What I learnt from cattle diseases about epidemiology

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.   Everyone is now an instant expert on viruses and I have kept my peace.  

However, I have been reflecting on what I learnt from participating in a Research Councils project (Governance of Livestock Diseases) on cattle diseases.   I had the privilege of working with Graham Medley, now at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, an epidemiologist who is often quoted in the media on the pandemic and is involved in giving advice to government.   Any views that follow are, of course, mine alone.

Graham has agreed with me on twitter that there was value in the interdisciplinary approach we followed in the project which involved an epidemiologist, a veterinary specialist, a lawyer, an economist and political scientists.

One lesson I learnt is how difficult it is to eradicate a disease - in medicine smallpox is the only one to disappear entirely.   Civil servants in Britain thought they had eliminated bovine tuberculosis and even had a sherry party to celebrate.  Then it reappeared again in badgers in Gloucestershire.

The handling of bovine TB has in my view (and that of others) been characterised by a series of  policy failures by government about which I have written quite extensively in the literature.  It doesn't bode well for the ability of government to deal with a human pandemic.

That doesn't mean that all policy interventions fail.  The bovine diarrhoea virus may sound like nothing more than a case of cows with the runs, but not only does it affect production, it can also lead to the fatal mucosal disease.

The Scottish Government decided they wanted to eradicate BDV north of the border and consulted extensively.   I attended a very well run meeting in Edinburgh.  The policy has proceeded successfully and I was pleased to read in Farmers Weekly this week that it is entering the next stage of development.

It seems to me that the coronavirus will become endemic and as the WHO states is likely to be with us for four or five years.   Even if a vaccine can be found, I am sceptical about whether it will be available before eighteen months.   Policy needs to take these considerations into account and citizens need to reflect on them as well.

The Governance of Livestock diseases website is here: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/gld

Socially distanced PMQs

I give my views on the new format PMQs here: Social distance PMQs

Should the acting prime minister role be more formal?

First Secretary of State is a rather nebulous and ill-defined position. I first remember it being used by Harold Wilson in 1964 to salve George Brown's ego.

One suspects it was given to Dominic Raab in a rather casual fashion. Although no one could anticipate current circumstances, does the role of acting prime minister be formalising if it is to be effective? The Institute for Government considers this issue: Acting Prime Minister

Robert Hazell argues that our constitutional arrangements allow for more flexibility than is the case in the United States: What happens when the prime minister is incapacitated

An effective demolition job, but not beyond criticism

The full version of Donald Sassoon's lacerating review of David Cameron's memoirs is now about to read free of charge online. It is a remarkable polemic: The worst prime minister ever

I am reluctant to criticise a fellow editor of Political Quarterly and he has produced a devastating and eloquent critique. I just make three simple points:

• There clearly isn't a lot of point in comparing Cameron with 18th or 19th century prime ministers who were operating in a very different environment. But if we just confine ourselves to the 75-year period since the end of the Second World War, there is surely a case for Sir Anthony Eden who deceived the House of Commons about going to war. More recently, Theresa May has been criticised on a number of fronts.
• Dave Cameron certainly had his flaws, and his memoirs are self-justificatory and tedious - but that could be said of many political memoirs. I do think he had an inability to think many moves ahead on the chess board of politics (as was evident from my one engagement with him), but that's never easy.
• Much of the view you take of Dave depends on whether you are a hard core remainer. I voted remain and even campaigned for it in front of hostile audiences (I can recall being the warm up act for Ken Clarke). However, I have seen enough of the EU from close up to have some reservations about it, in particular about the strength of the 'reform from within' argument. I still think it was the wrong decision to leave, particularly with what looks like a very hard Brexit, but I don't think a referendum could or should have been avoided for ever (albeit that Dave was too confident about winning it).

Anyway, do read what Sassoon has to say.

Their Lordships House

House of Lords reform has suddenly become a hot topic again with some of the press complaining about an increase in expenses whilst overlooking the fact that the chamber sat more often after the 2017 election. Meg Russell is our leading expert on the House of Lords and it is good to see a review from her of the various ideas that have been put forward: Reform is back on the agenda

Some of the ideas put forward have been simply bonkers, although there was an interesting idea in a letter to The Times that when new government ministers are made lords they should cease to be voting members after their often short tenures.

It should also be remembered that there are advantages in having a second chamber that doesn't have too much legitimacy or power if we want to avoid legislative gridlock.

Javid's interesting statement

In a way I am a bit surprised that the former Chancellor's personal statement to the Commons did not receive more attention in the press today. I can see why Conservative papers might wish to downplay it as it made Boris Johnson squirm and raised some awkward questions about the conduct of the Government and the role of Dominic Cumming, but I was surprised that the FT didn't give it more coverage. Here its in full: Sajid Javid

I thought there were two particularly interesting aspects. First, the way in which he emphasised the traditional Conservative virtues of keeping a control of spending and aiming for low taxation. Fiscal constraints are clearly going to be abandoned, regardless of the economic and public health context.

Second, he set out a defence of the role of the Treasury. There are always arguments being made for splitting it up; for establishing a strong counter weight department; or, now, moving large parts of it to Teesside. However, there are actually good reasons for having a strong finance ministry (which is not to ignore evidence that austerity was overdone).

Let us move on?

I am great Dido fan and I particularly like the track 'Let Us Move on': Lyrics video. It it is apposite to Brexit: 'Let us move on … and it will pass.' She is, of course, referring to a love affair, although the relationship of some people to the EU does seem rather emotional, whereas for others (and for successive UK governments) it is more transactional. Even so, I have not found it that easy to move on.

I voted remain and I campaigned for remain, the high point or low point being when I was the warm up act for Ken Clarke in front of a partially hostile audience in Skipton. The first question I got was 'Why are you a waffler?' and the second was 'How much does the EU pay you?' As Dido says, 'we've done all we can.'

Nevertheless, I do have some reservations about the EU having seen it close up for the whole span of our membership. I don't think that EU decision-making is necessarily undemocratic, indeed I think that the European Parliament is a more effective institution than some national legislatures. I do think that the decision-making process is overly complex. Perhaps that is unavoidable when you have 27 member states, but it does give a lot of scope for corporate business interests to exercise considerable influence.

As for the 'reform from within' argument, I would find this more convincing if a dysfunctional Common Agricultural Policy did not still absorb not far short of 40 per cent of the EU budget.

Even so, I am not sure that I can 'let all that is lost be forgotten.' The economic benefits of membership are in my view considerable. Free trade pacts with countries like Australia carry hazards as well as opportunities: Dom's deal. There are also strong security arguments for membership, although there may be other ways of pursuing these as in President Macron's proposal for a European Security Council.

'Don't fly it like a kite (Dido)'

What does concern me is that the Government is evidently intending to have a no deal Brexit because that is what an 'Australian solution' amounts to. Of course, this is a negotiating ploy and what the Government would really like is a basic Canada style agreement covering trade in goods (but not financial services). That might be possible, although there isn't much time and the issues of state aid and the emotive subject of fisheries are major stumbling blocks. A no deal exit would be economically damaging, although politically the blame could be put on the EU (again).

I might add that my view is that there was a window of opportunity for a softer Brexit, but hard core remainers persisted in their demand for a second referendum. It always puzzled me that they were so confident that they would win it on the basis that people would be 'better informed', although some might have felt that what they learnt was how obdurate the EU could be. Some leavers might have voted remain, but some remainers might have voted leave. The result would have probably been close.

My hope would be that the EU and the UK realise that a working relationship is in both their interests, although the UK has more to lose than the EU. I am not too hopeful.