department of Health. A chapter on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and only published as a follow-up report after many protests. In addition, the authors of the report were told not to speak to the media. With Covid mortality rates four times higher among ethnic minorities in England than the white majority population, it seems insensitive and illogical to delay a study on the subject that is largely uncontroversial. The results confirm what was already known: certain ethnic minorities are more susceptible to diseases like covid. These differences can be partly explained by existing health problems such as diabetes and by living conditions such as overcrowded housing, income disparities and occupational risks. In addition, experiences of racism and mistrust often prevent affected people from seeking timely medical care. These findings are not new. However, they must be considered in a pandemic to adopt measures intended to minimise the risk of infection, serious illness, and death to the living conditions and support the population in complying with these measures. For example, it is difficult to distance oneself socially when a family member is infected with covid if one lives in a crowded house. Likewise, when unable to work from home, people need to use public transport to get to work, increasing the risk of infection. But what sense does it make not to publicise such findings? To ignore the obvious? Is it a case of not taking action if the public is not reminded of the problem? What about Public Health England’s duty to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to live a healthy life? Questions upon questions that need to be asked, over and over again, until the idea of responsibility displaces the concept of self-interest and image-building. Conclusion: Transparency protects against arbitrariness It is frightening to observe how self-interested politicians use scientific findings that suit them while discarding those that do not serve their personal good. It is unacceptable that the common good should come second or third. In this new Corona crisis, independent scientific advice is more important than ever. Politicisation or corruption of science must be prevented. Transparency and accountability are needed to achieve this. Conflicts of interest of Government, politicians, scientific advisors and directors of relevant organisations and bodies, and their advisors and staff, must be relentlessly disclosed. The way decisions are being made must be transparent. The politicisation or suppression of science by autocrats and dictators is well known from history and, regrettably, is becoming commonplace nowadays also in democracies. When the “medical-political complex”, as Abbasi calls this clique of politicians and scientists, suppresses science, it is predominantly for the self-enrichment of the powerful. And, Abbasi argues, the more successful and wealthy the powerful become, and the more they continue to intoxicate themselves with power, the more they suppress inconvenient findings of science. When good science is suppressed, people die. LL. My analysis is divided into several areas and includes: The Failure of the Political Elite in Dealing with Covid in the UK The Priorities of the Elite The Common-sense Mantra Sleaze, Cronyism, Mismanagement in the Covid Crisis Consulting the Government: Struggle to be heard and independent Boris’ Partygate – an Attack on Democracy #collaboration #knowitallattitude #AdvisingtheGovernment #advisors #autocraticgovernment #lackoftransparency #scientists

(LL) (UK) What distinguishes war profiteers from politicians in a crisis? War profiteers use the emergency to make excessive profits while politicians are supposed to resolve the situation. Naturally, business people and their companies are more likely to be war profiteers, as they immediately and instinctively recognise the opportunity for profits. Still, they do, of course, solve some of the country’s problems along the way. On the other hand, politicians should not be profit-minded except for prosperity and security for the country or the people they govern. Their purpose is, and this is expected of them, to solve problems or overcome crises without regard to personal gain. Common good first – instead of self-interest first! These boundaries are currently not evident to the governing elite in the UK, particularly during the pandemic and the resulting crisis. Chumocracy The Covid pandemic exposed the extent of sleaze, cronyism, nepotism and mismanagement in British public life. It became clear that when a problem arises for the incumbent ruling elite, the first question is not, “How can we solve this problem and what support do we need to solve it?” No, the first question is, “What are the opportunities in this situation for my friends and me to gain money, power, prestige and status? Who wants and needs what job, who wants and needs what lucrative government contract?” A close-knit group of chums appoints friends and gives jobs to friends. Influential individuals of this clique who pulled the strings in the course of the pandemic were, in addition to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson: his Special Advisor Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove, Cabinet Office Minister, and Matt Hancock, the then Health Secretary, as well as their friends from Vote Leave, who had given Boris Johnson and his colleagues crucial support in the Brexit campaign and the election campaign. More than any other state, England in particular, not the whole of the UK, outsourced large parts of its pandemic response, often to entrepreneurs and companies with close ties to Conservative politicians or their friends, whereby expertise seemed to be secondary. Vital positions for chums Holding an honorary post gives social prestige and is suitable for networking, especially if that honorary post is at the government level. Catherine Elizabeth (Kate) Bingham graduated from Oxford with a degree in biochemistry and an MBA from Harvard Business School. In 1991, Kate became a managing partner at SV Health Investments, a venture capital firm, and serves on the boards of numerous international healthcare companies. In May 2020, she was appointed Chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. In this honorary position, she managed the procurement of the Covid-19 vaccine and developed a strategy for its distribution. The appointment took place without any competitive tendering or even a rudimentary public discussion of personnel. Questions were raised as to what qualified Kate Bingham to do the job, other than having gone to public school with the Prime Minister’s sister, Rachel, and being married to Tory MP Jesse Norman, who in turn was a fellow student of Boris Johnson at Eton. The success of the vaccination programme initially silenced her critics. Her politician friends defended her appointment, citing her good connections to pharmaceutical companies as a mark of quality, which is understandable given her professional career. However, she was heavily criticised for insisting on bringing her own staff of PR consultants, eight full-time consultants from the London-based PR agency Admiral Associates, instead of relying on the civil service press officers. The services of these consultants were not honorary but cost the taxpayer £670,000 until the end of 2020. In November 2020, Kate Bingham faced calls for her resignation. She was accused of leaking commercially sensitive information about the UK government’s vaccination strategy to investors at an international conference. But Downing Street stood behind her, insisting she had only given out publicly available information. Nevertheless, the Government announced shortly afterwards that Kate Bingham would resign from her post at the end of the year. However, to dispel the impression of misconduct and sanction, the Government pointed out that the position had only been temporary anyway. Scientists and the media consistently praised Kate Bingham’s management of the vaccination programme. Under her leadership, from May to December 2020, 350 million doses of six different vaccines were secured; and infrastructure for manufacturing, distribution and clinical trials was established. Kate Bingham clearly had not only a good network and expensive PR advisors but also competence to show. The UK was not so lucky with Diana Mary “Dido” Harding. She, like Kate Bingham, became the head of the UK government’s NHS test and trace operation without a competitive tender. Dido Harding is married to Tory MP John Penrose and is well-connected. She was made a peer in 2014 by her good friend, the then Prime Minister David Cameron, and sits for the Tories in the House of Lords. As a director of the Cheltenham Jockey Club, she awarded honorary membership to her good friend Matt Hancock, horse racing enthusiast and Health Minister until May 2021. Dido Harding, the former chief executive of telecoms company TalkTalk, was appointed in October 2017 as chair of NHS Improvement (NHSI), the body responsible for overseeing and supporting NHS providers and trusts in England, but whose role remains mainly unclear to the public. There was no competitive application process conducted in public. Dido Harding’s job as chair was a part-time, two-day-a-week job, paying between £60 – £65,000 a year. Some NHSI board members gave up their salaries to save the health service money. Not so, Baroness Dido Harding. The Government offered her two honorary positions, which she accepted: She became head of the NHS Test and Trace Service in May 2020, and Matt Hancock appointed her to lead a new National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP). Both roles are honorary. However, what Dido Harding did to earn the Government’s trust in a crisis is unknown to the public. The test and trace programme, which she managed from May 2020 to April 2021, had little success. The programme failed to make a significant impact in containing the covid pandemic, despite a budget of £37 billion (€44 billion). To be fair, Dido Harding had little decision-making or creative leeway when she took office. Critical points of the programme had already been decided before she took up the post. For example, instead of using the expertise of the NHS and university research institutes, private companies should be given preference. Logistical decisions, methodology and objectives had also already been set. Was Dido Harding just a figurehead who, if things turned pear-shaped, could be made a scapegoat? Did the political decision-makers in the background not want to take responsibility for planning and implementation? The Guardian newspaper thoroughly researched the links between the various players in the Covid crisis management and highlighted the “cronyism” or “chumocracy” within the Tory establishment. See the following link for more details and a graphic showing the interconnections between friends and business. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/chumocracy-covid-revealed-shape-tory-establishment Non-transparent procurement by Tory politicians When the Corona pandemic broke out, the increasing demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) quickly led to shortages. There was a particular urgency to supply staff in the NHS health service. To quickly meet the need for PPE for the NHS workforce, the UK government resorted to placing orders for PPE supplies under an emergency procedure. This way, contracts were awarded directly to companies without a tendering process and competition. Such a “direct award” is legally permissible if there is only one supplier or in cases of extreme urgency due to unforeseen events or danger to life, etc. Even then, the Government is legally obliged to publish a contract award notice for all contracts over £120,000 within 30 days of the agreement being signed, to make the award process, and thereby the award criteria, transparent. According to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO), £17.3bn worth of contracts were awarded between March and July 2020, of which £10.5bn without competition. £6.7bn went to suppliers who were already approved but not necessarily approved for the products they offered and sold to the Government in the face of pandemic urgency. Only £0.2 billion was awarded through a tender process. The Good Law Project denounced that the Government had published the details of the awarded contracts with significant delay and had poorly explained the reasons for their decisions. Source: What’s going on with the Government’s Covid contracts 30 June 2021, BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56174954. According to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the Government had awarded VIP fast-track contracts to 50 companies to supply Covid protective equipment such as masks, gloves, gowns and other safety equipment. Eighteen of these companies were put forward by Conservative politicians, including former Health Secretary Matt Hancock, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, Minister for the Cabinet Office Michael Gove, and Boris Johnson’s close advisor Dominic Cummings. For more information, visit: Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59334952, Covid: 50 firms got VIP fast-track equipment contracts. 18 November 2021. Concrete examples of underhand awarding of contracts When the media and opposition politicians pointed out this practice of “under the table” contracting and demanded clarification, the Government justified its actions with the need to act in an emergency. The emergency required a quick effort to save lives. In addition, governments around the world were competing for medical products. This situation required trustworthy, proven partners from the private sector to be engaged quickly and without bureaucracy. This reasoning may still apply to “Randox Laboratories Ltd”. Randox Laboratories Limited, an international testing and health company based in Northern Ireland, has had multi-million dollar contracts with the UK government since before the Covid pandemic and is a significant player in the Covid testing programme. The company also gives regular donations to the Conservative Party and is well-connected to relevant politicians. Randox attended a meeting with the Government on 17 March 2020 to discuss a new Covid testing scheme. At this meeting, the Government decided to develop large centralised laboratories outside the existing health and research structures, bypassing the existing laboratories and resources at universities. Randox was awarded two significant contracts to supply test kits for the Test and Trace project: the first contract for £133 million was granted on 18 May 2020, and the second for £346.5 million followed later. Randox was awarded the contract under the Covid 19 emergency scheme, evading the tendering process required for public contracts. However, this is not the only criticism. Although one might have expected this company to have the professional expertise, there were qualitative problems. For example, in August 2020, Randox had to recall 750,000 test kits supplied to nursing homes because they did not meet the required standards. This resulted in a shortage of functioning test kits, making regular testing of nursing staff and nursing home residents difficult. Remember explicitly that the criterion for emergency contracting was trust in tried and tested business partners. However, Randox already had difficulties obtaining test kits at the beginning of the first contract. This potential procurement problem had been included in the contract, and the Government had agreed to assist Randox in procuring test kits. Matt Hancock contacted the university laboratories, which they initially disregarded, to borrow the test kits needed. Well, what can you say to that? A company is given a government contract that it may not even be able to fulfil, so the Government partly does the job itself?! That is strange, to say the least. The Government also paid almost £1.5m to provide an airlift between Stansted and Belfast airports to transport Covid test kits from England’s care homes to Randox labs in Northern Ireland so that the tests could be processed at