Home » Posts tagged 'lockdown'
Tag Archives: lockdown
Labour’s plan for jobs
Just a few random thoughts on Labour’s plan for jobs (see link below). It begins with this statement:
The Government was too slow into lockdown, too slow on testing and too slow to protect jobs. Now, the Chancellor’s one-size-fits-all withdrawal of furlough risks creating a jobs squeeze that will put people’s livelihoods at risk.
Absolutely right. And on lockdown, many Tories knew that it was being imposed later than it should have been. Ken Clarke had well-informed friends who told him, two weeks before it began, that he should lock down now. He did.
However, Labour failed to oppose the early lifting of the lockdown, in fact it explicitly supported it. Arguably, it is because of that early lifting that the government is having to impose local lockdowns and targeted quarantines now, with a policy of lifting here and locking down there, at short notice and with more than a hint of chaos.
Still, having got that out of the way, the first point of Labour’s plan is:
-
Fight for jobs:
fix the furlough scheme to support people in the worst-hit industries.
For sure, “fix the furlough scheme” is one of the things we should now demand. But this is too vague. The demand should be to “fix the furlough scheme” by making it compulsory on all employers who want to lay off workers who can’t work from home and by keeping it in place until a vaccine is produced and being used successfully. This will cost money. But Labour must have the courage to spell out a strategy that costs more. If it doesn’t, it will quickly become an extension of the Tory party. I know Starmer doesn’t want to “make unreasonable demands”, but this isn’t unreasonable. We’re in a crisis the like of which we haven’t seen before.
-
Back our businesses:
with a £1.7 billion fightback fund to stop firms going under and save our high streets.
This is good – except that there’s no detail and £1.7bn doesn’t seem enough, considering the government’s past failures have put us into a longer crisis than might have been necessary. Again, spell out a strategy that costs more.
-
“Leave no-one behind:
with targeted support for areas forced back into lockdown.”
This is good, and will be supported by most people. No detail though.
-
Keep workers safe:
by protecting workers’ rights, by boosting sick pay, making workplaces safe, and giving our NHS and care services the resources to stop a second wave.
Absolutely. But, again, there’s no detail. In particular, workers’ rights are absent in many workplaces. They need to be given in the first place and then protected. The way to do that is to campaign for union membership everywhere and make union recognition mandatory in all workplaces. When I worked in France at the fag-end of the UK’s Thatcher period I was amazed to discover that no employer in France could refuse to negotiate with a union rep. Attacks on workers’ rights have taken place in France under Macron and I’m not sure of the current state of play. But everything is possible, whether there or here, and we should demand everything. By the way, looking at Point 2 above, they’re not remotely beginning to be “our” businesses unless the measures suggested here are in place. Saying that they are is a Labour version of Cameron’s “we’re all in this together”. We weren’t then, and they’re not “our” businesses now.
-
“Drive job creation:
by investing in infrastructure, speeding up progress to zero-carbon economy and improving access to skills and training.”
All this is good. What its value as a promise may be, I don’t know: on speeding up progress to a zero-carbon economy, Starmer has shelved Labour’s previous target of 2030. Let’s wait and see, he says. Wasn’t that Stanley Baldwin’s motto?
What can we do?
It would be a good idea to have the words “however”, “but” and “as long as” in mind when considering the new guidelines announced by the prime minister today. This Guardian article (see below) was written before the guidelines were actually published, and is based on the words of the prime minister.
Still, here we go. Here are some first thoughts on what he said:
Can we see family and friends? Yes. Six people will now “be permitted to congregate [an odd, religious-sounding word] in gardens and other private outdoor spaces, instead of just in public spaces. If you’re a bit worried about this, Johnson says “there is no difference in the health risk”. (Presumably like there’s no difference in the health risk between, say, taking someone in a confined space (a car) with an infected person who was displaying symptoms and driving 264 miles with them to another location rather than keeping everybody at home in a larger space where you can practise social distancing.)
Anyway, it’s yes, we can see family and friends. Where’s the “but”? It’s here: we should try, said the prime minister, to avoid seeing people from too many households in quick succession, “so that we can avoid the risk of quick transmission from lots of different families and continue to control the virus”. (So, is the idea that if I see my neighbours from no. 24 today and wait until tomorrow before seeing my neighbours from flat 19B, this is safer than seeing one of them this morning and the other this afternoon? I don’t know. Perhaps we should use FAQs on gov.uk if we’re not sure.) Anyway, this overall more relaxed approach to seeing family and friends applies to the over-70s too. (It’s not clear why this should be: if I still can’t go shopping in a sanitised Sainsbury’s it may also be wise not to go dancing on the grass with 6 of my neighbours, especially without checking where they’ve been for the last 6 weeks or so.)
