The Great Reveal


If you thought Monday 19th July 2021 was “Freedom Day”, you were mistaken. But you were only off by a week. The real “Freedom Day” was Monday 26th July 2021 because this was the “great reveal” day – the day when the majority of us discovered the whole truth about why we are where we are. And now that we have that information, we can take the right action to change how the future unfolds.

This is the first day of our new path to freedom.   

The specific mechanisms that brought us to this point – the lies, the propaganda, the twisted facts and cleverly altered definitions that were employed to nudge and corral us into our current unreality – will all be stuff for the historians to elaborate on, and for the judges and juries to use to convict those responsible. But at least we now know what it was all designed for, and what it was leading to. In this revelation there is clarity, and clarity brings relief, even in the face of danger.

For a long time we have known that we are not here because there was a deadly pandemic of an incurable disease that swept the globe, so serious that it was necessary to divert funds set aside for medical research and innovation for all other illnesses in the pursuit of a vaccine that could save us and become a silver bullet offering rock solid, lifelong immunity from the disease, so that our kind and caring leaders could buy this “safe and effective” elixir for every person on the planet in order to save humanity from extinction.

We are not even here because the opposite of this end point was desired and nefarious forces reverse engineered it. In other words, in order to drive humanity to the brink of extinction, our (not so) kind and caring leaders trashed the already declining economy and ordered excessive quantities of dodgy life-threatening gene therapy drugs from companies they held shares in by convincing everyone they were likely to die from catching a virus that, in reality, any healthy person would shake off (as they do any other respiratory virus), and even the weak and elderly could recover from if given early treatment.

We can now see that the truth lies somewhere between those two theories. It took a while to see it because it was muddied by the convergence of numerous opportunists: interest groups cashing in on a period in time when the majority of the world’s population had been hypnotised into a state of utter hysteria by pushing the narrative in certain directions in order to achieve their aims. Big tech, big pharma, the communists, the fascists, the globalists, the eco-warriors, the disgruntled Millennial/Gen-Z cuspers all saw where they could capitalise on the instability caused by the reaction to an amplified respiratory virus; anyone looking to seize profit or control weighed in. Once you get the majority of people to believe that the sky is falling, it’s not too hard to persuade them that you and only you have the tools to stop it collapsing. This is less about “virtue” or “status” signalling than it is about “cause” and “saviour” signalling. Although how anyone can claim to care about the environment whilst promoting the use of facemasks, plastic screens and chemical hand sanitizer beggars belief.

Standing apart from the chief instigators (power holders and power grabbers) of this mess, and the corralled sheep that became their disciples, were the people whose lifelong natural immunity to bullshit and brainwashing tactics kept them sceptical. Many in this group had never encountered each other before and thus a fresh and ingenious hive mind was born, comprised of right-wing libertarians, left-wing liberal democrats (small “l”, small “d”), spiritualists, atheists, natural health practitioners, registered nurses, artists, academics, the young and the old, straddling all sectors of society; a group that harnessed what Matthew Syed describes as “the power of diverse thinking”.

This multi-faceted and grounded group of hyper-aware realists knew one thing for sure: things simply did not add up. They poked and prodded the facts, puzzling over why rational reason and common sense were falling on deaf ears at every hurdle; and they remained in the dark, grasping at clues. That is, until Monday 26th July, when all the pieces fell into place (Boris raging in full-throttle vaccine passport mania, Rishi announcing his centrally-controlled digital currencies and Macron pushing his French “health pass” through parliament) and the picture became crystal clear. Global leaders were not pushing “vaccines” because we needed inoculating from a disease or because they wanted to cull us (although this was probably a welcome by-product for those yearning for depopulation); they were pushing them to get us on “vaccine passports”. But these aren’t really vaccine passports; they are “digital IDs” and they aren’t for the purpose of identifying us in order to monitor our movements, they are for the purpose of controlling us. And they will control us by issuing centrally controlled digital currencies and telling us how and when we can spend our allowance.

That’s right, folks, the government is going to give you an allowance, pocket money if you will. But the government will also tell you when you are allowed to go to the shops, which shops you have permission to go to, and which items you are allowed to buy. (You’re okay with that, right? You’re happy to scan QR codes wherever you go, yes?) If you do not comply, your money will disappear. Ultimately, remember it’s the government’s money, not your money. You will own nothing. And you will be happy. Okay?

