As I noted on Twitter this morning:
The Labour Party can vote to support the imposition of mask wearing in theatres next week, or oppose the move and bring the government down. They are voting for masks. It's as if they have forgotten that their job is to be the Official Opposition.
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) December 10, 2021
Please do not get me wrong. I think that Plan B Covid measures are important, albeit that as yet they are wholly inadequate. However, in the grand scheme of things having a totally corrupt government that is offering an inept response to Covid is a much bigger issue.
What we know is that something like 100 Conservative MPs will be voting against their party next week. The libertarian nutcases (I struggled to find an alternative description but did not succeed) are intent on imposing massive numbers of deaths on the UK, and destruction of the NHS. Johnson's corrupt government is, as a consequence, dependent upon Labour to get its Covid measures through.
If that Covid response plan was what is required, ranging from significant restrictions on social mixing, to control of hospitality, to requiring proper ventilation in schools, universities, hospitals and other workplaces before people could return, and that plan also included the necessary economic support to those who will be disrupted as a consequence, then I could see exactly why Labour might then face a dilemma.
However, the government's Covid package is nothing like that. It is a range of pathetic measures that will have almost no impact upon the spread of omicron. What is more, we already know that these measures will not be enforced because this government has lost its credibility.
In that case, Labour has one duty and that is to bring the government down. Instead, and quite bizarrely, it is arguing that this is the duty of Tory MPs. It is as if Labour has forgotten does its job is to be the Opposition.
As seriously, it has forgotten all of Johnson's taunts about it playing Covid politics, because that is exactly what Labour is going to do. It will play Covid politics and offer meaningless support to the government on a measure that will have no impact when not doing so might bring the government down.
When will Labour step up to the mark?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If the Labour Party were to oppose a measure that they actually support, and which is required to hold back a pandemic, for purely party political reasons, I think people would justified in thinking they were “playing politics”. Perhaps the ends justify the means.
For what it has been worth, I have been impressed by the grown up way the Labour Party has supported the government in taking steps that seem necessary, and opposed only where it thought the government’s was not doing enough. They could be doing more of the latter.
The latter is absolutely essential
Hadnt really thought this might be a viable scenario. Thought the rebellion woudnt be as much as 100. But now you mention it – yes why not vote it down – or maybe propose a constructive amendment to bring in proper effective covid safegards – and if rejected, then vote the whole thing down.
But as today’s r4 interview with a Labour spokesperson showed, they are terrified of even suggesting people might think twice before mixing too much around Christmas – terrified of Boris’ s ‘they want to cancel Christmas’ mantra. So feeble.
Agreed
They could reject the plan as insufficient in that NHS finance will need a massive boost if it is accepted. When rejected, the opposition should use the opportunity to push the NHS issue. The government is voted out and the opposition must then have a manifesto already prepared based on a clearly worked out programme on the NHS, Education, Housing etc., all the major issues. However, with Starmer in charge, this is not possible since his only aim seems to be to break up Labour. This could be an opportunity for change or at least, for Labour to tell the public what can be done.
I am in two minds about this. Presumably to bring down the government would require not only that they lose the vote over their inadequate Covid measures but also that they lose a vote of confidence. I’m not sure this would happen. My instinct, if I were Starmer, would be to vote for the measures but make it absolutely crystal clear that they are nowhere near enough by listing what extra I would do.
I thi8nk it jib to force votes of no confidence
Would 100 Tories still rebel once they had got wind of what Labour was planning?
I would say – probably not. The danger then is that the motion for ‘Plan B’ would be still be carried but without Labour supporting. Labour can only move an amendment for the Government to take a tougher line but are they going to do that?
If that was apparent Labour could change sides very quickly
They could also abstain on the rgo9undfs much stronger measures are needed – and honourable position
“intent on imposing massive numbers of deaths on the UK”
What is your estimate of deaths, assuming that the current proposed measures are the only ones the government take? I assume you must have an idea else you wouldn’t be using the word ‘massive’.
I suggest you look at the concerns of Sage and Independent Sage
to Sir Rodney Woodentop. How in God’s Green Earth did we end up with him as Loto? He was involved in the coup to try and remove Corbyn, he made a complete hash of the 2019 election with his Brexit u-turns, completely lost the Red Wall. He lied to the membership to get elected. His ten pledges were thrown away almost before the ink had dried on them. He kept his donors hidden until after the vote, then he declared war on the left. And boy, he has done it with gusto. Starting with Long-Bailey and then turning on the membership, he is fast bankrupting the Party in his lust for neoliberal purity. His recent re-shuffle has rid any lingering soft left and left a shadow front bench like a horror show. Bringing back Evette Cooper (remember the immigration mugs?) is like as declaration of love for Blair and Nu-Labour. His snub to Angela Rayner was an out and out slap (I’d feel sorrier for her if she hadn’t burnt her boats with the membership with her willing persecution of Corbyn and others. She has no base now, all alone, embarrassed and sidelined). Maybe it will do her good, a time for reflection? Black and Bame members of the PLP are put to the sword. Sarah Sultana has been abused heavily on social media and other platforms but not a peep from Rodney. He hasn’t even spoken to her since he became leader, which I find absolutely astonishing. He even makes the Tories front bench look diverse. Labour look like a Tory C of E front pew row, with the possible exception of Lammy.
