What he's done I consider irresponsible if all that's all he's willing to set out. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea if government policy is deemed to be too harmful a divergence is required but not just a call to head off down difference unidentified tracks. I just don't set such a pathetically low bar for those holding or wanting to hold high office to clear.Son of Mathonwy wrote:He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.Digby wrote:I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.
But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?
So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...
If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters
Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.
And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?
You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.
Granted many others are often seemingly content with a pathetically low bar