Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
swisstoni said:
I’ve not been keeping on totally on top of it but I don’t think we’ve heard much from Sir Kier since he called for a national lockdown?
The tide seems to be turning on the view of the effectiveness of lockdowns and his call seems to have inadvertently been the highwater mark.
I’d put money on him quietly dropping the idea.
I’m not sure the tide has turned regarding the epidemiological effectiveness of lockdowns, just that we (the U.K.) has gone for a middle way balancing the economy and the virus approach. The tide seems to be turning on the view of the effectiveness of lockdowns and his call seems to have inadvertently been the highwater mark.
I’d put money on him quietly dropping the idea.
Starmer seems to have backed the science (from SAGE) Boris has tried to balance the science with the economy more to avoid more harsh lockdowns.
I’m glad we’re favouring the economy more myself. I think we should be favouring the economy even more than we are actually.
Maybe SAGE and Starmer think a few short two week lockdowns will be more effective at controlling the virus and keeping more of the economy going in between the circuit breakers?
I think it’s a bit early to know what approach will be more effective and the likelihood is that we won’t ever know as we haven’t done the circuit breakers from the lower infection point when SAGE recommended them.
El stovey said:
swisstoni said:
I’ve not been keeping on totally on top of it but I don’t think we’ve heard much from Sir Kier since he called for a national lockdown?
The tide seems to be turning on the view of the effectiveness of lockdowns and his call seems to have inadvertently been the highwater mark.
I’d put money on him quietly dropping the idea.
I’m not sure the tide has turned regarding the epidemiological effectiveness of lockdowns, just that we (the U.K.) has gone for a middle way balancing the economy and the virus approach. The tide seems to be turning on the view of the effectiveness of lockdowns and his call seems to have inadvertently been the highwater mark.
I’d put money on him quietly dropping the idea.
Starmer seems to have backed the science (from SAGE) Boris has tried to balance the science with the economy more to avoid more harsh lockdowns.
I’m glad we’re favouring the economy more myself. I think we should be favouring the economy even more than we are actually.
Starmer was playing politics to establish clear red water while hiding behind SAGE's apron, as that's all he has left to do in his impotent position. If he was aiming to reinforce Labour's reputation as high on emotive guff and low on economic literacy then he's done a good job.
turbobloke said:
Likewise, it's a challenging balancing act but it needs to be done. Early on the widespread lockdown made sense since apart from London there was much less testing and less local information available, it doesn't make sense at this point with local action needed in potential hotspots as we know where they are.
Starmer was playing politics to establish clear red water while hiding behind SAGE's apron, as that's all he has left to do in his impotent position. If he was aiming to reinforce Labour's reputation as high on emotive guff and low on economic literacy then he's done a good job.
I agree with the first paragraph.Starmer was playing politics to establish clear red water while hiding behind SAGE's apron, as that's all he has left to do in his impotent position. If he was aiming to reinforce Labour's reputation as high on emotive guff and low on economic literacy then he's done a good job.
Do you think that Starmer’s position regarding supporting sage is just to play politics?
Thinking circuit breakers are a more effective way to proceed isn’t a radical position? It might actually be the case that he thinks this is the way to go that’s best for the country. I think in sages document they referenced circuit breakers along with appropriate support working by allowing greater economic activity between the circuit breakers and it being a known process rather than creeping tiered approach which is difficult for business to plan for and creates its own different economic uncertainty.
To be clear I agree with Boris’s approach here just that it doesn’t look obvious to me that Starmer’s position is purely political.
The other reason that circuit breakers are being talked about less of course is that A) They’ve not been adopted and B) The idea was to use them at lower infection levels. Using them now would mean they had to last longer to get the R down so we’ve likely missed the boat for the circuit breaker approach.
I’ve seen a few Labour figures trot out recently that the Bank of England supports the circuit breaker idea because they felt it would be a better option for the economy in the longer term. I couldn’t find a source for that though.
I don’t agree, because I’ve always seen this circuit breaker idea as being in addition to all these other measures, rather than instead of it.
In any case, accusations of “economic illiteracy “ on this point, certainly lose their sting a little, if the Labour position is supported by the BoE.
