Thread (rather long, I'm afraid)

A national day of anger and retribution

If you have read my threads before, you’re probably finding the heading of this one a bit strange. And if you are, I’m glad to hear it.

Challenge and scrutiny matter. Organisations and institutions – and those within them – benefit from external review, and are better for being held to account. It can be deeply uncomfortable at times, but in the final analysis, it generally leads to improvement.

It would be easier if the scrutiny could be controlled, or managed, or at least planned for with a bit of notice (like a Parliamentary Committee appearance for example). But would that really be fair to everyone? Press scrutiny once a week on a Tuesday afternoon, thanks very much

I don’t agree with every aspect of media coverage at the moment, and I think some of it is plain wrong, either in tone, or content, or both. And I don’t just mean the coronavirus coverage – a recent piece about domestic violence set my teeth on edge, for example.

But most of it is valuable, even the bits I don’t agree with. Many channels are carrying factual information, advice and updates alongside their commentary, debate and opinion. That’s a very useful service indeed. Some of the challenge is making a difference, and that is welcome

So what is there to worry about? I think that it comes back to one of my core themes about most people acting in good faith, most of the time. There was a period – very recently – when most people were giving most other people credit for acting in good faith.

But that could be shifting, and not in a good way. There’s quite a gap between saying that if I had had the same facts, I would have acted differently, and saying that a person acted in bad faith. We don't all reach the same judgements even when we have the same information.

There’s also an increasing tendency for people to comment without having access to the facts. That’s rarely a good idea. Of course, one way to combat that problem is to make sure that as much information is made available as possible, in a clear and transparent way.

I am certain that there ought to be a review (or reviews) of decision making and actions when we are able to move into a more steady state. It is fundamental to improving our institutions that we reflect on and learn from what has happened.

But let us think about what we wish for. Do we want people to be agile, to be responsive to changing circumstances and evidence, and to be completely transparent about what they don’t know as well as what they do know, to be honest about mistakes?

If we do, we need to think about the words we use. What do we mean when we say “there will be a reckoning”, or “they will get what they deserve”? If we don't want increasingly defensive responses, we should remember that we increase the prospect of getting them, by what we say.

It’s not a game. It’s people’s lives. As recently as 16 March 2020 – 5 weeks ago today, almost a lifetime – Imperial College London (ICL) issued a paper “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand”.

That paper said “in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB … not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality”. It’s not the only paper of course. Neither is it the only opinion.

But against that scale, against that sort of background, is it just possible that we could give some credit that people, including people in leadership positions, are acting in good faith to mitigate these impacts? I'm not asking you to like them, or to agree entirely with them.

The fact that people have died is a real unchangeable tragedy, whether here or anywhere else in the world. But the fact that we are not heading towards numbers on the scale predicted by ICL is not simply an accident, a piece of good fortune.

Of course it is possible that some actions could have been taken earlier, and that too would have had an economic impact for good or ill. Some of the communication of information could have been done better, and sooner, and more clearly.

When we look back, there may be some things which were done (or not done) which a reasonable person will agree were just plain wrong or unacceptable. Depending on what these are, there will be a price to pay for that, whether by individuals, or organisations, or at the ballot box

There may well be things which would have been done differently with the benefit of hindsight, and we will all agree that they should not be done again in similar circumstances. Let us hope that we can tell the difference between hindsight and foresight then.

But if we are setting our course now to a destination which focuses on finding and punishing those we have already decided are guilty, we will have our national day of anger and retribution.

Except that it won’t just be one day. It will be our preferred mode of operation, with all the defensiveness and opacity that such a mode will generate. And its seeds will be sown now, and its fruit may blossom at an unseasonable time.

This time is difficult. People are dying, and our ability to share grief is curtailed. People are constrained, and our wonted means of relaxation are mostly cut off. Some are working harder than ever, in the service of others, but sharing the same worries as everyone else as well

Some businesses – large and small – are out commission, fearful of being gone forever. The economy is going to take a long time to recover. Things will never be the same. Difficult times can alter our perspectives, and fear does odd things to us. But what we do have is a choice

A choice between a future when our bent is to be retributive and angry, to see kindness as soft, and to hold decency as weakness; or a future where what is good is celebrated and valued, where we learn from mistakes and where wrongdoing is dealt with but restoration is possible.

I know what my choice is.