Will the younger generation rise up in rebellion if the lockdown persists for too long?
Mervyn King (Yui Mok/PA Wire)
Four wise men gazed into the post-pandemic future this week. The vista they saw was not as dark as that of some Cassandras, but they did have three memorable warnings: that the young would sooner or later rebel against an indefinite lockdown; that the measures taken to prop up the economy would have to be paid for; and that a bigger role for the state in some services, such as the railways and airlines, was inevitable.
A webinar (online seminar) under the auspices of the think tank Policy Exchange brought together the former Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, the former Permanent Secretary of the Treasury Nick Macpherson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling and the economist Gerard Lyons. Their hour-long discussion focused on the “exit strategy” from our present predicament and drew comparisons with previous crises, especially the Great Recession that began with the banking collapse in 2008, in which three of them had played a significant part.
The most striking remarks came from Lord King of Lothbury (pictured). The former Governor argued that it was unreasonable to expect young people, who had already suffered disproportionately from the financial crisis, to prolong the life expectancy of the old. “If we maintain the lockdown for too long there will be a rebellion against it,” he warned. The search for an exit strategy, enabling those who have had the virus to return to work, would become “more and more urgent”. The idea that the lockdown could go on for “months and months on end according to the development of the virus is unrealistic”.
As a former Treasury official, Lord Macpherson emphasised that taxes would have to rise to pay for the crisis. For his part, the former Labour Chancellor Lord Darling praised his successor Rishi Sunak’s rescue programme for employees and business, but warned that announcements were easy but ensuring that support reached the right people was not: “The hard part is delivery.” Lord King was critical of the banks for closing branches and making it harder for small businesses to get loans.
How long do we have before the damage done to the economy becomes irreversible and the restrictions cease to command public consent? None of the seers was prepared to set a timetable, but the consensus was that the Government has weeks rather than months in which to find an exit strategy from the lockdown. Phasing out social distancing might be gradual, but Lord King was emphatic that “cancelling” the university education of the young and destroying people’s jobs and their mental health were unsustainable.
It is important to add that none of the wise men was criticising the imposition of a lockdown. All recognised that such draconian measures were a proportionate response to a grave threat to life. The issue for them was not the lockdown as such, but its duration, given the collateral damage it is undoubtedly causing. The question is: at what point does the epidemiological imperative to minimise deaths have to yield to the political necessity to preserve order and return to normal economic and social life?
Lord King was in no doubt about what “an awful lot of young people” would say: “Why on earth is our future being put at stake in order to help prolong life expectancy of older people whose life expectancy may not be very high in any event?”
Yet so far, very few young people have voiced such views. It is, rather, the older generation, from the retired Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption and the retired newspaper Editor Sir Max Hastings to the retired Governor of the Bank of England Lord King, who keep bringing up this supposed generational division. No empirical evidence has yet emerged to support the claim that most, or indeed any, young people resent being forced into isolation for the sake of their elders and betters. On the contrary: the young have volunteered in huge numbers to help the NHS, the sick and the elderly. The middle-aged should beware of projecting their own guilt feelings onto a younger generation whose capacity for altruism they may have underestimated.
Guilt isn’t a sound basis for policy in any event. The Government has set a course, factoring in not only medical and scientific but also political and economic imperatives. We have the Prime Minister’s promise that the lockdown will not last a day longer than is necessary to defeat coronavirus. It is right that preparations for the exit strategy should begin now, but we must trust ministers to get the timing right. Hence the crucial importance of testing, especially reliable antibody testing to establish whether people have had the virus. Officials who have dragged their feet on testing should be unceremoniously removed.
Until the virus has peaked, we must continue to observe the restrictions. A photograph of Jeremy Corbyn, who is 70, ignoring social distancing this week demonstrates why he is not fit to be Leader of the Opposition. Once the danger has receded, there is no reason why our country should not emerge stronger than ever, led by the energy and optimism of the younger generation. We owe our children and grandchildren nothing less.
