SubScribe Google+

Wednesday 10 July 2024

Dear whitetops...please shut up


Let us be gracious in defeat. Now he HAS to deliver. It was a “loveless landslide”. Our challenge to Labour in shaping Britain’s future.

The arrogance of it. The self-serving, self-important, self-indulgent delusion. Who are you to tell your readers to be gracious? Who are you to assume that they see the election result as a defeat? Some of them voted for our new government. Who are you to issue orders to the prime minister, to demand a role in shaping a Labour future you fought tooth and nail to prevent?

The Conservatives, the Telegraph says, should take time to lick their wounds. You, their clients in the rightwing press, should do likewise. You can lash out like a mortally injured tiger, you can spit and you can growl and you can howl, but it won’t make a blind bit of difference. Just go somewhere quiet and watch the football or the tennis or something. Leave us in peace.

You can’t though, can you? It’s not in you. Your lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. You don’t see that you are at least partly to blame for the agony you are feeling, an agony you presume is shared by the people for whom you claim to speak. You are the journalistic manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You think you know everything and you can’t resist parading this imaginary superiority.

But for the past five years (at least) you have resolutely refused to listen, to look at or to smell what has been under your noses. You thought the Johnson landslide was vindication of everything you stood for. You never questioned the preposterousness of the promise to build 40 new hospitals, that Britain would be anything other than a reinvigorated global force once Brexit was done.

And when anyone with a brain could see that things weren’t quite as rosy as promised, you were deaf, blind – and dumb, the latter in the sense of being wilfully dense, for you were certainly never mute. 

The thousands of lives lost in the pandemic were anyone’s fault but Boris’s. The squandering of billions on faulty equipment from dodgy sources, the loss of billions more to fraud, the contracts for mates, the incompetence, the sleaze, the corruption – all should be overlooked in the interest of the bigger picture. Who could have done any better? And, of course, the cost-of-living crisis was all down to Putin’s war.

Even Conservative MPs woke up to the reality that you resolutely ignored, finally ditching their lying leader. But you railed at them for their ingratitude – and then urged them to replace him with Truss. That worked out brilliantly, didn’t it?

And so to Rishi and his final throw of the dice. This election is about the future, not the past, he said. And you parroted him.  Set aside your recent lived experience, you said. But also heed the lessons of history. The Tories may have made mistakes along the way this past 14 years, but we should stick with them because Labour can’t be trusted – look at what it was like when they were in power in the 70s. Couldn’t you hear yourselves? Couldn’t you see the nonsense of that, the double standard?

Just who exactly are you talking to?

“Crushing blow to Tory party in election wipeout”? Was that honestly what you thought was the first thing on your readers’ minds the day after the election?  Boris’s ten-point plan to save the Tory party (hint: do what I said I’d do, but never actually did)? Who’s listening?

Your readers aren’t interested in a crushing blow or a plan to revive the political party the country has just rejected. They really aren’t bothered about which party survives or withers, any more than they fuss about the corporate fortunes of their energy supplier. They are invested in the product, not the conduit. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Scottish Power or EDF, they want a constant flow of electricity at a fair price. Similarly, they mostly don’t care whether it’s the Tories or Labour “delivering”, they just want to be able to get a doctor’s appointment, for the rivers and seas not to be awash with sewage, and for someone to mend the bloody roads.

Those of your readers with more of a social or moral conscience might also wish that fewer children were in poverty and that food banks were no longer necessary. But do be clear, the fate of the Conservative party is not their primary concern. And you telling them that a vote to punish the Tories is a vote to punish themselves will not change that. If anything, it will get their backs up further.

So they didn’t take your advice. They went their own sweet way. And now you’re trying to put a gloss on that. Wary of going down the Trump road of openly calling into question the legitimacy of the result, you pussyfoot round the edges. Labour got only 34% of the vote. (I don’t remember you fretting about Cameron getting only 37% in 2015 – where is the line between those three points that determines the acceptable and the undemocratic?) There was a low turnout, so it was 34% of 60%, which means only a fifth of the country wanted this government. Even Corbyn got more votes. And look at the mismatch between Reform with its 4m votes and five seats and the LibDems who won 71 with only 3.5m votes. It’s not fair! As Sir John Curtice said, it was “the most disproportional electoral outcome in British electoral history”.

But hang on, didn’t you run special supplements telling people to vote tactically to get the result you craved? You wanted your readers to vote for candidates they didn’t support “to keep Labour out” or at least to deprive it of that mythical supermajority that was somehow going to gift Starmer eternal power.

