Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Starmer is not going to let go of the issue of Johnson not
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Starmer is not going to let go of the issue of Johnson not acting quickly enough on COVID19
One of the great sources of analysis during the pandemic has been on Radio 4’s “More of Less” programme which each week subjects big issues in the news to statistical analysis. It has just finished its current series and its last programme was basically a summation of how the pandemic evolved. It is well worth listening to here .
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
... is because Starmer is a politician seeking partisan advantage. That's life, that's politics. Doesn't mean Starmer was calling for anything different at the time, would have done anything different, but he can be a partisan hack seeking partisan advantage with hindsight.
Such is life as an opposition leader.
I certainly don't think of Coronavirus in those terms, and don't know anyone who does. Bit tendentious, isn't it?
Fwiw, you have to say the Government was too slow but you also have to say that hindsight is a wonderful thing and that many others read it wrong initially too. Not sure this particular survey amounts to much.
I personally think that the various lockdown steps were a few days later than they could have been, because of political inertia.
I think arguing more than that would have required different science input, which is a much different argument.
I know you're a unionist to the core, but I think Scotland won't have any semblance of good governance until it becomes independent. People like Malc who would never consider the SNP because of their terrible governance and economic record have no other place to go which keeps them in power. For 40% of Scotland independence is the overriding policy of the day, which means the SNP will have their hands on the levers of power indefinitely. Even if there is a second referendum which is lost, there won't be any swingback to unionist parties. The core 40% will never give up now that they see it as inevitable.
The state diverted itself with, and into, Brexit, a project that sucked up its energies and crowded out its capacity to think clearly and act promptly. (The National Audit Office calculated that by March 2020, when the crucial decisions on the pandemic had to be made, there were 27,500 civil servants working on Brexit.) And in the pursuit of that project, the government developed a habit of making sweeping assumptions before weighing up evidence or thinking about consequences.
In retrospect, it is telling that Johnson first mentioned the virus in public as an aside in a grandiose speech celebrating Brexit. He was speaking in Greenwich, London, on 3 February. The venue was chosen for its historic resonances: his theme was that the maritime greatness that enabled the creation of a mercantilist empire in the 18th century was about to be reborn. This was the vision of what Johnson had previously called the new Golden Age, the Global Britain that will replace half a century of EU membership.
What is striking here is that Brexit is not a distraction from the emerging pandemic. It is the other way around: Johnson was worried that the coronavirus might take attention away from the thrilling prospect of a liberated Britain, shrugging off its boring, bespectacled Euro-normality, reassuming its native-born superpowers and saving the world. (Johnson’s Superman analogy does work in one respect: the coronavirus would be the Kryptonite of this triumphal moment, the mysterious, other-worldly substance that would render the Brexit state impotent.)
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson
https://twitter.com/lbcnews/status/1280054320109584387?s=21
It is the only way they're going to neuter this issue and get good governance. There will not be good governance of Scotland until this issue is resolved and David knows that he's just not willing to make the jump from accepting that point to the only way realistically this can end.
Which means Scotland is being condemned to a purgatory of bad governance.
But a 'No' response to that question does not imply that the respondent does not support the government in general or even on this matter. He or she would have to consider whether any alternative government would have been any better.
But that won't stop Starmer from pretending now he would have done otherwise even though he never said anything at the time and he would have followed the scientists too.
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1237760980450451456
No wonder we went through one of the worst spikes in the world.
The view of lockdown may change when it is seen to have destroyed the jobs of many permanently.
Starmer doesn't really need to do very much to reap the political benefits of all this, but what he is doing seems well-calibrated. He's even come up with some rather good lines, such as this morning's one on track-and-trace: "Nobody needs a world-beating system, we just need one that works."
https://twitter.com/Alison_McGovern/status/1280044551600734208
Tories can't stop saying it. Labour will carry on bashing them for it. And others have noticed
who needs ventilation when you can have hyperventilation? It could never be right for Britain to copy, for example, Germany’s highly successful tracking and tracing system. Britain’s had to be, as Johnson prematurely ejaculated, “truly world-beating”. Saving lives is not a common human task – it is a competition in which Team Britain must take the gold.
Britain’s global greatness and Britons’ “freedom-loving instincts” melded in the fiasco of the unique, all-English tracing app. Not only would the red-white-and-blue app save hundreds of thousands of lives, it would, as the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, claimed, be crucial in getting “our liberty back”. The app had to be uniquely British because it must serve as a cypher for the great project of national liberation. And in a way, by not coming into existence at all, it did.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson
I thought it was hysteria just like Sars and prior pandemics. Nine times out of ten a lockdown would have been a gross overreaction and done more harm than good.
His first mention of it in public was in a Brexit speech, where he thought the virus might be a distraction.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
But people shouldn't pretend that is anything other than partisan politics. We all know it is.
Even though I support Scottish independence I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of your logic and what you've written there, especially points 1-3.
Most Scottish nationalism is driven by an inferiority complex and deep-seated resentment toward England. Therefore, any problems Scotland faces as an independent country (there will be many) will be blamed on England.
This is why most secure Scots support the Union, as indeed do the vast majority of the Welsh - they are comfortable with their cultural identity as it is.
An independent Scotland will probably join the EU and Euro in short-order, and then do it's best to agitate against rUK foreign policy, which will compromise the defence of these islands, and harden-up a border at Berwick by pursuing a different immigration policy as well as through using a different currency.
It will ruin the UK single market.
Scotland actually has the best of both worlds now, but too many up there are too committed to see it. But, once it's left, there really is no way back.
It's not like re-joining the EU. There's no process. So it will be irrevocable.
Hopefully the scientists, being scientists, are now reviewing all the data and decision-making from February and March, to ensure that we have a better idea of how to cope with any resurgence.
Government should also get their own enquiry up and running quickly, so that the various public bodies are better prepared for any second wave.
The scientists did answer them.
Of course, the same applied in the GFC, the fact that Conservative spending plans publicly matched Labour's in the run-up did not stop them, to great effect, claiming that Labour's profligacy was to blame. That's politics.
Would Starmer have acted differently? Who knows, maybe in possession of all the advice he would have moved a little sooner, maybe not. Only Stewart and (maybe - do I recall some comments from him?) Hunt were publicly calling for faster action at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/27/gaps-sage-scientific-body-scientists-medical
Anyone know how SAGE members are selected?
In the same way the leaving the EU makes the government accountable to the people, independence makes the Scottish government accountable to the people rather than just being able to blame Westminster for everything. Who in Ireland blames Westminster for everything today and gets taken seriously? In time Scotland will have to own their their issues, and we will have to own our problems out of the EU.
If the Conservatives don't replace Johnson and Starmer doesn't knock that nonsense off, it'll be interesting to see who I end up voting for.
I wonder if the Pirate Party will stand...
What we have learned since is that it may (and the jury is still out on this) be possible to prevent the spread of the virus more or less indefinitely thus reducing the death toll. Once that becomes conventional wisdom there is a compelling argument for locking down as fast as possible and to have done so earlier would undoubtedly have saved more lives.
Will it be possible to hold the virus at bay until a vaccine is available? We don't know. What we do know is that this virus is absolutely rampant around the world and if we are not to lock ourselves away from that world, NZ style, more break outs of the virus are inevitable.
On balance, at this point, the conventional wisdom at the time this started was wrong. Governments govern and it is inevitable that the government will take flak for this. I would therefore have said that the government got this wrong. But I wouldn't especially blame them for it.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
It is their decision though.
We might cock a sneer at that, but it still stands for rather a lot both here and overseas.
They are absolutely justified in criticising if only for party political purposes (that is, as you say, their job), but during the crisis they could only agree with or even support the government's position.
Most British nationalism is driven by an inferiority complex and deep-seated resentment towards the EU. Therefore, any problems Britain faces as an independent country (there will be many) will be blamed on the EU.
We shouldn't be the only ones to get it, but of course we should get it first which is why the government is investing so much funding and resources into trying to find one.
That's not to say the rest of the world won't get it too but just like on an airplane when you put your own air on first if we discover a vaccine of course our needy should get it first.
Just as if America finds the vaccine first I have no doubt they will ensure Americans are the first to get it too.
As soon as possible this should be rolled out globally but the country that finds it has a moral obligation to its own high risk citizens and taxpayers who funded the research to use it first.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I would like to see a "world beating" absence of puerile boasting in government.
The differences with the EU are of degree. It is a startling fact that the EU budget was capped at 1% of GDP of the EU. Public expenditure is roughly 42% of GDP in Scotland and a significant proportion of that is UK spend. Scotland sends approximately 60% of its trade to rUK, 15% to the EU. We were in the EEC, then EU for 50 years and for most of that time it was no more than a trading bloc. We have had full Union with England for more than 300 years. However you cut it Scottish independence would be many, many times more disruptive than leaving the EU and we see what that has done to our country over the last 4 years.
Furthermore, the idea that London in particular will cease to be a magnet for our bright young kids and our money because we had independence really only has to be written down to show its absurdity. Our economy will continue to be dominated by England. The LPF issue will apply to the UK single market. Either we comply with English regulation or we lose that access. Our "independence" will be a fragile thing indeed. But that's the choice.
Do you agree with the idea that at least independence will force Scottish politicians to ultimately address Scotland's issues rather than blame London?
It might shake up our domestic politics a bit. A Scottish Conservative party detached from the UK may seek to develop a more nuanced manifesto than "no to a second referendum". That would be helpful. It may be that the SNP would split making Scottish politics more pluralistic but I wouldn't count on that. Last I checked the ANC were very much in control of SA.
The economic situation would be extremely grim. There would be major cuts in public spending, increases in taxation and a brain drain to south of the border. This would make constructive debate in Scotland very difficult. I fear bitterness and disillusionment at a level that would make the most ardent remainers blush.
If the scientists are saying that the Italians are making a mistake and making matters worse and that we should not make their mistakes then why should our government not listen to them?
The questions were asked, we know that. The scientists answered them. The scientists gave reasons for saying we shouldn't lock down and shouldn't follow the Italians and in a parallel universe they may have been right. You may wish we'd done different but don't pretend questions weren't asked which were - and were asked and answered ON CAMERA!
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
That for me was and is the failing. Because of course, as they are finding out now, the medics advise on the medical aspects but appear to me for all the world to have ignored eg. NICE's value of a human life and appear to think that each life is worth millions if not hundreds of millions.