Sunday Times - 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[Devils_Advocate]

I posted the retraction on the Covid thread likening it to something out of 'In the Thick of It'

Lots of discussion about it on Twitter but personally think this dissection is very interesting

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/sta ... 1981338626

[thatdberight]

I posted the retraction on the Covid thread likening it to something out of 'Im the Thick of It'

Lots of discussion about it on Twitter but personally think this dissection is very interesting

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/sta ... 1981338626

I genuinely don't see what's difficult about the third paragraph. The "defunct email address" reason/excuse/lie (each reader can delete according to their own preconceptions) has been in the public domain for some time (I posted it on here).

Genuine, what's tortuous about it?

[Bordeauxclaret]

So has this story gone -

We decided not to take part.
We missed the mail.
They’d been invited meetings about it but didn’t attend.
It was a political decision to not get involved.
It wasn’t a political decision to not get involved.
The person who said it was a political decision to not get involved changes his story to say it wasn’t a political decision to get involved a few hours after he said it was.

Does that cover it?

[Devils_Advocate]

I genuinely don't see what's difficult about the third paragraph. The "defunct email address" reason/excuse/lie (each reader can delete according to their own preconceptions) has been in the public domain for some time (I posted it on here).

Genuine, what's tortuous about it?

He explains it fairly clearly and his explanation plus his experience and understanding around these kind of political and legal statements is something I find very interesting and a very solid take.

The bigger story for me is the farcical u-turn and back tracking which as I have stated really does look like a scene straight out of In the Thick of It

If you find the whole event including his statement to be nothing out of the ordinary then fine Im not gonna argue at this stage cos we can only form our own opinions on the info available

For me all these strange rebuttals and retractions really flash up warning signs that the govt have made some bad moves and are digging themselves deeper trying to backtrack, spin and cover their tracks.

For now that can only be a gut feeling but I hope one way or another we get everything fully out in the open and really see what went on be it good or bad for the govt

[DCWat]

Well, we'd best hope for something in the way of vaccine then because, in my view, there will be a point in not too long where the population decides that hiding under a rock is not much fun and we'd be better just getting on with it and taking our communal chances. And that's long before "many months" of no social activity.

Watching Americans on the streets protesting, on yesterday’s news, made me think the opposite. I’m not saying that months more of this wouldn’t start to see some discontent but I’d hope we are some way off such stupidity.

[dsr]

The nature of these things is that the curve will take many, many weeks to get down to low digits (cases, not deaths), and would do no matter how high it rose. Unless this is stamped out completely, more or less, the exponential rise will happen again in short order. The lockdown will have to exist in parts until probably Christmas (my guess), they will only gradually loosen the reins, e.g. schools returning this term but pubs not opening for many months.

So I’m hypothesising that the full lockdown would have lasted until early May regardless, then a gradual loosening, after we have had time to prepare for testing and contact tracing in the “new normal” of mini lockdown for the rest of the year. Let’s be honest though, not even the politicians know, there isn’t a counter factual for this.

Hundreds of thousand of old people will die (of other causes) before Christmas. Lockdown can't continue till then. What's the point of telling people on their deathbed that they could have died of coronavirus but by putting you in prison for the rest of your life, we ensured you died of something else instead?

in January we had 6 cases. In March we had lockdown. Why do you think that stamping it out only more or less completely will solve anything for more than a couple of months?

[dsr]

Watching Americans on the streets protesting, on yesterday’s news, made me think the opposite. I’m not saying that months more of this wouldn’t start to see some discontent but I’d hope we are some way off such stupidity.

Stupidity? The young, perhaps, want to take their chance from a disease which (for them) is little more serious than flu. Usually. The old, perhaps, want to live a little more before they die. Maybe it wouldn't be your decision, but there is a certain amout of sense to it.

Bear in mind too that a lot of Americans have a much less "careful" approach to life than over here. There is a very significant number that doesn't care about (say) health risks of fatty food; they eat fried food and take their chance.

[thatdberight]

He explains it fairly clearly and his explanation plus his experience and understanding around these kind of political and legal statements is something I find very interesting and a very solid take.

The bigger story for me is the farcical u-turn and back tracking which as I have stated really does look like a scene straight out of In the Thick of It

If you find the whole event including his statement to be nothing out of the ordinary then fine Im not gonna argue at this stage cos we can only form our own opinions on the info available

For me all these strange rebuttals and retractions really flash up warning signs that the govt have made some bad moves and are digging themselves deeper trying to backtrack, spin and cover their tracks.

