Labour Support Required

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I'll ask again.

What is the mechanism whereby Labour gets the Govt to change policy?

I KNOW what the underpinning science says. I'm talking about political reality.

How do they do it? And how do they avoid being unfairly pilloried like they were last year when they were correct on the policy?

[albie]

BST,

You say that you understand the science, then advocate a political response which contradicts the science.
It is nonsense, I'm afraid.

The best strategy for Labour is to allow maximum leverage for the Tory dissenters by abstaining.
At the moment around 75 are thought to be voting against Jonno. That is within grasp of a defeat if Labour do not back him up.
Labour backing Boris makes some Tory doubters less likely to act if they know it will pass anyway.

Boris has bet the farm on the booster roll out in the next month.
Today we have seen the website crash, and GP's are saying they were not consulted on how to roll out the programme.
Boosters are the right call, but like everything Boris, he has not worked out the logistics.

Even with a fair wind, the timeline of a month takes us way beyond the critical point of intervention.
Boosters are not 100% effective, and will take time to kick in.
It is vital that other containment measures kick in straight away, or the UK will be chasing its tail again.

The real issue is that Boris has lost all moral authority to ask for those additional containment measures, because of his farcical rule breaches.
Labour have a window of opportunity to claim that space of moral authority by backing the public health community.
Former Tory Minister David Gauke writes about it in New Statesman;
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2021/12/boris-johnson-has-lost-the-credibility-to-lead-britain-through-another-covid-wave

Starmer cannot see the wood for the trees, and is missing an open goal here.
He has no political antennae, and simply defaults to Tory orthodoxy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You say that you understand the science, then advocate a political response which contradicts the science.
It is nonsense, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure how to begin responding to that. This is the real world, not Plato's Republic.

Politics is about getting the best possible outcome. Not aiming for perfection. It requires messiness and compromise. The Left never did get that.

At the moment around 75 are thought to be voting against Jonno. That is within grasp of a defeat if Labour do not back him up.

The Tories have 360 MPs. Do the maths. There is no mechanism whereby Labour can put any pressure on Johnson to change tack. Insisting there is leads you to the political suicide stance that you are proposing.

[normal rules]

Interesting line from that article albie.

Some on here will be apapleptic with this comment

“Personally, I would have gone further on vaccine passports (better to lock down the irresponsible unvaccinated who are making up 90 per cent of those requiring specialist care rather than the population as a whole”

[BillyStubbsTears]

Regarding "moral authority"

There are two reasons why you might want that.

1) Morally: Because you want the best outcome for the country.

2) Self-interestedly: Because you want to boost your support.

Look back at late 2020. Labour were ahead of the curve at every step on calling for stronger measures. What was the effect?

1) Cummings claims that one reason Johnson didn't bring in a lockdown earlier is that he didn't want to be seen to be being bounced into it by Starmer. When you're dealing with a narcissistic man-child, if you want the best outcome for the country, you have to take his psyche into account. You could make a decent argument that Labour strongly calling for harder measures this time last year, bizarrely resulted in several 10s of thousands of avoidable deaths.

2) And what political benefit did Labour get for being ahead of the curve and calling for stronger measures? Zero.

So I'll ask again. What is the reasoning for arguing that Labour should oppose the current plans?

[wilts rover]

Interesting line from that article albie.

Some on here will be apapleptic with this comment

“Personally, I would have gone further on vaccine passports (better to lock down the irresponsible unvaccinated who are making up 90 per cent of those requiring specialist care rather than the population as a whole”

And I would agree rightly so - that is a terrible piece of journalism by Gauke.

Vaccine passports should be seen as the way to ALLOW you to do something, not punish you for something. That's the only way to make them acceptable.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Interesting line from that article albie.

Some on here will be apapleptic with this comment

“Personally, I would have gone further on vaccine passports (better to lock down the irresponsible unvaccinated who are making up 90 per cent of those requiring specialist care rather than the population as a whole”

And I would agree rightly so - that is a terrible piece of journalism by Gauke.

Vaccine passports should be seen as the way to ALLOW you to do something, not punish you for something. That's the only way to make them acceptable.

