No 10 wants us to blame each other for the pandemic and people are falling for it

The government’s great, and singular, success during the recent health crisis has been in persuading the public that specific sections of society are to blame for the spread of the virus. It is disappointing to read Ian McNicholas’s letter (Voices, yesterday) suggesting a lockdown of youth, which is no more ridiculous than the lockdowns of the elderly, obese etc. (It should be noted that the purpose of a lockdown is to minimise infection amongst those most vulnerable to severe or fatal symptoms, not a punishment for those more likely to cause a wider spread.)

That said, there is no denying that the spread of the virus would have been lessened by more caution from the general public – but those who have facilitated its spread fall under every category from the old to the young, the lean to the obese, the mask wearers to the non-mask wearers. Stupidity, naivety, gullibility, selfishness and inconsideration are common to all.

But the responsibility for the wider spread of the virus must lie with the government and its handling of the response, especially its mixed, contradictory and often incoherent messages to the public. It is in the government’s best interest that we all blame each other for this crisis while they pretend to control the virus. Don’t fall for it.

Chris Smith Bishop Auckland

Let everyone have a say

A “quick win” in terms of keeping the United Kingdom together is to scrap the clunking English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) procedures. It can be done by mere dint of vote in the House of Commons. Given England’s sheer size and high migration of Scots south of the “border” England legislation could be deemed UK in de facto terms.

As well as broadening appeal of the Union, such a move would also be shrewd and realpolitik. It would be easier to justify keeping the old EU powers at the UK level and to reverse the excesses of devolution such as the ridiculous spectacle of different pandemic policies.

Scrapping EVEL would also broaden the appeal of the Conservatives in Scotland and thus more chance of the present prime minister remaining at No 10 come future general elections.

John Barstow Pulborough, West Sussex

National security, hello?

President Trump’s behaviour at the latest press conference was disgraceful. Not knowing which World War you are talking about, out of two choices, is just trivial and embarrassing.

The real concern is with his treatment of the Secret Service. When they request you to leave a meeting, it’s not because they want a coffee break, it’s because you are in danger and they are in even more danger because they are going to be standing between you and any potential attack. You do whatever they say.

It’s time to start treating people with more respect, Mr President.

Dennis Fitzgerald Melbourne, Australia

Politicians must face the teaching unions

It didn’t take parents long during lockdown to become aware that their children needed to go back to school for the sake of their sanity as much as their education. This was later confirmed by studies north and south of the border which found that over one-third of children had been profoundly lonely during lockdown.

The fact is that schools are places of sanctuary, friendship, and learning, not petri dishes of a Covid-19 dystopia as the teaching unions insist. One despairs of the lengths to which their leaders will go to frustrate what is seen as a moral duty by both the public and government: a full return of our children to school.

The private sector moved seamlessly to online lessons but unions undermined the scheme in state schools with contrived “dangers”. In my opinion, they are now crafting absurd demands for opening schools (eg safe zones for breastfeeding teachers to express milk) while most of Europe followed the science and kept schools open.

John Cameron St Andrews

Are you a leader or a follower?

Political articles like Alastair Campbell’s (We need strong leadership – not a Tory press machine, Voices, Yesterday) now and over the years inevitably refer to our “leaders”. Whether one likes it or loathes it, the current government is different from anything we’ve had before. That is a combination of the circumstances we find ourselves in and a unique style described by many as populism. This will have advantages and disadvantages. One can expect that once the government realises they no longer command the support of a majority (however narrow) on any topic they will change course: witness the number of so-called U-turns made recently. Some individuals will interpret this as showing that they are being listened to. Whilst this is an entirely valid position it does not amount to leadership but rather followership. Politicians have been described in many ways, perhaps most suitably under current circumstances as those who see a crowd going somewhere and leap out in front of them and shout “follow me!”

When crises arise though, we need leadership and this – as Alastair Campbell points out – is a different quality. There is a detailed and expanding literature and research base on these two interrelated concepts. Indeed, we are all variously leaders and followers so what are we to take from all this? I’d suggest asking oneself why should anyone be led by you and why would you follow someone else? Both of these are about interpersonal relationships and require one to:

1. Know something about yourself (personality tests help explain why a person react as they do in certain situations).

2. Work in teams: they get demonstrably better results.

3. Ask yourself if organisations you work for or come across reflect your core values.

Robert Wilson Founding senior fellow, Faculty of Medical Leadership

A pint of trouble

The fact that the government is considering shutting pubs once more (News, Yesterday) is conclusive proof that lockdown was eased too soon as many of us argued. In my view, it was a blatant act of appeasement to Wetherspoons and an attempt to rally waning support amongst the electorate. I fear that the government will learn that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will want a lock-in rather than a lockdown.

John E Harrison Chorley, Lancashire