The Weakness of Starmerism
JVL Introduction
The author, on whose A Very Public Sociologist blog this article appears, raises an issue that perplexes so many of us: why is Starmer so weak?
Why is Labour apparently supporting a government strategy on lifting the lockdown “that, to put it mildly, is borderline sociopathic?”
His answers are refreshing and depressing.
Starmer is back to Labourism, “born for the compromises, Byzantine procedures, and plodding constitutionalism of the House of Commons.”
Corbyn challenged that, being “about building broad coalitions of voters and meeting them where they are, but with a programme that tried transforming them from objects into subjects.”
And those who think Starmer is really a radical underneath it all, being cautious so he can get a hearing are mistaken: what we see is what we will get, if he continues to get his own way…
This article was originally published by A Very Public Sociologist on Fri 3 Jul 2020. Read the original here.
The Weakness of Starmerism
Loading article text…
“Why is Labour apparently supporting a government strategy on lifting the lockdown “that, to put it mildly, is borderline sociopathic?””
The question is not that.
The real question is ‘Why has Labour been so weak in not attacking the myths behind an incredibly damaging Lock-Up policy that has no justification based on evidence?”
The left has been notably absent in exposing the facts and the myths on this issue.
Spot on article.
RH: I don’t know where you get your information from: Fox News? Are you an epidemiologist and if so can you give me an explanation of your views, which are contrary to those of practically every single other epidemiologist in the world?
You are attacking a policy that has probably saved 3m lives in Europe and could have saved more had it been implemented earlier.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/198074/lockdown-school-closures-europe-have-prevented/
In reply to RH: I am curious as to why you claim there is no evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns. I would like to see your sources.
In terms of politics, it is absolutely clear that the Tory government are on the ropes because of coronavirus: not for implementing the lockdown, but for two other things – starting the lockdown far too late and not giving enough support to vulnerable groups who have suffered economically or for health or social reasons (e.g. domestic violence) as a result of it. That the lockdown was seen as necessary by the vast majority of the population is shown by the fact that almost all of us followed it and the huge outpouring of anger at Cummings’ breach of it.
So I concur completely with the article’s assessment that Starmer has not done enough to attack the government on this.
Just to emphasise the effectiveness of the lockdown: the modelling group at Imperial College estimates that in 11 European countries it has saved 3.1 million lives. In this country, the delay in going into lockdown means that half to three quarters of the 60,000 deaths (so far) were avoidable. I suspect if travel restrictions from Europe had been implemented from the beginning of February, the number of lives that could have been saved would have been even greater.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/198074/lockdown-school-closures-europe-have-prevented/
This edition of Radio 4’s More or Less – from 1st July – gives an excellent summary of developments since January and the government’s delays, failures, deceit and incompetence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000kfpy