Because if you’re not happy about it, well, you just won’t be here, it’s as simple as that. You will be told if you can work, when you can work and what work you can do. You will be told if you can travel, when you can travel and where you can travel. You will be told if you can go out, when you can go out and where you can go. Individual independence, personal freedom and human agency will all be things of the past. People who desired such things will be phased out, excluded from society, and eventually eradicated. You will be given money – enough to exist on – but you will do exactly as you are told or your privileges will be curtailed. Sound familiar to anyone who’s lived through the past 16 months in most former Western democracies?

This is all to “rescue” us from complete economic collapse. Because when people realise their governments have run out of money, run out of credit lines, gambled away our reserves and are on the brink of hyperinflation, they will get angry. Governments hope they can segregate the “angry and aware” from the “hypnotised and compliant” (this is going well so far), then cancel the former and enslave the latter.

For anyone who doesn’t understand economic cycles, the dangers of hyperinflation, the value of purpose and economic production, and the ultimate unsustainability of quantitative easing (the endless printing of money), here it is in parenting terms. When you reward children with pocket money for completing age-appropriate tasks, you empower them. When you let them buy what they want and they regret forgoing the nice jacket in favour of a week’s supply of crisps and snacks, you teach them about value. Conversely, when you let children believe that they are entitled to their pocket money, they become listless and uninspired. When you dictate what they are allowed to spend their money on, you rob them of their human agency, of learning through experience, of growing.

What was the biggest clue to the dawning of this dystopian reality? Furlough. Paying healthy, creative, energetic young people to stay at home and do nothing but stare at screens and order junk food did them a disastrous disservice; it was dis-incentivising, destructive and demoralising. We have told the young, bright and creative minds of tomorrow – the entrepreneurs, the actors, the musicians, the artists, the dancers, the restaurateurs, the bar staff – your services are not needed; you are surplus to requirements. We will pay you to fester in your homes.

A good parent encourages their child to create and be productive; helps them understand that we each have a unique purpose in life; shows them that we all have intrinsic value in our ability to contribute to human evolution and progress. A good government understands that people don’t just want to be paid to exist, that all attempts to coerce and control the populace end badly, and that the only means to recover any economy is by stimulating production and human activity without too many restrictions and pressures. The greatest threat to humanity always comes when there is too much imbalance between those who hold all the wealth and power on the one hand, and those who have power in numbers and physical strength on the other hand. This is because those in power – through their political position, celebrity status, or wealth (or all three) – are completely out of touch with humanity. When you gain too much power through money or status, you dehumanise yourself and think yourself invincible and godlike. When you have a jackboot stamping on your face you have nothing to lose and become fearless in your defiance. There will always be more of us than there are of them. They seem to have forgotten this lately.

The economists and political strategists are not going to fix this. Most of them understand numbers but not human nature. The same goes for epidemiologists, geneticists and bioengineers. Many of them have a blind belief that the automation of services, artificial intelligence and dehumanisation will solve our economic crisis. They’ve got all the models to “prove” it. But if you apply theoretical models to living beings you don’t understand, you will fail. When you try to engineer utopia, you will inevitably build a dystopia. When we fight dystopia we inadvertently and unconsciously create utopia.  

If you have the smallest shred of sanity left in your brain, an iota of responsibility in your bones, a whisper of truth in your heart, one last breath of hope for humanity… you must resist and fight all attempts to issue “vaccine passports” via coercive measures with every fibre of your being. No excuses.

We will win. The only question is when.

Ivermectin: Censorship and Covid


This article is about suppression of free speech and censorship. Prior to 2020 academics – especially clinicians – would openly debate and discuss the merits of different pharmaceutical and medical interventions to treat illness. With Covid, that ended. Suddenly. The suppression of free speech has accompanied unparalleled state intervention, fear-driven propaganda and social coercion. And the degree of corporate and media involvement in the suppression of free speech, and dissemination of an “approved narrative,” has taken many of us by surprise. We’re happy to publish this article by Josh Hamilton on how the Ivermectin story has been systematically suppressed. A version of this article was originally published on Josh’s own website (link at the bottom).