For now that can only be a gut feeling but I hope one way or another we get everything fully out in the open and really see what went on be it good or bad for the govt

Sorry - I didn't see that it was a string of tweets - I think it's normal to say that in your first tweet. I've read it now. I agree it's carefully worded and that seems revealing (although mostly revealing of the fact it's not revealing) to him although there's an element of "damned if you do..." to that. We've had how many versions of this? If people had been more careful before, perhaps we wouldn't be here (on this issue).

[RingoMcCartney]

Good to see journalists questioning the inept idiots.

Presumably, the Burnley Express have been round and asked if you could help to fill a form in?....

[RingoMcCartney]

Yeah you tell em. It’s negativity that’s killing people not incompetence

I'm no medical expert, but my understanding is that it's an insidious virus , with no known cure, that's to blame.

Oh, and a Chinese Communist Party that attempted to cover it up in the first place.

[RingoMcCartney]

Unfortunately getting through this minimising deaths and with a plan for the country post pandemic is going to take some competence not just blind faith in government.

100% agree Martin.

So its , perhaps, fortuitous that in December just gone, the country rejected the labour party on a scale not seen for decades.

Dodged one there didn't we!

[martin_p]

100% agree Martin.

So its , perhaps, fortuitous that in December just gone, the country rejected the labour party on a scale not seen for decades.

Dodged one there didn't we!

Maybe it was just a tallest dwarf contest.

[RingoMcCartney]

Maybe it was just a tallest dwarf contest.

Mods. Ban him , not just for voting for political pygmies, but for clear heightism. Now!

[DCWat]

Stupidity? The young, perhaps, want to take their chance from a disease which (for them) is little more serious than flu. Usually. The old, perhaps, want to live a little more before they die. Maybe it wouldn't be your decision, but there is a certain amout of sense to it.

Bear in mind too that a lot of Americans have a much less "careful" approach to life than over here. There is a very significant number that doesn't care about (say) health risks of fatty food; they eat fried food and take their chance.

I’d add selfishness to stupidity if that’s their logic, DSR. Any such actions will only serve to put more people at risk, be that themselves (perhaps with a greater chance of survival) or their friends and families, who maybe won’t have odds as good on their side.

In the scheme of things, a relatively (in the grand scheme of things) short period of pain, for longer term benefit for us all, is surely worth it.

It’s not an easy thing to do for a lot of people but it’s a necessary step, be it for six weeks or six months.

[thatdberight]

In the scheme of things, a relatively (in the grand scheme of things) short period of pain, for longer term benefit for us all, is surely worth it.

The nuisance of lockdown isn't really the issue although, at some point (it's certainly not six weeks), even that does become a balance. It's the damage to the future through economic inactivity that's the big ask. It's really not an unaskable question how we balance the two.

[DCWat]

The economy is a certainly a hugely significant factor. For now though, it’s rightly lower in the pecking order.

I’m certainly not questioning there being a need to balance the two but I do question why after only the fourth week there are people protesting for their ‘freedoms’ back.

[dsr]

I’d add selfishness to stupidity if that’s their logic, DSR. Any such actions will only serve to put more people at risk, be that themselves (perhaps with a greater chance of survival) or their friends and families, who maybe won’t have odds as good on their side.

In the scheme of things, a relatively (in the grand scheme of things) short period of pain, for longer term benefit for us all, is surely worth it.

It’s not an easy thing to do for a lot of people but it’s a necessary step, be it for six weeks or six months.

It is a balance.

But remember that you aren't just talking about the young, fit, connected people in lockdown. In 6 months, 200,000 old people will die, alone or with only their equally elderly husband or wife, having not seen their families for the rest of their lives, and in the case of people with confusion or dementia, not knowing what is going on and not having the comfort of regular life to help them through it. And that's 200,000 at the normal rate of death, The number will be significantly higher under lockdown.

When assessing worth, that's a lot of cost to be taken into account when assessing the benefit.

[NottsClaret]

It's a fair point dsr. People who say let's lockdown for 12 months if that's what it takes don't seem to realise they're condemning over half a million people to die alone. Ruining a generation's education. Crippling an economy and wiping out taxes and public sector spending. As ever, it's the poorest and most vulnerable who'll be paying the highest cost.

