"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[Cdd89]

Interestingly, EE have declared the pandemic over. I am sure they didn’t initially mean to get involved in such a potentially controversial pronouncement, but they stated that they would not enforce their fair use EU roaming cap ”for the duration of the pandemic”, and that was discontinued last month.

 

[greyman42]

It is not just Johnson, but yes he is the one who would be the one stand up and say "enough" as PM.

Why don't Starmer and Labour challenge the government on this? I am sure it would gain them support?

Lets put the blame where it belongs, and here it belongs in two places.

First place of blame - The right honourable member for Uxbridge (Mr Johnson) for bringing in the restrictions
Second place of blame - A certain resident of No 11 Downing Street. There was nothing to say that he had to bring in furlough. He decided to bring in furlough

What about SAGE?

 

[Dent]

Why don't Starmer and Labour challenge the government on this? I am sure it would gain them support?

Starmer was one of the worst ones for throwing the government's own scaremongering back at them and demanding endless restrictions, so hardly in a position to call the government out for doing what he demanded.

 

[Razorblades]

Starmer was one of the worst ones for throwing the government's own scaremongering back at them and demanding endless restrictions, so hardly in a position to call the government out for doing what he demanded.

His quite frankly alarming approach to restrictions effectively cancelled my already flagging and reluctant support for the Labour Party.

The issue of bodily autonomy is an infinitely bigger concern than party policies, and the so-called 'Left' cannot be trusted on the issue based on their showing during 2020 - present.

 

[greyman42]

His quite frankly alarming approach to restrictions effectively cancelled my already flagging and reluctant support for the Labour Party.

The issue of bodily autonomy is an infinitely bigger concern than party policies, and the so-called 'Left' cannot be trusted on the issue based on their showing during 2020 - present.

I agree. So despite all the criticism of Johnson and the Conservatives, lets be thankful that Labour were not in power.

 

[farleigh]

I agree. So despite all the criticism of Johnson and the Conservatives, lets be thankful that Labour were not in power.

I agree also.

The Conservatives are very hard to like for me atm. Their only saving grace is that they are not Labour IMO.

Sad state of affairs

 

[Philip]

I agree. So despite all the criticism of Johnson and the Conservatives, lets be thankful that Labour were not in power.

The supposed stance of Labour on the previous lockdowns isn't particularly relevant going forward. They are no longer calling for restrictions.

 

[bramling]

I agree also.

The Conservatives are very hard to like for me atm. Their only saving grace is that they are not Labour IMO.

Sad state of affairs

And so many people are saying exactly that.

We have a PM who has had to be given a dishonourable discharge from office, two replacements who no one really likes or rates and whose only attraction is “they won’t be as bad as Johnson”, and an opposition who are just as unsavoury in different ways.

Meanwhile I walked through a train crew depot yesterday and there were still all the banners and labels up about Covid and social distancing (even though I know for a fact the manager there is pretty much a Covid denier!). Funny old world we’re in now.

 

[43066]

The supposed stance of Labour on the previous lockdowns isn't particularly relevant going forward. They are no longer calling for restrictions.

It’s extremely relevant because they’ve consistently demonstrated a pro restriction attitude over the past couple of years. You might agree with that as someone who has been pro restriction but, as someone who is completely opposed to restrictions and lockdowns, I would never vote for Labour based on their track record.

Meanwhile I walked through a train crew depot yesterday and there were still all the banners and labels up about Covid and social distancing (even though I know for a fact the manager there is pretty much a Covid denier!). Funny old world we’re in now.

That’s disappointing. Where I am all that stuff is long gone.

 

[Philip]

It’s extremely relevant because they’ve consistently demonstrated a pro restriction attitude over the past couple of years. You might agree with that as someone who has been pro restriction but, as someone who is completely opposed to restrictions and lockdowns, I would never vote for Labour based on their track record.



That’s disappointing. Where I am all that stuff is long gone.

