[awakened53]

UK Government rejects calls by scientists to end lockdown measures – they wouldn’t dare. Gates would never allow it

Downing Street has rejected the call of the Great Barrington group of scientists for an end to lockdown measures, saying their argument rests on an “unproven assumption” that it would be possible to protect the most vulnerable.
The controversial Great Barrington Declaration, which has been signed by more than 7,000 scientists and medics worldwide, calls for a new strategy of allowing younger people to go about their lives as normal while offering “focused protection” to the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions who are most at risk from coronavirus.
It has won the support of UK scientists including Professor Karol Sikora, and Tory backbencher Steve Baker has urged MPs to offer it their backing, in a direct challenge to the government’s strategy.
But Boris Johnson’s official spokesman today made clear the prime minister does not accept the fundamental arguments behind the demand.

Read more: UK Government rejects calls by scientists to end lockdown measures – they wouldn’t dare. Gates would never allow it

[awakened53]

Regional court quashes Madrid partial lockdown order, claiming it is ‘harmful to basic rights’

On Thursday, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid struck down a citywide lockdown order placed on the Spanish capital by Minister of Health, Salvador Illa. The restrictions had been in place since last Friday.
The Madrid court quashed the minister’s order on the grounds that it would affect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Madrilenians and that the Ministry of Health had overreached its legal remit. The court ruled that the national health system law “does not contain a legal authorization for the establishment of restrictive measures on fundamental rights.”
The partial lockdown on the city and nine satellite towns had been introduced last Friday and barred citizens from leaving their homes, with the exception of essential journeys.
As a consequence of Thursday’s decision, fines cannot be given to citizens who break the rules and the future of the restrictions is now in question, as the matter will now be referred to the national high court. 

Read more: Regional court quashes Madrid partial lockdown order, claiming it is ‘harmful to basic rights’

[awakened53]

Is Boris Johnson going to shut YOUR local pub? Heat map reveals the 200 towns and cities with high Covid-19 rates that could face tier-three lockdown next week – as Nottingham becomes England’s worst hotspot

A coronavirus heat map which breaks down infection rates across England has revealed the 200-plus towns and cities that could be at risk of being plunged into Boris Johnson‘s new three-tier lockdown.
The PM has signed off a new ‘traffic light’ system of curbs that will see the country broken down into categories of high, medium or low risk from Monday, after days of bitter wrangling between ministers and scientists,
Hospitality businesses in ‘red’ zones are set to be shut under the tougher measures, likely to be confirmed Monday and imposed from Wednesday — but shops, offices and schools will stay open. Ministers are still mulling the fate of hairdressers and leisure facilities but Chancellor Rishi Sunak will bring forward a special furlough-style compensation scheme for workers and firms hammered by the curbs.
Merseyside and other parts of northern England are expected to be placed in the harshest bracket, with hospitals admissions and infections continuing to spike, despite local lockdowns being in place for weeks. The Government has not revealed its threshold for its three-tier system. 
But the most up-to-date Covid-19 infection rate data shows 214 towns, cities and boroughs saw at least 50 cases for every 100,000 people in the week up to October 5. For comparison, nationwide, England’s infection rate is 59 per 100,000.


Read more: Is Boris Johnson going to shut YOUR local pub? Heat map reveals the 200 towns and cities with high Covid-19 rates that could face tier-three lockdown next week – as Nottingham becomes England’s worst hotspot

[awakened53]

THE GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
Sign the Declaration
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

https://gbdeclaration.org/#read

[awakened53]

WHO Flip-Flops: Urges World Leaders To Stop Using Lockdowns To Fight COVID Contagion

In a stunning rebuke of the "science" and the "doctors" and leftist politicians and career bureaucrats in the US and across much of The West, The Epoch Times' Evan Pentchoukov reports that The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 has urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns as the primary control method against the spread of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus.

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” David Nabarro told The Spectator in an interview aired on Oct. 8.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

[ZH: How long before this video is removed by Twitter?]
Nabarro pointed to the collateral damage that lockdowns are having worldwide, especially among poorer populations.

“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry, for example in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays. Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world because their markets have got dented. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. Seems that we may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, in poor families, are not able to afford it,” Nabarro said.
“This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe actually,” he added. “And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember - lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."

WATCH: Dr David Nabarro, the WHO's Special Envoy on Covid-19, tells Andrew Neil: 'We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method'. Watch the full interview here: https://t.co/XLdaedsKVS #SpectatorTV @afneil | @davidnabarro pic.twitter.com/1M4xf3VnXQ
— The Spectator (@spectator) October 9, 2020

Nabarro isn’t the only scientist opposing lockdowns.