Absolutely. As much as I fundamentally disagree with the nazi Germany like by an MP this morning, he has a slight point that we shouldn't have a 'papers please' society.

It's easy to talk about labours election chances now but it is a different world in 2 years time.  Covid may be a non issue indeed the Tory leader may and probably will change by then.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Agreed BFYP.

But as I say, there's not much on the horizon that gives a warm feeling to the Govt.

[wilts rover]

Interesting line from that article albie.

Some on here will be apapleptic with this comment

“Personally, I would have gone further on vaccine passports (better to lock down the irresponsible unvaccinated who are making up 90 per cent of those requiring specialist care rather than the population as a whole”

And I would agree rightly so - that is a terrible piece of journalism by Gauke.

Vaccine passports should be seen as the way to ALLOW you to do something, not punish you for something. That's the only way to make them acceptable.

Absolutely. As much as I fundamentally disagree with the nazi Germany like by an MP this morning, he has a slight point that we shouldn't have a 'papers please' society.

It's easy to talk about labours election chances now but it is a different world in 2 years time.  Covid may be a non issue indeed the Tory leader may and probably will change by then.

Yes BFYP, if nothing else the past two years have shown how quickly things can change in two years (or indeed six months).

Starmer has only one job, to show to the public at large Labour are fit for government. Which is why he should/will vote for the measures tomorrow, not because he is supporting the government, but because they are the right thing to do for public health and to keep the public safe.

It will be interesting to see what he has to say in his piece on the tv tonight.

And of course the Tory MP who doesn't think we should live in a 'papers first' society - was all set to vote for compulsary ID for all voters at the next GE. Hmmm...

[drfchound]

I listened to Lammy in his interview on tv this morning.
He said that it is right to back the plan b proposal and that this isn’t a time for political point scoring …….. then promptly went int a political point scoring rant against the government.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Agreed BFYP.

But as I say, there's not much on the horizon that gives a warm feeling to the Govt.

Absolutely not and this is why labour need to be subtle. Moan too much and they appear to be unprofessional complainers. Today they've been heavily critical of vaccines and lateral flow tests. Bad move that imo, it's two processes that have worked incredibly well (remember labour were against the very successful vaccine procurement route).

They just need to act smarter without the rants. Like it or not people do not largely engage with rants from the likes of Lammy and Raynor.  Starmer being concise and objective works well and that's the approach that may see them win.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Agreed BFYP.

But as I say, there's not much on the horizon that gives a warm feeling to the Govt.

Absolutely not and this is why labour need to be subtle. Moan too much and they appear to be unprofessional complainers. Today they've been heavily critical of vaccines and lateral flow tests. Bad move that imo, it's two processes that have worked incredibly well (remember labour were against the very successful vaccine procurement route).

They just need to act smarter without the rants. Like it or not people do not largely engage with rants from the likes of Lammy and Raynor.  Starmer being concise and objective works well and that's the approach that may see them win.

This highlights what I'm talking about to Albie.

Labour were NOT against the vaccine procurement route.

Johnson and the Tories repeatedly said that Labour would have joined the EU vaccine procurement system.

No senior Labour representative ever said that. It's a lie that has gone down as a fact. People simply don't drill down into what the subtleties are. They hear big, primary colours stories.

[selby]

The trouble is Billy your and your mates drills always veer off to the left all the time and barely scratch the surface.

[SydneyRover]

Not sure Starmer would be nine points ahead of johnson if he'd taken any advice coming from Albie or tyke.

[tyke1962]

Not sure Starmer would be nine points ahead of johnson if he'd taken any advice coming from Albie or tyke.

Starmer isn't 9 points ahead because of anything he's done of substance he's 9 points ahead because Johnson keeps fecking up .

[drfchound]

That gap will soon reverse when BJ gets the boot.

[SydneyRover]

Not sure Starmer would be nine points ahead of johnson if he'd taken any advice coming from Albie or tyke.

Starmer isn't 9 points ahead because of anything he's done of substance he's 9 points ahead because Johnson keeps fecking up .

according to you two he's only a short second behind hitler, so on that scale it's not so bad

[tyke1962]

Not sure Starmer would be nine points ahead of johnson if he'd taken any advice coming from Albie or tyke.

