Following up on Democracy with my MP

Three weeks ago, I wrote to my MP to ask for his commitment to democracy.

As yet, he has not replied. There could be no end of reasons for this in these unusual, Covid times. I need to stay calm and remember that stuff happens. That when things go wrong, it is far more likely to be a cockup rather than a conspiracy.

So, rather than go off down some rabbit hole of conspiracy invention, I will simply take a deep breath, a swig of strong coffee and try again.

Now, it would not be appropriate to simply re-send the last letter. Although it is only 3 weeks since it was sent, events have moved on.

Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has been in the headlines again after his illegal intervention support of a Tory donor, he now has conspired with his junior minister to do a spot of gerrymandering to ensure that funds are routed to his and the junior minister’s constituencies.

Oliver Dowden, Culture Secretary, has floated an idea that would further undermine public services broadcasting in this country by privatising Channel 4.

The UK has had its credit rating downgraded by Moody’s. Not a totally unexpected event given the Covid situation & Brexit. However, one factor in the downgrade was the erosion of democratic institutions.

There may be other events I should have noticed and worthy of inclusion. Sadly, the general standard of this government has highlighted so many examples of incompetence, corruption and general disregard for the health and wellbeing of this nation and its democracy it is like trying to follow an individual starling in a murmuration.

Therefore, I took my original letter and revamped it before sharing it with my MP. As always, I will keep you updated with any progress.

The letter is below for your delectation and delight.

Dear Mr Pursglove,

I wrote to you on the 28th September to highlight my concerns over the direction of travel of this government with regard to maintaining the safety of the British Democracy and its institutions. Having not yet had any response, I am writing again as I fear that the original may have been misplaced.

Since that original letter, other events have occurred that serve to increase my disquiet over just how safe democracy in this country in the hands of the current government. The questions have therefore been updated to take these events into account.

Do you as an MP commit to the continuing democracy of the United Kingdom? By this, I mean more than ensuring that the people are able to vote. This includes ensuring the supporting institutions and democratic principles are robust; adequately funded and ensuring adequate scrutiny is applied to Government actions?

Do you also commit to ensuring the government is subject to full scrutiny to ensure that it follows the rule of law?

As you hold a Politics degree, I am sure you will be disturbed that one of your constituents would ever feel the need to ask their MP to commit to British democracy. As you are a passionate campaigner to regain sovereignty from the EU, I am sure that you would be aghast if having regained our sovereignty, it became tainted by corruption, unelected advisors, contempt for the rule of law and an erosion of our British freedoms.

To assist, below is a summary of why I feel current government actions threaten the future of our precious and fragile democracy and some supplemental questions.

1.            The Civil Service is supposed to be provide independent & impartial advice and support in the implementation of government policy. Since this government has come to power, they have systematically replaced senior Civil Servants with their own, seemingly political appointments. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?

2.            The government has signalled it is intent to limit access to Judicial Review of government. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?

3.            The judicial system has been subject to a series of cuts and budget constraints over the last decade that has resulted in ever growing backlog of cases. This backlog has only been made worse by the current Covid crisis. Do you commit to ensuring that the funding of our legal system to address the backlog and ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively?

4.            The Russian Report was published by the ISC on 21/07/2020. This showed some unsettling interventions in the UK political system. Subsequent revelations in the US has shown that these interventions have been widespread and deliberately designed to subvert the democratic process. Do you commit to pushing the government to holding an independent enquiry into the impacts of the foreign interventions into the UK democratic process and putting forward recommendations to prevent this in future?

5.            Government ministers appear to be avoiding scrutiny and taking actions that appear to be corrupting the democratic process. An example being the allocation of the Town Fund which appears to have been done in a way that ignores the advice of officials and benefits Conservative targeted marginal seats. It also appears that Robert Jenrick has manipulated process to ensure funding for his and a junior minister’s constituency in what some may describe as gerrymandering. Do you commit to ensuring that the decision is reviewed and that funds are allocated according to need rather than political gain?

6.            The government appears to be denuding the Public Service Broadcasting, BBC and the free press in the country of funding while placing political friends in positions of authority that can influence the impartiality and freedom of the press. Do you commit to ensuring that the BBC is adequately funded and maintains full editorial independence? Do you also commit to ensuring that adequate scrutiny is put upon the plan to privatise Channel 4 so that the public service aspect of its output & editorial independence is maintained?