There'll be lots to reflect on about all this in years to come, but the damage we're inflicting on ourselves trying to put a genie back in the bottle will be part of it.

[Spijed]

It's a fair point dsr. People who say let's lockdown for 12 months if that's what it takes don't seem to realise they're condemning over half a million people to die alone. Ruining a generation's education. Crippling an economy and wiping out taxes and public sector spending. As ever, it's the poorest and most vulnerable who'll be paying the highest cost.

There'll be lots to reflect on about all this in years to come, but the damage we're inflicting on ourselves trying to put a genie back in the bottle will be part of it.

One thing we've still got to make sure is that we don't over load the hospitals with cases.

[jrgbfc]

Not to mention those who have a limited life expectancy, young or old. What a horrible way to spend your last few months on this earth. Personally I think if the lockdown gets extended again it will be at the stage where it's doing just as much damage as the virus itself, if not more.

[NottsClaret]

One thing we've still got to make sure is that we don't over load the hospitals with cases.

We've not even come that close, and London is well past its peak.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Not to mention those who have a limited life expectancy, young or old. What a horrible way to spend your last few months on this earth. Personally I think if the lockdown gets extended again it will be at the stage where it's doing just as much damage as the virus itself, if not more.

i've said from the beginning this lockdown is pointless.

Unless we are going to lockdown for a year or more when we find a vaccine then all it is doing is destroying the economy out of fear of media and opposition backlash, and quite clearly we can't do this for over a year.

[Spijed]

i've said from the beginning this lockdown is pointless.

Unless we are going to lockdown for a year or more when we find a vaccine then all it is doing is destroying the economy out of fear of media and opposition backlash, and quite clearly we can't do this for over a year.

We had to lockdown in the beginning, unless people were happy to accept a situation similar to Northern Italy, where some hospitals had to turn people away.

[Spijed]

On another note, Brian Cox was on TV this morning talking about the environment. Due to the current measures around the world pollution levels have dropped so much that we now have a far cleaner earth.

Do people want cleaner air?

[AndrewJB]

Just a couple:

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetor ... endum.html

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... oris-john/

https://order-order.com/2020/04/21/sund ... ck-record/

I can’t believe you see any of those articles as rebuttals. ConHome just says; “yeah but what about our ratings?” Nawaz says it’s a Murdoch plot, and the government followed WHO advice (they didn’t!). And Guido questioned the journalist’s ability (pot and kettle!).

Johnson was absent from five consecutive COBRA meetings on the virus, and we’re expected to believe the government’s calamitous response had nothing to do with that?

[martin_p]

I can’t believe you see any of those articles as rebuttals. ConHome just says; “yeah but what about our ratings?” Nawaz says it’s a Murdoch plot, and the government followed WHO advice (they didn’t!). And Guido questioned the journalist’s ability (pot and kettle!).

Johnson was absent from five consecutive COBRA meetings on the virus, and we’re expected to believe the government’s calamitous response had nothing to do with that?

There is a chance of course that had he been at the meetings the government’s response would’ve been worse!

[ClaretMoffitt]

I can’t believe you see any of those articles as rebuttals. ConHome just says; “yeah but what about our ratings?” Nawaz says it’s a Murdoch plot, and the government followed WHO advice (they didn’t!). And Guido questioned the journalist’s ability (pot and kettle!).

Johnson was absent from five consecutive COBRA meetings on the virus, and we’re expected to believe the government’s calamitous response had nothing to do with that?

if only we have corbyn and abbot in charge aye?

[nil_desperandum]

if only we have corbyn and abbot in charge aye?

Or Priti Patel.
She's supposed to be Home Secretary, and yet we've scarcely seen her. I wonder why?

[Spijed]

Which country would be a good comparison?

Germany?

[IanMcL]

Good to see Keir Starmer rattle Mr Raab's cage today at PMQs.

Para phrase...

Keir: You achieved 19k testing, which went down to 18k next day. You are promising 100k testing by end of month - how are you going to achieve that by then?

Mr R. 2 different things. We have 40k capacity already. We are on course for 100k capacity by end of month.

Keir: That's not the question I asked. I said, 19k then 18k testing how do you test 100k as promised. You said you already have 40k capacity - and yet your testing is less than half!

Keir: you are not even testing all NHS staff daily and they are expected to travel miles for a test. What are you doing to get them tested, every day, where they can access it easily?

Mr R: we're working on it.

Finally, slow to recognise, slow into lockdown slow to test,cslow to obtain ppe and UK suppliers turned away and they now supply Europe.

Mr R: We have to make sure they are up to standard.

Slam dunk!

He's been Starmered!

[Devils_Advocate]

Following on from the Simon McDonald story yesterday the FT are following up with Brussels version of events that they believe the govt were fully aware of the EU procurement process and had ample time to join

https://www.ft.com/content/58f5f476-7a8 ... pe=nongift

[CrosspoolClarets]

Hundreds of thousand of old people will die (of other causes) before Christmas. Lockdown can't continue till then. What's the point of telling people on their deathbed that they could have died of coronavirus but by putting you in prison for the rest of your life, we ensured you died of something else instead?

in January we had 6 cases. In March we had lockdown. Why do you think that stamping it out only more or less completely will solve anything for more than a couple of months?

Just my guess on what will happen.

I suspect that as some posters said last night people will get fed up and take their chances. The Govt know this, so will get ahead of it by loosening the reins whilst still asking people to take sensible social distancing precautions (i.e. schools open, workplaces open etc). But, and it is a big but, I also suspect that mass gatherings and indoor venues such as pubs will remain shut (hence my point last night) because contact tracing can’t work if someone has been surrounded by 1,000 people.

The second wave is what I think they are desperate to avoid.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Good to see Keir Starmer rattle Mr Raab's cage today at PMQs.

Para phrase...

Keir: You achieved 19k testing, which went down to 18k next day. You are promising 100k testing by end of month - how are you going to achieve that by then?

Mr R. 2 different things. We have 40k capacity already. We are on course for 100k capacity by end of month.

Keir: That's not the question I asked. I said, 19k then 18k testing how do you test 100k as promised. You said you already have 40k capacity - and yet your testing is less than half!

Keir: you are not even testing all NHS staff daily and they are expected to travel miles for a test. What are you doing to get them tested, every day, where they can access it easily?

Mr R: we're working on it.

Finally, slow to recognise, slow into lockdown slow to test,cslow to obtain ppe and UK suppliers turned away and they now supply Europe.

Mr R: We have to make sure they are up to standard.

Slam dunk!

He's been Starmered!

I wish I could get so excited over smoke and mirror politics.

[CrosspoolClarets]

On another note, Brian Cox was on TV this morning talking about the environment. Due to the current measures around the world pollution levels have dropped so much that we now have a far cleaner earth.

Do people want cleaner air?

On a related note, I have spoken to a climate scientist who argues that it is probable that the lovely sunny conditions we are getting are related to the Covid shutdown, not due to greenhouse gasses but due to seismic activity being lower. The lower seismic rumbling is a fact, that it affects the weather is a hypothesis, probably based on it affecting the oceans and then the water cycle.

I haven’t the foggiest, but found it fascinating. Nearly enough to turn me into Greta Thunberg.

[TVC15]

I wish I could get so excited over smoke and mirror politics.

Not sure “excited” is the right word but you might feel different if you had family members who were working in the NHS and already run out or running out of PPE.
Or if you thought they were going to be tested by the end of the month when Hancock has guaranteed (his words) that they would be up to 100,000 tests per day.

[Devils_Advocate]

More detailed analysis from David Allen Green who I referenced on the Simon McDonald news story

https://davidallengreen.com/2020/04/the ... ided-tour/

[AndrewJB]

if only we have corbyn and abbot in charge aye?

Obviously. A Labour government would have dealt with this far better. I wasn’t taken in by the idea that because he didn’t bow properly Corbyn was unfit to govern (Johnson laid his wreath upside down last year - but nobody mentions that). Now we have a government filled with people averse to state intervention when we absolutely need it.

[Paul Waine]

More detailed analysis from David Allen Green who I referenced on the Simon McDonald news story

https://davidallengreen.com/2020/04/the ... ided-tour/

Interesting to see the video clip, though I'm unclear how you determine there is any "detailed analysis" from David Allen Green (who he?).

Who was the MP who asked "or was it a political decision?" Do they call that "leading the witness" in court proceedings? Would McDonald hve replied "political decision" if those words hadn't been put to him in the first place? Wouldn't it have been more normal to say that "the minister took the decision" - which I understand is as it should be.

Why was Simon McDonald appearing to "have fun" while answering questions by the select committee? Did he already know where this was leading?