Would like to read the source material though, if anyone has seen it. I find it doubtful that shadow ministers would trot this out without a source, but I couldn’t find it myself.
I don’t agree, because I’ve always seen this circuit breaker idea as being in addition to all these other measures, rather than instead of it.
In any case, accusations of “economic illiteracy “ on this point, certainly lose their sting a little, if the Labour position is supported by the BoE.
Would like to read the source material though, if anyone has seen it. I find it doubtful that shadow ministers would trot this out without a source, but I couldn’t find it myself.
markyb_lcy said:
In any case, accusations of “economic illiteracy “ on this point, certainly lose their sting a little, if the Labour position is supported by the BoE.
Not unless you believe truly in the infallibility of experts. Logical fallacy alert.Remember these? Search on the quotes if you wish, and it should become clearer.
"Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting"
"The Bank of England’s Brexit forecasts aren’t just wrong. They’re absurd."
"And yesterday the BoE governor was forced to admit he was far too gloomy about the outlook for the UK following the Brexit vote."
Has Starmer revealed his estimate of the death toll arising from economic damage in another widespread lockdown and shown his working? If so how does it compare to the impact of local strategies to control the virus? Good luck finding out and don't hold your breath.
Labour economic illiteracy is legendary and alive/well.
turbobloke said:
markyb_lcy said:
In any case, accusations of “economic illiteracy “ on this point, certainly lose their sting a little, if the Labour position is supported by the BoE.
Not unless you believe truly in the infallibility of experts. Logical fallacy alert.Remember these? Search on the quotes if you wish, and it should become clearer.
"Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting"
"The Bank of England’s Brexit forecasts aren’t just wrong. They’re absurd."
"And yesterday the BoE governor was forced to admit he was far too gloomy about the outlook for the UK following the Brexit vote."
Has Starmer revealed his estimate of the death toll arising from economic damage in another widespread lockdown and shown his working? If so how does it compare to the impact of local strategies to control the virus? Good luck finding out and don't hold your breath.
Labour economic illiteracy is legendary and alive/well.
Have the government laid out their projection of the economic cost of their actions? Would love to see that if they have. Them being the incumbents and the current decision makers, I would say there to be significantly more value in them doing it than SKS and Labour doing it for a measure they support which is only going to be done if the govt agree, which so far, they don’t.
turbobloke said:
markyb_lcy said:
In any case, accusations of “economic illiteracy “ on this point, certainly lose their sting a little, if the Labour position is supported by the BoE.
Not unless you believe truly in the infallibility of experts. Logical fallacy alert.Remember these? Search on the quotes if you wish, and it should become clearer.
"Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting"
"The Bank of England’s Brexit forecasts aren’t just wrong. They’re absurd."
"And yesterday the BoE governor was forced to admit he was far too gloomy about the outlook for the UK following the Brexit vote."
Has Starmer revealed his estimate of the death toll arising from economic damage in another widespread lockdown and shown his working? If so how does it compare to the impact of local strategies to control the virus? Good luck finding out and don't hold your breath.
Labour economic illiteracy is legendary and alive/well.
Seems pretty difficult to tell either way.
You’re saying Starmer’s position regarding supporting circuit breakers is down to politics and indicative of his economic illiteracy.
But what working are you using?
Starmer is agreeing with SAGE, I don’t agree with him but it seems like partisanship for you to say Starmer’s position is economic illiteracy when we can’t compare the efficiency or effectiveness of either method.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
markyb_lcy said:
In any case, accusations of “economic illiteracy “ on this point, certainly lose their sting a little, if the Labour position is supported by the BoE.
Not unless you believe truly in the infallibility of experts. Logical fallacy alert.Remember these? Search on the quotes if you wish, and it should become clearer.
"Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting"
"The Bank of England’s Brexit forecasts aren’t just wrong. They’re absurd."
"And yesterday the BoE governor was forced to admit he was far too gloomy about the outlook for the UK following the Brexit vote."
Has Starmer revealed his estimate of the death toll arising from economic damage in another widespread lockdown and shown his working? If so how does it compare to the impact of local strategies to control the virus? Good luck finding out and don't hold your breath.
Labour economic illiteracy is legendary and alive/well.