7.            Michael Gove has signalled a willingness to amend the UK Human Rights Act ‘to make it easier’ for the government to enact ministers’ executive orders. Do you commit to protecting the UK Human Rights Act, that you will ensure that no changes will be made to the act without full and proper consultation and that when any actions come to be voted upon, they will be a matter of the MP conscience rather than a three-line whip?

May I also draw your attention to the recent downgrade of the UK Credit rating to AAA3 by Moody’s. In what is a highly unusual step, one factor in the downgrade is the erosion of democratic institutions with the Internal Market Bill cited as an example.

I should remind you of why your government finds itself having to breach international law and are struggling to find convincing arguments to justify this shameful action. You supported the Withdrawal Agreement. You voted to reduce the time to scrutinise the agreement, even though at the time concerns were raised over the impacts on the NI peace accord. You then fought and won an election based on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement. That may not have been an issue, but you then voted on an Agriculture Bill that removed food & animal welfare standard provisions sparking the fear that food produced to the woeful US standards would find its way into the EU via Northern Ireland.

The mess of the Internal Markets Bill is of your own making and by showing such disregard to International Law, has destroyed any moral authority the UK may have had when dealing with China on Hong Kong. It now has an adverse impact on the cost of government borrowing.

 

I look forward to your response on the many questions raised in this letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Simon Holder

Big Brother is Watching me and Beaming Subliminal Messages into my Brain

That title, eh? Makes it look like retirement (or economic inactivity) has turned me into a conspiracy theorist convinced that I am being manipulated by dark forces to their bidding.

What was it Kurt Cobain said? Something like “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

I know, all this talk of grand conspiracy theories to grab power and hold the populace is all total twaddle and comes from the paranoia of the ignorant. Then I watched Channel4 News. Of all of the UK news outlets, Channel4 News has become the one I believe is the most fearless, although a touch left of centre on social issues. Well last night, they ran a story about how data gathered through social media had been used to supress voting in the US 2016 election.

I suppose it is my progressive, liberal upbringing, but I was shocked. My first reaction was denial, it could never happen here in the UK. Then synaptic tangents started to kick in.

Those strange seemingly random posts that crossed my timeline on Facebook in the run up to the Brexit referendum; the rather outrageous claims from apparent strangers on Twitter; emails highlighting political issues or politicians. They could all just be coincidence of course.

When you start joining imaginary dots to some of the news stories you see, you do start to wonder. Is Dominic Cummings employing black magic data mining techniques to subvert democracy? Are the Russians targeting our elections? Just what was the result of the meddling highlighted in the Russia Report?

I could be slowly turning into a keyboard warrior driven by paranoia over conspiracy theories. There again, maybe the political parties and pressure groups may know more about me than I give them credit.

There is only one thing to do and that is find out. One of the better regulations to come out of the EU is the data privacy laws. The link, if you followed it, takes you to the ICO who are charged with ensuring compliance in the UK. The law also gives you certain rights as to how organisations use your data and allows you to get a record of what data they store.

I came up with a cunning plan to find out what the political parties store about me and what they think they know.

So, I am going to write to the various political parties and organisations and ask them:

What data do you hold on me?

How do you use the data you hold on me?

Who do you share my data with?

To be honest, I don’t hold out a lot of hope on that last point, but if I do find out, I shall be writing to those third parties as well.

Grab your tinfoil hat, up the dosage on those dried frog pills and watch this space. Let’s see what happens!

UPDATE 12:15 29/09/2020

An automated response was received from the Labour Party telling me that in order to process my request, I had to provide photo ID. I guess this kind of adds a layer of security to the process. Anyway, this has been supplied and I await developments.

UPDATE 11:30 02/10/2020

LeaveEU has responded asking me to fill in a form and send it back to them snail mail. I might also send it back email, just to free my inner rebel. Nothing yet from the Conservatives or LibDems.

UPDATE 14:00 05/10/2020

The Conservatives have requested proof of ID before they will process my request. This has been provided.

UPDATE 11:00 06/10/2020

The LibDems have now responded. They too want proof of ID which has been provided.

UPDATE 09:30 19/10/2020

LeaveEU have emailed me a reminder to send in the information they need to process my request. This has already been done, but I sent the info again via email.