[dsr]

Obviously. A Labour government would have dealt with this far better. I wasn’t taken in by the idea that because he didn’t bow properly Corbyn was unfit to govern (Johnson laid his wreath upside down last year - but nobody mentions that). Now we have a government filled with people averse to state intervention when we absolutely need it.

The NHS is 100% "state intervention". PHE is 100% "state intervention". The entire effort so far has been via state intervention, and one of the biggest knocks against the state is that private companies have PPE which they are having to send abroad because it doesn't fit the "state intervention" way of doing things.

How could we have any more state intervention than we have now?

[Devils_Advocate]

Interesting to see the video clip, though I'm unclear how you determine there is any "detailed analysis" from David Allen Green (who he?).

Who was the MP who asked "or was it a political decision?" Do they call that "leading the witness" in court proceedings? Would McDonald hve replied "political decision" if those words hadn't been put to him in the first place? Wouldn't it have been more normal to say that "the minister took the decision" - which I understand is as it should be.

Why was Simon McDonald appearing to "have fun" while answering questions by the select committee? Did he already know where this was leading?

He's an extremely well respected lawyer and journalist who writes for the FT and writes his own law and policy blog (a popular and widely read blog). He clearly gives a detailed analysis of the wording of McDonalds letter using his vast knowledge and experience around legal and political documents as produced by civil servants

You can disagree with the analysis but to actually claim the article does not contain any detailed analysis is just plain bizarre.

I have read a lot of opinions from both sides of the argument and not a single person has questioned the committee or its questions or have raised the notion of McDonald having fun as being remotely noteworthy.

Who are you and what do you do that makes your unique take on things credible and more insightful than the professional and expert people who work in and around this area?

At this stage no one can be 100% sure what happened so you are entitled to have your own opinion but out of the vast amount of opinions and supporting logic Ive read yours seems incredibly weak and one I'll choose to ignore.

Thanks for the input though cos all serious discussion is a good and positive thing

[IanMcL]

If you declare war, politicians stand to one side and the services sort processes and logistics. Decisions are taken to maximise success and minimise loss, with risk.

We are still playing as normal and just trying speed up a bit!

Of course, there is a political war cabinet, rather than bus as usual.

[AndrewJB]

The NHS is 100% "state intervention". PHE is 100% "state intervention". The entire effort so far has been via state intervention, and one of the biggest knocks against the state is that private companies have PPE which they are having to send abroad because it doesn't fit the "state intervention" way of doing things.

How could we have any more state intervention than we have now?

The Tories have run down the NHS, not prepared for this crisis, been abysmal in terms of getting people tested, and providing PPE. Unsuited to the task. Their relief efforts have not covered everyone, and seem to be based around those with assets, and ensuring their incomes are little affected. They are like the friend who is fun to hit the town with, but is utterly crap in an emergency.

[randomclaret2]

Corbyn refuses to follow guidance regarding over 70s. Why should anyone else adhere to the guidance ?

[tiger76]

Obviously. A Labour government would have dealt with this far better. I wasn’t taken in by the idea that because he didn’t bow properly Corbyn was unfit to govern (Johnson laid his wreath upside down last year - but nobody mentions that). Now we have a government filled with people averse to state intervention when we absolutely need it.

Interestingly Keir Starmer doesn't agree with your idea of a UBI Andrew,but other opposition parties do.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has declined to join other opposition leaders and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell in backing the need for a universal basic income during the crisis.

Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We agree that the current pandemic has confirmed that the current security system isn’t fit for purpose.

“Creating an entirely new social security system is unlikely to be possible during the current pandemic but as we move to recovery and as we come out of the pandemic we will be making arguments for a new settlement which is more simple, more effective and offers more protections to people.”

At PMQs in Westminster, via video link Ian Blackford said: "The SNP is leading a cross-party call for a Universal Basic Income to finally protect everyone.

"It will put cash in people's pockets - and it will help ensure a strong economic recovery and a fairer society."

Ian Blackford: "A Universal Basic Income is the right economic policy at the right time - its time has come.

"A Universal Basic Income is a solution that will provide support for everyone and crucially - it will leave no-one behind."

[dsr]

The Tories have run down the NHS, not prepared for this crisis, been abysmal in terms of getting people tested, and providing PPE. Unsuited to the task. Their relief efforts have not covered everyone, and seem to be based around those with assets, and ensuring their incomes are little affected. They are like the friend who is fun to hit the town with, but is utterly crap in an emergency.