You don't even know what Labour would have done if they were in power at the time. As the opposition party what they say may have been different to what they'd have done in power. At the time of lockdowns a lot of the population were still in favour of some level of restrictions, so Labour were probably trying to pander to a large proportion of the population.

 

[43066]

You don't even know what Labour would have done if they were in power at the time. As the opposition party what they say may have been different to what they'd have done in power. At the time of lockdowns a lot of the population were still in favour of some level of restrictions, so Labour were probably trying to pander to a large proportion of the population.

Note that despite being in opposition Labour still voted overwhelmingly in favour of restrictions. It was the Tory backbenchers who truly started to bring about a change in government policy and forced Johnson to hold firm against calls to lockdown again over Omicron.

So despite that you’re seriously expecting me to believe that Labour were lying for the last two years and to conclude that the party isn’t actually pro-restriction at all!?

Even if that were true (I don’t believe it is) it would paint Labour in a worse light than being authentically pro-restriction, in my view.

 

[Mag_seven]

You don't even know what Labour would have done if they were in power at the time. As the opposition party what they say may have been different to what they'd have done in power. At the time of lockdowns a lot of the population were still in favour of some level of restrictions, so Labour were probably trying to pander to a large proportion of the population.

What did Labour controlled Wales do? Were the restrictions imposed by Drakeford more or less draconian than those in England?

 

[Philip]

What did Labour controlled Wales do? Were the restrictions imposed by Drakeford more or less draconian than those in England?

That was down to the individual, rather than the party.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The supposed stance of Labour on the previous lockdowns isn't particularly relevant going forward. They are no longer calling for restrictions.

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

It would be incredibly naive to trust this man. Remember the way he treated and talked to the publican who dared to stand up to him?

He's a Sir and a QC; he's no Labour man of the people.

 

[43066]

That was down to the individual, rather than the party.

Labour repeatedly whipped its MPs to vote in favour of restrictions. That’s the party rather than individuals. Are you seriously suggesting that Labour as a party isn’t pro restriction?! What possible evidence is there of that?

 

[Eyersey468]

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

It would be incredibly naive to trust this man. Remember the way he treated and talked to the publican who dared to stand up to him?

He's a Sir and a QC; he's no Labour man of the people.

I don't trust him either

 

[Philip]

Labour repeatedly whipped its MPs to vote in favour of restrictions. That’s the party rather than individuals. Are you seriously suggesting that Labour as a party isn’t pro restriction?! What possible evidence is there of that?

Ultimately the final say with these things comes down to the leader, so the party as a whole may or may not have been pro-restriction, but because the leader was pro-restriction then the MPs probably didn't want to go against him in case it made their position in the party untenable, so it tarnished the whole party with the same brush. Again though, this was during the time of lockdowns - the Labour party no longer supports restrictions and I don't see why they would resume now that both the initial two vaccines and the boosters have been implemented. Not to metnion the fact that Labour may have a different leader by the time of the next election.

 

[Bantamzen]

Ultimately the final say with these things comes down to the leader, so the party as a whole may or may not have been pro-restriction, but because the leader was pro-restriction then the MPs probably didn't want to go against him in case it made their position in the party untenable, so it tarnished the whole party with the same brush. Again though, this was during the time of lockdowns - the Labour party no longer supports restrictions and I don't see why they would resume now that both the initial two vaccines and the boosters have been implemented. Not to metnion the fact that Labour may have a different leader by the time of the next election.

In the Chinese Communist Party maybe, but I'll think you will find that like the Tories, Labour have a system for challenging the leader.

 

[Eyersey468]

Ultimately the final say with these things comes down to the leader, so the party as a whole may or may not have been pro-restriction, but because the leader was pro-restriction then the MPs probably didn't want to go against him in case it made their position in the party untenable, so it tarnished the whole party with the same brush. Again though, this was during the time of lockdowns - the Labour party no longer supports restrictions and I don't see why they would resume now that both the initial two vaccines and the boosters have been implemented. Not to metnion the fact that Labour may have a different leader by the time of the next election.

Why should it affect their position in the party if they challenged him? We aren't somewhere like China.