Seems pretty difficult to tell either way.
You’re saying Starmer’s position regarding supporting circuit breakers is down to politics and indicative of his economic illiteracy.
But what working are you using?
Starmer is agreeing with SAGE, I don’t agree with him but it seems like partisanship for you to say Starmer’s position is economic illiteracy when we can’t compare the efficiency or effectiveness of either method.
Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
Garvin said:
Starmer agreeing with just SAGE is a narrow minded approach. If you believe Starmer not to be narrow minded then his approach must be strongly biased with a good dose of politics thrown in. Where is the man? He seems to think that pitching up at PMQs once a week to throw a few brickbats at the PM is all it requires to be a credible leader of the opposition. Why is he not front and centre on the national lockdown approach he seemed dead keen on a few days ago?
Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
The circuit breaker approach was more effective from lower levels of infection. That’s why it was proposed last month. Now it’s apparently a bit late and would take longer to get the R down. Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
It’s likely you’re not hearing about it now as it’s not been adopted and doing it now would mean longer lockdowns than the initial circuit breaker plan as were at higher rates of infection now.
That’s my take on it anyway from the SAGE documents.
The SAGE recommendations are from a pure scientific perspective.
The govt have to take that advice and temper it with all sorts of other economic and social considerations.
If Starmer, or anyone else, wants to steer a different path to the Govt, that’s fine but they ought to be able to quantify why it’s better.
Otherwise it looks like they are going a different way, just for the sake of going a different way.
Wales will shortly show how a full 2 week lockdown works out so we’ll see I suppose.
The govt have to take that advice and temper it with all sorts of other economic and social considerations.
If Starmer, or anyone else, wants to steer a different path to the Govt, that’s fine but they ought to be able to quantify why it’s better.
Otherwise it looks like they are going a different way, just for the sake of going a different way.
Wales will shortly show how a full 2 week lockdown works out so we’ll see I suppose.
swisstoni said:
The SAGE recommendations are from a pure scientific perspective.
The govt have to take that advice and temper it with all sorts of other economic and social considerations.
If Starmer, or anyone else, wants to steer a different path to the Govt, that’s fine but they ought to be able to quantify why it’s better.
Otherwise it looks like they are going a different way, just for the sake of going a different way.
Wales will shortly show how a full 2 week lockdown works out so we’ll see I suppose.
By the same token though do you think the government ought to quantify why their path is better than the one recommended by SAGE?The govt have to take that advice and temper it with all sorts of other economic and social considerations.
If Starmer, or anyone else, wants to steer a different path to the Govt, that’s fine but they ought to be able to quantify why it’s better.
Otherwise it looks like they are going a different way, just for the sake of going a different way.
Wales will shortly show how a full 2 week lockdown works out so we’ll see I suppose.
The government followed SAGE and their data until this new tier system started. They haven’t shown exactly why they’re favouring the economy now rather than saying they’re considering economic and epidemiological and social data in making their new tier system policies.
I agree with them but they’ve gone against SAGEs advice without presenting any data.
To me this is part of the problem. The government and SAGE encouraged compliance with lockdowns by showing virus graphs constantly and worst scale predictions based on exponential growth etc.
They’re now saying they need to move away from SAGEs recommendations due to economic damage but aren’t also showing this economic data in briefings and press conferences.
The data regarding the pandemic is being used to justify policy but the economic data seems missing. I think it might sharpen people’s thinking and increase compliance and understanding regarding the rules and policy myself if we saw some of it in briefings.
The Govt will have decided on the best route to take based on whatever they have based it on.
They won’t have had time to war-game every other possible approach to get precise data.
But, if you are going to suggest a different approach I think it is beholden on you to show why.
And if there is no data available because the govt haven’t shown their workings, that may be a bad thing, but it’s not the basis for suggesting a different approach.
They won’t have had time to war-game every other possible approach to get precise data.
But, if you are going to suggest a different approach I think it is beholden on you to show why.
And if there is no data available because the govt haven’t shown their workings, that may be a bad thing, but it’s not the basis for suggesting a different approach.
At this point in the electoral cycle, and up against such a majority ... scoring points is far more important than coming up with alternative solutions that the Tories would never accept anyway.
