Editor's Introduction

K. Ewing
{"title":"Editor's Introduction","authors":"K. Ewing","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When the domestic history of the Covid-19 pandemic is written, a reasonable starting point will be the deep failures of the British State. These failures begin with the chronic lack of preparedness and the inadequate readiness of our public services. And they continue with slow reactions and ponderous decision-making, many people paying a heavy price as a result. A question government will have to answer is how much death and illness was avoidable. The failures of government in its subsequent response are wide-ranging and farreaching, whether it be the secrecy and alleged cronyism associated with procuring safety equipment for front line staff; the eye-watering expenditure of public money to pay for private contractors to run a much criticised test and trace system; or the predictable public health consequences of poor labour standards and unprotected workers. The United Kingdom suffered one of the highest death rates in the world, on a per capita basis. That was unlikely to be bad luck. It is more likely to be a consequence of government policy over many years which created the great structural problems on which the coronavirus preyed. These deep structural problems—poor health, bad and over-crowded housing, and low pay—may yet be shown to be the direct consequence of a decade of austerity, inequality and poverty. Much will be written about these problems and how they should be addressed in the future. But at the time of writing the British government shows no sign of having learned the lessons of failure. True, in the 2021 Budget the Chancellor committed vast sums of money to sustain the economy for another 12 months. But it now appears that the effect of the Budget at best will be to return to the status quo prepandemic. That is assuming optimistically of course that, at the time of writing with the rollout of vaccinations, we are at the beginning of the end-game, and the possibility of some aspects of life being re-normalised. But back to the past is no solution for the future, any more than it was after the Second World War, or the Great Depression, or the First World War. Nor does it honour the sacrifice that many have made, or the loss that many others have suffered. King’s Law Journal, 2021 Vol. 32, No. 1, 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"571 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"King's law journal : KLJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When the domestic history of the Covid-19 pandemic is written, a reasonable starting point will be the deep failures of the British State. These failures begin with the chronic lack of preparedness and the inadequate readiness of our public services. And they continue with slow reactions and ponderous decision-making, many people paying a heavy price as a result. A question government will have to answer is how much death and illness was avoidable. The failures of government in its subsequent response are wide-ranging and farreaching, whether it be the secrecy and alleged cronyism associated with procuring safety equipment for front line staff; the eye-watering expenditure of public money to pay for private contractors to run a much criticised test and trace system; or the predictable public health consequences of poor labour standards and unprotected workers. The United Kingdom suffered one of the highest death rates in the world, on a per capita basis. That was unlikely to be bad luck. It is more likely to be a consequence of government policy over many years which created the great structural problems on which the coronavirus preyed. These deep structural problems—poor health, bad and over-crowded housing, and low pay—may yet be shown to be the direct consequence of a decade of austerity, inequality and poverty. Much will be written about these problems and how they should be addressed in the future. But at the time of writing the British government shows no sign of having learned the lessons of failure. True, in the 2021 Budget the Chancellor committed vast sums of money to sustain the economy for another 12 months. But it now appears that the effect of the Budget at best will be to return to the status quo prepandemic. That is assuming optimistically of course that, at the time of writing with the rollout of vaccinations, we are at the beginning of the end-game, and the possibility of some aspects of life being re-normalised. But back to the past is no solution for the future, any more than it was after the Second World War, or the Great Depression, or the First World War. Nor does it honour the sacrifice that many have made, or the loss that many others have suffered. King’s Law Journal, 2021 Vol. 32, No. 1, 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690
编辑器的介绍
在书写新冠肺炎大流行的国内历史时,一个合理的起点将是英国政府的深刻失败。这些失败始于我们的公共服务长期缺乏准备和准备不足。他们继续反应缓慢,决策笨拙,许多人因此付出了沉重的代价。政府必须回答的一个问题是,有多少死亡和疾病是可以避免的。政府在随后的应对方面的失误是广泛而深远的,无论是在为前线员工采购安全设备时的保密和涉嫌任人唯亲;公共资金用于支付私人承包商运行备受批评的测试和跟踪系统的令人眼花缭乱的支出;或者糟糕的劳工标准和不受保护的工人所造成的可预见的公共卫生后果。按人均计算,联合王国是世界上死亡率最高的国家之一。这不太可能是坏运气。这更有可能是政府多年政策的结果,这些政策造成了冠状病毒肆虐的巨大结构性问题。这些深层次的结构性问题——糟糕的健康状况、糟糕且拥挤的住房、低工资——可能会被证明是十年来财政紧缩、不平等和贫困的直接后果。关于这些问题以及未来应该如何解决这些问题,将会有很多文章。但在撰写本文时,英国政府没有表现出从失败中吸取教训的迹象。的确,在2021年的预算中,财政大臣承诺投入大量资金,以维持经济再持续12个月。但现在看来,预算的效果充其量只是回到大流行前的状态。当然,这是乐观地假设,在撰写本文时,随着疫苗的推出,我们正处于结束游戏的开始,生活的某些方面有可能重新正常化。但回到过去并不是解决未来的办法,就像在第二次世界大战后、大萧条时期和第一次世界大战后一样。它也不尊重许多人做出的牺牲,也不尊重许多人遭受的损失。《国法学刊》,2021年第32卷第1期,1 - 2页,https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信