Too Many in Politics and the Civil Service Had No ‘Skin in the Game’ When They Destroyed Livelihoods and Frightened the Nation into Compliance
Businessman and journalist Luke Johnson (who is one of the Daily Sceptic‘s directors) has given a must-watch interview to Jeffrey Peel on his New Era website. Jeffrey writes:
Luke Johnson has been the force behind many of the U.K.’s most successful hospitality and retail businesses. Early in lockdown Luke appeared on BBC Question Time and was one of the first leading business people to question lockdown as a response to the COVID-19 outbreak. In this video I gave Luke the chance to elaborate on his view that too many in politics and the Civil Service had little or no “skin in the game” when they were making decisions to destroy livelihoods and to frighten the nation into compliance.
Luke argues, very effectively, that lockdowns were so devastating a means of ‘controlling’ a virus that they should never be contemplated again.
Watch it here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s nothing to do with ‘no skin in the game’. Ideally, civil service decisions should be made independently – they should simply be concerned with the truth, and what is best for the country.
Nowadays, this does not happen. Instead, activists with pre-set worldviews make decisions, and then bend the evidence to justify themselves.
We see this in the continuous attempts to make us believe in global warming while our infrastructure is being destroyed, in the attempts to make us believe in structural racism while our culture is being destroyed, in the attempts to make us believe in woke trans-sex while our families are destroyed. We just see a mass of behaviour altering propaganda intended to justify some completely erroneous academic activism.
This is not a lack of skin in the game. It is the wholesale abdication of responsibility and surrender to activism of a particularly dangerous kind….
The solution to your ambition to prevent abdication of responsibility is for them to have skin in the game.
The key tragedy of the civil service and the public sector generally is their ability to avoid direct exposure to their customers. There can be no accountability with indirect payment. If Marks and Spencer piss me off I can withdraw my support. I cannot do this with the civil service.
In sum, this is not reformable. Their failure is a feature of the system. It relies on their goodwill. And their internal system does not reward goodwill, it rewards obedience.
In the City there is something called the Senior Managers Regime which basically states that if you are senior enough you take full and personal responsibility not only for yourself but anyone who works under you.
If you or someone in your team screws up you take full responsibility and get a massive personal fine and are banned from the industry.
If the screw up is criminal then you got to prison as well.
I fail to see why senior politicians and civil servants are not governed to the same standards. They seem to have carte blanche to do what they like with no come back.
Something like the SMR would soon make them realise they had skin the game….
Strangely, I don’t remember that happening in the City after 2008’s banking collapse, though some were gaoled in the US.
Over-lenient UK judges, perhaps?
One of the key contributing factors in the fall of the Roman Empire was its unwieldy and corrupt bureaucracy. History has a habit of repeating itself. I read Sir John Glubb’s The Fate of Empires a few years ago – the parallels between the West today and the end years of previous empires was disconcerting, to say the least!
There is a tendency to blame the Civil Service, even though Covid policies and restrictions largely emanated from government and a supranational agency. Some public sector organisations certainly did made things worse, but concentrating on them is letting the real villains off the hook. For this purpose I regard Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and some similar others as being government rather than Civil Science.
And turns them into parasites.
Did you watch the video? Johnson is not saying that people shouldn’t be concerned with the truth. His ‘no skin in the game’ comment refers to the public sector, wherein jobs and pensions were largely safe, and the ‘laptop’ class of the private sector, whose jobs/businesses were largely safe/unaffected. He’s saying that these types had ‘no skin in the game’ in the sense that the draconian measures did not affect their livelihoods, and so they had a cosy time during lockdowns.
He would agree that ‘they should simply be concerned with the truth, and what is best for the country’, indeed, that is a main thrust of his argument, where he savagely lays into Government for not (at least openly) considering the cost-benefit of such measures, the lack of scientific and intellectual rigour leading up to the measures, the near abandonment of non-COVID health, etc.
I think that my point is that they DID have ‘skin in the game’, and they should NOT have done.
Mr Johnson seems to think that Civil Servants and other Government employees/advisers should be trying to get the best for the country. What they are actually doing is what EVERY human does – tr5y to get the best for themselves.
