So "the core of Johnson’s aim was crudely political." You don't think he might possibly have been concerned to save lives? Even politicians are human some of the time.
Germany has probably moved too fast. If we don't end the lockdown soon, our economy will be crippled.
OK, so only a gradual step will be taken first. But if successful why shouldn't it be followed by others - schools, more retail outlets etc? Why do we have to wait for a vaccine or a workable antibody test? That will take months or years. By then we won't have much of an economy left.
The approach to ending lockdown sounds broadly right. There is one important area not discussed, however - "non-essential" work in offices, factories and building sites (ie most of the economy). This is allowed for in the current guidelines, provided it can't be done from home, but the government hasn't specifically encouraged it and much of the press clearly think it is forbidden. A lot of it closed down anyway, because either the boss or the workers thought social distancing was impractical.
The government should now start encouraging these workers back, by promoting the use of masks, staggered working hours and revised working practices to reduce the risk. This would do more than almost anything else to reduce the impact on the economy of a prolonged lockdown.
I quite agree that he's not trying to help. He's just trying to get into the debate. My point was not that Starmer is right, but that the government is wrong not to talk about a way out. Now he's boxed them in, as they don't want to be seen to respond to his call. If even Starmer can leave them flat-footed it's not a good omen.
Being in charge in time of crisis makes you vulnerable, as so much can go wrong. The government must be seen to take the lead.
Can it really be that Kier Starmer is talking more sense than the government? Only because Starmer wants to discuss an exit strategy and the government is talking complete nonsense about it.
Clearly we don’t know when we can start to emerge from lockdown. It’s an agonising choice between lives and livelihoods. But to refuse any public discussion of how to emerge from lockdown, and keep blindly repeating that we mustn’t take our eye off the ball, is crazy. The public can think about more than one thing at a time, and they want hope – to be shown how we might get out of this, and given some confidence that it will work. Public reaction to the various options would help the government decide, and would prepare the ground for whatever they decide to do.
And this blind insistence that we are being led by the science. The scientists know nothing about the economy, so only one side of the debate is being heard. The government started well, but are losing it. Time to get a grip.
One of the four reasons for going out in the official government guidance on its website is: "Travel to or from work, but only when you cannot work from home". That has been the case from the start.
"Ministers must decide whether to allow a return to work"? Unlike in some other countries, ministers here never decreed that work should stop, not even "non-essential" work. You are allowed to leave your home to go to work, provided that you cannot work from home. Building sites, factories offices are all fine as long as social distancing is practicable. A lot of them closed down because social distancing wasn't practicable, or because their workers didn't want to risk it.
The press seems to be very confused about this.
A daft idea. Recall how Labour thinks. It hasn't a clue how people, organisations or economies work, yet it has a fierce certainty about what it thinks it knows. Would we really want them having any say in what the government does in this crisis?
Nonsense. Never mind the relative strengths. The key point is that outside the EU we no longer have to do as they tell us. A deal including any element of their terms is not worth having - it would mean that we would be only partially free of the EU. The EU is not noted for backing down on anything.
No FTA looks like a certainty.