IN CASE you missed any of our ten most-read blogs of last week, here they are for you again – and well worth the read.
Kathy Gyngell: My letter to Michael Gove
Diana Kimpton: You only die twice: How the virus figures are fudged
Laura Perrins: Delight of the lockdown collaborators
John Ashworth: Fishing rule comes back to haunt the EU
Laura Perrins: Down with Tim Stanley-ism!
Toby Young: Ten reasons a second lockdown is a terrible idea
Donald Forbes: US election: Trump wants to win but Biden needs to
The Conservative Woman: Sign the petition against the new lockdown
Dr Campbell Campbell-Jack: Christian homes need to beware of the hate police
Claire Ball: I will not let fear run my life again
Lockdown sceptics are often accused of prioritising the young, who are at very little risk of dying from the coronavirus, above the elderly. In an excellent article this week, Nathaniel Taylor refutes this slur. He highlights the fact that anxiety and depression among young people have been rising over the past decade, and says the trend seems to be exacerbated by the measures to stop the spread of Covid-19.
Loneliness has been one of the many terrible effects of the Government’s disproportionate lockdown, and health experts are warning that this will result in a spike in suicide, self-harm and alcoholism. Loneliness is a particularly acute problem for students, many of whom are caged in their halls of residence (literally so in Manchester, until they tore down their prison walls), and in the case of first-year students probably living with others they have known for only a very short time. The picture gets worse when you add the disruption of studies, job uncertainties, and remodelled modules to fit the online style of teaching.
Taylor’s article can be read here.
Laura Perrins was right this week to point out that ‘what has been done to this generation of students is criminal, and amounts to the biggest bait and switch in history.’ Universities and the Government should be held accountable.
Kathy writes: I don’t know which I liked best about Frederick Edward’s observation of the US Elections, the text or the heading ‘US election: Maybe it was completely fair – and pigs might fly’, not one you’ve seen splashed across any of the national newspapers here.
Here are some of the Telegraph’s offerings today, by contrast: ‘Trump rages as Biden closes in on the White House’ and‘What could happen if Trump loses the election and refuses to concede?’ On their comment page we had: ‘The Liberal Left cannot ignore the role they played in the rise of Trump’(no way!) and the curious ‘Trumpism without Trump is what the world needs right now'(rather less likely than Thatcherism without Thatcher and Reaganism without Reagan). So no one’s interested in possible Democrat voting corruption on a wide scale? Or their dislike of Trump trumps all else, even when it’s the track record of his opponent that commentators and reporters should be concerning themselves with.
I can only repeat what Michael Crick has pointed out: ‘American parties have often fiddled elections in the past – Democrats especially – famously LBJ in the 1948 Texas Senate race, and Major Richard Daley in Chicago in 1960. So can Americans be confident that serious fraud hasn’t gone on in 2020?’
Clearly they can’t. It’s a travesty if no one apart from Donald Trump cares.
Margaret’s choice from outside the top ten is Peter Lloyd’s ‘Why should minorities rule the roost?’ He points out that radical policies advocated by the Green Party, which commands a minuscule 3 per cent of the vote and has just one MP out of 650, have been adopted by the government despite their disproportionate and damaging impact on lower-income households. In the same way, he says, all the political parties represented at Westminster are ignoring the interests of the 99 per cent of the British population who will neither get seriously ill, nor die from, Covid-19. He asks: ‘In a democratic society which should value all lives and livelihoods equally, how could the interests of the 99 per cent be less important than those of the 1 per cent?’