Invisible Opposition

For those of us who are Labour members or supporters still coming to terms with the December election result, the leaked dossier and the election of, oh what was his name, watching an incompetent Government would be bad enough but watching innocuous opposition at a time when it is working class people taking the brunt of the crisis is infuriating as well as frustrating. 

We are told that Kire Stormer is “forensic”. In fact, he is so forensic that every mention of him by his adoring acolytes in his Shadowy Cabinet and the press has to include the word. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary the word forensic is an adjective meaning “related to scientific methods of solving crimes, involving examining the objects or substances that are involved in the crime” or “using the methods of science to provide information about a crime”. So, according to his disciples, we don’t just have a politician as Leader of the Opposition but a detective. What a pity Watson wasn’t still Deputy, what a team they would have made.

Where will the ball end up?

During his leadership bid Strimmer made much of his ability to hold Boris Johnson to account. There would be no missed open goals from him. Not only a detective but a pretty good footballer too, apparently. To be fair, he never used the open goal analogy but it was often thrown at Jeremy Corbyn by journalists who are now slavering over Detective Stormer. And, with the government in absolute disarray since the pandemic took them by surprise, there have been plenty of open goals beckoning, and if they’ve been missed by our forensic knight at least Piers Morgan has been getting the rebounds.

Whilst 55% of Labour supporters in the most recent LabourList survey were at least fairly happy with his leadership so far, 62% thought Labour had not been critical enough of the Government’s Covid-19 policy. There can be little doubt that the Government’s handling of the crisis has been shambolic, has ignored the science, and been far too slow. As figures emerge it would appear that the victims of the virus are overwhelmingly old, but there is a strong correlation with ethnicity and income in the younger victims. Many workers have died because their employers have not provided adequate protection. This includes at least 24 bus drivers in addition to over 100 NHS and care staff. These are goals that are wide open for the Labour leader to hold the government to account.

In the latest example of Government chaos on Sunday Boris Johnson made a televised address to the UK which was widely shared beforehand to the media. This led to headlines proclaiming Monday as the day we got our freedom back. It was as if staying at home to avoid catching and reproducing a fatal disease was some kind of plot to restrict our freedom to go to the pub or to visit our elderly (and, by definition, most at risk) parents. It is not just right wing, Brexit supporting nutcases who supported this notion but also left-wing Facebook pages were not without their fair share of, I hesitate to call them this but if the cap fits, conspiracy theorists. Look at Sweden they would say, they are not having a lockdown and their death rate is far below ours. Ipso facto, we were wrong to impose a lockdown and should follow the Swedes. Not the Germans or Kiwis though who had even lower death rates but had imposed strict lockdowns early on.

To stay home or stay alert?

The measures to ease the lockdown were farcical as the devolved nations decided to go their own way, and it was far from clear whether people were supposed to return to work on Monday or, as was stated by Dominic Raab the next day, on Wednesday. It was also unclear what was to happen to people’s kids given schools were to remain only partially open. Moreover, despite assurances that all workplaces would be “Covid secure” there is no legal obligation to actually do so in England, although the law is stronger in both Scotland and Wales. 

A YouGov survey taken after the announcement found that whilst 44% broadly supported the moves taken by the Government, there were marked differences between Labour and Conservative voters. In short, and hardly surprising, Tory voters are far more likely to support whatever the Government does no matter how incoherent. Whilst a third of Labour voters supported the easing over half were opposed. Interestingly enough, but perhaps just a reflection of voting demographics, support for a relaxation of the rules is greatest among the over 65’s, the group that is clearly at most risk from the virus.

The suspicion has to be that the Westminster Government is concerned that despite being one of the last countries to impose a lockdown it does not want to lose any economic advantages that might accrue from easing the lockdown. A number of countries are now removing their lockdowns, apart from Sweden which never had one, so it will be interesting to see whether they suffer a second wave as some scientists (who tend to know what they are talking about) have predicted. Nobody can know for certain whether there will be a second wave but scientists who work with infectious diseases have cautioned against removing the current restrictions too fast or too early. Though quite what too fast or too early might be is open to some interpretation.