A number of medical or public health scientists and medical practitioners have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which states that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”

The signatories include: “Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University and a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.”

“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the declaration states.

With few exceptions, world leaders followed in the footsteps of the Chinese communist regime when responding to the outbreak of the virus, imposing unprecedented lockdowns. Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown, did not experience an adverse outcome compared to some locales and nations that did.
In the United States, President Donald Trump delegated the decisions on lockdown measures to the governors of individual states, but has pushed for the economy to be reopened, and lockdowns lifted.
As William Anderson recently wrote for The Mises Institute, lockdowns only serve the progressive political class...

We have to understand that the political classes and their media have a vested interest in the lockdown status quo, and that includes regular provision of what only can be called disinformation. The mainstream media this past summer dutifully reported a highly questionable (I use that term charitably) report that the Sturgis Bike Rally in South Dakota led to more than a quarter million covid infections and more than $12 billion of medical costs. It should have been obvious on its face that the report was deeply flawed, yet in their desire to fuel the covid-is-killing-us narrative, journalists took this too-good-to-be-true story and ran with it.
As for politicians, the covid crisis has been a godsend for those governmental executives and bureaucrats who see constitutional restrictions that limit their authority as mere obstacles to be easily swept away. Governors such as Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Gavin Newsom of California, and Tom Wolfe of Pennsylvania have received adoring coverage in the media for seizing and employing dictatorial powers, Whitmer even unilaterally deciding that the sale of garden seeds in stores was illegal. Cuomo’s decision to force the housing of covid-19 patients in nursing homes led to the deaths of thousands of people, yet his national media coverage is uniformly positive.
Contrast the affirmative news coverage of Cuomo with the barrage of media attacks on Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Noem has emphasized personal responsibility and did not attempt mass closures of schools and businesses in the state, and the mainstream media erupted with fury. That South Dakota has come through this pandemic relatively well does not matter with the media, as the only acceptable action (to mainstream and elite journalists) in response to covid is for governors to single-handedly seize power and lock down their citizens.
Keep in mind that the real losses that Americans suffered because of the heavy-handed governmental response to the covid outbreak are permanent. As Robert Higgs so eloquently pointed out in Crisis and Leviathan, governments often create crises or, at the very least, they manipulate events such as natural disasters and use them as opportunities to expand governmental powers. Even after the crises end, governments keep some of their newly self-granted powers—and most people raise little or no concern even when government has curtailed more of their freedoms.

Presumably, this means Joe Biden will now be pushing for lockdowns to be lifted across all blue states?... because he is "listening to the scientists"?

“I would shut it down. I would listen to the scientists.”

Joe Biden tells @DavidMuir in an exclusive interview that as president, he would shut the country down to stop the spread of COVID-19 if the move was recommended by scientists. https://t.co/2A9r07d7EC pic.twitter.com/Ib99cshlSI
— ABC News (@ABC) August 21, 2020

We wonder how long it will be before WHO also urges the end of mask-wearing?
In the end, as Anderson concluded, the only way that the political classes can “make us safe” is for us to do what is necessary to make ourselves safe, or as relatively safe as possible. When a virus is afoot—as is the case most of the time—we do what we can to avoid it and do what we can to treat it. In other words, we appeal to real medical science, not what the political and media classes have cooked up for us.

[awakened53]

Covid marshals armed with body cameras will be sent into pubs, weddings and parties to catch rule breakers under new government plan

A snooper army of Covid marshals armed with body cameras will film evidence of breaches of coronavirus restrictions at weddings, parties, pubs and restaurants under new Government guidelines published this week. 
Boris Johnson‘s derided marshals, dubbed ‘Covid Wombles’, will be expected to call police or council inspectors to enforce any breaches at premises they visit.
They will be given a checklist of coronavirus measures to ensure compliance in hospitality venues including pubs, bars, restaurants, takeaways and shops, as well as tourist attractions, ‘close contact services’ including hairdressers and nail bars, and ‘wedding receptions and celebrations’.
The guidance, published by Robert Jenrick‘s Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, suggests the marshals should receive security training and could operate a yellow card system — where they issue two warnings before businesses face fines or closure.
In a move suggesting that there will be confrontations with unhappy members of the public, the guidance also suggests the marshals should be trained in ‘deescalation techniques’.

Read more: Covid marshals armed with body cameras will be sent into pubs, weddings and parties to catch rule breakers under new government plan

[Steve]

Mom Gives Unexpected Speech Directly To Trump, Room Goes Dead Silent ...

https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/vid...743433335/

[awakened53]

Lockdowns should be last resort, but masks & social distancing could save 300K lives across continent, Gates-owned WHO European director says – thus confirming permanent mask-wearing is the Cult agenda

The European director of the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned against using lockdowns to combat the novel coronavirus, arguing the policy is so bad for public health, it should be used only when “absolutely necessary.”
During a Thursday briefing, Hans Kluge, European director of the WHO, urged governments to enact “proportional” responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. He stressed that authorities should be cautious when it came to heavy-handed policies such as lockdowns. While there was certainly cause for “concern,” with cases having surged in several European countries that previously appeared to have the virus under control, it was imperative to avoid “panic” and not to overreact and impose draconian measures, he warned.
Kluge said “systematic and general mask-wearing” in public and private places, and “strict controls on social gatherings” could save 300,000 lives across Europe in the next six months. But national lockdowns should be “a last resort”, he cautioned, as they do more harm than good.
“We have to look at what I call the collateral damage – mental health, domestic sexual violence,” and other negative outcomes such as children falling behind in school, he said, as well as “very important microeconomic consequences” like massive unemployment and financial insecurity, arguing that focusing on Covid-19 cases alone risked overlooking greater harms.


Read more: Lockdowns should be last resort, but masks & social distancing could save 300K lives across continent, Gates-owned WHO European director says – thus confirming permanent mask-wearing is the Cult agenda

[awakened53]

Truth about the claims scaring us all to death: Soaring infections, teeming hospital wards, and terrifying death rates… but do the numbers justifying crippling new lockdowns REALLY stand up to scrutiny?


With half of Britain set to be plunged into stricter lockdowns from midnight tomorrow, you could be forgiven for thinking that, amidst all the doom and gloom, the threat of Covid-19 has never been so severe.
But as ROSS CLARK reveals, things might not be anywhere near as bad as the fear-mongers would have you think…
On paper the 95 per cent statistic, revealed earlier this week by Liverpool city councillor Paul Brant, conjures up a disturbing image of overflowing hospitals and inadequate care.
So rest assured that it bears no relation to reality. Indeed on Thursday, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust dismissed Mr Brant’s claim, insisting that its units were only 80 per cent full with just 47 of its 61 critical care beds occupied.
That may still seem high, but it is actually perfectly normal for ICU beds to be full at this time of year.
Last year, for example, 51 out of 59 ICU beds in Liverpool’s hospitals were full, while in 2018 it was 52 out of 59 beds.
Meanwhile, if there is a surge in demand for intensive care beds for Covid-19 patients, let’s not forget how quickly the NHS was able to repurpose general and acute care hospital beds during the first coronavirus spike.


Read more: Truth about the claims scaring us all to death: Soaring infections, teeming hospital wards, and terrifying death rates… but do the numbers justifying crippling new lockdowns REALLY stand up to scrutiny?

[awakened53]

Britons are being sentenced to a slow, agonising death... by No 10's panic squad, writes PETER HITCHENS