They actually had a LOT of ‘skin in the game’. The advisers and bureaucrats strengthened their position immeasurably by taking over large parts of our lives. They really did very well out of controlling – not the virus, but the population.
There is no way that you can create a large bureaucracy and then expect it NOT to act in its own best interests. Read Northcote Parkinson. The only answer is to minimise the size of the bureaucracy, and minimise its responsibilities….
I see what you are saying. I think you are using ‘skin in the game’ in a different sense to Johnson, and that you are both correct in your respective usage.
Johnson is using the phrase in the ‘negative’ sense, in that the aforementioned types had no personal incentive to keep the country ‘open’/stay working as usual, whereas you are using the phrase in the ‘positive’ sense, in that different elements of the aforementioned types had the chance to fulfil their own respective desires.
The bottom line is, in the sense that Johnson is using the phrase, he is absolutely correct. Johnson gets to define what he means.
His ‘no skin in the game’ comment refers to […] the ‘laptop’ class of the private sector, whose jobs/businesses were largely safe/unaffected. He’s saying that these types had ‘no skin in the game’ in the sense that the draconian measures did not affect their livelihoods, and so they had a cosy time during lockdowns.
A classic non-sequitur. I’m working as software developer which makes me part of the so-called laptop class (despite I don’t actually use one). The measures indeed didn’t affect my work life at all. But all of my non-work life, something people sometimes also like to have, was outlawed: I’ve been prohibited from meeting with my relatives, prohibited from meeting, approaching or talking to other people in general, and each and everything I’d usually do in my so-called spare time, save household work and taking long, solitary walks in the middle of the night (my usual work time is 3pm – 11pm) was prohibited as well. And this certainly affected me.
The statement above is really only somewhat true for couples without children living together who prefer to avoid socializing in favour of being glued to their TV.
The measures indeed didn’t affect my work life at all. But all of my non-work life, something people sometimes also like to have, was outlawed: I’ve been prohibited from meeting with my relatives, prohibited from meeting, approaching or talking to other people in general, and each and everything I’d usually do in my so-called spare time, save household work and taking long, solitary walks in the middle of the night (my usual work time is 3pm – 11pm) was prohibited as well. And this certainly affected me. It would be a non sequitur if Johnson was talking about this ‘class’ in an absolute sense. Ironically enough, the non sequitur would be in assuming Johnson is talking in an absolute sense. The statement above is really only somewhat true for couples without children living together who prefer to avoid socializing in favour of being glued to their TV. Again, this assumes that those of the ‘laptop’ class who took advantage of lockdowns adhered to lockdown measures in the same way as you and your friends and relatives. Doubtless many if not most did. But perhaps many didn’t take a blind bit of notice of the ‘rules,’ and therefore didn’t miss out… Read more »
It’s a non-sequitur when the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. And it doesn’t: Can work from home doesn’t mean not negatively affected by lockdowns, except for very limited special-case: People without children who wouldn’t ever leave home unless it can’t be helped. This may be the occasional recluse – surely not a large and socially influential group – or people who have all social contacts they routinely seek at home. The moment children come into play, there’s a negative effect to due school closures, a lockdown feature. But people could have been meeting their friends and relatives illegally! is not a valid counterargument: If one cannot do something unless one is prepared to break the law, that’s surely a negative effect. Otherwise, laws would be practically pointless. Even when assuming that breaking the law is not of concern, this doesn’t mean that breaking this law is actually possible. Again using myself as example: All my relatives live in Germany. And outside of pub acquaintances, I have no friends. As far as I understand your last paragraph, it basically means People could just have turned into lockdown lovers regardless of their circumstances. A petitio principi because not negatively affected by… Read more »
Can work from home doesn’t mean not negatively affected by lockdowns… Neither Johnson nor I have suggested it necessarily means ‘not negatively affected’. The point being made is that this ‘class’ of people’s livelihoods were not negatively affected. There may well have been some trade-offs. …except for very limited special-case: People without children who wouldn’t ever leave home unless it can’t be helped. This may be the occasional recluse – surely not a large and socially influential group – or people who have all social contacts they routinely seek at home. Even those who are negatively affected in other ways might nonetheless have chosen to take advantage of lockdown. Accepted a trade-off or trade-offs. You need to employ some nuance of thought. The moment children come into play, there’s a negative effect to due school closures, a lockdown feature. What’s your point? You’re assuming that taking advantage of lockdowns must entail no negative effects, which is an erroneous assumption and, again, a non sequitur. You need to keep track of the argument being made, which is not that there can be no negative effects, but that lockdowns did not adversely affect a certain class of people’s livelihoods. It is you making the… Read more »
Aunt Sally. Since no one is making a ‘not negatively affected in any way’ argument, whether as a premise or a conclusion, you’re arguing against a ghost.