Asking my MP to act for UK Democracy

I am writing to my MP again.

This is not big news; I quite often fire off letters to my MP.  To be fair to him, he always replies, but as yet not in a conclusive and fully supportive manner.

Being an MP, I’m sure that he gets a lot of correspondence and there will be letters from other constituents that take an opposing view to mine.

However, this letter is different. This letter is about the future of British democracy. So, I should expect a full and committed endorsement of the need to maintain the democracy of this country and the institutions that ensure its scrutiny, right?

Just feeling the need to question that statement suggests to me that I am losing faith in the commitment of this government to the basic principles of our democracy. That is incredibly sad. I have grown up believing that the British democracy is a great and noble example that the world should follow; That the British system is so good, nobody ever felt the need to write it down and call it a constitution; That our elected officials treasure the system as much as I do and would never act counter to the spirit of freedom and democracy.

Yet now we have an elected government that appears to be determined to undermine the very fabric of our democracy and are making it appear incredibly fragile.

At this point I could go off on a long and detailed list of the indiscretions of the UK Government. Give examples of how little value they place in truth, honesty and integrity. Go off on a long and impassioned rant over the ignoring of the Nolan Principles of Public Life. Wind myself up over cronyism, favours for their mates, perceptions of corruption and gerrymandering.

I am not sure that I have the stomach for that right now. Instead I will just post my letter to my MP. I will revisit this when I have a reply.

-Letter follows-

Dear Mr Pursglove,

Many thanks for your letter dated 18th September where you responded at length about the Internal Markets Bill. I fear some confusion must have been generated by the way I presented my query as this was only part of my concern that I raised as a supporting point & a symptom to highlight why I was uncomfortable with the direction of travel of the current government.

I will therefore attempt to ensure clarity as I repeat my query.

Do you commit to the continuing democracy of the United Kingdom and ensuring that the supporting institutions and democratic principles are robust and adequately funded to ensure that adequate scrutiny is applied to Government actions? Do you also commit to ensuring the government is subject to full scrutiny to ensure that it follows the rule of law?

As you hold a Politics degree, I am sure you will be disturbed that one of your constituents would ever feel the need to ask their MP to commit to British democracy. As you are a passionate campaigner to regain sovereignty from the EU, I am sure that you would be aghast if having regained our sovereignty, it became tainted by corruption, unelected advisors, contempt for the rule of law and an erosion of our British freedoms.

To assist, below is a summary of why I feel current government actions threaten the future of our precious and fragile democracy and some supplemental questions.

• 1       The Civil Service is supposed to be provide independent & impartial advice and support in the implementation of government policy. Since this government has come to power, they have systematically replaced senior Civil Servants with their own, seemingly political appointments. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?
• 2.       The government has signalled it is intent to limit access to Judicial Review of government. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?
• 3.       The judicial system has been subject to a series of cuts and budget constraints over the last decade that has resulted in ever growing backlog of cases. This backlog has only been made worse by the current Covid crisis. Do you commit to ensuring that the funding of our legal system to address the backlog and ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively?
• 4.       The Russian Report was published by the ISC on 21/07/2020. This showed some unsettling interventions in the UK political system. Do you commit to pushing the government to holding an independent enquiry into the impacts of the foreign interventions into the UK democratic process and putting forward recommendations to prevent this in future?
• 5.       Government ministers appear to be avoiding scrutiny and taking actions that appear to be corrupting the democratic process. An example being the allocation of the Town Fund which appears to have been done in a way that ignores the advice of officials and benefits Conservative targeted marginal seats. Do you commit to ensuring that the decision is reviewed and that funds are allocated according to need rather than political gain?
• 6.       The government appears to be denuding the BBC and the free press in the country of funding while placing political friends in positions of authority that can influence the impartiality and freedom of the press. Do you commit to ensuring that the BBC is adequately funded and maintains full editorial independence?
• 7.       Michael Gove has signalled a willingness to amend the UK Human Rights Act ‘to make it easier’ for the government to enact ministers’ executive orders. Do you commit to protecting the UK Human Rights Act, that you will ensure that no changes will be made to the act without full and proper consultation and that when any actions come to be voted upon, they will be a matter of the MP conscience rather than a three-line whip?