Two can play at that game and the other side did it more effectively. Many did vote tactically; not to spite Labour, but to turf out the Tories. So yes, the Labour vote was smaller than it might have been – because its supporters were not only just as capable as yours of lending their votes to others to achieve the desired overall result, but also far more efficient at it.

Now you’re muttering about electoral reform and musing about the benefits of PR. Something for which the LibDems and the Greens and other small parties have been crying out for years. Well, guess what? We had a referendum on that in 2011 and it was the “will of the people” that we stick with first past the post. You surely can’t be suggesting that we should think again? Because to go back on such a recent referendum would be a betrayal, anti-democratic. Even if it hasn’t turned out as we think it should have done. Even if the will of the people might have changed.

When it comes down to it, Labour and the LibDem played by the existing rules and won. Like a cricket captain who makes a decision based on the state of the pitch whether to bat or field, whether to play fast or spin bowlers, they looked at the political landscape and deployed their resources accordingly. Last time round, you successfully rolled the pitch to your advantage, badgering Farage into standing down his Brexit party candidates to give the Conservatives a free pass. He wasn’t playing ball this time, so you turned on him.

Then you hailed your own success in “saving” 40 seats through your tactical voting guide, while mourning 170 lost seats where Reform split the right. Farage would probably say that it was the Tories who split his vote.

Now you’ll carry on pushing the narrative that the Tories lost because they were too leftwing. Because you’re still not listening. To the country. To tens of thousands of your customers – when classified according to their main source of news, 43% of Express readers, 40% of Mail readers and 37% of Telegraph readers told Redfield and Wilton last month that they intended to vote Labour.

But you never do. You’re like the pub loudmouth who shouts over everyone, the mansplainer who likes to tell women what they’re thinking, the dinner party guest too busy mentally polishing his next pearl of wisdom to take on board what anyone else is saying.

Perhaps now would be a good time to shut up and listen for a change. You lost, get over it.

Thursday 6 August 2020

Cronyism and a tale of two honours lists

It was a textbook case of burying scandalous news.
Having decided to create a raft of new peers from among his family, Brexiters, Press friends and party donors - in spite of vowing to reduce the size of the House of Lords and having postponed the Birthday Honours because of covid - Boris Johnson needed to minimise the flak. 
First step was for the list to be leaked to a selected outlet, in this case The Times, for publication on a Saturday.
Whether steered by Downing Street or of its own volition, the paper made the Ian Botham peerage its lead. And why wouldn't it? A cricketing legend makes a more compelling nose for a weekend story than the real meat of the cronyism and nepotism - which was still all there in the text for anyone to see.
With early Friday deadlines and less scope than in the rest of the week for later editions, many other newspapers were unable to catch up. Those that could generally managed to squeeze in only a small piece inside - and they, naturally, took the same Botham line as The Times.
The Sundays did little and by Monday, the story was too whiskery. After all, at this stage, the list hadn't actually been released. Editors may have taken the view that they'd do it "properly" when it was Gazetted.
Fast forward two weeks and the list is formally announced. On a Friday evening just after Parliament has gone into recess. In this, Johnson was borrowing a trick from David Cameron, whose equally controversial resignation honours of 2016 were also published during the summer recess. 
Cameron could counter that criticism by claiming that his list was published at the earliest opportunity - it came just six weeks after he quit Downing Street - but Johnson had no such argument. These were the "dissolution" honours. And Parliament had been dissolved seven months earlier, on November 6.
Cameron's list included honours for his wife's personal aide and prominent Remain backers. Johnson's list included honours for his brother and prominent Brexit backers.  Both were greeted with cries of cronyism. But there, as far as Press coverage is concerned, the similarity ends. 

By the time he left office, Cameron had few friends left in what used to be called Fleet Street. The Left never cared for him. The Right, which had pushed so hard for his election in preference to "Red Ed" Miliband (a man, incidentally, whose reviled policies have been purloined and enacted by the ensuing Tory administrations), turned against him the moment he acceded to their demands for an EU referendum. They mocked his efforts to negotiate a new deal with Europe and then did their utmost to discredit both his and his Chancellor's record, both during the campaign and after the country voted for Brexit. There was a lot of rewriting of history.
Johnson, by contrast, retains their support - for now - despite tens of thousands of covid deaths and a succession of missteps over the past year, many of which have been pointed up even by generally friendly newspapers. He seems truly to be the cockroach prime minister, able to survive anything. 