Belgian virologist Guido Vanham, for example, whilst supporting the lifting of restrictions warns: “That is, of course, the risk if you lift the measures too early you can get a second wave.” Michael Mina, assistant professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health,  says that even if it seems that the death rate is falling, that there could still be a lot of asymptomatic (meaning that they have the virus but show no signs) people out there who could spread the contagion even more rapidly in a second wave. As he puts it: “If we don’t put out all the flames, then we’ll have this smouldering number of people that will all be able to ignite outbreaks at once.” 

Meanwhile virologist and blogger, Rich Condit, cites modelling done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington which suggests that if stringent social distancing measures are kept in place, the “first wave” of covid-19 disease in the US may subside by mid-June, with a total accumulation of ~93,000 deaths.  The IHME states that: “By end of the first wave of the epidemic, an estimated 97% of the population of the United States will still be susceptible to the disease, so avoiding reintroduction of COVID-19 through mass screening, contact tracing, and quarantine will be essential to avoid a second wave.” And, there is in this respect little difference between the US of A and Great old Britain, both with leaders who seem to think you can beat a virus by exhorting hyperbole. Admittedly, Boris Johnson has not yet suggested zapping the virus with bright lights or drinking detergent.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday Boris Johnson was very clear that the worst of the crisis was over, “our shared effort has averted a still worse catastrophe, one that could have overwhelmed the NHS and claimed half a million lives” he claimed. The context of this is that the UK has an official death count of over 33,000, the worst in Europe and the second worst in the World. Yet, in Toryworld this is a success because it could have been worse. In that sense the Charge of the Light Brigade can be counted as a success as only 110 soldiers were killed. 

The Labour leader might have taken the view that it was too early to ease the lockdown and stated that clearly. He might have pointed out that the UK was failing its own 5 tests, and he might have said that the party would support any worker or trade union which refused to work in unsafe workplaces. He might also have pointed out that it was, at least, debatable whether we had passed the worst of the crisis. These were open goals so tempting he should have taken the net off.

Johnson continued his “we’re winning” theme with his exhortation: “Our challenge now is to find a way forward that preserves our hard-won gains while easing the burden of the lockdown.” The problem is that the hard-won gains (only 33,000 dead and not the hypothetical 500,000) were, according to the experts, a function of the lockdown restrictions. What seems to be passing people by who are keen to regain their “freedom” is that Covid-19 remains a highly infectious disease with no vaccine. Nonetheless, Johnson and the majority of the media are relying on a plan that  “is conditional and dependent, as always, on the common sense and observance of the British people.” 

Lets get together and spread the virus party!

This is the same common sense that saw people mass buying toilet paper just a few weeks ago and now planning “freedom parties”. This was clearly an attempt to get the retaliation in early if things go pear-shaped. It will not be down to the Government but the lack of common sense shown by the public.

The end of the lockdown, and to be fair to Johnson he has stressed that everything is provisional, is really a return to economic life. It is as if the economic is not social and that making money is the only real reason any of us exist. For many white collar workers the lockdown has been an opportunity to work from home, but if you are a cleaner, or work in a shop, or in a factory, home working is difficult to say the least. So this advice would have sent shockwaves through a few households: “People who are able to work from home should do so, as we have continually said, and people who cannot work from home should talk to their employers about returning this week and about the difficulties that they may or may not have.”

The idea that people should just have a little chat with their employers assumes that relations between workers and bosses are somehow equal. But, at the heart of the employment process is an inequality based on the simple fact that one side has most of the power. This is only challenged when workers join together and organise themselves into trade unions, the very idea of which makes most Tories apoplectic.

As the Morning Star reported: “Workers in service jobs — carers, bus drivers, security guards, chefs and retail assistants, for example — have suffered higher rates of death linked to Covid-19 during the pandemic than other workers, and two-thirds of deaths were among men.” They quote RMT general secretary Mick Cash who said: “These figures are a sobering reminder that front-line bus and taxi workers across the country are being put at risk by the government’s failure to ensure that workers in these sectors are adequately protected from Covid-19.”

You might have thought, if not actually expected, the Leader of the Opposition to demand that workers are not sent back to workplaces unless it was safe to do so. Moreover, you would expect the leader of the party of organised labour to question whether workers rather than talk to their employers had their unions to speak on their behalf. But, if you had expected that you would be sadly disappointed.

In his response to the Prime Minister, there was no outrage and certainly no anger at the current situation. Rather, “One of the key issues is whether there will be guidelines in place to ensure the safety of the workforce.” That is what workers being asked to return to work needed “guidelines”, not even laws, but just guidelines. Forget that open goal were we even on the same pitch? But Sir Forensic had not finished: “Those guidelines were being consulted on last Sunday, but they were vague ​and had big gaps. Under protective equipment, it just said, “To be inserted” or, “To be added”. The document that I have now seen says that

“workplaces should follow the new ‘COVID-19 Secure’ guidelines”,

which I assume are the same guidelines, as “soon as practicable”, but on page 22 the document states that they will be released later this week.” 

Is that clear? This is what his supporters call being “forensic”. It means he has read the briefing with highlighter in hand. As Sienna Rodgers notes in her LabourList daily briefing: “Labour is a main opposition party, not a legal team advising the government.” Even Stephen Bush, a Starmer apologist and political editor of the New Statesman makes the point “It means that the class dimensions of the lockdown will become more stark: people who are able to work from home will continue to do so, while people who can't are being asked to take on a higher level of personal risk.”

The Socialist Campaign Group of Labour left MPs issued a statement which described Johnson’s plan as “a thinly veiled declaration of class war from a government that has chosen to put the economic demands of some sections of big business above the welfare of the country.”

Ethnic minorities more likely to die

The point surely is that the incoherence of the plan, and the reasoning behind it are not guided by the science but by the usual Tory dogma which ignores any evidence that contradicts its own narrow world view. On a day when it became public knowledge that people from BAME backgrounds were most likely to die along with those with the lowest incomes was it enough for the Labour leader to pick through a document as if he was a solicitor advising the board of a company on its new sexual harassment procedures? It’s not as if public opinion was widely enthusiastic for an end to the lockdown.

A survey carried out by the University of Cambridge’s  Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, found that 87% of their “representative” sample supported the lockdown continuing. As Gabriel Recchia says in a recent piece in The Conversation “If ministers’ proposals to end the lockdown sooner rather than later are arising partly from a perception that people are itching for an immediate end to the current policy, these concerns are misplaced.”

Of course, it is not public opinion that drives the Government, but the opinions of those closest to them. The truth is that public opinion is risk averse. A noisy minority supported by Tory cheerleaders in the press may give the impression that they want the lockdown over as soon as possible, but most people remain, understandably, more concerned about catching the virus than some false notion of “personal freedom”. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, the difference here is freedom from the virus versus freedom to become infected.

Perhaps what we would have liked the Leader of the Opposition to say to the Prime Minister in the Commons on Monday was something like:

“Does the Prime Minister recognise that the covid crisis has exposed grotesque levels of inequality in our society? His statement yesterday has given carte blanche to many employers to ​try to force people to come back to work, without proper consideration of their health and safety and the dangers they will suffer in travelling to work. Does he recognise that, while the death rate is so high and the reinfection rate continues, his statement will probably make the situation worse, not better? Will he reconsider carefully and not lift the restrictions and the lockdown until it is absolutely clear that we have the corona crisis under control? It is affecting the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society the worst, and I believe his statement will make the inequalities in this country even worse at the centre of this crisis.”

Labour is not the Tories legal team

But, under no real pressure from Labour dissidents Kire, Krie, or whatever his name is, does not just seem to see his role as a legal adviser, but is perfectly happy to let the Tories set the agenda. It is time to stop scrutinising every government document forensically (the Party should certainly do so, but it is a waste of PMQs) and start leading. Although many of his supporters will say, “but wasn’t he good on care homes?”, with The Guardian (rapidly turning into a Stammer (is that his name?) Fanzine, declaring “Keir Starmer presses Boris Johnson over care home deaths.” 

What Stormier actually did was ask a series of technical questions that one might expect at a Select Committee. He did not use his time at the dispatch box to raise the real issues facing people: PPE for health and care workers, ensuring that workplaces (in England) are safe, ensuring that employers cannot force people back to work, arguing for a financial settlement that allows people to live whilst they are furloughed etc. What we get is “I want to probe a little further the figures that the Prime Minister has given us.” Can somebody please remind Sir Eric Of Thingy that he is now leader of the Labour Party not a barrister building a case for how incompetent the Government are, a fact that is already well established.

As David Wearing points out on Novaramedia: “..instead of seriously holding Boris Johnson to account, Labour has served to relieve the pressure on him by colluding in the fiction that the Tories are doing their best, getting some things right and other things wrong, and in need of nothing more than a little constructive criticism.”