Digby wrote:Son of Mathonwy wrote:Digby wrote:
He's already creating the distraction and liability by separating the official opposition from the government, not unreasonably so for many but either way it's a big step. And given the cases were only starting to rise in the North when we came out of the national lockdown (or when the South looked good to come out of lockdown) it doesn't look much like a 2 week circuit break is doing enough for a large area of the country beyond being a delaying tactic, so what will the delay allow for, especially when saying track and trace will be in place looks pie in the sky.
There's a school of thought it's appropriate or at least sufficient for Starmer to merely set out a major difference in policy during a pandemic and leave it at that, it's not a line of thinking I'd share.
I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.
But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?
I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.
So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...
If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters
He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.
Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.
And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?
You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.