Starmer isn't 9 points ahead because of anything he's done of substance he's 9 points ahead because Johnson keeps fecking up .

according to you two he's only a short second behind hitler, so on that scale it's not so bad

Don't be like that Syd a lead is a lead you should enjoy it while it lasts .

[SydneyRover]

Not sure Starmer would be nine points ahead of johnson if he'd taken any advice coming from Albie or tyke.

Starmer isn't 9 points ahead because of anything he's done of substance he's 9 points ahead because Johnson keeps fecking up .

according to you two he's only a short second behind hitler, so on that scale it's not so bad

Don't be like that Syd a lead is a lead you should enjoy it while it lasts .

anyway, that's enough about the real world, tell us about your candidate, when will they be born? and don't say the 25th that's already been done.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Agreed BFYP.

But as I say, there's not much on the horizon that gives a warm feeling to the Govt.

Absolutely not and this is why labour need to be subtle. Moan too much and they appear to be unprofessional complainers. Today they've been heavily critical of vaccines and lateral flow tests. Bad move that imo, it's two processes that have worked incredibly well (remember labour were against the very successful vaccine procurement route).

They just need to act smarter without the rants. Like it or not people do not largely engage with rants from the likes of Lammy and Raynor.  Starmer being concise and objective works well and that's the approach that may see them win.

This highlights what I'm talking about to Albie.

Labour were NOT against the vaccine procurement route.

Johnson and the Tories repeatedly said that Labour would have joined the EU vaccine procurement system.

No senior Labour representative ever said that. It's a lie that has gone down as a fact. People simply don't drill down into what the subtleties are. They hear big, primary colours stories.

I am not sure I agree. I seem to remember kier Starmer himself wanting the UK to remain part of the EU medicines agency and the big hoo-hah about the EU procurement programme and the UK not being in it.  Remember the "missed email" saga.

I also remember the criticism of the head of the vaccine programme in the UK and how that was an awful appointment. But it wasn't in the end was it?

[SydneyRover]

Fact Check 4 News

''The party could not point us to any instance of Mr Starmer saying that he wanted us to join the EU scheme. FactCheck has been unable to find any evidence in Hansard records either''

And

''The Conservatives seem to be suggesting that being part of the EMA and adhering to EU rules would have blocked the UK from issuing its own vaccine authorisation.

But as FactCheck reported last month, the EMA and EU law already allow national regulators to temporarily authorise the supply of a vaccine in an emergency like the pandemic. That’s why the UK regulator was able to sign off the Pfizer jab in December, while we were still in the Brexit transition period and subject to EU law''

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-johnson-claims-starmer-would-have-joined-eu-vaccine-scheme

[Bentley Bullet]

https://youtu.be/iY3VYdNHl64

[SydneyRover]

https://youtu.be/iY3VYdNHl64

If it's not in hansard it must be fake noos bb

[BillyStubbsTears]

Agreed BFYP.

But as I say, there's not much on the horizon that gives a warm feeling to the Govt.

Absolutely not and this is why labour need to be subtle. Moan too much and they appear to be unprofessional complainers. Today they've been heavily critical of vaccines and lateral flow tests. Bad move that imo, it's two processes that have worked incredibly well (remember labour were against the very successful vaccine procurement route).

They just need to act smarter without the rants. Like it or not people do not largely engage with rants from the likes of Lammy and Raynor.  Starmer being concise and objective works well and that's the approach that may see them win.

This highlights what I'm talking about to Albie.

Labour were NOT against the vaccine procurement route.

Johnson and the Tories repeatedly said that Labour would have joined the EU vaccine procurement system.

No senior Labour representative ever said that. It's a lie that has gone down as a fact. People simply don't drill down into what the subtleties are. They hear big, primary colours stories.

I am not sure I agree. I seem to remember kier Starmer himself wanting the UK to remain part of the EU medicines agency and the big hoo-hah about the EU procurement programme and the UK not being in it.  Remember the "missed email" saga.

I also remember the criticism of the head of the vaccine programme in the UK and how that was an awful appointment. But it wasn't in the end was it?