Randox labs in Antrim. If this is the trend, with the state using its taxpayers’ money to take over the logistics of companies that have taken on government contracts, then such contracts will become really attractive. Good for the company that has good relations with the Tories. The link between horse racing and the Tories But to what extent was the recently disgraced Conservative MP Owen Paterson involved? Here comes the link between horse racing and Tories. “Randox Health” has been a sponsor of the Grand National at the Aintree Jockey Club in Liverpool since 2016, whose chair for many years was Rose Paterson, Owen’ Paterson’s recently deceased wife and close friend of Dido Harding. Owen Paterson himself had been a consultant for Randox Laboratories Ltd since 2015. Since April 2017, he has been paid £8,333 per month for his 16-hour job. Although Paterson and Randox denied any involvement by Paterson in the awarding of the government contract to Randox, it is known that Paterson had attended meetings and held discussions with the Health Minister, Lord Bethell. The parliamentary standards committee investigating Paterson’s conduct concluded that it was a severe breach of Parliament’s standards for lobbying. (For more information on the Government’s efforts to protect one of its own, see a separate post). Source: Covid: What do we know about Randox and its contracts? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59219803, 17 November 2021. Source: Geoghegan, Peter. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n21/peter-geoghegan/cronyism-and-clientelism. LRB. 5 November 2020. Another company, “Medacs”, controlled by Tory Party donor and former party leader, Lord Ashcroft, was awarded a lucrative £350m contract by the Department of Health in December 2020 to run the Covid vaccination campaign. Further evidence that companies linked to the UK government or the Conservative Party have profited from the pandemic. These companies mentioned belong to the network of the ruling elite, but at least they have expertise in the health sector. However, the latter does not apply to “Ayanda Capital“. This company has connections, but no expertise, as was soon apparent. This investment firm, which specialises in foreign exchange, offshore real estate, private equity and trade finance, was awarded a contract worth £252 million in April 2020 to supply face masks. However, 50 million of these face masks were never used because of concerns that they would not cover the face adequately. This contract was brokered by a Board of Trade advisor at the Department for International Trade (DIT), chaired by the then Minister of State for International Trade, Liz Truss, a senior advisor to the board at “Ayanda Capital”. As a government member and party member, she brokered a lucrative contract with a company on whose board she serves but with no expertise in health products. In this case, the Government’s arguments to justify awarding contracts directly as quickly as possible do not hold water. Source: Geoghegan, Peter: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n21/peter-geoghegan/cronyism-and-clientelism. LRB. 5 November 2020. Here are a few more examples that suggest a watering can approach to contracting, where the reason for the award is more likely to have links to politicians than expertise. A company, “Meller Design“, owned by a Conservative donor that supplies supermarket chains with cosmetics, has been awarded a £65 million contract to supply face masks. Small, loss-making “P14 Medical“, which used to sell medical equipment and was run by a Conservative councillor in Stroud, won a £270m contract to supply personal protective equipment for NHS staff. In November 2020, it was revealed that a Spanish businessman, ‘Gabriel Gonzales Andersson‘, received £21 million for his services as an intermediary in the procurement of protective clothing. A further £15 million commission was agreed for later. Gonzales worked with Michael Saiger, a Florida-based jewellery designer who set up a company to supply PPE to various governments at the beginning of the pandemic. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373. Go-between paid £21m in taxpayer funds for NHS PPE. 17 November 2020 How can the Government speak of years of successful and trusting cooperation when the company was only founded at the beginning of the pandemic? A similar question also arises about the service provided by Zoe Ley. The owner of the organic dog food company “The Rockstar“, Zoe Ley from London, received at least £1 million to help the British Government conclude a contract with a Hong Kong company to supply PPE worth £258 million. What could be the particular expertise of this entrepreneur? Perhaps she sources ingredients for the dog food from Hong Kong? No, no, it’s more professional than that. Zoe Ley, an investment banker by training, founded Life Partners in May 2020 to “deliver Covid-related products”. She acted as an intermediary between the Hong Kong company “Worldlink Resources” and the British Government. In a kind of undercover operation, the BBC programme Panorama found out that, according to the Hong Kong company, Zoe Ley’s company was a bridge to the British Government. So nothing gets past her! How she qualified for this position, however, remains a government secret. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56400527. Covid contracts: Dog food vendor probably earned £1m for PPE deals, 15 March 2021 The list of companies to which the Government has awarded Covid-related contracts is endless. The Government must be forced to explain what qualifies these companies to support the UK government in a deep crisis such as a pandemic and why it made such heavy and, to outsiders, relatively arbitrary use of outside businessmen in fighting the pandemic. Mismanagement – consequences of non-transparent procurement practice There are good reasons why state bodies are obliged to conduct a public tendering procedure for contracts of public interest financed with taxpayers’ money. One of the reasons is to prevent corruption. Another has economic efficiency in mind. Still, another is to ensure quality and expertise. All of these reasons are to avoid mismanagement. Several examples show that this is precisely what has not been avoided. Instead, the Government wasted millions of taxpayers’ money because the expertise of the contract recipients was not nearly sufficient or even deemed necessary. Fifty million FFP2 face masks for health workers, sourced from ‘Ayanda Capital’ in April 2020, could not be used in the NHS because of safety concerns. This is because they did not fit properly and did not provide sufficient protection. The use of 10 million sterile surgical gowns for NHS staff had to be suspended due to improper packaging as they did not meet UK sterilisation standards. The gowns, as mentioned above, had been purchased for £70 billion by the US company “Saiger LLC“, brokered by Spanish businessman Gabriel Gonzales Andersson. The NHS never used millions of sterile medical gowns bought for the NHS for £122 million from “PPE Medpro” because they did not meet British standards for the sterilisation of medical devices. The company “PPE Medpro” had only been founded in May 2020. It is entirely unclear where the Government’s trust in this company came from. The NHS could not use one million high-quality masks supplied by “Polyco Healthline” because they did not meet the correct safety standards. As a result, the company had to issue a recall. PPE insulation suits worth £32 million, sourced from “PestFix“, had been stored in an NHS stockpile for months awaiting a safety assessment. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that these suits did not meet the British standard for use in hospitals. What is also worrying is that the HSE said it had come under political pressure to put the suits through the quality testing process and approve their use. The political side obviously did not attach much importance to testing according to correct standards. Alex Bourne, who runs a pub near ex-health minister Matt Hancocks’ original constituency, was awarded a £30 million contract to manufacture medical tubes during the pandemic, even though he had no experience in manufacturing medical goods. But he still got the call. Bourne had offered his services to the Government via a personal WhatsApp message to the health minister. A conventional way is when you are well acquainted with each other, but an unconventional route is when government contracts are involved. His company “Hinpack” manufactured plastic cups and takeaway boxes for the catering industry until it closed in 2019 due to insolvency. Bourne had managed to convince health ministry officials that he was capable of supplying tens of millions of sterile test tubes. In the Covid testing programme, test tubes were critical medical products. However, a quality check of 11,000 test tubes from “Hinpack” by the Ministry of Health found that all 11,000 test tubes were defective. They either had cracks, breaks or scratches, or the lids were missing or poorly screwed on. After the checks, Alex Bourne was forced to recall at least 8 million test tubes; as they had not passed the pressure test, their tightness could not be guaranteed. The UK’s Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) investigates the company. Source: Timeline: Covid contracts and allegations of ‘chumocracy’, BBC 20 April 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56319927 What is the point of hastily awarding emergency contracts to the next best friends and acquaintances under the pretext of urgency if the products are defective or unusable? Not to mention the waste of taxpayers’ money. Extending urgent procurement procedures to communication services Procuring medical products during a pandemic does have a particular urgency. That is indisputable. Understandably, a responsible government wants to avoid a bureaucratic tendering process in such a situation. Mistakes that happen during this process must nevertheless be investigated, accounted for and sanctioned. And for that exceptional practice to become standard procedure, even in the absence of an emergency, is a great danger. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom, because of its elitist crony Tory politicians, is predestined to reinterpret this danger as an opportunity. Indeed, the Government suspended all Covid-related competitions and tenders in all departments. Ministers had the green light to award contracts directly. Consequently, there was little transparency about on what basis contracts were awarded. This contracting practice and the resulting lack of transparency were also evident in the services and communications sector. At least four of the companies able to obtain consultancy contracts without wider tendering have links to the Conservative Government, the Conservative party ( the Tories) or the Vote Leave campaign, which supported Boris Johnson in delivering Brexit. So how did this come about? Shortly before Boris Johnson announced the first lockdown in March 2020, Lee Chain, Boris Johnson’s head of communications, held a video call with some PR advisers. They discussed how to communicate the Government’s pandemic response message more pointedly. The video call participants were companions of Boris Johnson and his special advisor, Dominic Cummings. They had already supported them during the Brexit and subsequent election campaigns. They knew and trusted each other, as they had already worked together successfully. Understandably, the Prime Minister wanted to make use of this expertise. So Michael Gove’s cabinet office contracted them and paid them generously but without a public tender process. The question is, however, whether a whole population or the whole country has to accept the subjective criteria of a prime minister and of a government clique. Where are objective standards, comparisons with competitors, the inclusion of other perspectives, and cost transparency….? Let’s look at the consultancies that were graced with contracts, for whatever reason: “Public First”, a political consultancy, was commissioned by Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office to research public opinion on the Government’s Covid communications. Over £1m was allocated for this. The company owners (James Frayne and Rachel Wolf) are closely connected to key figures in the Tory Government. James Frayne is a political fellow of Dominic Cummings; Rachel Wolf supported Michael Gove in writing the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election. “Hanbury Strategy”, a political and lobbying consultancy, received £648,000 from the Cabinet Office to research public attitudes and behaviour through weekly surveys. The co-founder of this company, Paul Stephenson, was the communications director of the Vote Leave campaign and had worked closely with Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s special adviser. “Topham Guerin”, a political communications company, was awarded a £3 million contract to clarify the Government’s Covid messages. The two directors, Sean Topham and Ben Guerin, had handled social media communications for the Conservative Party’s 2019 election campaign in the past. Source: Geoghegan, Peter https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n21/peter-geoghegan/cronyism-and-clientelism, LRB. 5 November 2020. “Faculty Science Ltd”, an artificial intelligence and data analytics company, also received several government contracts. The company had also worked with Vote Leave. After Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, an employee of “Faculty Science Ltd”, Ben Warner, was hired by Dominic Cummings as a data expert in Downing Street. During the 2019 election campaign, Ben Warner had undertaken data modelling for the Conservative Party. As a government advisor, he regularly attended SAGE meetings. Warner’s brother Marc is managing director of “Faculty Science Ltd” and a close friend of Dominic Cummings. “Faculty Science Ltd” received several contracts from various government departments (e.g. a £400,000 contract from the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government; £350,000 from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) under the Pandemic Emergency Regulations. In addition, there was a £930,000 contract with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for work on artificial intelligence for NHSX, the digital arm of the NHS. However, as the Faculty points out, this contract was awarded following a competitive tendering process. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/chumocracy-covid-revealed-shape-tory-establishment Dubious award criteria for mission-critical logistics Between March 2020 and November 2020, the UK government awarded Covid consultancy contracts worth more than £100 million, for example, for work on the Test and Trace programme. In addition, various government departments awarded more than £56 million to multiple consultancies to manage the pandemic alone from March to August 2020. The firms were hired to work on the track and trace system, supervise the purchase of PPE equipment and the production of fans, among other things. Almost all the contracts were awarded without giving other firms a chance to bid. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/20/government-spends-56m-on-consultants-to-help-with-coronavirus At the end of March 2020, the Cabinet Office hired the audit company “Deloitte” to lead a crisis team to procure PPE masks. What qualifies an accounting firm for such an assignment? To answer this question, one must consider that the MP for the Conservative Party and Minister of State Chloe Smith (until Sept 2021 at the Department for Constitution and Devolution) was a consultant at Deloitte before her career in politics. Deloitte won contracts worth at least £8m from four government departments. The firm was hired to develop a network of drive-through rapid testing centres that would be the backbone of the Government’s Corona pandemic testing strategy. Deloitte was also brought in to help execute the test-and-trace programme. To achieve this, Deloitte hired 1000 other external consultants, including 