Can we have a barbecue? Yes. And the “but”? Enter Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty (you may remember him, he’s been quiet recently, what with one thing and another). He provides the “but”: those having a barbecue, he warned, should remember they can spread the virus by passing things from one person to another. Things, eh? Hmm.
Can we go into other people’s homes? No. Yes. The government says socialising inside is not allowed. But here comes a “however”, a prime ministerial “however”, and it’s this: people can go through houses to access back gardens. This doesn’t conjure up a picture of social distancing really, which the Welsh government noticed immediately. They said, OK, but that they would be publishing guidance on how to do this safely. An illustrated guide would be especially helpful, I suppose. Let’s see. If you live in Wales, don’t unlock until you’ve seen it. Oh, and Chris Whitty popped up again. He said it was acceptable for people to use their host’s toilet (perhaps another illustrated guide would be useful).
Can we travel? Yes. People in England can travel as far as they want to take exercise and spend time outside. Is there a “but”? There is indeed: they cannot stay over at people’s houses. The prime minister was firm on that: “We don’t want people to go to other households and stay there. I’m afraid we are not at that stage.” That sounds as if it might have been a rejected line from an earlier draft statement about the behaviour of a particular individual. Saved for future use on other people, I suppose. Still, scattered like gunshot though his words often are, here he was firm.
Can I do non-essential shopping? Yes. Outdoor retail such as markets and car showrooms in England will be allowed to open in England from Monday. Right, although showrooms are indoors, aren’t they? Isn’t that why they’re called “rooms”? Still, best not to quibble. Go to FAQs again.
Can children go to school? Yes. No comment.
My advice? Do none of the above. Especially the dancing and the toilet activity. And don’t send your children to school.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/uk-lockdown-rules-what-are-the-key-changes
School’s back?
It’s “an exercise in chaos theory”, said Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham about the proposal to open schools on 1 June. I know what he means, but it may be more than that. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson claims his concern is for the kids: “The longer that schools are closed, the more children miss out”, he said today. He then raised the emotional temperature:
The poorest children, the most disadvantaged children, the children who do not always have support they need at home, will be the ones who will fall furthest behind if we keep school gates closed. They are the ones who will miss out on the opportunities and chances in life that we want all children to benefit from what teachers and schools deliver for them.
We shouldn’t be fooled. He has conveniently forgotten that the poorest, most disadvantaged children are the creation of successive Tory governments over the past 10 years, a decade during which they imposed public spending cuts, benefit caps, and all the paraphernalia of austerity, the result of which is that “children do not have the support they need”. The only appropriate emotion, faced with his crocodile tears, is anger.
Johnson has said the argument for lifting the lockdown is not based on economics. But it is. The reason the government wants to get the children back to school is that it wants to get the workers back to work. It has nothing to do with the kids’ education and welfare, or with schools being the place where “they are safe and happy”, as Williamson also said today. It’s so that Mummy and Daddy can get back to manufacturing and producing and providing services and making profits for their bosses.
Another question lurks in the shadows to make us question whether Burnham’s chaos theory is a sufficient explanation for the push to end the lockdown. The New Yorker, in an article about the situation in the US, reminds us that some people
who argue for reopening sooner rather than later say that doing so will allow for a “controlled spread” of the disease, in which more people can develop a resistance and the population as a whole can achieve “herd immunity.” One problem with this approach is the projected number of hospitalizations and deaths along the way, which is very high. Another is that the idea assumes that those who have had COVID-19 will, indeed, be immune. But, as the World Health Organization recently warned, it isn’t yet clear how effective or enduring any immunity might be.[1]
I don’t know if there are still people arguing for herd immunity here. There certainly were earlier on, and they were at the heart of government. But if we reject it for the two reasons given in the New Yorker article, we should reject it above all because if we don’t we will be deliberately trying to spread the disease (“allow for a ‘controlled spread’”). A lockdown and social distancing try to reduce the spread. That should be our aim. So let’s not reopen the schools.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/11/the-rush-to-reopen
Bob Mouncer's blog 