And so it has been this week. Just imagine a prime minister Corbyn ennobling the son of a KGB agent - the very week after publication of a damning report about Russian attempts to influence our democracy. Yet even the Mirror and Guardian have been muted in their criticism, compared with their treatment of the Cameron list published exactly four years earlier.

Of course, the news landscape is very different now, with the coronavirus dominating everything. And it is important to note that many of the papers have a new backside on the editor's chair. 
Also, the lists were pre-empted in a different way. The Cameron leak looked like an act of malice, with little titbits coming out drip by drip, day by day. The twists and turns on who had been nominated, who had been rejected, who had said "no", gave the story "legs" and kept it near the top of a silly season news agenda for a full week. 
The Johnson list was leaked (or scooped) in one gush, so that there was nothing for day two and no surprises when it was officially published two weeks later. Covid means there has been no silly season this year and no shortage of material to fill pages; Tory-leaning papers editors trying to support Johnson aren't going out of their way to highlight stories that discredit him (for some, there were too many of those already).

Even with those caveats, the coverage does seem unbalanced. As Stephen Glover asked in the Mail, where is the outrage at this latest batch? At first, SubScribe put the difference  down to Brexit papers being cross about Remainers being honoured but relaxed about cronyism when their side was benefiting.  That seems not to be the case. The leftist papers and neutral papers were also much harsher in their criticism of Cameron than Johnson.
Another key difference is that Cameron was out of office, a yesterday's man holed up in his shepherd's hut. Johnson is still in power and so, to a large degree, influences and even sets the news agenda. The day before his list was published, he announced that lockdown restrictions which were about to be lifted would have to stay in place because infections were on the rise. So he scooped himself with what was, for the general populace, the far more relevant story. Fears of a "second wave" and the series of Covid spreads every paper runs daily inevitably pushed the honours further back in the book than Cameron's effort.
There is absolutely no question that Johnson timed his lockdown announcement to stifle negative stories about the honours, but the fact of his still being in office does raise the scariest possible explanation of the difference in approach to the two lists: he can make journalists' lives easier or more difficult, according to what they write. It's unpalatable to think of any newspaper being cowed, but it has to be on the menu of reasons for the relative restraint this time.

So let's take a look, title by title, starting with the Brexity papers, and see what you think. 

First the Mail. Paul Dacre was a longstanding and consistent critic of the honours system and, to his credit, has not accepted one, though a knighthood at the very least must surely have been offered more than once. He was apoplectic over the Cameron list, splashing on it on four days out of five from the first leak on August 1 to official publication on the 5th.

The paper was outraged by the elevation of Remainers and party donors and the decision to make George Osborne a Companion of Honour. It listed a "dirty dozen" cronies who had been rewarded and was equally scathing about Jeremy Corbyn's nominees, most notably the peerage for Shami Chakrabarti.
The one crumb of comfort was the vetting committee's rejection of a peerage for party donor Michael Spencer.
Mr Spencer became a peer last week, courtesy of Mr Johnson.

Four years on, Geordie Grieg's Mail seems rather less troubled by the use of the honours system to repay political debts (this time to those on the winning side of the referendum debate).
It picked up the Botham leak for its second edition on July 18 and savoured the denial of a peerage to former Speaker John Bercow ten days later. But when the list was actually published, it made only the 14-15 spread. 

It did angle on the cronyism row and it did throw Boris Johnson's own words about stuffing the Lords back in his face, but if the Cameron list hit 11 on the outrage scale, this was barely a 2. Michael Spencer warrants a photograph with a caption that says "Billionaire financier is a former Conservative party treasurer and has donated about £5m", but, since he is not mentioned in the text, there is no reminder of the previous rebuff that had so pleased the Dacre Mail.

Moving on to The Sun...the Cameron list twice made the prime political slot on page 2 when it was first leaked, and then the front and a spread on publication. That display was entirely a reaction to the holidaymaking former premier's corporation rather any corporate largesse. 

When it came to Johnson's honours, there was a little catch-up single on Lord Beefy, while the full list made only page 8. It angled on Jo Johnson's peerage - "Lord Bro-Jo" - with a subheading on Theresa May's husband being knighted. The text listed nine of the people honoured, with Botham the only prominent Brexit supporter named. And while there was a "crony row", there was no "outrage" or "fury" as with the Cameron list.

Next up, the Telegraph. The Cameron list produced the splash on two successive days when it was first leaked.