It is impossible to win a Labour majority without Scotland, but he seems to be unaware of this. At least a conversation with the SNP about a coalition to bring down the Tories could be had. His conversion to neoliberalism and business hasn’t gone unnoticed among the Unions, with Unite the latest to cut funding. The membership is plummeting and who he thinks is going to wear out shoe leather canvasing at the next GE, is anyone’s guess. Even the media are writing headlines like ‘The new Labour leader will stand with the Taxpayer against the Unions!’ Muttering on about business rates as soon as he is in an interview, instead of the Gig Economy, workers rights, pensioners being shafted, foodbanks and homelessness soaring. Clive Lewis gives us a clue to his methodology. He says Starmer is frightened of ‘unsettling the elite, as they will stop him being PM!’ He is a coward then. And the PLP is packed with them. Little people with huge egos, all pandering to the establishment till they leave and go to the other place, or a nice earner for their lobbyists. I despise them all, Hodge, Streeting, Phillips, the list is endless.
Gordon Liddle, start of second paragraph, “…[no] Labour majority without Scotland.” I’m not sure that’s true. Many Yessers will tell you that any time there’s been a majority Labour government – in my lifetime, at least – it’s not needed Scottish MPs to get its majority. Maybe best Scotland departs and demonstrates that voting ABC won’t end the World.
But on the question of what Labour under Keir Starmer is up to, anyone’s guess is better than mine. They’ve lost me completely.
If I were a Scot, I would vote to leave. It’s like being tied to a lunatic for them. Same with Wales. Mind you, the SNP need to sort out their economic plans, being tied to the pound would be self harm. New currency needed pronto. I’d like the UK to be united but prefer federal, whoever, both UK main Parties are virtually interchangeable and neither for for purpose. It’s like an old boys club for the establishment.
I agree with this. I’m still a member (just) but things are in a very sorry state. Unfortunately self proclaimed the grown ups, the ones who think they are so good at politics don’t seem to have the sense to realise that you can’t “sh1t” on people and then expect them to continue to support you.
Starmer promised unity at the same time to broaden Labours appeal. What he has done is explode his existing coalition.
We are in a dreadful place.
I’ve been critical of starmer on many occasions.
But in this situation I think you are overestimating his hand.
The tories are finally getting close to that much hypothesized state of tearing themselves apart.
The last thing that we need now is for labour to give an external rallying call for the tories to unite against the threat of a vote of no confidence from labour.
I think Johnson is toast – labour should be light touch on this one (irony intended)
But it could and should be asking for stronger Covid measures
“It is impossible to win a Labour majority without Scotland”
Not the case; there’s only been a couple of post-war elections that we’ve affected the majority.
Losing the North-East of England disnae do you any favours either…
Do we realy believe this corrupt government would ever pass a vote of no-confidence to bring itself down, no matter how many parliamentary votes it lost on Covid or anything else? I fear such an action would just allow the media to divert attention away from the government and onto Labour as opportunistic.
All I can say on this point is that what if the boot were on the other foot?
I could not see the the Tories helping Labour in the same way. Just imagine what the Tory MPs and their media mates would be saying if Labour were in power.
I think that Labour could have done a lot more here and done it more cleverly as Richard suggests
The justification BTW is green lit all the way – whether by undermining the NHS in its fight against Covid, super-dodgy procurement or law breaking Xmas parties and countless other charges that Johnson and his mates face.
But maybe the problem is that Labour has a Knight of the Realm at their lead and maybe we should be asking Starmer a simpler question ‘Who’s your Daddy?’
You do know folks that we have do have The Establishment’s preferred leader of the opposition don’t you?
It puts Corbyn and Miliband in perspective the more and more I see Labour behave so cravenly.
I don’t see this as a matter of the two parties helping each other. Its mainly about them voting for what they think is the best course of action. We might disagree whether it is that, of course, but surely that is another matter?
Regarding your comments on Starmer’s lineage, its important to recognise that his ‘daddy’ was a toolmaker; i.e a highly skilled but quintessentially working class job. His mother was a nurse and his upbringing was modest (state school, unlike Jeremy). He was awarded his title, as a matter of course, for high achievement in public office before he became an MP.
Surely, the main issues relating to Starmer are:
1. His present actions of eliminating those with left wing views within the Party.
2. His lack of clear and forceful opposition to the present, dangerous attacks on Democracy and Free Speech by the Conservative Party.
You seem to be more concerned with not disagreeing with the Government than with their present attacks on the rights of citizens to health, education, housing, etc. Surely, an opposition Party needs to tell its voters what it stands for, especially during a period of extreme right wing policies?
What Starmer’s or anyone else’s parents jobs were are totally irrelevant. The fact that Starmer has certain MI5 connections (see other comments here) is surely relevant as a leader of a Social Democratic or Socialist political party.
Starmer is the Timothy Geithner of British politics.
Geithner was appointed I think as president of the New York fed and presided over the 2008 crash. Critics say that he was essentially a regulator who did not seem to realise that he was there to regulate.
I get the sense that Starmer is a leader of the opposition who does not seem to think that he is there to oppose.
I’m sorry but that’s what I see.
I no longer understand what Labour are about. They are very far removed from their origins just when we need them to rediscover them.
LINO
Labour in name only
Alan
You’re entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
I don’t agree with you at all. The honours system in this country is as old as sin itself. As a Knight of the Realm he is expected to show loyalty to those who bequeathed his title. Do you honestly believe that such feudalistic practises are over? If you are saying that there is no conflict of interest then that is up to you. I feel differently about it. But I think that you are being naïve.
This son of a tool maker and nurse has been co-opted into a rich persons fiefdom under a avowedly rich person’s Government.
So tell me why Starmer does not renounce his title? Because he really should.
And it’s this ‘purity test’ nonsense which is why the left constantly tears itself apart and gives an open goal to the right.
Starmer has got to where he is from a fairly modest background unlike the vast majority of the upper echelons of the legal industry.
Maybe he thinks differently to you about the title which he earnt, but despite that, might actually be a decent bloke.
I can’t see how anyone could prefer this current mob to Starmer.
He might be some way from what we would want as a leader of the opposition, but under fptp we’re artificially limited in what we can go with.
It’s him or the Tories.
I would prefer Labour by far to the Tories
I can wish they answered the needs of this country – as defined by the Tories and unchallenged by Labour – better
My first response here is to PSR.
Thank you for alerting me to the possibility of my naivety (be it real, or subjective in nature; the difference depending at least as much on the perception of the observer, as the characteristics of the observed).
But my main challenge to you was factual, not an issue of opinion. You quite clearly insinuated that Starmer’s position derived from birthright as an hereditary peer (“whose your daddy”). This is clearly an error and its notable that you have now switched your line of attack.
But moving on, I am puzzled by your statement that “this son of a tool maker and nurse has been co-opted into a rich persons fiefdom under a avowedly rich person’s Government”. Does this imply that you believe he was given a peerage, by the existing government, in order to take over the Opposition and unite with them in an Establishment sham?
Ahhh right Alan, I see where you are coming from at long last. Sorry.
‘Who’s your Daddy’ is I think and American phrase not related to the concept of lineage but to one of a ‘sugar Daddy’ – someone who financially supports you and to whom you have a certain amount of obligation in return as a result.
Applying that to Starmer, implies that he’s doffing his cap to the system and the people that made him and to the people who own that system at the moment – the Tory Establishment. This could be source of his perceived weaknesses as a bona fide opposition leader.
I hope that’s clearer BTW.
And I stand by my issues with him. The Establishment want right leaning monopoly politics in this country and Starmer is basically helping them to do it. It’s unforgiveable in my opinion.
My next response is to Birgitta.
I think I understand, and have some sympathy with, some of your expressed concerns. But I do not share them in quite the same way. However, I do feel that your assertion “You seem to be more concerned with not disagreeing with the Government”, should not be taken out of context.
It’s just that, unusually for me, I am not in agreement with Richard’s original opening on this thread. My position is simply that, given the nature of Cameron’s 5 year parliament act, its virtually impossible for Labour to bring down the government by voting against it, on an occasion such as this.
In terms of opinion, I have not really said much more than that; except perhaps where I have also suggested that I am not convinced it would be politically expedient for Labour to vote with the Tory extreme Right wing. I do, of course, accept that some of you might dispute this, in the current context.
Thanks for clarifying your meaning PSR. Personally I do not share your conviction that someone granted an honour for public service, is automatically signed up as an agent of bealzebub (the Tory establishment, in this case). So his title does not impact me much, one way or the other.a
I accept that moving the Party into a position where it might actually get elected, is not popular with many on the Left, who yearn for something more visceral. But my contempt for the Tories is non transferable and I back whoever is best placed to remove them.
It’s as simple as that for me and at the present time, it’s KS who is in the field. So basically, I am likely to stand up and defend whenever I detect what I see as unduly destructive criticism, even if it’s from sources I respect.