There was a PHD of evolutionary biology, who in April of 2020, was saying, calmly, that the genome of covid-19 looked suspiciously like it had been modified or engineered in a laboratory. Despite no evidence to suggest that this was patently false, and a long line of coincidences to suggest that the lab leak theory was, at the very least, plausible – this was dismissed out of hand by the mainstream media. His name was Dr. Bret Weinstein, who discussed this theory openly and frequently with his wife, Dr Heather Heying, on their Dark Horse podcast and on other shows hosted by Joe Rogan and Bill Maher.

We now know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a level 4 biosafety laboratory, was working on “gain of function” research on how coronaviruses jump from species to species. Sky News Australia has even revealed that labs were working on live bats around the beginning of the pandemic. This was being funded by the NIH and the US government (either knowingly or unknowingly) through a group called Ecohealth Alliance. This kind of research was banned by the Obama administration and this funnelling of funding through Ecohealth circumvented the ban. The President of Ecohealth Alliance, was then hired to lead the task-force into whether covid-19 had leaked from a lab. Although Daszak declared in The Lancet that he has “no competing interests” on Covid-19.

Despite Dr Weinstein’s credentials and his calm and considered presentation of the evidence, he was labelled by some as a conspiracy theorist along with anyone who chose to suggest that the lab leak was a very plausible theory for the origin of covid. It turns out the theory was racist as well – “Baseless accusations of Chinese culpability for the virus have already fueled xenophobia and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the Bay Area and across the country.”

Regardless of how accurate the theory might be, the crucial point to note here is that our media institutions have taken it upon themselves to become the arbiters of truth – to arrogantly decide that they know best. Anything outside of the mainstream is a conspiracy theory or misinformation, until they decide it is not. The glass, on this occasion, was shattered by the appearance of John Stewart on Stephen Colbert’s show and suddenly it was a plausible theory again. 

So the truth has come to light, isn’t that what the system is meant to do? Unfortunately no. The point of the media was never to censor, rather it was to inform and challenge the status quo, not help prop it up. This theory being suppressed and dismissed for so long may not have caused much measurable real-world harm beyond the loss of mainstream recognition for any public figure or scientist who chose to pursue this theory, but that does not mean that censorship is harmless. There is, as Bret Weinstein himself said on his latest appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, no scenario is which censorship is for the ultimate good of civilization and society. The censors and book burners of history are never the heroes. 

The mainstream media was wrong, the fact-checkers were wrong, and the people who were right had their reputations tarnished with no apology; yet the people who were wrong remain unassailable as our keepers of the truth. I do often wonder when the mainstream will lose all credibility. They can be wrong time and time again, and yet we still believe them to be correct when they label someone as a conspiracy theorist or remove their content from YouTube.

Bret Weinstein has lost much of his income provided by YouTube adverts as they have demonetised all of his content. Interestingly they are still advertising on his videos, so there is no issue from advertisers. This may not be total censorship, but it is implicitly pushing us all towards a place where we dare not speak the wrong words, lest the ad money be stripped from us by the gods of Silicon Valley. 

Which brings us to Ivermectin. 

From the FLCCC (Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance)

Bret Weinstein hosted Dr Pierre Kory on his podcast to discuss the drug Ivermectin. Here are just some of his credentials:

Pierre Kory is the former Chief of the Critical Care Service and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin. He is considered one of the world pioneers in the use of ultrasound by physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill patients.

Dr. Kory was also one of the U.S. pioneers in the research, development, and teaching of performing therapeutic hypothermia to treat post-cardiac arrest patients. In 2005, his hospital was the first in New York City to begin regularly treating patients with therapeutic hypothermia. He has won numerous departmental and divisional teaching awards in every hospital he has worked. He has delivered hundreds of courses and invited lectures throughout his career.

Dr. Kory has led ICU’s in multiple COVID-19 hotspots throughout the pandemic. Having led his old ICU in New York City during their initial surge in May for 5 straight weeks, he then travelled to other COVID-19 hotspots to run COVID ICU’s in Greenville, South Carolina and Milwaukee, WI during their surges. He has co-authored 5 influential papers on COVID-19, with the most impactful being a paper that was the first to support the diagnosis of early COVID-19 respiratory disease as an organizing pneumonia, thus explaining the critical response of the disease to corticosteroids.

In this discussion they closely and thoroughly examined the evidence that Ivermectin could be the final tool we need to defeat covid-19.

The podcast was quickly removed from YouTube, citing spam or misleading practices. Ivermectin itself is mentioned in the YouTube community guidelines as being forbidden to discuss as a treatment for Covid (that alone for me is a “what the fuck?” moment). Who are YouTube, the video-hosting platform, to decide they have more expertise than two clinicians – one of whom literally worked and treated covid-19 patients on the front line and pioneered the treatments that we use to this day to treat covid in hospitals. How on earth can we pretend we exist in a free and open society when doctors are silenced for discussing medicine?

The drug has shown in a number of trials that it has remarkable efficacy in treating Covid, especially in the early stages, and as a preventative measure – in other words as a prophylactic. There are even studies suggesting its efficacy against long covid and post-vaccine syndromes, though further research is required here. 

Dr Kory thought that when he assembled the evidence towards the end of last year that this drug was proving incredibly effective when it was administered en masse in countries like Mexico, India, and Peru and in studies in other countries with large and small sample sizes. One study of frontline health workers found that not a single one of over 700 who participated in a trial of ivermectin contracted covid-19. 

Weinstein suggested on the Lex Fridman Show that this may well be a case of an auto-pilot gone wrong. YouTube are forced to use an algorithm to scan videos to track and monitor content. They have to deal with an unfathomable amount of information, though that does not excuse them. There is a high likelihood that the censors at YouTube are doing this to prevent the spread of dangerous misinformation, but, in their hubris, they have decided that in pursuit of this goal, it is acceptable to censor those who discuss issues like this honestly and in good faith – those who are actually qualified (even by YouTube’s standards) to discuss this. 

If the drug is even half as effective as some of the studies have shown, then the censorship of discussion about this drug is the most egregious form of authoritarianism that I can imagine. It is negligent man-slaughter on a global scale, perpetrated by those who claim to fact-check and censor with (they claim) our best interests at heart.

These are the folks who over the past year have told you that the lab leak theory was a racist conspiracy theory – until it wasn’t, the Great Reset was a conspiracy theory – until it wasn’t, and that vaccine passports were a conspiracy theory – until they weren’t. The official line is that vaccines are the way to freedom and a return to normal life, so anything that promotes an alternative narrative is dangerous to that goal – it puts the entire project at risk. Therefore, Bret Weinstein, Dr Kory and co. cannot be allowed to propose that there may be an alternative treatment – as that may reduce people’s willingness to get the vaccine and defeat the effort to drive Covid-19 to extinction. 

There is also a quiet suggestion that, if there was a safe and effective treatment that had already been approved by medical agencies around the world, it would have been impossible to get the emergency approvals needed to administer the vaccines. 

When Dr Tess Lawrie from the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD) group – a grassroots initiative bringing together clinicians, health researchers and patient representatives from around the world to advocate for the use of ivermectin against covid-19 – attempted to post on LinkedIn about her meta-analysis of 15 studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin, the link was forbidden to be posted. Dr Lawrie has also been removed from Twitter after her analysis of adverse effects of vaccines from publicly available data.

She was not allowed to post as there is no evidence that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19 – therefore one cannot post evidence that Ivermectin might be effective. You may not post evidence, because there is no evidence. This kind of logic is both dangerous and highly disturbing to anyone concerned with free and open debate. If there is a drug that might work, that doctors who are using it say it works, then we need to have an open and in-depth discussion about the evidence. Not shut down any conversation as there is not enough evidence. 

Tim Pool, who is famously derided for sitting on the fence on many issues, simply mentioned that a new Ivermectin study from Oxford University was showing promising results. For that egregious relaying of the facts, Tim’s channel was served with this warning

This drug is not patented and is cheap to produce (some estimates have it costing $1-2 per treatment), it’s been administered worldwide over 4 billion times and has been shown across numerous studies to be effective against Covid. This could literally be our salvation – we have the final nail in the Covid coffin – this might be the chance to defeat Covid and fulfil even the deepest desires of the zero Covid zealots.

But, instead, for whatever reason, our system is trying every way to shut down discussion about it. Vaccines are the only way out, apprently. The only drug which is acceptable to discuss is the patented and expensive drug, Remdesivir (which costs £1900 ($3000) for a 5 day treatment). Best of all, whilst doctors are screaming about Ivermectin, the U.S. and Dr Fauci are shutting their eyes so tight, they’ve decided to invest $3.2 billion in a search for new anti-viral drugs. 

