hen deciding today’s front pages, newspapers had a choice: do they hold the government to account over Britain facing the highest death toll in Europe, or do they take aim at a government scientist, who ignored his own advice to the public, and invited a partner to his home? As you might have seen, the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Metro and the Sun opted for the latter. In a healthy, functioning democracy, a genuinely free press would not have considered this a dilemma. Bad news, everyone, because that’s not the country we live in. This story could be seen as a run-of-the-mill scoop, a classic tale of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrisy, a staple of the British press. Or it could be perceived as a retaliatory hit by the political right who resent, to varying degrees of intensity, a lockdown that values human life over economic considerations. This is where the Neil Ferguson saga raises troubling questions. This story somehow found its way to the Telegraph, a hawkishly pro-Conservative newspaper (and until recently the employer of the prime minister himself) more than a month after the event. Ferguson’s partner visited him on 30 March and 8 April: 37 and 28 days ago respectively. Whatever the reason for this delay, the story has certainly come at a politically opportune moment: when the government should be being scrutinised about a death toll exceeding that of Italy, whose plight just weeks ago was discussed in near-apocalyptic tones. What public interest is there in revealing the identity of Ferguson’s partner, given she is not a public figure? On the front pages of two pro-government newspapers – the Sun and the Daily Mail – her face looms larger than that of the scientist himself: sexism flaunted without subtlety or shame. It’s mesmerising to witness their rediscovery of family values, as they engage in prurient discussion about Ferguson’s partner – or “mistress”, as the Times transmits from its 1950s timewarp – and her marriage. Wait until they find out what the prime minister has been up to, because boy are they going to be livid. Exposing Ferguson’s partner’s identity may not be in the public interest, but it certainly serves a political interest. How else would we discover that – gasp! – she’s on the political left, that – gasp! – she supports progressive causes such as tackling the climate emergency, that – gasp! – she’s a remainer? We even discover that – find some pearls to clutch – she lives in a £1.9m house with her academic husband. Full house: metropolitan remainer champagne socialist elite. Even a deadly pandemic cannot free us from the constraints of a culture war. Far from it, polling shows that leave supporters are most inclined to back the government’s handling of this national catastrophe, while Tory Brexiters such as Iain Duncan Smith are leading the charge against a continued lockdown. Does it not suit them to portray lockdown as a remainer conspiracy, a chronic overreaction by those who brought us Project Fear? If they can name Ferguson’s partner for the purpose of exposing her political leanings, then let me point out that the newspapers leading on this exposé double up as de facto political campaigning arms for the Conservatives. It’s their political leanings that are relevant, not those of Ferguson’s partner. These newspapers are not here to speak truth to power, but to manage democracy instead. The day that Britain became the second worst afflicted nation in the world is a day to ask searching questions. How have we exceeded Italy’s death toll, when they were taken by surprise and we were not? Why did we pursue a disastrous policy of herd immunity and hand-washing to the tune of Happy Birthday while corpses were being stuffed into body bags in Lombardy? How many lives would have been saved with a swifter lockdown? What is the human cost of the government failing to provide enough personal protective equipment, having allowed stocks to be depleted by years of austerity? Was the NHS saved from collapse – as our government crows and boasts – because the pandemic was driven into care homes, with thousands of unnecessary resulting deaths? Instead of asking these questions much of the British press has chosen to whip up more fury and bile against a scientist for a personal misdemeanour. The polls are clear: the public are overwhelmingly opposed to lifting lockdown, more so than any other European country. Our government has it all worked out: “Our comms have been the best in Europe,” says one Conservative MP. “We scared everyone shitless, but now we have to undo some of that.” Could a more rational explanation not be that rather than superb comms – the government’s communications strategy for the first few weeks was a farce – the public have noticed the deaths of tens of thousands of their fellow citizens and drawn rational conclusions? For those agitating for lockdown to be lifted fast, how convenient to take out one of the most influential opponents of lifting it too soon. To repeat, again. Our death toll is greater than anywhere else in Europe. Thousands more people are going to die in Britain. Our government has devastatingly serious questions to answer. This is what we should be talking about, not the sex life of a scientist. • Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist