As a pretty dyed-in-the -wool libertarian, my heart strongly inclined me towards rebelling against yesterday’s Lockdown 2 Parliamentary vote. How can any free democratic government take actions which threaten the very livelihoods of so many of its citizens? How can it dictate who we see and when and how; how can it prevent families form visiting their old folk; how can it come between a husband and wife? These and so many other Covid-induced restrictions go against my most fundamental of freedom-loving instincts. And 30 or so of my colleagues did indeed vote against the Government, and others spoke out in the limited debate we were allowed on the matter. I salute them for the strength and clarity of their convictions.
And yet…and yet…. Opinions wax and wane about the models, figures and predictions which the scientists have used to persuade the Government to take this action; indeed there are ample statistics to be used by both sides of the argument to prove their correctness; but the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, epidemiologists, statisticians alike is that if we do not do something about the dramatic explosion of the virus, then we will see mass infections across the Nation, hospitals will be unable to handle the numbers; death and misery will follow.
Now I am no kind of a scientist; but I do feel that we have to accept their conclusions. If my libertarian instincts had led to the Lockdown not happening, and if as a result of my vote hundreds of my constituents became infected, seriously ill or died, then I would be not be able to live with myself. How can any MP be expected to take an action which, if the expert advice is to be believed, would result in misery for hundreds of the people they strive to represent?
After all, if the scientific predictions turn out to have been incorrect (as some of the Covid deniers would argue), then there is of course a heavy economic and personal price to be paid for their error; but that is, in my view, less likely to be as catastrophic as if we accept their advice. In other words, the Precautionary Principle applies here - if we act, we hope to avoid a likely disaster. If that disaster is imaginary, then we pay a price for it, but a lower price than we would pay if they are correct in their predictions, but we had not acted to reverse it. We can put an unnecessary economic price right; we cannot reverse needless illness, deaths and misery which would be caused by our inaction.
So that is why I voted to support the Government- my heart told me not to; but on this occasion my heard prevailed. President Trump’s (likely) demise is rather similar. I instinctively support the Republicans and am deeply wary about the 78-year-old socialist, Mr Biden. Yet my head tells me that President Trump is a huge personal liability, and that there is so much about him which is simply unacceptable in a civilised and liberal democracy. His method of departure- through the courts- has all the hallmarks of the worst kind of bad loser. Hilary Clinton stands in sharp contrast- honourably and quietly withdrawing from the field after a bitter defeat. My head tells me that the World will be a better place under Biden than Trump, even if my natural instincts tell me otherwise.