Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[Pexbo]

What utter nonsense this is. The closing of schools and universities is an extremely obvious way of curbing the spread of the virus. The fact that you would argue otherwise says it all.

Theres an argument to the contrary though.

Schools and Universities should never have been opened again, that would have almost certainly contained the virus.

Now that they have been opened and have proven to be a breeding ground for the virus, closing unis will likely result in the virus being spread even further around the country as people leave University towns and cities and return to their hometowns.

 

[Dobba]

Crash. Bang. Wallop. What a leader.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Starmer is so scared of being associated with 'the left' that he'd literally rather stand meekly by while the Tories pass the legislation required to underpin a police state than stand in the same lobby as Corbyn.

'Opposition'.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Crash. Bang. Wallop. What a leader.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Toothless on any issues that matter.

 

[Raven]

We're completely into giant douche and turd sandwich territory now. How anyone could actually want to vote for either of these corporate shills is beyond me.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

What utter nonsense this is. The closing of schools and universities is an extremely obvious way of curbing the spread of the virus. The fact that you would argue otherwise says it all.

And what about the effect on childcare, long term education effects, the economy, mental heath etc?

the issue is simply not how to stop the virus. It is how to live with the virus, whilst being able to maintain the rest of our lives. There is a balance.

I didn’t say we shouldn’t close schools. However, it’s very clear that there are knock on effects of doing so that need to be considered. Surely you see that? It is on no way a black and white decision.

why don’t you read my post before getting outraged.

 

[Andy_Cole]

And what about the effect on childcare, long term education effects, the economy, mental heath etc?

the issue is simply not how to stop the virus. It is how to live with the virus, whilst being able to maintain the rest of our lives. There is a balance.

I didn’t say we shouldn’t close schools. However, it’s very clear that there are knock on effects of doing so that need to be considered. Surely you see that? It is on no way a black and white decision.

why don’t you read my post before getting outraged.

Exactly this.

People who think we should just close schools. Just stay home. They probably have no responsibilities. Probably just students who are sat at home with parents funding their lives.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Exactly this.

People who think we should just close schools. Just stay home. They probably have no responsibilities. Probably just students who are sat at home with parents funding their lives.

agreed. For every day a school is closed, that means I cannot work, and the little one isn't getting educated.

if that’s the hit that we have to take, then of course so be it. But for many who are self employed, they won’t get any support for these days not worked.

It is far from a simple decision.

 

[Dobba]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You know that guy we spent this afternoon describing as 'being an opportunist all his life'? Well don't fret about us abstaining on this police state foundation bill because he's given us what we consider to be cast iron guarantees that it won't do what they've spoken about doing for the best part of the last decade.

 

[Untied]

Theres an argument to the contrary though.

Schools and Universities should never have been opened again, that would have almost certainly contained the virus.

Now that they have been opened and have proven to be a breeding ground for the virus, closing unis will likely result in the virus being spread even further around the country as people leave University towns and cities and return to their hometowns.

Universities shouldn't have been. Truly ridiculous that we had hundreds of thousands of people moving around the country, changing accomodation, moving into densely populated shared accommodation, all so they can do some classes on Teams.

I think schools need to stay open, at least up to 16, and as a society we should prioritise that even if it means shutting other things down. That was precisely what was disappointing with the summer, from both the Govt (obviously, complete shit show) and the opposition. No one was making the argument that "look, we need to have schools back, but that will push the virus back into circulation, so we will have to start restricting other things to prevent it getting out hand".

And what about the effect on childcare, long term education effects, the economy, mental heath etc?

the issue is simply not how to stop the virus. It is how to live with the virus, whilst being able to maintain the rest of our lives. There is a balance.

I didn’t say we shouldn’t close schools. However, it’s very clear that there are knock on effects of doing so that need to be considered. Surely you see that? It is on no way a black and white decision.

why don’t you read my post before getting outraged.

Broadly agree, except that I think "live with it" means not pinning our hopes on vaccines or new treatments but in trying to supress the virus to the level where the majority of the country can live reasonably normally (mask wearing will have to continue). If we had 10 cases a week and you traced contacts effectively, we could live fairly normally.

We have the worst of both worlds now… a lockdown that was pretty strict and caused a lot of damage, in terms of health (mental/physical), wellbeing, and the economic catastrophe, but it was not strict enough, and wasn't built upon, meaning we now have nothing to show for it beyond people getting to eat out in the summer. It's pathetic.

Exactly this.

People who think we should just close schools. Just stay home. They probably have no responsibilities. Probably just students who are sat at home with parents funding their lives.

I think this is uneccesarily patronising, but like I said schools should certainly be one of the last things closed.

