Starmer backs circuit-breaker lockdown

This is the latest evening briefing for Reaction subscribers. Become a subscriber here.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has this evening called on the government to implement a “two-to-three week circuit breaker” lockdown to, as he put it, get a grip on rising cases of coronavirus in England. In a significant intervention, delivered at his press conference, the Leader of the Opposition urged the Prime Minister to introduce what he called “a temporary set of clear and effective restrictions designed to get the R rate down”.

Starmer also launched an attack on what he described as the government’s loss of “control” over the epidemic at a “decisive moment in the fight against coronavirus”. In response, he outlined a host of policies that he believes would remedy the situation. The measures proposed include a full closure of pubs, bars, and restaurants, limits to household mixing, and a return to working from home across England.

Schools should not be closed, Starmer argued, but he suggested that a circuit breaker could be timed to coincide with October half term.

Drawing on last night’s publication of minutes from meetings between ministers and SAGE held on 21 September, in which the government’s scientific advisers called for a circuit-breaker national lockdown throughout England, Starmer also accused Johnson of “no longer following the science”.

Addressing the PM directly, he said: “You know that the science backs this approach. You know that the restrictions you’re introducing won’t be enough.”

The announcement comes as the Labour leader said that his MPs would vote for the government’s new restrictions in the Commons tonight, even if they will also continue pushing for further measures to be taken.

“So act now. Break the cycle. If you do, you will have the votes in the House of Commons. I can assure you of that”, Starmer said.

He may have public opinion on his side, too. Yesterday, a snap YouGov poll suggested that a significant proportion – 40% – of the British public think that Covid restrictions should go further than the “three-tier” system unveiled by Boris Johnson.

Yet a policy currently being pitched as a two-to-three week emergency measure could quickly lose support if it were to creep into four weeks or longer.

The announcement also puts Starmer in an interesting position in relation to local councillors and mayors from his own party. This is an issue that cuts across Labour-Conservative divides, where local politicians are finding themselves resisting the draconian policies being advocated by many in Westminster. It brings together northern MPs from both parties whose concerned constituents won’t all be welcoming the consequences of another stringent lockdown.

Boris Johnson told Tory MPs at the 1922 meeting that Starmer is wheeling around like an out of control shopping trolley, changing his mind on Covid every five minutes. The charge that Labour is “playing politics” would usually have limited clout – oppositions always play politics to win advantage. That’s part of their job – to advance their case.

This time, however, Johnson may have a point, although not quite for the reason he suggests. The government’s position is confusing and often incoherent. Yet Labour’s stance is now brutally certain and seems callous to the deep costs that a circuit breaker policy could entail. While extolling “the science”, Starmer risks doubling down on a policy without any concrete scientific guarantee that it will work.

Not so SAGE

What does SAGE want anyway? Those memos published last night indeed show the scientists saying that the country needs a short, sharp circuit-breaker lockdown, Starmer-style. Indoor mixing among households should be banned; gyms, pubs, restaurants, and cafés must be shut; local measures are insufficient – a tough nation-wide crackdown is needed to get a grip on the pandemic and stop the spread of coronavirus.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, known as SAGE, has made a lot of the running in this crisis. Yet Downing Street has pushed back of late against its scientific advisers and rejected another national lockdown – at least for the moment.

The SAGE documents warned that “not acting now to reduce cases will result in a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences.”

Of course, the advice of a body of scientists devoted to public service should be taken seriously. Yet it is hard to subscribe to the strident certainty with which they present their conclusion that a second crackdown is the only, or even the best, way forwards. The prospect of mass unemployment, of a Damoclean debt, of terminal illnesses going untreated, and of people of all ages being forced to suffer from crushing loneliness this winter is catastrophic too.

That is not even to mention the criticisms of tough lockdown strategies voiced by highly-respected scientists, such as Professors Sunetra Gupta and Carl Heneghan at the University of Oxford.

Alastair Benn on Reaction today says that the PM is right not to be ruled by SAGE on this issue. You can find his article below.

Even the lockdown-inclined SAGE was unimpressed with the government’s 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants though. “Curfews likely to have a marginal impact”, reports one SAGE assessment of the policy, while also pointing to a potential “loss of confidence and loss of trust” among the businesses forced to once again restrict their services.

Now this – introducing a policy that is both draconian and ineffective – is quite an achievement.

No shielding here

Shielding for those who are vulnerable to coronavirus infections has not been reintroduced in England, despite new lockdown measures being implemented in parts of the country and concerns about rising numbers of coronavirus cases. Shielding has also been put on pause in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.

The government argues that specific shielding measures are now unnecessary, unlike during the UK’s first lockdown from March, because the rule of six and widespread mask wearing should help to protect vulnerable people. This guidance is offered, of course, at the same time as the government is warning the country of rising infection rates.

Jack Dickens
News Editor