At this point, I wish to briefly return to your letter on the Internal Market Bill. It appears to be a standard letter that a number of MP have sent to constituents and I am sure you have already been made aware of the inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions made within it – not least the selective and totally incorrect citing of the Miller Case.

I should remind you of why your government finds itself having to breach international law and are struggling to find convincing arguments to justify this shameful action. You supported the Withdrawal Agreement. You voted to reduce the time to scrutinise the agreement, even though at the time concerns were raised over the impacts on the NI peace accord. You then fought and won an election based on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement. That may not have been an issue, but you then voted on an Agriculture Bill that removed food & animal welfare standard provisions sparking the fear that food produced to the woeful US standards would find its way into the EU via Northern Ireland.

The mess of the Internal Markets Bill is of your own making and by showing such disregard to International Law, has destroyed any moral authority the UK may have had when dealing with China on Hong Kong.

 

I look forward to your response on the many questions raised in this letter.

UPDATE: It is now three weeks since I sent the letter. As yet, no response. A follow up is needed.

Primeval Swamp of politics again

If Twitter was the primeval rain forest and I were the time traveler doing the tourist thing to gawp at dinosaurs, my footprint would pose no threat to the delicate butterfly. I know that I cannot exert influence on the great and good on Twitter any more than I can travel in time.

Yet occasionally I find myself on the periphery of a debate that I feel is so important, the 140 character limit cannot hope to convey my thoughts, let alone change minds. So it has proved with the horrible violence and rioting we see in the US at the moment. The synaptic tangents it set off highlighted uncomfortable parallels in what we are seeing here in the UK when it comes to democracy, Covid response and Brexit.

What set this off was my rather innocent suggestion that if Americans insist on calling these ‘race riots’ akin to those in 1968, then they are actually reducing the chances of bringing about real, meaningful change.

Leaping back 300 years or so ago, a little spat took place in one of the British colonies. Wealthy landowners took offense at being asked to pay their taxes and so rose up in violent insurrection. They took on the mighty British and won. Having won, they were then faced with the rather tricky task of defining how they wanted to be governed.

It was a turbulent time and I will take a simplistic view of the philosophy behind the discussion. Somewhere in this meandering morass of a blog there is a discussion about the competing theories of Thomas Hobbes and john Locke.

When Thomas Jefferson came to draw up the US Constitution, just having fought the British he didn't buy into the ideaof the Hobbes assertion that human beings are incapable of ruling themselves so need to be kept in their place by a dictator. So, the US Constitution was written from the Locke viewpoint that government authority is gained through the consent of the people.

Just in case, dear reader, you have any doubt, I must state for the record I abhor racism. It is a cancer of society that if it cannot be stamped out, must never be condoned or encouraged. I hate the use of any stereotyping that is used to suggest that another human being either through their choices or accident of birth can be considered as being inferior to another, they are just different. Diversity brings new and potentially interesting views into our lives; embellishes our culture; broadens our outlook and ultimately makes us stronger and better.

Now back to the matter in hand. The US Constitution was therefore drawn up based on the Locke principles of government by consent.

While the riots in the US ignited by the spark of Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, killing an unarmed black man, George Floyd. The anger that erupted seemed to stem from accusations of racism.

Yet, the root cause is not racism, that was just the flint that provided the spark. The problem in my eyes at least is that it was another example of what happens when you cease to police by consent. The founder of the British Police, Sir Robert Peel wanted to ensure policing by consent and set out principles of transparency, integrity and accountability to achieve legitimacy in the police.  

However, it isn’t just policing by consent that is the issue here, we appear to have lost focus on the need to govern by consent as well. Despite the Locke principles that are enshrined in the constitution, the need for government by consent appears forgotten. Instead we have a leader who appears to be operating straight out of a handbook written by Hobbes.

This is why we need to be careful about describing this as a race riot. It has a lot more to do with how the current art of politics is about encouraging tribalism. Elections in the US and the UK are being won and lost on it.

This is why describing the cause as racism is not only wrong but ultimately counterproductive. Racism only plays on the tribal images of us and them. It is how lazy (and ultimately dangerous) politicians get elected by using this tribalism and the language of populism. They make it all sound so easy and are quite happy to espouse policies that marginalize minorities if it gets them the majority the crave. 