 

[Untied]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You know that guy we spent this afternoon describing as 'being an opportunist all his life'? Well don't fret about us abstaining on this police state foundation bill because he's given us what we consider to be cast iron guarantees that it won't do what they've spoken about doing for the best part of the last decade.

Look giving the Home Office the ability to immunise it's officers, you know like the Border Force, from criminal responsibility, definitely couldn't go wrong. We're definitely not going to see undercover officers torturing migrants. Wouldn't happen.

 

[Sweet Square]

Yeah so this happened...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You know that guy we spent this afternoon describing as 'being an opportunist all his life'? Well don't fret about us abstaining on this police state foundation bill because he's given us what we consider to be cast iron guarantees that it won't do what they've spoken about doing for the best part of the last decade.

Wow. I do worry about the integrity of Labours new leadership.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I usually just lurk in this thread. For context, I like Starmer generally (I'm a lawyer, and he was when studying a bit of a hero of mine). Also, I've always voted Labour, and I will will probably continue to do so.

Totally agree with you on this. Comments yesterday smacked to me, and I suspect for most middle of the road, generally not that politically interested people, of opportunism. Clearly a short lockdown is, and has been on the cards for a while, it being reported yesterday that SAGE had advised the Government to do it. Looks very much like a cynical attempt to back Boris into a corner and score points. If it comes about they claim a victory in getting the Government to change tack, if not they can point out the error.

So your point is politicians should never listen to scientists and change their stance on new evidence ?

 

[RedRover]

So your point is politicians should never listen to scientists and change their stance on new evidence ?

My point, quite obviously, isn't that. My point is the quite clear point that I made, in agreement with the quite clear point I responded to.

What I would say is that to the ordinary person (to whom the Labour Party generally represent), taking issue with the pub curfews then advocating another National Lockdown appears to be an about face or at the very least incoherent.

 

[sun_tzu]

Yeah so this happened...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Shit that's a huge upgrade on the incompetent antisemites

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

My point, quite obviously, isn't that. My point is the quite clear point that I made, in agreement with the quite clear point I responded to.

What I would say is that to the ordinary person (to whom the Labour Party generally represent), taking issue with the pub curfews then advocating another National Lockdown appears to be an about face or at the very least incoherent.

for someone that is replying about a clear point, your first paragraph is not a very clear point!

 

[Smores]

So your point is politicians should never listen to scientists and change their stance on new evidence ?

His point and it's one I've seen loads is that it is obvious the government want to try regional measures first and that they will do a national lockdown when necessary as per the advice. That may or may not be scientific but it appears balanced at first view.

If Starmer was biding his time then i really don't understand why this is the issue he's chosen. The only apparent reason is so he can say i told you so down the line which is why it looks like opportunism.

 

[nimic]

Shit that's a huge upgrade on the incompetent antisemites

Wowowowow you're exposing RedCafe to a libel suit here dontchaknow, be careful.

 

[F-Red]

If Starmer was biding his time then i really don't understand why this is the issue he's chosen. The only apparent reason is so he can say i told you so down the line which is why it looks like opportunism.

The information on SAGE‘s recommendation on implementing circuit breakers, which was mentioned at a meeting three weeks ago which now transpires the government ignored, was only released in meeting minutes on Tuesday, which Starmer then called his own press conference the very same day. Calling out the Johnson on not listening to the science, which he’s been using as his line all the way through this pandemic. However some are calling it opportunism because it doesn’t fit their narrative, much the same how if he didn’t say anything they would be saying that he’s not holding Johnson to account.

 

[Smores]

The information on SAGE‘s recommendation on implementing circuit breakers, which was mentioned at a meeting three weeks ago which now transpires the government ignored, was only released in meeting minutes on Tuesday, which Starmer then called his own press conference the very same day. Calling out the Johnson on not listening to the science, which he’s been using as his line all the way through this pandemic. However some are calling it opportunism because it doesn’t fit their narrative, much the same how if he didn’t say anything they would be saying that he’s not holding Johnson to account.

Well when reduce your entire argument down to people fitting their own narratives (which you of course are abovr) then you're not really bringing worthwhile debate to the table.

The regional lockdowns to most come across as being led by the science and a balanced approach. To argue the government shouldn't be trying to strike a balance is a failing argument which is what Starmer is doing.

There's plenty Starmer could be putting forward but his argument this time doesn't come across well at all. He should be arguing for the merits of keeping the R low in low incidence areas so we can avoid waiting too long and ruining Christmas for people.

The government have left a huge gap to fill with people fed up and Labour right now aren't giving them anything. Take the science and bring a plan to the table.