And a further two front page stories after publication. There was a revolt. There was fury.

And here it is - under the same editor - with the list produced by its former star columnist, which happens to include a peerage for its former editor and current columnist Charles Moore.
The Botham leak makes a front-page nib, with a story inside saying that the cricketer "earned" his peerage by batting for Brexit. An interesting verb.

On the day of publication, while even usually supportive papers angled on the accusations of cronyism, the Telegraph plays it almost entirely straight, with the only hint of comment in the word "firebrand" to describe the former Unite union leader Tony Woodley. Moore and former Evening Standard editor Veronica Wadley are mentioned high up in the story, which turns to page 2, where readers find a picture of the Johnson brothers and a full list of those honoured. 
There is absolutely no reaction from anyone with any view, positive or negative, about any of the awards - the most notable omission being Lord Speaker Norman Fowler's remarks about the decision to create so many peers when the Lords is supposed to be slimming down and his concerns about the timing of publication during recess.
In a time of over-editorialising in  news pages, this may be a welcome change. But the absence of any reporting of the widespread criticism is in marked contrast to the approach taken to the Cameron list. That was said in the splash intro to have prompted a "furious Conservative party row" amid claims that it was "devaluing the honours system". 
Maybe furious rows and outrage are worthy of report only when they happen within the party, rather than in wider society? Maybe the thinking is that there's nothing unusual about opponents disliking what a leader does, but when his or her own team objects, it becomes news. It's a feasible argument, but it does rather reinforce the  perception that what is supposed to be a serious newspaper is now a party newsletter, primarily concerned about how any event affects the Conservatives.

Finally, among the Brexit-supporting papers, comes the Express, which had two goes at the Cameron list - when it was leaked and then again on publication.  Like the Mail it was furious about Cameron's "gongs for cronies" and Chakrabarti.

With the Johnson list, it published just the one story on the day of release. It focuses on Botham and other Brexiters, allowing itself a bit of fun with "hitting the EU for six", in what is a pretty straight report. The paper does quote Fowler and also, at the end, criticism from the LibDems and the head of the Electoral Reform Society. But, again, there is no "anger" or "fury".

Three of the four ran leading articles denouncing the Cameron list, with the Express damning him for  "heaping gongs on those accused of  using the most underhand tactics in the Remain campaign". "Frankly it stinks," it continued, "a last desperate bid to claw back some kudos and influence in the Remain's a disgrace."
The Mail described the honours as tawdry badges of shame and said both they and the Lords needed urgent reform. The Sun called for the "whole stinking system" to be scrapped.

Four years on, none of the quartet was minded to find space in the leader column to comment on the Johnson effort and the preferment of Brexit campaigners. The Stephen Glover column in the Mail, pondering the lack of outrage about the nepotism and general unworthiness of many of the nominees, is the only commentary. (So far. The weekend writers may yet pitch up.)

Crossing the Brexit divide takes us to The Times, a Conservative paper that likes to think of itself as more middle-ground than the previous four. It urged readers to vote Remain in the referendum, but then went on to support Theresa May's deal (as, indeed, did the Mail and Express) rather than line up with those seeking a "People's Vote". It came out for Johnson in the leadership election, and even though it has been critical of his performance, it firmly backed his decision to leave Dominic Cummings in post after the Barnard Castle episode.

The Cameron list made the front page twice, occupied five spreads and inspired two leading articles. They were full of words like "corruption". One front page headline said "Cameron packs House of Lords with donors, aides and allies". Replacing  "Cameron" with "Johnson"  would have resulted in an entirely accurate heading for its exclusive four years later. Indeed, if the intention were to imply censure, it could have added the word "brother". 
But instead it gave us "Botham given peerage as reward for Brexit loyalty". And, with a subhead to play with, it didn't look further into the patronage, preferring to amplify with "PM to mark first anniversary in office by making England cricket legend a lord". Perhaps it thought younger readers might need help knowing who Botham was - even with the picture as the clue. 

With the story to themselves, Times columnists and leader writers could have had a field day before the rest of the pack caught up - as the Mail did with Cameron - but it desisted from commentary and restricted coverage to the single story on the front. It took more than a week to return to the subject and report objections - not about cronyism or nepotism, but about the shortage of women among the new peers.
When the list was published officially, it ran a completely straight headline, although the first sentence said "Boris Johnson has faced accusations of cronyism after handing peerages to the newspaper owner Evgeny Lebedev, several Tory grandees and Brexiteers, and his own brother." Yup, that sums it up.
The story didn't trouble the leader writers, but Denis MacShane was allowed a Thunderer a couple of days later to have a moan about old Norman Fowler having a moan on the Today programme, and urging wholesale reform of the Lords.

