Consensus is a bad way to handle the Covid pandemic
Keir Starmer should be congratulated for his service to democracy. By breaking with the bipartisan approach to coronavirus, which was always a bit of a sham, in any case, he has clarified the choice before the nation. As a result, there was a real political debate at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday for the first time in months.
This is not to say that we were treated to a respectful and thoughtful seminar on the best way forward, but there was a real contest between two rival policies. Starmer was on strong ground, quoting the recommendation from the scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage) three weeks ago that the
government should consider “for immediate introduction” a “circuit-breaker” or short period of lockdown.
Naturally, this being the adversarial chamber of the House of Commons, he exaggerated the certainty with which Sage recommended it, and Boris Johnson reasonably pointed out that Sage itself said it was for policy makers to take into account the economic and other health costs of such measures.
But the prime minister was guilty of exaggeration too, suggesting that Starmer wanted to “yank” children out of schools. On the contrary, the Labour leader has insisted that his plan for a circuit-breaker is unlike the lockdown in March in that schools would remain open.
Of course, they were both playing politics with the issue, but that is just a way of saying they set out their case as persuasively as they could. Starmer, knowing that public opinion leans in his favour on this question, argued that the prime minister was likely to be forced to take further measures later, so he might as well take action now.
And Johnson was on surprisingly strong ground in arguing that a regional approach to a regional problem was the best chance of avoiding the “misery” of another national lockdown. For once, he had the solid support of his own MPs, many of whom think he has gone too far in imposing restrictions, but who now see him as their best hope of resisting the even harsher restrictions now proposed by the opposition.
Whatever people think about the yah-boo politics of the Commons, it remains one of the best ways of testing policy
In fact, the prime minister didn’t exclude the possibility of a circuit-breaker, saying, “I rule out nothing,” but argued that now there is an opportunity to suppress the virus while keeping businesses going.
Indeed, the prime minister turned Starmer’s previous rhetoric against him by saying to him, “Let’s work together” to avoid the “disaster” – the word used yesterday by Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary – of a national lockdown. The idea of working together remains a rhetorical device, but Daniel Finkelstein argues for it as a serious option in The Times, suggesting that Johnson should make Starmer and “at least one other shadow cabinet minister members of an emergency committee, or of the National Security Council, allowing them to take collective responsibility and a role in the management of this crisis”.
This is similar to the suggestion of a government of national unity that was made in the early stage of the pandemic; it was never going to happen then, and it is not going to happen now. And nor should it.
Whatever people think about the yah-boo politics of the Commons, it remains one of the best ways of testing policy. If there is an important difference of view about how to deal with a national crisis, we are more likely to come to the right answer by testing the arguments in parliament than by taking them into committees behind closed doors.
Starmer is right to abandon the “constructive” part of opposition. There is a significant body of scientific and popular opinion that wants a more restrictive policy than the government’s for controlling the virus, and the best way to test it is in forceful exchanges across the despatch boxes.
Yesterday, that case was not made decisively, but the government’s policy can only be improved by testing it constantly in the furnace of democratic accountability.