 

[F-Red]

The regional lockdowns to most come across as being led by the science and a balanced approach. To argue the government shouldn't be trying to strike a balance is a failing argument which is what Starmer is doing.

Well the point he‘s making is that they’re not listening to the science, not even a discussion about balance, and even if it’s considered opportunist, it doesn’t take any expert to work out that the only way to curb the current infection rate is the circuit breaker recommendation.

As for regional lockdowns being balanced, you’ve got Nottingham who has the highest number of cases per 100k in people in a lesser tier than Liverpool. There is no consistent logic unfortunately.

There's plenty Starmer could be putting forward but his argument this time doesn't come across well at all. He should be arguing for the merits of keeping the R low in low incidence areas so we can avoid waiting too long and ruining Christmas for people.

The government have left a huge gap to fill with people fed up and Labour right now aren't giving them anything. Take the science and bring a plan to the table.

Keeping the R low in low incidence areas would have been a useful discussion in August, we’re well past that stage now sadly. Ironically the recommendations three weeks ago are proving to be correct. Every local authority has shown exponential rises in the last few weeis.

 

[Sweet Square]

Shit that's a huge upgrade on the incompetent antisemites

Update

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mockney]

 

[Untied]

If you are going to do basic social media vetting, surely you do it on an appointment that's assessing the culture of the party. Glad it's undone, but leaving aside the politics of the current leadership it doesn't say much regarding their competence.

 

[Untied]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not sure whether to put this here or in the Westminster thread – I'll go here as it's a Labour issue really.

 

[Dobba]

In fairness she hadn't once tweeted about the Foo Fighters.

 

[Jippy]

Well when reduce your entire argument down to people fitting their own narratives (which you of course are abovr) then you're not really bringing worthwhile debate to the table.

The regional lockdowns to most come across as being led by the science and a balanced approach. To argue the government shouldn't be trying to strike a balance is a failing argument which is what Starmer is doing.

There's plenty Starmer could be putting forward but his argument this time doesn't come across well at all. He should be arguing for the merits of keeping the R low in low incidence areas so we can avoid waiting too long and ruining Christmas for people.

The government have left a huge gap to fill with people fed up and Labour right now aren't giving them anything. Take the science and bring a plan to the table.

Laura is that you? Sage is clearly saying the regional lockdowns are not backing by science and are calling for a national lockdown.

He appears to be channelling the public mood: the policy is supported by a margin of 68 per cent to 20 per cent, according to a snap poll by YouGov.
In addition, he has calculated that Mr Johnson will be forced into the circuit breaker before too long given the rising infection rates across the country. Indeed, Mr Johnson on Wednesday told the Commons that he would not rule out a brief national lockdown.

https://www.ft.com/content/a0265334-239e-418f-aecc-d68bf2b709b5

 

[Smores]

Laura is that you? Sage is clearly saying the regional lockdowns are not backing by science and are calling for a national lockdown.


https://www.ft.com/content/a0265334-239e-418f-aecc-d68bf2b709b5

How very dare you!

I've seen that poll but to be honest it's a pointless question as it doesn't even specify the extent. If you instead asked 'do you think areas of low incidence should have the same restrictions as high incidence areas?" I don't for one second believe you'd get a majority.

We have got a national lockdown right now but it's sensibly tiered and we'll all soon be in teir 3 anyway.

The SAGE advice on this was to shut all hospitality and schools. That's where the big divergence is, is there polling that shows people support either right now?

A week or so ago under lesser restrictions YouGov had polling that said less than half thought restrictions should go further.

That's why i said i think Starmer has been misled by the polling as i don't believe people want the level of restrictions he's supporting once you drill into it. Lockdown isn't black and white.

 

[Jippy]

How very dare you!

I've seen that poll but to be honest it's a pointless question as it doesn't even specify the extent. If you instead asked 'do you think areas of low incidence should have the same restrictions as high incidence areas?" I don't for one second believe you'd get a majority.

We have got a national lockdown right now but it's sensibly tiered and we'll all soon be in teir 3 anyway.

The SAGE advice on this was to shut all hospitality and schools. That's where the big divergence is, is there polling that shows people support either right now?

A week or so ago under lesser restrictions YouGov had polling that said less than half thought restrictions should go further.

That's why i said i think Starmer has been misled by the polling as i don't believe people want the level of restrictions he's supporting once you drill into it. Lockdown isn't black and white.

Fair enough, on first read it seemed like you were cutting the government an inordinate amount of slack.

It's not an actual national lockdown right now, but agree it appears to be heading that way. Just remains to be seen what they do about schools. Sage's remit obviously doesn't cover the economy, so they will call for full lockdown.