Shifting to more politically neutral territory takes us to the i.

The paper took almost exactly the same front-page line as the Mail with first word of the Cameron list and didn't let up with official publication. The news headlines included "gongs for chums", "cronyism" and a "backlash". Simon Kelner and Andrew Grice weighed in with comment page pieces.

And so it was, too, with the Johnson list: a focus on cronyism and a scathing commentary from Ian Birrell. But whereas the Cameron story had made page one and then a series of stories over the following week, Johnson's list was covered with a front-page puff under the Cup Final teaser and one inside page on release day, to return only with Birrell's regular slot a couple of days later. 

Moving to the left, we reach the Mirror.

Cameron's list brought a series of inside stories and a pair of leaders, one denouncing Cameron as a man of no honour and the second attacking Theresa May for failing "to call time on this grubby peddling of favours".

Four years on, it goes full-on "crony" on publication day in the news coverage, accompanied by a leader saying it was time to replace the Lords with an elected chamber. Later in the week it reports protests about Claire Fox's appointment in the light of her apparent for the IRA bombing of Warrington. And that's it.

Finally, the Guardian.

As you'd expect, Alan Rusbridger's Guardian went in all guns blazing on the Cameron list, with days of coverage, condemnatory leaders, hostile commentary.
Kath Viner's tabloid incarnation was equally unimpressed by the Johnson effort. But, like everyone else's, coverage was far more muted. It amounted to one story about too few women peers, a front-page picture and a single inside page on the actual announcement. A leader two days later  called the list "shameless", and John Crace produced a  typically splendid sketch the next day. Maybe there will be more from Marina Hyde and others at the weekend.
Covid and Brexit are changing our perception of everything. With Trump and Cummings we've perhaps become used to discreditable behaviour from our leaders. But when the "quality" paper that should be the most assiduous in calling the Government to account pays such scant attention to a Prime Minister ennobling or knighting

  • His brother (who also happens to be married to one of the paper's star reporters)
  • The son of a Russian oligarch
  • His former boss
  • The newspaper editor who backed his mayoralty
  • A cricketer - not for his playing or his charity work, but because he backed Brexit
  • The husband of his predecessor
  • People who gave him money
  • A woman who defended a terrorist bombing
as well as his political friends and Brexit fellow-travellers, then I really think we have something to worry about.
Do you?

Congratulations on getting this far! If you are interested, here is another take on the Johnson dissolution honours and the postponement of the Queen's Birthday Honours.


Honours uneven

Is there any institution, convention, tradition – up to and including the monarchy – that Boris Johnson will not disrupt, traduce, usurp?

We know the answer to that from the unlawful prorogation of Parliament and the lying to the Queen to achieve that end - albeit temporarily. Yet still, he has this capacity to amaze with his audacity. The latest example being the “Prime Minister’s Honours” published last weekend.

Forget for a moment the controversy over the recipients of his largesse, the ennobling of a marathon-walking cricketer merely for his utterances in support of Brexit. Cronyism and the repayment of personal and political debts have always been part of this game; think Harold Wilson and Marcia Falkender’s Lavender List; think the Cameron resignation honours. 'Twas ever thus.

Inequality and entitlement have also always been part of the game. For those in the right occupations, honours are part of the career progression, starting with the OBE and culminating in a K for the time-serving civil servant who makes permanent secretary or a damehood for the actress who has worn enough Sunday night bustles and lorgnettes.

But honours are supposed to be more than an expected perk of the job or a headline grabber; they are there to recognise ordinary people in all walks of life, from the lollipop lady and sub-postmaster to the small-time entrepreneurs who turn a kitchen table hobby into a viable business. The people who make our country tick.

These are the people who have been done down by Johnson’s latest caprice. People who should already have been recognised, most likely by being appointed an MBE – the lowest rung on the honours ladder – but who have had to wait while his Press chums and party donors troop into the Lords.

Every June, we officially celebrate the anniversary of the coronation with the Trooping the Colour, a spectacular flypast and the Queen’s Birthday Honours. This year, thanks to covid, the Colour was trooped quietly in Windsor and the flypast was limited. The honours were absent.