Social liberals (of which I hope I am one), have been getting it all wrong for this very reason. We are outraged by racism and howl at the moon. What we should be calling out is the eroding of government by consent and the way that those in charge are playing the system to their own advantage.

I would love to say that this is a US problem. It is not. The UK has suffered from it as well. At the last election we had the Tory tribal call of get Brexit Done while Labour were evoking a class war. The Liberal Democrats, who should have been highlighting how they were the guardians of government by consent were politely trying to fight a battle that was already lost and remained puzzlingly silent on the need for consent.   

Now if you ever wonder just how dangerous this new Hobbes politics is, consider Covid. Lockdowns have been the cornerstone of attempts to battle the virus until there is a vaccine. Maintaining lockdown of a country is hard and relies on behavioral science to bring all of the population – not just some of the tribal elements together so that everyone obeys the rules. The US, UK, Brazil and Russia have not been able to hold the lockdown together for various reasons and it is no surprise that in terms of deaths they are among the world leaders.

What is worse, it is election year in the US. If everyone allows this tribalism to continue and not highlight the need of government by consent, we risk further erosion of any government and policing by consent.

UK Citizens Bonus

I believe that once the COVID19 lockdown is over, UK society will need to embrace a new social reality. The ‘old’ social contract between government and the people has been rather turned on its head by the necessary responses to the pandemic and there is recognition that the economic impact will require huge government intervention.

During the crisis, key workers have been the ones that have kept society functioning. Those key workers are often people who view their work as a calling such as doctors and nurses, where salary is not the key driver for their career choice and money isn’t a method of scoring success.

Other key workers, such as supermarket staff, drivers and binmen, have traditionally low-paid and often insecure jobs out of necessity and lack of choice.

An article in the Independent today suggests that up to a third of the key workers earn less than £10 per hour.

When all of this passes and we emerge from our cocoons into the new normal, I hope that we will recognize the moral injustice of this and do something about it. Indeed, should no action be taken, there will be palpable anger amongst the populous.

One answer would be finding a way to better reward the low paid and disadvantaged. I have long thought that as a country we have the wealth and ability to provide every adult of working age with an income over and above what they earn.

The government are now uniquely placed to take action on this. They are taking steps to try and mitigate against the economic maelstrom that will follow as the impact of locking down the country feeds through into the economy. They are seeking to provide mechanisms that will mitigate against unemployment, collapse of businesses and turmoil in the financial markets. They have pledged £30bn so far in funds, but have also offered loan guarantees to business banking lenders and recognized that they will need to offer bailouts to some business sectors.

So, how can we also afford to support the economy and correct the moral injustice of the low pay of our key workers?

The answer is to set up a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund. Income generated from this fund would be divided up equally between every working age British Citizen. To be clear, this Citizen Bonus would not be taken into account when calculating minimum wage rates, welfare entitlements, student loan repayments or pension payments.

Say the Citizen Bonus is £1,000 per head tax free. To some that may not seem a lot, but to a low paid worker on £8.75 an hour that could be the equivalent of 3 weeks wages. It could be the difference between making the rent or feeding the children.

The bad news that this would probably cost the UK about £30bn a year and therefore require a Sovereign Wealth fund in excess of £600bn.

The good news is that with a bit of nimble footwork, political will and deft project management, the government can start to seed the fund and in these unpredictable times are uniquely placed to kick start the wealth fund.

This is how:

•           Any government bailout to companies would require a company to lodge equity into the UK Sovereign Wealth Fund. This would be accompanied by warrants that would allow the wealth fund to purchase equity at a future date at a set rate, a method employed by Warren Buffett when bailing out Goldman Sachs.
•           The government have set up the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS) that allows companies to borrow money from banks while the government guarantees the loan against bad debt. Effectively, the government is offering free insurance against bad debt. By insisting on an ‘insurance payment’ on each loan, this money can be used to seed the wealth fund.
• The current Bank of England (BoE) Quantitive Easing(QE) scheme can be amended to allow the BoE to use the money generated by QE to be sent direct to the wealth fund and be used to invest in equities, property etc. This would also boost the value of pensions and investments and help protect the insurance industry.
• Any direct business grants from central or local government would require the company receiving the grant to place a proportion of the value in equity into the wealth fund. This would include Research & Development grants.
• A change in Land Laws to make it mandatory that any income generated by UK land or property be paid to a UK tax domicile or UK incorporated company. A proportion of the extra tax revenue would be paid to the wealth fund.
• The law on trusts would be reviewed, especially family trusts, to ensure that when these trusts pass to a new generation of family, a small proportion of the investment will be passed to the wealth fund.
• The National Trust would be asked to pay a small levy based on profit to the wealth fund.

Now, I am not saying this will be easy. I am not saying it will be quick. It lays a foundation. It is sustainable. It means that everyone shares in British economic success and growth. It certainly seems to be a way to ensure that we recognize our key workers and to help lift people out of poverty.

Wouldn't it be nice if...

I have overdone the dried frog pills.

It is not my fault, I rather lost track of the doseage while watching on-line Taskmaster videos.

As a result, I started to have fantasy COVID19 leaders press briefing hallucinations. This, dear reader, isn't as horrific as you might fear. In fact, it is a synaptic tangent that you may wish to travel at some point.

Imagine the scene. Boris enters the 10 Downing street briefing room dressed in a "Who's the Daddy" t-shirt, Eric Morcambe shorts, long pink socks and sandals.

Boris waits while the various attendees on the videoconference sip water and recover from their swooning until he announces that he is going to do something different with the briefing.

Boris is going to leverage the collective wisdom of those attending to review the last four weeks and see if there are things that can be done to grease the wheels in way that will get this horrific journey over with a little bit quicker! Not only that, he is going to do it in the form of an Agile Retrospective!

At this point Matt Hancock enters the room dressed in a French maid outfit. OK, I need to pause writing and have more coffee to expunge that image for a minute. Please feel free to ignore or dress him in your outfit of choice.

Our esteemed Health Secretary then picks up some post-it notes and a dry marker before announcing that he is the scribe for the event.

Boris then throws open the floor to answer four critical questions:

• What worked well for us?
• What did not work well for us?
• What actions can we take to improve our process going forward?

OK, that first question comes as a curved ball to the assembled denizens of the press. After all, giving anybody positive feedback comes hard to hardened hack. That said, there are some things that we should probably say have worked. Social distancing has been followed; food supply chains maintained; ventilators designed, built and supplied; economic contingency plans implemented; critical workers are hanging in there despite the challenges; the British public are volunteering to assist in whatever way they can.

In fact, if I didn't have point to get to at some point before lockdown ends, I could probably produce quite a list of the things that have gone well up to this point.

What has not worked well? Now this is where the British Press come into there own. I can imagine that the list here would be quite large and headed by Testing, Testing and TESTING. Also quite high up there will be procurement of PPE. There would be others, but I have to admit that I would probably zone out and go and make a cup of tea and a sandwich while the press corps blow themselves out.

This is when my dried frog pill hallucinations really kick in. Just as they start on the last section about actions to take to improve, it becomes totally surreal.

The screen in the briefing room fills with my image, complete with a cornflake and tomato sauce sandwich in hand. Boris smiles. Matt Hancock curtseys. Boris asks me, what actions would I like to see to improve process.

Pausing only to wipe tomato sauce from my beard, I grab my chance.

- If there are issues with procurement of garnering specific skills or materials, why isn't there a central website which outlines what you need and giving people a contact point if they are able to plug a particular gap?

- There is quite a cottage industry started up making visors and PPE equipment if my social media feed is to be believed. How do people get the fruits of their labours to the people who need it?

- If there is an issue with washing and steralising re-usable PPE, why are we not opening up the industrial laundries normally used by hotels to provide the NHS with extra capacity?

- When the government is providing loan guarantees and bailout money to bigger companies, why is it not insisting on warrants and share equity that can be used to start a sovereign wealth fund that could, in future, be used to provide a #UKbasicincome?

- Could the common cold unit be used as a template to test volunteers who have had COVID19 to validate if recovery from the virus provides the immunity we all crave? 

I would imagine at around this point, the sight of me with aforementioned sandwich may prove too much for poor Boris and I would be cut off mid flow.

Still, I had my fantasy 5 minutes of glory in my fantasy press briefing. I, rather like Donald Trump, think that it all went very, very well and that the ratings will go through the roof.

The trouble is that the effects of the dried frog pills will wear off where as this lockdown is set to continue.