Keir Starmer appeared on Sophie Ridge and Marr this morning. Wasn't he supposed to have been self-isolating? His performance was less than convincing on either.
On Ridge, Starmer stumbled when asked what his new slogan "A New Leadership" meant, other than being a dig at Corbyn and his supporters. What leadership was it exactly that he was going to be giving, in terms of a new vision for Labour and for the country. But, answer came there none. Indeed, Starmer, so far has been characterised not just by a cosmic level of vacuousness, but by the fact that, where he has filled that vacuum, it has only been by appearing a tame support act for Boris Johnson's government, which he has not only failed to oppose, but for which he has even appeared as a willing cheerleader, whether it comes to a response to COVID, or in relation to Brexit.
Indeed, in relation to Brexit, Starmer has now taken up a position as a more committed Brexiteer than Corbyn! Starmer, rather than opposing a damaging Tory Brexit, instead demands they get on with it with all speed. He won't even call for an extension of the Transition Period, which, on current trends, can only result in either BRINO or in a disastrous Crash Out No Deal. Why Starmer will not warn about that, and so make the case for scrapping Brexit, is bizarre.
Both Ridge and Marr asked Starmer about Scottish independence. Again he could provide no response. He simply complained that, in the midst of a pandemic, on the one hand, Johnson was re-raising Brexit, whilst the SNP were raising the question of independence. But, is it any wonder that, in these conditions, the SNP do so? They face Johnson's incompetent handling of COVID being imposed on them, as well as being dragged out of the EU. Meanwhile, they now face Starmer acting as a support act for the Tories on Brexit, in just the same way that Labour has done in relation to the question of the union. Given the strength of feeling in Scotland over Brexit, is it any wonder that, with Starmer now becoming a arch Brexiteer, they see the only way of escaping that fate being via independence?
As in 2014, we have a LP acting as second fiddle to Tory Unionism, and it is likely to kill Labour in Scotland, thereby also killing any hope of a UK Labour government for the foreseeable future. It is worse, today, precisely because Starmer has committed Labour to supporting a reactionary Brexit position.
Starmer was all over the place with COVID too. He rightly said that we can't have kids going back to school, only for entire classes to be sent home just because someone gets the usual seasonal sniffles. Of course, any kids - or staff - who might be vulnerable to COVID should not be in school, and thereby put at risk. But that does not apply to the large majority. Sending entire classes home just because someone sneezes is ridiculous. Kids under 14 are at virtually zero risk of serious illness from COVID, but the media have completely failed to tell people that. So, now, we have parents wanting to get kids tested just because they get a cold. Yet, instead of arguing against that, which clogs up the resources required for other people to get tested, Labour is wanting kids to be made a priority for testing. And, on this basis, teachers have been sending entire classes home until such tests are done, which is totally ridiculous.
Starmer also appears keen to introduce another lockdown at the earliest opportunity, even though lockdowns have been less than effective, slowing the development of required herd immunity. What lockdowns do is to diminish the resources to pay for their effects, as well as stopping the production of the physical goods and services that society needs, whilst generating increased demand for those resources to cover furlough and so on. Starmer wants both a lockdown and a continuation of furlough schemes, but he can provide no explanation of how he would pay for it. Of course, if Labour supported the proposals that many epidemiologists, like Sunetra Gupta, have backed, and which I have argued for from the beginning of focussing on isolating only those actually at serious risk from the virus, no lockdown would be needed, and the damage to the economy would be avoided so there would be no need for the unaffordable furlough scheme to continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment