We all understand why the Government’s daily briefings are necessary – both to give the latest news and to reinforce key public safety messages.
However, I am beginning to feel their purpose has got lost.
They are becoming little more than a daily Sermon on the Mount, offering scant new information and, worse, often delivering large doses of hectoring.
Losing their purpose: Lord Blunkett has spoken out at the ‘scant information’ being offered at the daily Government briefings
Simple message: He said the Government should call on people who are not living together not to get too close to risk passing on the virus
Worryingly, this could have the opposite effect than the one intended.
The British people have never experienced totalitarianism and top-down diktats, so it’s not in our psyche to be bossed about by politicians.
That is why Ministers must get the tone right. During the Falklands War, a dour Ministry of Defence spokesman called Ian McDonald went on TV nightly to announce the latest death toll, his macabre delivery causing public anguish.
I fear a similar disquiet is brewing today. For me, the Government’s message should be simple: ensure that people who are not living together don’t get close enough to risk passing on the virus.
Yet the impression we are given is that we must imprison ourselves in a way which has little to do with safety.
How daft that some people are being told not to use their gardens or that police are warning that shopping trolleys might be checked to ensure they don’t contain non-essential items.
How totally unBritish.
Going soft: Lord Blunkett said he would expect the press to hold politicians to be held to account during the coronavirus crisis
If I were still a Minister, I would never expect the Press to go soft on me and not keep requiring me to explain the truth.
I mentioned in a recent BBC interview my concerns about politicians not being held to account, specifically about strategies for the weeks ahead, rather than merely repeating threats of long-term misery.
That said, clearly we must put up with restrictions for a little longer.
This is currently the sole tool in the armoury to achieve the goal of avoiding a return to rising contagion and pressure on intensive care units.
After that, however, the question arises: how do we remove the lockdown as quickly and as safely as possible? Being married to a doctor who served 37 years on the front line, I fully understand the huge risks NHS staff, those working in shops, on transport systems, in local government facilities and others in key roles are facing.
But rather than formulaic daily press conferences which spook the public, we must be told exactly the Government’s thinking.
What is the civil servants’ modelling for lifting the lockdown?
What level does the infection rate need to drop to?
And what pressure first needs to be relieved on ICUs before we can exit the present restrictions?
In other words, the planned milestones by which we can see a light at the end of this tunnel.
For ending this national paralysis, which is doing so much damage socially and economically – must happen, and as soon as possible.
My priority would be to reopen our schools.
Secondly, the public should be trusted to be given an idea of the incremental approach to how other changes could be made – while seeking to protect those most vulnerable, such as those with underlying conditions, but not with arbitrary age parameters.
I would also invite a wider range of advice from various centres of excellence. Too much reliance has been placed on too small a group of advisers.
Above all, people need to have hope. They need to know there is an end point when, even if the virus has not been eliminated nor a vaccine created, we can return to some form of normality.
This will allow the revival of our economy, employment and of some kind of social life.
We humans are social beings.
Parliament needs to reconvene: Lord Blunkett has made the call for MPs to go back to work there as it is ‘not possible to operate democratic processes from a distance’
Our whole heritage has been built on people coming together, learning together and making progress together.
Communal gatherings via technological wizardry is no substitute for face-to-face interaction.
That is why I believe, too, it is vital for Parliament to reconvene this month.
Make no mistake, it is not possible to operate democratic processes from a distance.
Of course, it will be necessary to find ways of protecting the health of Westminster staff while conducting business in a sensible but positive way.