Thread by @shaunjlawson

Right then: schools. This is a profoundly emotive question. Nothing alarms most people more than the thought of children being put in harm's way - and my objection here isn't so much that they're staying open, but that Starmer has not properly explained why they need to.

Absolutely nobody anywhere thought - or thinks - that no children would or will contract Covid at school. That's impossible.

By the same token, the 'gotcha' graphs of case numbers from schools also miss the point.

The point being:

1. The number of children who'd have no proper meals at all if they weren't at school (if Marcus Rashford's campaign didn't educate you on that, then well...)

2. The number of children who live in cramped, unsafe, frequently abusive environments

3. The enormous psychological and emotional harm done by children having no daily structure in their lives

4. The enormous psychological and emotional harm done by keeping children cooped up at home, without being able to see their friends

5. The number of children who don't have a laptop or internet access at home

6. The number of children whose parents don't speak English

7. The enormous numbers of children who cannot be homeschooled by parents.

All aspects of Covid further expose and widen the pernicious inequalities across not only the UK, but all countries. The people worst hit by Covid are ethnic minorities and the poorest.

You might think you're somehow protecting them by keeping kids at home - but you're not.

In response, it's no good saying "but Labour proposed free broadband for all!"

Labour proposed free broadband for all OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD - and to 15m-18m within 5 years. You can't magically do it overnight or anything like it.

It's also no good saying "Universal Basic Income NOW" when again, it'd take horrible amounts of time to bring it in. If wild government incompetence over how long it took to roll out Universal Credit and the constant blunders ever since didn't teach you that, nothing would.

In the future, when (not if - when) it happens, how will UBI likely be provided? Through bank accounts. So all poor people have bank accounts do they? Over a million do not.

How long would it take government systems to start providing it to everyone with a bank account? Years.

You need the money to:

- Keep a roof over the head of all families
- Provide internet access and a laptop for everyone
- Protect the horrific numbers of abused children (which would require a monumental increase in the social services budget)

- Make all accommodation safe. With regard to which:

theguardian.com/society/2019/s…

So 8m people live in unsuitable housing - and you want to 'protect children' by keeping them inside?

And worse, unlike earlier in the year, it's winter. When temperatures mean that people stay indoors and keep windows (if they have them - many people don't) closed.

Where does the virus transmit most easily? Indoors, in non-ventilated spaces.

Every aspect of government responses to the pandemic all over the world has been a balancing act. Some have got it right; most have got it wrong; some (the UK's among them) have got it very wrong.

That balancing act has always been between public health, the economy and welfare

Not just physical welfare - but mental welfare. Emotional welfare.

Children from rich families who can provide for their every need will mostly emerge from this relatively unscathed, with their educations not seriously affected.

Children from poorer families will not.

The answer to that is not and will never be "make the suffering of poorer children even worse and even longer lasting by keeping them stranded in these poor-quality, unsafe, often abusive environments without access to education".

It's just not.

Not all, but too many are commenting on all this from a position of privilege. In which they do have a safe home. In which they do have loving parents. In which they have fast internet access. In which their parents don't face a choice between heating and eating.

Of course, a quite massive amount of this owes to Tory austerity: to what they've done for a decade. It's no coincidence at all that the more effective governments on this preside over more equal countries, with stronger social safety nets.

That's certainly true where I am.

Covid has exposed that we are all only as strong as the weakest members of our societies more than anything else ever has. It's not about the ceiling; it's about the floor, a floor which will be made even worse if Trump remains President and No Deal Brexit therefore happens.

It's true that you could send only the most vulnerable kids to school and keep everyone else off. Except:

1. There's far more of those vulnerable kids than anyone seems to realise

2. How will you keep the economy functioning if parents can't work because they have young kids?

3. What exactly are kids supposed to do with themselves all day, every day, while their parents are working?

There's a reason why Starmer called for a circult breaker to coincide with half term. Unconscionably, the government has instead imposed semi-lockdown right after it.

Amid this nightmare of quite massive complexity, if Covid killed children in at all significant numbers, they wouldn't be at school in any circumstances. But mercifully, it doesn't.

Labour's priority - any serious party's priority - is the whole country. Not just one group.

It is not automatically obliged to support teacher's unions if the consequences are so serious for everyone else. It's a balancing act. Always.

Many teachers want schools to close. Many other teachers are horrified by the circumstances children face at home.

What any civilised society would do is work to fix all the issues this thread has referred to, and others besides. It would also pay teachers and healthcare workers infinitely more.

Don't clap for them. PAY THEM PROPERLY.

They are all heroes. Lions led by Tory donkeys.

But pretending all this is somehow simple is a nonsense. Schools must be made as safe as possible; comprehensive testing should be done a minimum of every week; and we need a proper track and trace system administered locally.

The shambles of Serco T&T is a huge part of all this

And yes, schools might well end up closing regardless if the latest measures don't work. My best guess is that they probably won't work - both because they're confusing, and because of growing public exasperation.

See this chilling piece for more.

theguardian.com/world/2020/nov…

That piece above provides a stark reminder of the very real dangers had Starmer opposed the government more strongly. Anything seen to give licence to protests and lack of trust in the authorities is VERY dangerous at a time like this.

As with everything else, it's not simple.

Finally: yes, schools staying open will inevitably slow reductions in the 'R' rate. Anyone responsible (ie. not the mad libertarian right) who wants schools to stay open ALREADY KNOWS THIS.

It's all part of the balancing act. A bit here, a bit there... and try to get through it.