Yet more disjointed coronavirus policy from the government – it’s time for a rethink

Helen Whately, the care minister, was sent out to tour the TV studios to plead with drinkers to do the right thing and obey the 10pm curfew on bars and restaurants, and not to carry on drinking after that arbitrary deadline to exit the premises.  

Even Ms Whately didn’t sound as if she really believed in her mission. From the evidence of the last few days all that happens is that the drinking continues outside, or possibly at someone’s home, and that the streets and public transport become jammed. Meanwhile, in the northeast of England people will be ordered not to “mix households”.  

The 10pm policy – it has been virtually admitted – has had no scientific modelling applied to it, and has led to a collapse in social distancing on a number of streets, buses and trains after closing time. It’s a policy that is virtually unenforceable and has a disproportionately adverse effect on of the takings in the trade – halving them in some cases and likely costing jobs.  

It is probably doing more harm than good and was seemingly adopted for presentational “symbolic” purposes. It is time to rethink it, as the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has urged. It might even be preferable to implement a two-week national lockdown – the “circuit breaker” test that has been trailed in the media for some time.  

It is certainly worth considering, as areas are coming under visible strain. The lockdown of students in 40 universities feels disproportionate, if not panicky, and they are feeling cheated of their (costly) education. Many families would prefer some effective action now rather than “cancelling Christmas”.  

The signs are that the government is having to listen to public opinion and to MPs. A government working majority of 87 or so is no defence when so many of its own MPs are restive about failures in Boris Johnson’s leadership over Covid-19 and Brexit. The Commons over the past few years has acquired a taste for asserting itself, and party disciplines have weakened as rebellions have become normalised.  

The government will likely only be able to avoid defeat on renewing its coronavirus emergency powers if it concedes much greater parliamentary control over the rules. It is a analogous to, though not as extreme as, what happened a year ago when MPs seized control over Commons business from the government.  

Democratically, this may be be a good thing. However it does beg the question as to what MPs as a whole, from the DUP to the SNP and from Steve Baker to Jeremy Corbyn, actually want. The spectrum of opinion is wide and there is no real consensus across the various opposition parties and Conservative factions.  

Governments with a strong majority and a feel for the “mood of the house” are supposed to be able to balance different interests. In this case it means crafting a policy that both balances the needs of public health, economics and education, and which commands a majority in the Commons.  

That has become necessarily more difficult as the coronavirus crisis has dragged on, but the worrying aspect is that ministers find it so difficult to make policy and stick to it across so many areas.  

Hence the rebellions, the U-turns and the reputation for incompetence the Johnson government has acquired. The questions about Mr Johnson’s leadership of this crisis are becoming more pressing.