Not sure how Starmer should play this tbh. Local lockdowns don't appear to be working, but people are giving him shit for calling for a national lockdown, which now looks highly likely. How many more alternatives are there really?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

So, Rosie Duffield (Labour MP for Canterbury) has locked her twitter. She's chair of the Women's group of the PLP. In recent days two of her staffers (the first of whom is LGBT herself) have quit over Duffield's transphobia and put out a statement to that effect. Duffield responded by doubling down, publically 'naming and shaming' the second staffer on Twitter and effectively identifying the first one by alluding to the fact that a photo of her was on the LGBT+ Labour twitter.

Hoping for Starmer to show some moral fortitude for once.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Pexbo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Where the feck are all the Tory libertarians? Does nobody have any sort of political ideology that they stick to anymore?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not sure whether to put this here or in the Westminster thread – I'll go here as it's a Labour issue really.

Have 8 front bench Labour MPs resigned about this now?

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Have 8 front bench Labour MPs resigned about this now?

Yes and rightly so. Should be far more.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Where the feck are all the Tory libertarians? Does nobody have any sort of political ideology that they stick to anymore?

The thing about the Tories is that when it comes down to it they rarely squabble over the means because ultimately they all agree on the ends. They're the Conservative Party for a reason, they're a group of people who the current system benefits and whose ultimate aim is to maintain, defend and strengthen that system. Because of that, and because they're all loaded already, they know they'll be basically secure regardless of which wing is in power, there's little at stake but pride and so they don't allow factionalism to get in the way of making sure the other guys don't win. Sure they'll squabble over specific policies but it's all basically just a fun little game they play to justify the fact that their parents paid for them to go to a school with a debating club. Factions within movements dedicated to keeping things the same have less to argue about than factions within movements dedicated to change, and they also have less at stake if they lose the argument.

The one exception was Brexit, because it was an argument of ends rather than means, which pitted the Tory instinct to act to protect the economy (and with it both social cohesion and their own wealth) with their instinct to maintain the traditions and political structures which have historically worked in their favour. Brexit led to 30 odd Tory MPs leaving the party for policy reasons, compared to 3 between 1999 and 2018 and 1 (one) during Thatcher's leadership of the party which was the biggest ideological shift the party had undergone for about a century.

TLDR - When the chips are down, Conservatives will prioritise defending the status quo above all else, whether it's Churchill setting tanks on his own people to end a strike, Thatcher dismantling British industry to remove the power base of the unions or Johnston making the police effectively unaccountable to allow them to weaken leftist political movements.

 

[Mockney]

The same people who spent 4 years saying they couldn’t in good conscience vote for Labour, are now telling us the Labour they do support simply had to abstain on a bill that lets the authorities legally murder you, because not enough people voted for Labour.

[redacted angry rant]

I for one, welcome our new ‘sensible’ overlords.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

The same people who spent 4 years saying they couldn’t in good conscience vote for Labour, are now telling us the Labour they do support simply had to abstain on a bill that lets the authorities legally murder you, because not enough people voted for Labour.

[redacted angry rant]

I for one, welcome our ‘sensible’ overlords.

Absolutely. The ridiculous point regarding legal frameworks that means abstention was essential is rendered null and void by the first part of the argument that a majority Government cannot be voted down.

As always it's about the optics of wooing the right which I am told is a pragmatic option that I should support as it is preferable to the Tories. Where the feck was this pragmatism last year?

 

[Untied]

Absolutely. The ridiculous point regarding legal frameworks that means abstention was essential is rendered null and void by the first part of the argument that a majority Government cannot be voted down.

As always it's about the optics of wooing the right which I am told is a pragmatic option that I should support as it is preferable to the Tories. Where the feck was this pragmatism last year?

The argument was originally 'well we have to abstain at the second reading and it is smart to do so as it will help us ammend it'. All the ammendments failed, and then they abstained at the 3rd reading anyway. The Tories still attack Labour as weak on the basis of not supporting the murder/torture whoever we want bill and anyone genuinely on the left should be alienated (if you think it's ok for the state to commit whatever crimes it wants whilst surveiling trade unions, leftist organisations, migrants, etc I don't think you should really count yourself as on the left). They obviously intend to play the 'who else are you going to vote for' – ignoring the fact that lack of enthusiasm for the alternative will substantially depress Labour turnout, especially as the coalition has become more reliant on the young.

The same people who spent 4 years saying they couldn’t in good conscience vote for Labour, are now telling us the Labour they do support simply had to abstain on a bill that lets the authorities legally murder you, because not enough people voted for Labour.

[redacted angry rant]

I for one, welcome our new ‘sensible’ overlords.

Or not even caring about it: Self-described liberals such as Ian Dunt or James O'Brien not uttering a peep about it.