It does not surprise me that much that our system has chosen this path – regardless of whether it is malice, greed, or incompetence (perhaps a mixture of both). For too long our system has failed to do what is best for society and focused solely on what is best for the wealthy. When lockdowns are profitable for the biggest corporations in the world, it makes sense that our governments support them. When vaccines (utilising a brand new piece of technology with no long term safety data and for which the manufacturers are exempt from liability) are more profitable than an already tested drug – it makes sense that is what the system will support. When outsourcing our healthcare services in Britain to private companies proves far less effective, but more profitable, of course the system chooses that option. It’s because profit is king – it comes above truth, public health, and the prosperity of society as a whole. This is unfortunately the reality we live in. If you think the current crop of politicians on either side of the Atlantic actually care about the people and not just their votes (save for a rare few) – you’re sadly mistaken. 

Some people in Britain and America have decried the lack of action from their governments, claiming that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths, could have been prevented had we simply locked down sooner. Yet these same people are utterly silent on the fact that since last year we have had a drug that has been shown time and again to be incredibly effective at treating Covid, especially when catching it early. The fact that discussion of this drug has been so heavily censored is criminal – had a free and open discussion about it been possible, there are equally tens of thousands of people who might have been saved in the UK or US alone – millions if we consider the global figures. 

Censorship has quite literally killed people. If one life could have been saved by this drug, isn’t it worth discussing? Censorship is a horrifying practice and one that I used to believe we as a society abhorred. Instead, through fear and trauma of a year of pandemic and lockdowns we’ve been rail-roaded into believing censorship is for our own good.  It is not. It never is. It never will be. I only hope enough of us realise this in time. 

By Josh Hamilton. Editor at and Host of Chatter

Time for a Fact-Driven Approach to Viruses

By Jamie Jenkins (Jamie is standing in the Senedd election for the South Wales Central region, and Pontypridd constituency, May 6).

The default position of many countries over the past year – when there has been a rise in Covid-19 cases – has been to lockdown the entire nation. I believe there is a need for a different, less robotic, approach.

Back in March 2020, we had the first UK lockdown. Choosing this path had some logic as the virus was spreading and we had little information about who was susceptible. Countries went into lockdown one by one, and it was an easy option to follow the crowd rather than stand out on our own against it.

A year on, and with such rich data on the population and the effect of Covid-19, I believe that following the same path in the future would be madness.

The pandemic has led to heartbreak for many families who have lost loved ones and we should remember that while each death is a statistic, to each family it is far more than that.

But the statistics help us understand who is most susceptible to Covid-19. In fact, some 83% of all the deaths have been for those aged 70 and over. Data from NHS England suggest less than 1% of deaths were among people aged under 60 with no underlying health condition.

We need to remember that these statistics do not tell us if Covid-19 caused the death. Some people will have died for other reasons but had the virus and a positive test. We can understand the scale of the pandemic by ignoring the cause of death and looking at how many deaths occurred from all causes and compare that to how many typically occur. If we do this, it is clear over 100,000 people have had lives cut short.

However, much of the discussion in the past year has been exclusively on the health impact of the virus. Daily we learn the number of fresh cases, number of recent deaths, but little on the number of fresh job losses and business closures or other human impacts of lockdown.

Between March 2020 and March 2021 over 800,000 people lost their jobs in the UK. The true impact will be higher as this excludes the effect on the self-employed. For each person this is a significant life event that causes huge turmoil for the individuals and their families. Almost 8 in every 10 who have lost jobs have been under the age of 35, and unemployment for recent graduates continues to soar. The cost to the taxpayer of the pandemic is huge: we have spent over £60 billion in furlough payments alone. Our children will face the burden of that debt – is that fair?

When future generations look back at this pandemic, I wonder how they will score the handling of it? Maybe commentators will have sympathy on the first course of action, but given what we know now, it would surely be an overwhelming failure if we follow the same path time and time again. Ministers talk of data, not dates, which is clearly nonsense as the data should have allowed the UK to open up again weeks ago. I fear the current crop of Ministers across the four nations are not competent to challenge the so-called experts advising them.

We have data on who is at risk from the virus, we have a population where most have antibodies, and we know the economic damage of lockdowns.

