The Tribune

Last week’s extended seven-hour appearance before a committee of MPs at Westminster by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser turned out to be an exceptionally bruising affair. It has been widely reported those present were stunned, appalled and riveted in equal measure by Dominic Cummings’ excoriating criticism of the sitting government – and of the Prime Minister himself – for seriously mismanaging the pandemic in the UK last year.

This reminded me of the old saying that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. But in this case it was the PM’s right-hand man at the seat of power in Downing Street who had been forced out of his job in November. Before that, he was considered a political genius after his role as a winner for the Leave campaign at the time of the nation’s European Union referendum in 2016.

Was it, then, an embittered man settling old political scores and trying to undermine his old boss or was there anything of real substance in his long and spiteful diatribe against the government’s response to the crisis?

Cummings unleashed a series of blistering accusations about a shambolic reaction by a chaotic and dysfunctional governmental system that fell “disastrously short of standards the public has a right to expect”. He called the PM hopeless, careless, incompetent and “unfit” for his job and stated that he had bungled and botched life-and-death decisions affecting millions while he and his government were responsible for the fact that “tens of thousands of people died who didn’t need to die”. He also strongly criticised the Health Secretary for his poor handling of the crisis and called him a serial liar who should have been fired.

This was incendiary testimony by any standards. But some say Cummings was an unreliable witness who lacked credibility and, if he thought that there were serious failures at the highest levels of the health bureaucracy, he himself was in a position to do something about it.

For sure, he had his moment of self-awareness by admitting his share of responsibility and by stating it was “completely crazy that I should have been in such a position” of influence at the heart of the decision-making process. Sharing his culpability may have saved him from ridicule as a disgruntled former employee motivated by revenge. But people recall that he himself broke his own lockdown rules when he drove to his family home in northeast England last summer at the height of the crisis.

After being convinced by his public denial of any wrongdoing, I wrote in this column in defence of him. But, in light of later evidence of his lying about the episode, I clearly misjudged the situation.

Overall, there is little doubt that at the beginning of the pandemic the government underestimated its seriousness. But ministers were facing what turned out later to be an unprecedented outbreak worldwide and they were grappling with the unknown. Their policies were often badly thought-out, seesawing and contradictory – and there is no doubt a number of mistakes were made during the course of last year, one of the most damning of which was discharging elderly National Health Service patients into care homes without their being tested for COVID-19.

Thus, there appears to be a lingering view the government should have done a lot better so that last year need not have been as bad as it was. But people are now saying that, although the buck stops with the PM, many others were involved down the chain of command – for example, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) – and Boris Johnson did his best in very difficult circumstances. Moreover, according to a recent survey, the public is on the whole prepared to forgive the government’s many errors because of its extraordinary efforts to develop, procure and administer vaccines; and Cummings’s outpouring of invective takes no account of the tremendous success of the government’s vaccination programme.

In my view, far too much attention and credence has been given to this discredited former political adviser. As an appointed official employed to come up with ideas and suggestions, he should still defer to elected government ministers and not seek – presumptuously and insolently – to lord it over them.

We are being reminded that former Prime Minister David Cameron earlier described Cummings as a “career psychopath”, and some now think he is verging on the unhinged. Others say his performance in front of MPs mixed delusion with arrogance and vengefulness. It is hard to disagree with that. The wonder is how – despite being seen as a brilliant strategist who masterminded the “Leave” success - he got into such a job as right-hand man to the PM. As one commentator put it, he turned from being the hero of Brexit to the Judas of Downing Street.

Meanwhile, the Conservative government’s standing in the polls – particularly Boris Johnson’s own approval rating – remains in good shape. As he publicly refutes Cummings’ more outrageous allegations, he seems already to have brushed off the heavy criticism. It is clear people want to put the past year and the lockdowns behind them and to look forward with relish to a future of freedom as the vaccination programme continues to go full steam ahead.

A successful rollout of such a programme is also surely the key for other countries like our own in getting back at last to some sort of normality, and the political gain should not be underestimated.

As the number of cases rises here in The Bahamas, the problem is to persuade the doubters to take the jab so perhaps the government should be more proactive in explaining that the benefits outweigh the risks. One way forward is to offer incentives to those who hesitate. Such expenditure can be justified since it is in the national interest for as many people as possible to be vaccinated. Other countries are going down this route, and with good results. Should we not consider doing so as well?