Your original statement was
Johnson is using the phrase in the ‘negative’ sense, in that the aforementioned types had no personal incentive to keep the country ‘open’/stay working as usual,
To quote David Cameron, No ifs, not buts, people who are morally despicable because they can work from home are culpably responsible for this: They wanted it because it didn’t hurt them.
As I’ve explained in quite some detail: It did. You might believe that people shouldn’t have fallen for the lockdown propaganda – and I certainly wish that as well – but the people who did were also victims and not prepetrators.
Your original statement wasJohnson is using the phrase in the ‘negative’ sense, in that the aforementioned types had no personal incentive to keep the country ‘open’/stay working as usual… That’s not true, is it? My original statement was, with added emphases: [Johnson’s] ‘no skin in the game’ comment refers to the public sector, wherein jobs and pensions were largely safe, and the ‘laptop’ class of the private sector, whose jobs/businesses were largely safe/unaffected. He’s saying that these types had ‘no skin in the game’ in the sense that the draconian measures did not affect their livelihoods, and so they had a cosy time during lockdowns. It is in this context that my statement above is to be understood. The context of people’s livelihoods. I’ve already made it very clear that this is the context with which Johnson is dealing. To quote David Cameron, No ifs, not buts, people who are morally despicable because they can work from home are culpably responsible for this: They wanted it because it didn’t hurt them. 1. Please provide the source/link for that quote. Syntactically, the ‘quote’ is jarring and makes little sense. 2. What do you think this proves? You are begging the question by assuming not only… Read more »
Which brings us back simply to issues of integrity and the pursuit of truth. That’s now in a box and out of sight.
Having all that authority without any consequent responsibility as you described is precisely the issue of ‘no skin in the game’. The bureaucrats making these dangerous decisions do not have to generate the money they are spending and will never suffer any consequences when their decisions fail, unlike those individuals working in the productive part of the economy.
What is really scary is that all these super brainy civil servants, especially in the Treasury, couldn’t forsee the blindingly obvious economic outcomes of lockdown. Perhaps their models didn’t take account of reality?
…. and, in particular, owing to the enthusiasm of Johnson and others, to use those globalist derived policies to deliberately destroy life as we knew it and subject us to globalist rule. Given their policy of massive population reduction is this surprising?
Too many still can’t, or are unwilling, to see reality and have swallowed the BS put out by government.
Luke Johnson was a regular contributor to the Sunday Times and during the early days of the shitshow was very vocal in his condemnation of lockdowns and restrictions in his weekly column. He was quietly removed early 2021 as his opinions obviously didn’t fit with The Times and Sunday Times narrative and agenda towards Covid, which was obsessively pro lockdown and mask wearing that bordered on the hysterical. I’d like to know whether he left of his own volition or was he pushed.
I should think he got the push. As you say, the ST was absolutely crackers in favour of all the NPIs and the rest. The fickle evangelist Lawson, assorted “medical correspondents”, regular stuff in the magazines, including a encomium in the colour magazine with Whitty on the cover, plus an unbalanced slew of crazed letters (mandatory vaccination, masks forever etc.) made the whole thing unreadable. Johnson’s column was a beacon of common sense, and thus unacceptable to the silly people now running the ST.