You're the one who wants people to have no more than a minimum subsistence allowance. The government is offering 80% of salary to people who aren't working. Even if they don't have assets.

The government hasn't "run down the NHS". It has increased spending in real terms. Maybe not by as much as you would like, but that's not running it down.

[randomclaret2]

Ian Blackford now being quoted...God help us, things are even worse than previously thought

[TVC15]

The government hasn't "run down the NHS". It has increased spending in real terms. Maybe not by as much as you would like, but that's not running it down.

With all due respect I do not know one nurse or doctor who would agree with you.
And I know plenty of both since my wife has been a nurse for more than 30 years and has never seen the NHS in as much chaos and lack of resources as in the last few years.

You need to factor in the increase in demand in hospitals, people living longer etc (all very accurately predicted many years ago). Waiting times never been longer, nowhere near enough beds, and a significant reduction in doctors and nurses....and all the support services like mental health, social services etc etc too.

All the professional bodies - BMA, RCN etc are unanimous that the last decade has seen a significant deterioration in the NHS.

[AndrewJB]

Interestingly Keir Starmer doesn't agree with your idea of a UBI Andrew,but other opposition parties do.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has declined to join other opposition leaders and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell in backing the need for a universal basic income during the crisis.

Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We agree that the current pandemic has confirmed that the current security system isn’t fit for purpose.

“Creating an entirely new social security system is unlikely to be possible during the current pandemic but as we move to recovery and as we come out of the pandemic we will be making arguments for a new settlement which is more simple, more effective and offers more protections to people.”

At PMQs in Westminster, via video link Ian Blackford said: "The SNP is leading a cross-party call for a Universal Basic Income to finally protect everyone.

"It will put cash in people's pockets - and it will help ensure a strong economic recovery and a fairer society."

Ian Blackford: "A Universal Basic Income is the right economic policy at the right time - its time has come.

"A Universal Basic Income is a solution that will provide support for everyone and crucially - it will leave no-one behind."

My party - the Greens - support it, as do a lot of people in Labour. I think there’s a difference between Starmer saying he thinks now is the wrong time to change things, and ruling out UBI altogether.

[AndrewJB]

You're the one who wants people to have no more than a minimum subsistence allowance. The government is offering 80% of salary to people who aren't working. Even if they don't have assets.

The government hasn't "run down the NHS". It has increased spending in real terms. Maybe not by as much as you would like, but that's not running it down.

Allowing tens of thousands of vacancies to go unreplaced is running it down. Conducting a pandemic drill and not fixing the holes is running it down. Capping the pay of staff below inflation is running it down. Most of them have said at one time or another that it should be privatised, and that is running it down. It’s what Tories do.

The government isn’t covering everybody. They left the choice of whether to furlough or lay off to the companies, and those layed off now have no means of paying their bills. They’re looking after the people at the top of the pile - like in the analogy I gave you some days ago. The people who have no financial obligations, and expect everyone to fulfil theirs to them.

[tiger76]

My party - the Greens - support it, as do a lot of people in Labour. I think there’s a difference between Starmer saying he thinks now is the wrong time to change things, and ruling out UBI altogether.

Yes he was nuanced in his argument,i was actually impressed with Starmer for his 1st PMQ'S he was confident and forensic in his questioning,exactly what the occasion demanded,and pressing for answers when Dominic Raab was evasive,at last Labour might have found a leader who has the gravitas required for the job.

In normal times, the Leader of the Opposition does not deign to debate anyone other than the prime minister, but Sir Keir, wisely, was not standing on ceremony, and so he made his debut in his new role in circumstances he could hardly have imagined when he began his leadership bid.

In a ritual as time honoured as the Speaker's daily procession with the Mace, he promised "constructive opposition" although, mercifully, he didn't deploy the usual soundbite about "an end to Punch and Judy politics".

Instead, he dropped into prosecuting counsel mode, putting Dominic Raab through a gruelling inquisition which ran through the numbers being tested, the supply of PPE and the death rate among NHS staff and care workers.

Woundingly, when the first secretary could not supply a figure for the care workers, Sir Keir promised he would ask every week, until he could. All this with only the barest flash of partisan steel.

These are precisely the questions and answers the general public are demanding at this critical time,and they don't want any spin just facts,if Boris Johnson returns to the fray he'd better be prepared,as Keir Starmer certainly will be.