Even if the Government ends lockdown on December 2, it will be under pressure to prove why some areas should be under a tiered system.
The coverage of death rates in this country has been lacking in nuance – leading people to have skewed perceptions of the UK’s performance.
It would require the willingness of exam boards to adjust their timetables. But with the will to achieve this, it could be done.
It would be a sad irony if we chose to shut down the international connectivity on which so much of our prosperity depends.
Fortunately, there are workable alternatives on the table already – see what’s happening at Heathrow and Vienna, and in Iceland.
The government’s initial response was in fact admirably Burkean. The full force of law was used sparingly. And you know what? It did the trick.
Trying to decipher which Government has been “best” and “worst” at handling the crisis is a tricky endeavour.
Some regions have already started to ease off lockdown measures. Here are their plans so far:
It should remove those taxes and regulations that will stop business from applying their ingenuity on the problem of rebuilding from the ruins.
A common threat, especially in the form of a pathogen, flicks switches in our brains, making us less tolerant of dissent.
When a drop in the curve of the virus is seen, the public’s health mustn’t be endangered by a blinkered pursuit of balancing the books.
They’ve taken the central political technique of this form of populism — promising to spend other people’s money — and privatised it.
It would need unanimous agreement. Looking at each of the 27’s varying comments, there are six distinct camps of opinion.
Allowing everything to be dominated by questions of personalities undermines essential thinking about matters of policy.
“The agreement we’ve reached is between the UK and the European Commission – it is now up to the 27 leaders of the other EU member states…”