One of the filthiest tactics of the Panic Merchants is to claim that anyone who opposes their strangling of the country is callous and cares only about money, not life. 
Dissenters have been pelted with slime of this kind by Johnson, the man who ruined Britain, and by his dense sidekick, Hancock – perhaps the first Health Secretary in history who does not know that malaria is spread by mosquitoes. They tell us we wish to ‘let the virus rip’.
Well, Johnson and Hancock, if you care so much about lives, get in touch with Lisa King, as I did. Ask her to tell you about how her husband Peter, a retired taxi driver aged 62, died. 
It is a horrible, upsetting story, involving a grown man screaming in agony. And in my view it is an absolutely direct consequence of Hancock’s conversion of the NHS into a National Covid Service which treats everything else as a nuisance.
Peter King was grudgingly granted (as so many now are) a remote session with a GP who, unable to meet him, and apparently ignorant of his records, diagnosed his severe chest discomfort as reflux. I am not especially interested in blaming this doctor. Under the conditions created by Hancock, he was presumably doing his best.
But it was not good enough. Actually the trouble was far more serious – a stone trapped in his gall bladder – and the resulting delay meant he was overcome with indescribable pain a few days later.
Peter was given emergency surgery to reduce the agony, but needed a more radical operation. He was put on the urgent list for it. But this was still too late. He fell terribly ill again and despite the heroic efforts of paramedics, he died. The many years of happy life which Peter and Lisa King might otherwise have had were wiped out for ever.
This is not just some isolated case. Something like 25 million appointments with GPs have been lost as a result of the Johnson Government’s panic (not as a result of Covid, as the hopelessly pro-Government BBC always says. The Government had a choice over how to respond, and took the wrong path).
Millions have not had referrals for diagnoses including cancer and heart disease. Some of them will have been scythed down as Peter King was. Others will have been needlessly damaged in smaller, slower ways.
But this is what Johnson and Hancock have let rip – needless pain, needless death. Let them never again dare to pretend that their original bungle, and the later months in which they have tried to save themselves from deserved disgrace, were the only way to save lives.
I suspect their panic may well in the end kill more than Covid ever did or could have done. We are in the hands of fools who will not admit they have made a terrible mistake.
Those still taken in by the cuddly, caring ‘Boris’ image of Prime Minister Johnson may wish to study his impatient, callous response to a distressing question in the Commons last week about the absurd cladding rules which are preventing thousands from moving home, often at horrible personal cost. 
Dulwich MP Helen Hayes asked about a constituent, Luke Thomas, recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. He urgently needs to move closer to his family for support but cannot sell his flat as it does not have the accursed EWS1 form (mentioned here last week) which is pointlessly blocking so many from moving. 
Mr Thomas has no time to wait for relief. Ms Hayes asked: ‘When will the Prime Minister end this scandal?’ He brushed this off, referring her to an equally useless answer he gave earlier. If he cares, it does not show.
If only this grim nightmare was still just fiction
So far, the new Sky TV version of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is not as bad as I feared it would be. It is hard to bring this brilliant, bitter book to the screen. So much of Huxley’s fantasy came true long before he predicted it would, so a lot of it is just not shocking any more.
When Huxley wrote it in the 1930s, lifelong marriage was normal and looked as if it would stay that way, children were the expected result of sex, and drug-taking was despised.
His clever idea that a future society would actively encourage promiscuity, abolish parenthood and privacy, and make drug-taking compulsory was too good a prophecy. It’s almost all happened. And, as Huxley feared, we have come to love our own enslavement by pleasure.
I use to think Huxley had been completely right and George Orwell’s alternative nightmare of a surveillance state based on terror, secret police spies and torture had been wrong. But recently I’ve come to the grim conclusion that we will end up with a mixture of both.
On one thing, they both agreed. Hell, whichever sort we end up with, will use the metric system.
Sir Keir shows his true colours: deepest red
The supposedly moderate Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has at last revealed himself as the fanatic he really is, with his wild calls for even more mass destruction of the jobs and livelihoods of Labour voters in a so-called ‘circuit-breaker’.
I am not surprised. Most people who report on politics in this country do not understand the subject, lacking the Marxist training which I had in my distant youth. They call Sir Keir ‘moderate’ because he is not Jeremy Corbyn. A fat lot they know.
Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, a wild Leftist, a man of clenched-fist salutes, street protests and red banners who probably dreams of storming Buckingham Palace at the head of a detachment of Red Guards. But he is one of the obvious, old-fashioned sort, steam-powered, coal-fired. You can see him a mile off and defeat him with ease. Sir Keir is much more dangerous. His fanaticism is as smooth as the moisturiser he applies daily to his handsome face. It is designed for the age of the internet.
But you will have to search hard for any major media mention of his stint, in his mid-20s, on the editorial board of a Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives. Its few issues can still be read on the internet. I have read them, though most of Sir Keir’s articles were written with the blunt end of a bread pudding, and are hard going.
Ah, you may say, this was just youthful folly. People change. He’s even taken a knighthood. Except Sir Keir has not changed much. This is the age he was born for.
In an interview with the New Statesman, he recently said: ‘I don’t think there are big issues on which I’ve changed my mind… The big issue we were grappling with then was how the Labour Party, or the Left generally, bound together the wider movement and its strands of equality – feminist politics, green politics, LGBT – which I thought was incredibly exciting, incredibly important. Broadly speaking, I think the Labour Party has done that very successfully.’
The sect he was mixed up with in the 1980s helped pioneer the New Left – Green mixed with Red, radical sexual politics. ‘Red must be made Green, and Green must be made Red,’ they said. This way of thinking has no time for the clapped-out yelling and posturing of the Corbynites.
It wants a cultural revolution which leaves all the buildings standing but changes everything that goes on inside them. It might find a huge economic and social convulsion, such as Johnson has visited on us, very convenient for that purpose.