 

[43066]

Ultimately the final say with these things comes down to the leader, so the party as a whole may or may not have been pro-restriction, but because the leader was pro-restriction then the MPs probably didn't want to go against him in case it made their position in the party untenable, so it tarnished the whole party with the same brush. Again though, this was during the time of lockdowns - the Labour party no longer supports restrictions and I don't see why they would resume now that both the initial two vaccines and the boosters have been implemented. Not to metnion the fact that Labour may have a different leader by the time of the next election.

You seem to think that the party is entirely divorced from the will of its MPs as a collective. It is not. And as per the comments above under our political system MPs are (rightly!) not afraid to openly challenge their party leaders.

The fact is that the majority of Labour Party MPs have been overwhelmingly and consistently in favour of restrictions. That’s quite unlike the position in the Tory party where a significant rebellion by backbenchers caused Johnson to change course. There has been no similar rebellion on the Labour side. Some Labour MPs did rebel but nowhere near enough to make a significant difference.

We also know that the left has generally been more in favour of restrictions to the right, so the fact that Labour are not currently calling for restrictions absolutely does not mean they will not do so again at the drop of a hat. Contrast with the new Tory leadership candidates who have both effectively ruled out any return to significant restrictions.

 

[Cdd89]

the Labour party no longer supports restrictions

They supported continuing restrictions on the 19 July 2021:

Boris Johnson's recklessness means we're going to have an NHS summer crisis

Another source on the above:

They’ve U-turned today - now we need one on masks, forcing people back to offices and self-isolation pay, before they lead the country into another disaster.

And supported spending billions on continuing free testing and some unspecified restrictions on the 21 February 2022:

the PM's strategy was not "a plan to live well with Covid" and would instead "leave us vulnerable".

I accept that they possibly don’t now; but we only know that through silence rather than active statements. Therefore, when are we to assume either of these positions changed? In particular, what changed between the time the statements above were made, and any posited change in position?

Also they may have been in opposition, but I have zero doubt that they contributed to making (or enabling) restrictions much harsher than they would otherwise have been. As just one example, they could have called out hotel quarantine (at the person’s own expense) as a draconian and potentially unlawful measure that belonged to places like China; but instead they pushed for it to apply to every inbound flight, describing the U.K.’s borders policy as “puny”.

 

[Eyersey468]

Just because they are not actively calling for restrictions now how can we be sure they are now against them?

 

[Philip]

Another factor to consider is that the opposition party tends to always contradict what the government is saying or doing nowadays, constantly criticising their policies or looking for room for improvement, especially when it's a government that is fairly unpopular. It may well have been a different story and attitude from Labour had they been in power at the time and I think there are more important factors to consider when making the vote, than their public stance on covid restrictions as the opposition party.

 

[Eyersey468]

Another factor to consider is that the opposition party tends to always contradict what the government is saying or doing nowadays, constantly criticising their policies or looking for room for improvement, especially when it's a government that is fairly unpopular.

That is a fair point although I still don't trust Starmer

 

[43066]

Another factor to consider is that the opposition party tends to always contradict what the government is saying or doing nowadays, constantly criticising their policies or looking for room for improvement, especially when it's a government that is fairly unpopular.

But in this case the opposition didn’t contradict the government. They consistently both rubber stamped the restrictions the government passed and called for stricter measures. You are pro restsiction so perhaps didn’t notice or care, but that’s a damning indictment of Labour for those of us who are not!

It may well have been a different story and attitude from Labour had they been in power at the time

There is plenty of evidence outlined above that Labour, as a collection of MPs and as a party, strongly favoured restrictions. You’ve produced no evidence of that position having changed. I’m sorry but I think the suggestion above is utterly nonsensical and disingenuous for the reasons outlined.

I think there are more important factors to consider when making the vote, than their public stance on covid restrictions as the opposition party.

That’s a value judgment. Others will disagree.

 

[MikeWM]

I accept that they possibly don’t now; but we only know that through silence rather than active statements. Therefore, when are we to assume either of these positions changed? In particular, what changed between the time the statements above were made, and any posited change in position?