40 from the Boston Consultancy Group, some of whom collected £6250 per day in fees. The biggest winner of the failed test-and-trace programme is the controversial company “Serco“, a logistics giant that, among other things, manages most of England’s prison and probation services. Serco has received an estimated £410 million for its involvement in the test-and-trace programme. However, having little familiarity with the logistics and design of tracing, Serco subcontracted the work to companies of its choice. So the question arises, why did Serco get the contract, although the company is not sufficiently familiar with the track and trace matter, even according to its own assessment? The minister for Health in the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Edward Argar, was a Serco lobbyist before becoming a minister. But according to government sources, he was not involved in the contracting process, which is hard to believe. It is scandalous that Serco and the Ministry of Health refuse to disclose the names of the more than 30 intermediaries who have hired between 9500 and 10500 people for contact tracing. Many of these self-employed people have zero-hours contracts, no guaranteed income, and complain of poor training and few assignments. Their task is to contact by telephone from their home people who have had contact with infected people. One worker complained that he had only two phone calls in 5 months with people who needed to be contacted. This is indeed astonishing. According to SAGE, the Government’s scientific advisory group, the virus can only be contained if at least 80 per cent of the contacts of an infected person are reached within 48 hours. – The test-and-trace system did not even come close to meeting these requirements. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Health failed to insert a penalty clause in the contract with Serco. So failure does not diminish Serco’s profits from this contract. The Government’s pandemic control project, critical to its success, must be considered a failure. Many have earned from it, just not the citizens of the United Kingdom. Source: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n21/peter-geoghegan/cronyism-and-clientelism The Government should have known better because both companies, Serco and Deloitte, are renowned for their misconduct in handling government contracts. Serco Geografix, a daughter company of Serco, was fined £19.2m plus legal costs by the Serious Fraud Office. Its parent company, Serco, had already compensated the victim of the fraud, the Ministry of Justice, with £70m as part of a civil settlement in 2013. Serco Geografix had to accept responsibility for three fraud offences and two cases of false accounting in connection with the provision of electronic surveillance services. The fraudulent intent is particularly evident in that Serco had charged for services for offenders who were already deceased. Deloitte, Serco’s auditor, was fined £4.2m plus legal costs and given a severe reprimand by the Financial Reporting Council for its patchy audit of the 2011 and 2012 financial statements of Serco's daughter company Serco Geografix Limited. Deloitte, the council said, had failed to act under professional competence and due care principles. Source: The accountant online. https://www.theaccountant-online.com/news/newsdeloitte-fined-42m-over-audit-of-serco-geografix-sfo-fines-serco-192m-7290192/ Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/chumocracy-covid-revealed-shape-tory-establishment Against this background, it sounds almost cynical to recall that the Government argued its fast-track award was justified on years of trust and cooperation. Under the fast-track rules, the Government handed contracts to private companies to conduct covid tests, provide food parcels and equip schools without a tendering process. For example, the Department for Education awarded a contract worth £234 million to the French company “Edenred” to provide food for millions of pupils entitled to free school meals. Given the Brexit slogan “Britain first”, awarding the contract to a French company seems weird. Regardless of this, many children and parents complained about the poor quality of the food and the small portions. The companies “BFS Group” and “Brake Bros” were awarded a contract worth £208 million by direct procedure from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deliver food parcels to vulnerable people who needed to shield and self-isolate. The company, “Computacenter”, was awarded a £60 million contract by the Department for Education to provide computers for teachers working with disadvantaged children without tender or competition. The list could go on and on. For more information, see: Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/firms-given-1bn-of-state-contracts-without-tender-in-covid-19-crisis Remarkably, how and why all these companies got their contracts is something neither Parliament nor the UK public knows. A chumocracy indeed These examples show widespread abuse of power by the Government throughout the pandemic. It is evil and morally reprehensible to provide lucrative contracts to friends and donors by bypassing the bidding process with the sole argument that the current emergency requires it. But it is not so easy to prove that this is the case. The National Audit Office, which audits the financial integrity and value for money of government spending, has found evidence that companies with political links to the Tories have been favoured in the award of PPE contracts. However, the watchdog refused to publish the list of 493 contractors in the VIP trail after the Department of Health and the Cabinet Office blocked the release of the names. The National Audit Office argued that releasing the information would damage the relationship between the National Audit Office and the Government. Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, aptly commented: “It is very worrying when the National Audit Office – a body supposed to ensure that public money is spent properly – makes its role dependent on having a good relationship with those who do the spending. How can we trust it to uncover wrongdoing if it only does so with consent?” Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/uk-government-blocked-release-of-companies-in-vip-covid-lane/ 20 May 2021. MPs, journalists and campaigners have spent months trying to get this list of company names, accusing the Government of nepotism. The Good Law Project, a donor-funded campaign group that challenges the Government’s spending habits in the courts, has been trying to get this information since January 2021, citing the Freedom of Information Act. At last, on 18 October 2021, the Information Management Office ruled that the Government must provide this information and reveal the names of the companies given VIP access to multi-million pound PPE contracts. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/18/uk-government-told-reveal-firms-given-vip-covid-contracts-ppe Since then, this has been done somewhat hesitantly and only in a piecemeal fashion. A most unsatisfactory information policy! The Good Law Project staff also question the continued use of private emails and messaging apps by the Prime Minister, former Health Minister Matt Hancock, Lord Bethell and other senior decision-makers. They argue that this goes right to the heart of their fight for greater transparency in government decision-making. Conducting government business outside official channels violates ministers’ legal obligation to keep official records, including important decisions; it seriously undermines their ability to comply with disclosure obligations, to which they are bound under the Freedom of Information Act. In one of several lawsuits in which the Good Law Project holds the Government to account, the judge found no clear legal evidence of corruption and nepotism. However, the judge ruled that the Ministry of Health had breached its legal obligation by failing to publish details of contracts within 30 days of signing them. The Government defended its action by saying that the contracts were legal and that the suspension of the competition process was justified because of the emergency health situation. Matt Hancock, the then Health Minister, even stated on the Andrew Marr TV show that he did not care that he had broken the law and used the killer argument that he had saved lives by doing so. Source: Coronavirus: ‘Right’ to delay contract transparency in pandemic, says Hancock. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56145490. 21 February 2021. However, as many of the above examples show, there were blunders among them that definitely did not save any lives. Some contracts would not have cost lives if there were a procurement process or competition. Instead, it seems that Tory policy-makers like to evade public scrutiny, settle deals among themselves and sit out any failures casually, as it is usually the citizens of the country who suffer. This approach towards the pandemic is unethical but not illegal. It is unbelievable that the Government gets away with its blatant malpractice and cronyism. Yet the Good Law Project’s Sisyphus work continues. Moreover, more and more people in the UK are angry, frustrated, upset, and resisting these government officials’ elitist, autocratic behaviour. (LL) For more information, see below. My analysis is divided into several areas and includes: The Failure of the Political Elite in Dealing with Covid in the UK The Priorities of the Elite The Common-sense Mantra Sleaze, Cronyism, Mismanagement in the Covid Crisis Consulting the Government: Struggle to be heard and independent Boris’ Partygate – an Attack on Democracy #chums #crisismanagement #covidcrisis #underhandawardingofcontracts #Mismanagement #chumocracy #cronyism #lackoftransparency #sleaze

(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). Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50302573 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: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/moral-emptiness-epidemiological-stupidity-condemns-uk-covid/ 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”. Source: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/pingdemic-what-meaning-nhs-covid-app-self-isolate-how-many-explained-1109939 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? rememberrelatereflect@gmail.com More articles on this topic: The Failure of the Political Elite in Dealing with Covid in the UK The Priorities of the Elite Sleaze, Cronyism & Mismanagement in Covid Crisis Consulting the Government – a struggle to be heard and independent Boris’ Partygate – an Attack on Democracy (LL.) #governmentresponsibility #lackofresponsibility #crisismanagement #lackofinsight #commonsense #mixedmessages