The Prime Minister had announced in May that the list would not be published until the autumn to ensure, he said, that it reflected the covid-19 effort and came “at a time when we can properly celebrate the achievements of all those included”.

The decision was reported briefly, without question or challenge. Was it reasonable? Almost certainly, if it was going to deflect Whitehall staffers from more pressing matters. But that was not the case. Mr Johnson acknowledged in his statement that the list had been agreed before the pandemic struck.

Wouldn’t it have been strange to have a list that didn’t recognise covid “heroes”? Well, not really. People would understand that the list had been prepared before they had done their bit and that their time for recognition would come later – as happens in every Olympic year when our summer medallists are honoured in midwinter.

Indeed, if the Prime Minister wished, he could produce a special coronavirus honours list at any time he chose – as happened after the Falklands conflict and the Gulf wars.

Would it not seem tone deaf to be knighting ageing rock stars at a time when hundreds of people were still dying every day? Possibly. But the death rate was falling, garden centres and other businesses were to reopen the weekend after he made the announcement; the anti-lockdown lobby was becoming ever more vociferous in its clamour for a return to normality. In the cautiously optimistic mood he was seeking to promote, postponing the honours was counter-narrative.

 If he had to say anything at all about them, this was an ideal opportunity – the very day after the Queen dubbed Captain Tom in a special one-off ceremony – for Johnson to send a “keep calm and carry on” message while explaining that the covid effort would be properly recognised once the virus had been well and truly beaten.

There would have been positives in it. After all, the honours posed no risk of spreading the virus, but they might have spread some good cheer, even if investitures had to be deferred.

Instead he broke the link between the Queen’s official birthday and the honouring of her subjects, betraying – knowingly or otherwise – a level of contempt for them both. He may have thought he was doing the right thing, but if “circumstances” lead you to treat a fixed event in the national calendar as a movable feast when you don’t absolutely have to, it will be easier to move it again when it suits your purposes in the future. That is how traditions are destroyed, institutions brought down.

As with his request to use the Buckingham Palace tennis court and gardens in preference to more conventional facilities, Johnson doesn’t seem to understand that there are some “royal” areas on which it is unwise for a Prime Minister to tread. It smacks of entitlement and looks disrespectful.

Meanwhile, the public health emergency did not stop him thanking his Brexit friends and sending a further 36 people into an overcrowded House of Lords. Will they be “working” peers? Will Beefy actually turn up and do a bit of legislating? Do we want him to? Hammond probably will, but has Ken had enough?

These were officially the dissolution honours – albeit seven months late – but only the Telegraph described them as such. The Times, beneficiary of a leak two weeks in advance of publication, said that Johnson was “marking his anniversary as leader”; the BBC called it “the Prime Minister’s honours”. And everyone just took it as normal. There were raised eyebrows over some of the people he was elevating, but no questions or explanations of Johnson’s power to dole out baubles – or not, as with the Birthday Honours – whenever he fancies.

We’d seen that before, straight after the election, when he sent Zac Goldsmith, twice rejected by the electorate, to the Lords, along with Nicky Morgan, who hadn’t risked standing for the Commons. That prompted accusations that he was using the Lords as “a job centre for his friends”.

And now family, too. The shameless nepotism and cronyism of the latest list, including – just a week after the Russia report – the son of a Russian spy, again demonstrates how Johnson and his cohort are confident that they can do whatever they like, to hell with any backlash. As one tweeter remarked: “They’re gaslighting the whole nation now.”

There are, we are told, “more to come” in the autumn, presumably under cover of the covid heroes. Will Baron Farage sneak under the radar while the PM points to Sir Radiologist?

And how will the coronavirus effort be reflected? Will the class system again hold sway with knighthoods and CBEs for the doctors and specialists, while 14-hour-shift nurses are palmed off with the MBE? Who can possibly say which paramedic’s efforts were greater than another’s? Will porters, cleaners, ambulancemen, binmen, schoolteachers, carers be recognised? We can only hope.

I’d like to see damehoods and knighthoods for the care home owners who resisted pressure to take untested hospital patients and instigated their own procedures to keep residents safe long before Hancock came up with his imaginary “protective ring”. But that’s not going to happen. You don’t get rewarded for defying this Government.

No doubt Chris Whitty will get his knighthood, Vallance might be sent to the Lords. We can be pretty sure that, as ever, the highest honours will go to the closest “friends”.

But at least Mrs Lollipop Lady will, at last, be able to celebrate her MBE “properly”.