I stopped reading the Sunday Times after Dominic Lawson, who really should have known better, smeared lockdown sceptics as Harold Shipman.
I don’t normally have the time to watch videos, but made time this morning. Having watched the video, so, so happy to see that Luke Johnson is part of the DS team.
He’s been great. Him and Hugh Osmond. I didn’t realise Johnson was involved in the DS. Good for him. I wrote to him in Aug 2020 suggesting he get involved in organised resistance. His reply at the time suggested he wasn’t involved with DS so glad it happened.
That’s right, they are psychopaths who see themselves apart from the rest of humanity.
They are just limited like all of us. That is why power is dangerous.
Lack of humanity and lack of sympathy are certainly on show. They should be able imaginatively to walk a mile in the shoes of various professions, occupations and trades. The trouble is that they are ingrained elitists who think a large proportion of the shoes are simply beneath them, and probably dirty, yucky and germ-ridden.
The Judge who has almost let off the stupid people who stick themselves to roads just made himself a cringeworthy example of this.
Excellent interview. This is a man worthy of respect, for sticking his neck out right at the start.
Found at bitchute : Luke Johnson on Question Time May 2020. His comments on China are even more relevant today.
I remember now seeing this at the time – brilliant man. And those muppets on the video boxes shaking their heads…
Wouldn’t it be great to get them all back together, this time with Johnson asking the questions!
No! No! No!!!!!
Ironically, given all the movies, and the fact it was allegedly “cough” a jointly developed bio weapon courtesy of the USA & China, it was the MSM that managed to turn the majority of the population into Zombies.
But all this stuff about Public Enquiries, Partygate and a ‘Reckoning’ (whateverthehell people think that means) is just the band on the Titanic keeping people’s spirits up, whilst TPTB are preparing for the civil unrest to come. Think I’m joking?
Check this out and understand how bad it’s going to get in the UK.
https://wolfstreet.com/2022/04/12/whoosh-dollars-purchasing-power-goes-to-heck-as-services-inflation-takes-off-food-spikes-energy-explodes-but-used-cars-finally-stall/
And that catastrophe is inevitable, and very close now, regardless of any other nasties on their agenda.
Make sure to have a Hearty Breakfast at every opportunity, is my advice.
And watch Resident Alien, if you can. It’s bloody brilliant!
Mercola has a PDF out today which suggests that we are galloping towards CBDC and central bank collapse.
Lockdown did a great job of preventing the fit and healthy working age from developing herd immunity, prolonging the emergency to a point where the saviours in lab coats were able to deploy the life serum and end the pandemic.
Sad that they are now queuing for the 4th jab
I was watching that Question Time and I was so glad he said what he did. It showed up the ineptness and delusional in all the others on the panel.
I have never watched one since because of the bias and ridiculous social distanced chairs. Comedy😵💫
The lockdowns were never about controlling a virus but about destroying society to ‘build back better.’
This should be compulsory viewing for every pathetic MP who supported the Lockdowns/Restrictions …. and then all those who voted for them, including every Government Minister, should stand down from Parliament.
I agree and to add to that too many making those decisions personnally gained enormously financially, personal fulfillment and other benefits. The decision to declare vaccines as the sole strategy while actively barring early treatments has to be one of the most terrible self-serving disastrous decisions ever made. Everyone turned a blind eye to so many unnecessary deaths.
I agree wholeheartedly and said at the time it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve, if government officials,MPs and public health officials making these lockdown decisions, also bureaucrats and the laptop class able to work from home, also lost their income, lost their jobs and businesses, this pandemic would be over in weeks, not years and it is still going on. Many have been on 2 year paid vacations.
I started my business career in television and ended by building a small publishing company. I have first hand experience of how publishers and journalists think and work.
I never understood why more of the media (press and broadcasters) was not exposing the damage being done by lockdown and similar measures.
Johnson suggests that one reason was the predominance of left wing attitudes in the media but I got the impression was that Ofcom was a stronger influence.
The talk today is of the Russian public being given false news by the Kremlin. Surely this is not particularly different to the way the British public were brainwashed by our ‘leaders’?