BFYP. We went through this a couple of weeks ago.

Johnson lied repeatedly about Labour's policy being to join the EU vaccine rollout. It wasn't. Ever. But clearly the mud sticks, even with intelligent people like you. Which is why he does it. And why he's had a successful career doing it.

[albie]

OK,

Bit long winded this, but I was asked.

Points raised;

The Gauke article is posted not to suggest I agree with all of it, but to show the thinking of Tories opposed to Boris.
This is the group you need to gain support to oust Johnson. Not just among MP's, but among Tory members as well.

The "moral authority" point is also about the nature of the debate going forward.
How do you get the discussion away from low grade manipulation, and on to the scientific consensus?

"And what political benefit did Labour get for being ahead of the curve and calling for stronger measures? Zero."
So you conclude Labour should not be ahead of the curve unless there is a clear political benefit.
How would you know in advance?

"So I'll ask again. What is the reasoning for arguing that Labour should oppose the current plans?"
Nobody is saying oppose...abstain!

This is because the current plan will not work, and we know that before the vote.
To support that plan knowing it cannot work is unethical, and will result in casualties that would have been avoided by better mitigation measures.

If Johnson has to rely on Labour support this time, he will be wary of having to do so again when stricter “Plan C” measures are needed, even just to close loopholes in Plan B. Better for Labour to press for Plan C now, not when it is too late. Furlough is essential to secure compliance and support, but is missing from Plan B.

"The Tories have 360 MPs. Do the maths. There is no mechanism whereby Labour can put any pressure on Johnson to change tack."

Labour are not looking to put pressure on Johnson directly, but to influence the Tory party behind him.
I do not think this vote will fail, but I think it is part of the build up of pressure on Tory backbenchers to act.
The by-election on Thursday is another factor in this.

Johnson is not going to change tack without loss of support in his own party, as I said.
Backbench rebellion is a brick in that wall.

"Starmer has only one job, to show to the public at large Labour are fit for government. Which is why he should/will vote for the measures tomorrow, not because he is supporting the government, but because they are the right thing to do for public health and to keep the public safe".

Disagree with that, Wilts.

Starmer has to keep support within the Labour movement as well, including the backing of unions giving financial support.
Failure to do this reduces political capacity to act.

The public health community do not agree that these measures are sufficient.
https://youtu.be/_3_hYBs34qc
We are in danger of incubating an unmanageable crisis that will result from Plan B.
What evidence do you have to support the claim that these plans will keep the public safe?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

Once again, I'm not arguing with you on the science.

Once again, I'll point out that being right on the science as an Opposition is of no use if you can't influence.

There is no way, at the moment, that anything like a mass of Tory MPs are going to support harder measures. Not a chance in a million. That's the hard fact of where we are today.

[drfchound]

https://youtu.be/iY3VYdNHl64

Come on BB, that must be faked film.
Starmer never said any of those things that he is saying at the despatch box.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://youtu.be/iY3VYdNHl64

So our discussion about this from the other week has gone in one ear and out the other BB?

Which bit of this are you struggling with?

[Axholme Lion]

I listened to Lammy in his interview on tv this morning.
He said that it is right to back the plan b proposal and that this isn’t a time for political point scoring …….. then promptly went int a political point scoring rant against the government.

As long as Labour have the likes of Lammy in their ranks they will never win. He has his own anti British, racist agenda and everything revolves around that.

[albie]

BST,

"There is no way, at the moment, that anything like a mass of Tory MPs are going to support harder measures. Not a chance in a million. That's the hard fact of where we are today".

Yes, I agree....and that is precisely the reason Labour should argue for an improved Plan C.

The objective is not to persuade the hard of thinking Tory backbencher to back the Labour position.
It is to make sure that there is clear blue water between the parties on the way forward.

If the "freezepeach" Tories want herd immunity by default, make them own the consequences.
Labour supporting minor changes like the futile gesture of Plan B is cowardly and politically naive.

At the end of the day, the public health outcome is more important than whether Johnson hangs on for a few more mistakes.
His position will erode further with his chaotic handling of Omicron, and those same Tory backbenchers will be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to public opinion.