[tolqen]

> For example, in the UK our right-wing party is currently in power, which means that arguments that their lockdown rules are illegitimate and exceed their powers mostly come from supporters of the other, left-wing party. The justifications for why they're exceeding their powers actually look similar in many ways to the ones in this lawsuit.

Not convinced you’ve even been following British politics then. The main criticism coming from Starmer is about late decision making and inaction. I haven’t heard anything about abuse of powers or a clamour to reopen from them.

[notahacker]

Indeed British [and especially English] politics is indeed a good example of the lockdown itself being depoliticised. The UK politicians who want to end the lockdown sooner rather than later sit on the right of Johnson's party, so they make their arguments quietly, in economic terms, and mostly behind closed doors. Johnson's natural political instincts might be sympathetic to them, but he's also sympathetic to the arguments of his scientists against opening up. The left overwhelmingly supports the principle of a lockdown, so their criticisms of Johnson focus on the details of his decision making and communication. Public support for the lockdown isn't as universal as political support for some sort of lockdown, but only a handful of people turned up to London's anti-lockdown protests and nobody influential saw any political benefit to encouraging them.

[makomk]

As I said, this is mostly coming from supporters of the party. Though Starmer has been pushing for firm reopening plans sooner than is perhaps advisable, he has indeed mostly been doing risk-free back-seat driving that demonstrates how much easier life is when you don't have to actually pull of the things you're calling for. (For example, his latest thing is expecting the government to have information on what exactly is causing excess deaths that actual scientific experts reckon they won't be able to pin down any time soon.)