Labour can shape the coronavirus debate, not just anticipate its direction

On the UK coronavirus lockdown, are you a hawk or a dove? Rishi Sunak, primarily concerned with the economy and “getting Britain back to work”, is considered a hawk. Boris Johnson, in cabinet terms at least, is more thought of as a dove. Worried about a second peak, the Prime Minister urges caution on the easing of restrictions.

To the surprise of many Tory MPs, the British public can overwhelmingly be found on one side of the argument, with a clear majority opposed to the imminent reopening of schools and restaurants, and more than 30% worried about going to work or socialising. Commentators increasingly like to say that the government message on staying at home has ‘worked too well’, but it is reasonable to conclude that people are simply looking at the UK death toll and noting the shortages of protective equipment. And they are scary.

The increasingly controversial question within the Labour Party is whether it should be more hawkish or more dovish. The debate is not over the purely economic effects of the current restrictions, but its unintended consequences. This is about the rise in domestic abuse, the spike in child abuse, the gap between students from disadvantaged pupils and those more able to adapt to home-schooling. Shadow ministers have all pressed their opposites on these issues and brought them to the fore via media appearances, but the main intervention of Keir Starmer himself in this crisis was to demand that the government set out a lockdown exit strategy. Labour’s focus over the weekend was on the reopening of schools, and today it is on demanding that facemasks are stockpiled in case we are all advised to wear them in public soon.

Labour wants to be seen as forward-thinking, which means highlighting concerns that may not currently be at the forefront of the minds of the public or ministers. The idea is that this allows the opposition to come across as constructive in its criticisms. But there are urgent failures happening right now that deserve the same level of attention as those future concerns. One of those is the coronavirus early release scheme of pregnant and low-risk prisoners, which was expected to see 4,000 released but – after being paused due to mistakes made – has seen a total of just 33 released.

As these shocking failures have gained little attention and not been raised at the daily coronavirus press conference before, I used a question to do just that on Sunday. Michael Gove did not have a more up-to-date figure than 33, and neither did the press office afterwards. Even more disappointing is that there were few details offered by either Gove or the NHS England director on preparations for the expected spike in prison population once normal court activities resume or prison health more generally.

Labour must not forget that its voice can help shape debate, not just anticipate its direction. The party should identify the nature of the many crises being exposed by Covid-19 – and only then can it say with authority that another future is possible.