I would take an evidence and risk-based approach if there were any future waves of this or other viruses. Remember, we have mutant strains of the flu that sadly kill people, and each year the vaccine changes to combat it. We never talk of robotic lockdowns for the flu. We will need to learn to live with Covid-19 and not eradicate it. As well as the economic harms, we have not yet started the hangover from the past year, with missed health diagnoses just the tip of the iceberg.

Where I live in Wales, we have had the second highest rate of Covid-19 deaths across the country. I know people who have sadly died, and people who have lost their livelihoods. We need to have policies that consider everyone and that is why I have entered politics to give people in Wales someone who will put evidence back onto the table to protect not only lives but also livelihoods.

Jamie Jenkins

Jamie Jenkins is the former Head of Health Analysis and Labour Market Analysis at the Office for National Statistics. Jamie has been providing daily data updates for the public on Covid-19 pandemic the past year and has won awards from the Royal Statistical Society and United Nations for presentation of data. He also worked at the BBC advising journalists on data over a General Election period, helping them challenge politicians.

Rishi’s Tax Dish

The UK Chancellor’s statement last Wednesday included lots of grandiose pronouncements about recovery and growth — but the most significant elements of his budget were tax rises that will stifle that growth.

The increase of corporation tax (business tax on profits) to 25% (for the largest and most profitable companies) will result in the UK’s headline rate being precisely twice the rate of Ireland’s — our nearest and most competitive nation for foreign direct investment.

Ireland has long played its hand as one of the most desirable places for large multinationals to set up shop. But the UK was (prior to March 2020) very successful in competing with Ireland given the importance of London as a money market. Our relatively low personal taxation rates helped too — as well as the relative size of the UK market compared to Ireland’s tiddly one. And why set up an operation in Ireland when staff would soon become disgruntled with higher rate tax kicking in (at 40%) on any income above around £30,000 (and tiny personal tax-free allowances)?

But with a Corporation Tax rate of 25% in play the semantic personal taxation differences between the UK and Ireland won’t matter that much. Twice the rate. That’s the headline. The Irish will be popping corks. And, of course, with everyone working from home what’s to stop businesses flip-flopping all over the place to suit their profit recognition needs? It’s not as though staff have to be where the office is.

The story was very different just over a year ago. The UK’s corporation tax rate of 19% was on a downward trajectory. The rate was supposed to be 17% by now, but that was cancelled once lockdown and furlough and the Covid regulation paraphernalia kicked in — and the associated spending splurge pushed sovereign debt ever upwards. It’s now at grotesque levels in order to support cripplingly expensive and ill-conceived interventions like track and trace and apparently endless furlough (i.e., generous unemployment payments in drag).

Therefore, pronouncements about recovery and growth ring pretty hollow when the most obvious basis for companies investing — having the investable profits to plough back into the business — is undermined.

Brexit was supposed to provide the UK with the ability to be independent minded and create massive competitive advantage. Some were even talking about slashing the CT rate. Northern Ireland was even provided special dispensation to set its own rate — to compete aggressively with Ireland. But that option is out the window now that it’s trapped in the EU single market — with a corporation tax now twice the rate of the nation with whom it shares a land border. And the so-called Brexit “deal” with the EU clearly isn’t yet complete when herb growers in Yorkshire are not free to export their products to another UK region. It’s pretty fundamental that all parts of the UK should be able to trade with each other unfettered. But fundamentals have been lost along with liberty during lockdown.

Where, in the past, Chancellors could talk about doing things to encourage growth we could argue the merits, or otherwise, of the policies in the context of a normal economy. Now we’re in a situation where a vast chunk of business is closed through no fault of its own. Indeed, many big/profitable businesses that would have been in the target frame for the 25% corporation tax hit have gone or are about to fall at the next hurdle. Profitable “major multiple” retail chains are like hen’s teeth and the travel and tourism sectors are decimated. Some tech has done well — but Amazon’s European operations are ostensibly based in Luxembourg (another low tax haven in the EU) and other beneficiaries of lockdown (like Zoom or Microsoft) will not be recognising the bulk of their profits in the UK any time soon.