I don't think their position had changed a bit by the end of last year, let's look at masks for example. Here's Hansard in late Novermber from the front-bench spokesperson:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-11-29/debates/D925097E-3B2F-4E65-9AD0-BEA5A41911AC/Covid-19Update

We support the decision to introduce measures on masks on public transport and in shops, but we believe that those requirements should never have been abandoned in the first place. Keeping in place requirements for masks would always have been our plan A. Will the Secretary of State extend measures on the use of masks to hospitality and other settings, or does covid not spread in pubs? Most importantly, what is the plan to enforce mask wearing?

(bold mine)
and note the emphasis on enforcement as the 'most important' question!

Or indeed in December, from the wretched Wes Streeting:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...393B-C568-4DE6-8695-1D63F957537E/PublicHealth

Masks are simply a price worth paying for our freedom to go out and live our lives during this pandemic. They are proven to be effective, and not only that, but in times of rising infections, when people are feeling increasingly cautious, it is vital to our economy that people feel safe boarding a busy bus or entering a crowded theatre. In our view, the Government should never have got rid of the requirement to wear masks in those settings,

There's so many problems with just those few lines!

Have they changed their minds on any of those points? Precisely as described, there has been radio silence, so we don't actually know, but the presumption would have to be not.

 

[ainsworth74]

Considering that we're going to be living with this virus permanently just as we do with many other viruses I'm not entirely sure what the relevant criteria are for making the "its all over!" announcement are? Indeed I'm not sure there are any!

Meanwhile the rest of us are just getting on with life rather than continuing to obsess over the numbers of cases and whether this party or that individual is pro or anti restriction especially seeing as no-one is actually talking about it. It's nice, you should try it

 

[greyman42]

It may well have been a different story and attitude from Labour had they been in power at the time and I think there are more important factors to consider when making the vote, than their public stance on covid restrictions as the opposition party

Not for me there won't be.

I don't think their position had changed a bit by the end of last year, let's look at masks for example. Here's Hansard in late Novermber from the front-bench spokesperson:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-11-29/debates/D925097E-3B2F-4E65-9AD0-BEA5A41911AC/Covid-19Update

(bold mine)
and note the emphasis on enforcement as the 'most important' question!

Or indeed in December, from the wretched Wes Streeting:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...393B-C568-4DE6-8695-1D63F957537E/PublicHealth


There's so many problems with just those few lines!

Have they changed their minds on any of those points? Precisely as described, there has been radio silence, so we don't actually know, but the presumption would have to be not.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Labour have changed their stance on these issues.

 

[kristiang85]

Starmer was vehemently against the relaxation of restrictions in July 2021 - he didn't get his way, and it turned out to be the right thing to do. He was also in favour of stronger restrictions in winter 2021. Let's also not forget the virtue signalling mask show the whole Labour benches did in Parliament as we were trying to get back to normal life.

If Labour had been in charge, I have no doubt we would have had European-style longer masking, harsher masking, longer travel restrictions, and longer restrictions on life in general, which would have made this economic crisis even worse. If they truly were a non-restriction party, they would have opposed the government.

So, no, I will not trust or forgive Labour in their current guise (nor the Conservatives), and there is no chance either party will get my vote at the next election.

 

[DustyBin]

Considering that we're going to be living with this virus permanently just as we do with many other viruses I'm not entirely sure what the relevant criteria are for making the "its all over!" announcement are? Indeed I'm not sure there are any!

An end to the pandemic phase could (and should) be announced. SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus as you say.

Meanwhile the rest of us are just getting on with life rather than continuing to obsess over the numbers of cases and whether this party or that individual is pro or anti restriction especially seeing as no-one is actually talking about it. It's nice, you should try it

Whilst in general I agree, some of us are concerned at the prospect of sleepwalking into further restrictions in a couple of months time. As nonsensical as it would be, I’m not 100% confident that it won’t happen. I think it’s more a case of being aware of the danger rather than obsessing.