Breaking every rule in the book

On Sunday, May 23, a serious incident occurred in Belarus that seems to have attracted relatively little attention in the US media. A commercial passenger airliner, belonging to the Irish company Ryanair, was en route from Greece to Lithuania. While passing over Belarusian airspace, it was ordered by air traffic control in the capital Minsk to divert there – escorted by a fighter jet – because of a bomb on the plane. Later, no bomb was found so this was a false alarm, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel subsequently calling the claim of such a threat as “completely implausible.”

On landing, two passengers – a 26-year-old opposition Belarus journalist called Roman Protasevich and his girlfriend, a Russian national, who was accompanying him – were detained.

This journalist, a former editor of a dissident media publication through which protesters had channelled opposition to the 2020 elections, had been living in exile in Lithuania since 2019. He had been placed last year on Belarus’ terrorist list and now clearly faces serious charges. It has been reported both have confessed to unspecified crimes though their so-called confessions appear to have been made under duress.

This state hijacking of an international airliner and kidnapping of two passengers has been widely condemned as an outrage and an unacceptable breach of international law.

Britain and the EU have already announced sanctions in the form of a ban on overflying Belarus and the stopping of flights from there landing in EU member states, with the EU also pledging funds for a return to democracy. For its part, the US has called for an international investigation and is said to be drawing up a list of targeted sanctions against key members of the Belarusian government together with restrictions on US companies doing business with state-owned enterprises there.

Following last year’s elections, which the opposition claims were rigged to enable Alexander Lukashenko to extend his presidency after being in power for a quarter of a century, there was a long period of protest. Lukashenko cracked down on this but there were further demonstrations this past weekend in Poland and Lithuania calling for Mr Protasevich’s release.

Belarus remains clearly within Russia’s sphere of influence. At a meeting with Vladimir Putin last Friday, Lukashenko no doubt sought economic support from his ally. Meanwhile, the NATO Secretary General is quoted as saying “It’s hard to believe that the decision to hijack the Ryanair plane and arrest a dissident journalist was without any input from Russia.”

Belarus, with a population of about 10 million, is a land locked country bordering Latvia, Lithuania and Poland all of which are EU and NATO members. That will explain Lukashenko’s recent remarks about the West “gobbling us up” but it does not justify them. By ordering a state-sponsored high jacking in order to kidnap a dissident journalist, Europe’s last dictator has turned his country into a pariah state. This action has also now been condemned by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and by the Prime Minister of Lithuania.

But, while the West must make a stand and bring Belarus to book for its egregious behaviour, all will surely hope that, in light of Russia’s involvement, international outrage and a growing standoff will not develop into a more serious conflict with wider repercussions.

This time of year...

A brief internet search reveals how many events of historical significance occurred over the years during what is often called the merry month of May that in the northern hemisphere is the real beginning of summer.

There is no space today to examine the main ones in any detail, but I should like to draw attention to two pivotal events during the Second World War that took place in that month; namely, the Dunkirk evacuation that began on May 26, 1940 and VE Day on May 8, 1945 which marked the end of the war in Europe.

Between May 26 and June 4, 1940, some 340,000 Allied troops, including large numbers of the British Expeditionary Force, were evacuated from the French seaport of Dunkirk in the face of overwhelming attacks by German military forces – and they lived to fight another day. Some historians call this a military disaster but at the time many saw it as a miraculous escape and a boost to Britain’s determination to fight on under the inspiring leadership of Winston Churchill.

Last year was the 75th anniversary of VE Day and I wrote about it in detail in this column. But I recall well the 50th anniversary in 1995, having led, under the direction of government ministers, the planning and organisation of the civilian side of Britain’s commemorations and celebrations.

In particular, our team re-created the scene in London on May 8, 1945 when the King and Queen and the two princesses, Elizabeth and Margaret, accompanied by Churchill, appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in front of a huge and ecstatic crowd. Fifty years later to the day, The Queen, together with the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, stood on the same balcony in front of another massive cheering crowd.

The emotion created was heart-warming and – as is said of the theatre – there was not a dry eye in the house. Nonetheless, it was brought home to all of us at the time of the 50th anniversary of VE Day that the sheer joy and relief at the ending of the war in Europe in May, 1945 was tempered by the knowledge that hostilities in the Pacific were still going on – and it was not until Japan surrendered to US forces three months later that the global conflict reached its final conclusion.