Conservative chancellors have argued in the past that hiking corporation tax (when suggested by the Labour Party) would have the effect of substantially reducing the tax take. Businesses might move their HQ operations to other markets with lower rates. Or they might avoid excessive profits by recognising them in odd ways. Creative accounting is made more attractive if the consequence of reporting profit is a huge tax bill. All these arguments still hold. But now it’s a Conservative government that’s spending (and borrowing) at levels we’ve never seen before. Repayment of this debt will be impossible given the forecast paltry growth rates we’ll see after consumers deplete whatever savings they’ve built up during the last year of near constant lockdowns. Indeed, they may not spend it at all if they know that the ending of furlough will be followed by an extended period of unemployment or under-employment.

It could have been so different. Lockdown as a policy response was conceived by the Chinese and ill-conceived for a so-called liberal democracy. But to kick business and wealth creators when the trading circumstances are so dire for so many feels like sheer vindictiveness.


Even the mainstream media admit that the latest lockdown will result in a huge hit to the economy. But there’s precious little sympathy being offered to the people who have provided the money to allow governments to function, ever since governments became a thing.

After all, goes the government line, we have to protect the NHS. It’s almost as if the NHS was sufficient reason for itself.

But that logic is applied elsewhere in government too. The Covid response is showing us just how vast government has become and the extent to which it can remove freedom. And that has been as big a shock to me as anyone. 

Just over three years ago, after an entire career in the private sector, I decided to take up a position as an advisor, a Specialist, within one of the government departments in Whitehall (DIT). Specialists are typically drawn from industry and apply their knowledge to perform roles in policy development, trade negotiations etc. My role was to persuade software companies to invest in the UK. However, last March, the role changed when the government announced its first variant of lockdown. Several mutations have followed.

Travel was essentially banned. Investors could not visit, and I could not visit them. All civil servants were sent home. And because potential investor companies were effectively banned from coming to the UK, inward investment opportunities fell off a cliff. I stayed a few further months to help as best I could, but I felt I was not providing value to the taxpayer, so left the role before Christmas.

The UK civil service employs some 430,000, but hundreds of thousands more are hired in as contractors, specialists and suppliers. The civil service is only a small percentage of total public sector employment. Add the NHS, local government and quangos and the total payroll is close to 6million. At least the same number again are dependent on government spending to sustain their employment. The civil service awards huge contracts to professional services firms for myriad specialist functions. In addition, spending by public sector employees sustains other sectors such as retail, construction and hospitality (in normal times). 

But, since March, public sector dependency entered a whole new ballpark: furlough. As of August, some 12 per cent of UK employees were using the scheme. Furlough means that more than 50 per cent of the UK workforce is dependent on the government. Add support packages for the self-employed and it’s probably closer to 60 per cent. Add those on unemployment benefits and it looks as if two-thirds of the population is government-dependent.

Those left in private sector employment, what are they up to? Many work for the big supermarkets. Many are employed by Amazon and the big technology companies or Deliveroo or Just Eat. The employed dependence on big companies, enriched by Covid-response, has become greater while small and medium-sized firms have gone to the wall. The ones that are left are teetering. A study by the ONS published in August indicated that some two-thirds of UK businesses were at risk of insolvency – not as a result of Covid, but because of lockdowns

Covid response has delivered everything that Jeremy Corbyn wanted, with bells on. The UK economy has become debt-dependent to eye-watering levels. Total public debt stands at over £2.1 trillion, with much more to come. This year alone the Chancellor will add close to £400billion to public debt. In relative terms this is about ten times (in current monetary value) the amount we received under the post-war Marshall Plan. We are told the cost of the debt is cheap. But this level of public sector debt is without parallel. It will end in more tears. 

Lockdown, in short, is an economy killer, without just cause. There also appears to be no way out. On Tuesday Chris Whitty advised us that 1 in 50 people in the UK currently have Covid-19. But of these, just one in a hundred will die because of it. Probably less, given that the test for Covid (PCR) is just so bad at finding it. 

We are told that wards are overrun, but they’re overrun every winter – and the Nightingale Hospitals we built to cope with overruns can’t be staffed because perfectly well staff are being sent home because they’re being tested constantly using PCR tests that can’t seem to find illness. 

The UK has officially become a Potemkin Village. Most of our workforce now depends on money we don’t have. Our productive sector is waning, our innovation is tanking, and investment has nowhere to go if start-ups don’t start and scale-up businesses have no markets.

(This article was originally published in The Conservative Woman)