The circuit breaker became infinitely less likely to happen the moment Starmer begun to support it. In that sense, as someone who doesn’t support it, I’m grateful. Funny old world.
The circuit breaker became infinitely less likely to happen the moment Starmer begun to support it. In that sense, as someone who doesn’t support it, I’m grateful. Funny old world.
Garvin said:
Starmer agreeing with just SAGE is a narrow minded approach. If you believe Starmer not to be narrow minded then his approach must be strongly biased with a good dose of politics thrown in. Where is the man? He seems to think that pitching up at PMQs once a week to throw a few brickbats at the PM is all it requires to be a credible leader of the opposition. Why is he not front and centre on the national lockdown approach he seemed dead keen on a few days ago?
Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
I'm not sure following the scientific advice is necessarily narrow-minded. Everything is a balance. However, it is, obviously, a political move. The opposition is out of the loop with regards having a say in how the government reacts to the pandemic. To sit back and suggest that the government's way, what with the increase in admissions as well as infections, is spot on would be the death of the labour movement. Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
Starmer has little function in the House, other than to exploit the weaknesses of Johnson. He does that well. He's not being obstructive. He's not calling for any actions against the government, just suggesting alternatives that he, you and I know will not be acted upon.
As I've said before, he appears to me to be working to a plan. He hasn't attacked open goals, not stirred up public anger, nor gone for cheap political points. He's criticised tactics rather than personalities. He seems to be controlled in his responses.
If I was in Starmer's place, I'd be concentrating on the old heartland they lost in the last election. While most of us reckon it was brexit-based (90%+ of the constituencies that changed sides voted leave at a greater percentage than nationally), one never knows what the long-term fallout might be. Before making a general statement as to whether labour should do you a favour or not, you need to ask what feedback he's getting from the likes of S
horpe, Newcastle, and even Bolsover, the constituencies that voted massively in favour of leave, and outed the sitting labour MP.As opposition leader, I'd be working with the locals who turned, not with posters on PH.
Much will depend on Johnson's exit plan. If it's a hard brexit and there's a negative financial fallout (what am I saying, if?) then the first areas to take a hit will be the old labour heartland. If there is an agreement with our largest, by some distance, trading partner, then it is likely fishing will be sacrificed in some way.
For Starmer to go for the big hit now would be poor tactics. Of course it would be. Sniping is useful for him. Planning would be even better, and working with local constituencies that voted brexit would be the best.
It might be helpful if he could divest himself of the diversive ones in the cabinet, but no leader has ever been able to do that. Johnson's taken a leap towards presidential rule by restricting the staff ministers can have, but that's likely to cause a few problems, especially when he needs assistance.
It is interesting times for politics. As a person with no particular iron in the fire, it is entertaining, and fascinating.
Garvin said:
Starmer agreeing with just SAGE is a narrow minded approach. If you believe Starmer not to be narrow minded then his approach must be strongly biased with a good dose of politics thrown in. Where is the man? He seems to think that pitching up at PMQs once a week to throw a few brickbats at the PM is all it requires to be a credible leader of the opposition. Why is he not front and centre on the national lockdown approach he seemed dead keen on a few days ago?
Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
Haven't Sage changed their advice on a circuit breaker lockdown now anyway? I'm sure they said on Wednesday that it would be inappropriate at this time to lockdown Kent, Cornwall etc. Has Sir Keir U Turned to follow this new scientific advice? Or is Sir Keir the one not following the science now?Capable of reviving the Labour Party - do me a favour!
Derek Smith said:
It is interesting times for politics. As a person with no particular iron in the fire, it is entertaining, and fascinating.
Same, I vote for whoever I think will do the best (or least worst) job each GE. I wouldn’t vote for labour today but might in 2024 depending on their policies and who’s going to be involved in delivering them.
The landscape is likely to be very different again in 2024, or even next year but it will be interesting to see how covid continues to influence it all.
The main issues and events that decide the 2024 election might not even have happened yet.
It seems though that although polarisation is ridiculous at the moment a (more reformed) labour led by Starmer will likely be much more appealing to middle ground voters than Corbyn and McDonnell
ever were.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff