@HolmerBlue said:
"with Corbyn & Abbot at the helm"..... makes me shudder at the thought
Have you asked yourself what your opinion might have been if the two above had been in charge and the figures being reported were as they are now?
Hard to see how our ability to deal with this crisis isn't political or linked to years of spending cuts leaving us with a health system that can't handle a bad winter, and staffing shortages that just seemed to coincide with telling many of the staff they aren't wanted here even if they are prepared to work for a small amount. Add in ignoring countries around you as it doesn't fit the agenda, culture of ignoring facts, and cronyism and there will be many questions to answer.
Out of interest @StrongestTeam. If Labour had been in charge the last 10 years, how do you believe the country would have funded the NHS? My understanding is that the previous Labour government, (Blair & Brown), had left us potless. To the point, from memory, we as a nation were downgraded a level by the IMF, which would have made borrowing more expensive & difficult. Is this not why we had the years of austerity that we have gone through? Also had we not had these austere years, would we be in a position to borrow now, to see us through this crisis?
Genuinely not looking for a fight, (as I've already stated, I am a political atheist, never been one for "my parents and their parents before them always voted X so I must do so as well), just looking for clarity as generally I'm confused by all the political posturing & twisted mathematics.
Good question @EwanHoosaami , I'm no expert, when I discussed this a while back with (perfectly decent) people of a blue voting persuasion they'd always bring out this magic money tree argument, although that got ditched recently when it turned out we needed to pay for Brexit prep , yep, difficult to swerve the B word when every press conference for months was held in front of banner repeating the Bus maths that was to fund the NHS.
I think to some extent we recovered pretty slowly from the financial crisis as austerity became so entrenched a dogma it stopped growth and prevented investment which we then had to make later and will certainly be making now.
I don't for one second imagine Labour would have got it all right either but the current government can't blame it's predecessor forever and deserve scrutiny for decisions as much as a Trump or Bolsainairo.
Also from above "The Science" isn't one thing to be either followed or blamed blindly. It's lots of expert opinion and information which lead to decisions by which politicians will be judged.
And lastly I genuinely wish Boris well in his own health and his response to the crisis going forward but as has been pointed out he isn't the hero of the story, He was reckless and put others at risk.
Anyone read the university of California study on the ability of people to rationally judge the actions of others when they hold polarised political opinions.
@Chris said:
It wasn’t the Labour government, it was the global financial crisis.
So the war on Iraq & the missing WMD didn't contribute then? Again not looking for an argument, but Blair was so far right he may as well have had a blue rosette! He must be the wealthiest Labour PM in my living memory.
The war on Iraq was a mistake, but not responsible for the UK annual deficits. That was because of the global financial crisis in 2008, which in turn was caused by financial deregulation - a lack of rules on the banking sector (largely in the US and UK) meaning banks (in relatively simple terms) were free to make very risky investments (investing, indirectly, in sub-prime mortgages, which had high rates of return but were also likely to default) which then failed. Gordon Brown as chancellor could have stopped this (in the UK at least) by putting in more bank regulation - but the Tories are on record at the time saying there should be less not more rules on the banks. When the crisis did happen Brown (who was then PM) took a lead role in the world in putting together an approach that minimised the impact, in contrast to in the US where major financial institutions went out of business.
Somehow the Tories (and sympathetic media) managed to construct a narrative that it was Labour overspending that led to the annual deficit, but it was a lack of government intervention in markets that caused the problem.
Prison sentences should follow the post pandemic investigation into the UK government’s response particularly taking into account the fact they had ample time to prepare given the situation in Italy.
Firstly apologies to @Shev, but receiving ideas/opinions without too much bias is refreshing & nice to be able to ask the questions without a volley of angst in replies.
It is clear from the articles posted by @Gerry47 that there is an element of under preparedness. No doubt that under funding is an issue in general, however in some part mitigation can be sought, (if the statement is true), that quote: "Projected shortages of PPE and ICU beds were not filled with bulk purchase because of cash constraints and worries they would become outdated or obsolete if left in storage. Key words there being, "outdated or obsolete if left in storage? It appears that when a pandemic breaks out, (assuming that certain equipment could become outdated or obsolete), that a surge in global demand will always leave a gaping whole in supply chains with the obvious critical & lethal consequences. I have been wondering in recent days, post outbreak, how any government can justify the cost of, purchasing & storage of 10,000 ventilators & beds etc gathering dust in some warehouse, "in case some day they are needed"? Surely then they are laying themselves open for criticism to wasting treasured financial resources.
The NHS is a bottomless pit of money, that, I think everyone can agree on. When this current pandemic fades, I am sure that some valuable lessons will have been taken on board. The next questions will no doubt be centred around how will the NHS be further funded & how much more will the general public be prepared to dip into their pockets?
I am genuinely interested to hear peoples thoughts and if my questions are causing irritation, perhaps @drcongo can move this exchange of ideas to a new thread where those who don't want to participate need not open it?
I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have 10000 spare beds and ventilators, and every other type of device on standby but we started from a base with one of the lowest numbers of ICU beds per population in Europe, low capacity for testing, unhealthy hours and poor pay as standard for healthcare professionals and seemingly little idea how to access large amount of new kit. Similarly we tax less than most countries and spend less on health and research than most countries. If anything there should be a consideration that we should be spending more.
Tax dodging is still rife if we need to target more income. Unfortunately we keep seeing news stories bashing funding raised or supported by shady bodies such as the IEA which operates in a similar way to how the tobacco companies used to. Inneficiency is also a thing in the public sector for huge companies.
We shouldn't forget great jobs being done by many in the service and at home and this is far from football related so maybe people can share local schemes in need of help on here.
The Government's repeated lying and demeaning of "experts" over the past 18 months has also no doubt affected the response too.
How could a government who has told the public they've had enough of experts and pushed the country to a huge decision based on at best patriotism and optimism, and at worst (and realistically) lies and xenophobia expect to be able to put a country into complete lock down days / weeks in advance of the infection spreading significantly on the word of "experts" predictions.
People just wouldn't have believed them, and it would have directly contradicted their "We can get through anything we're Brtish" attitude they'd weaponised for months.
Hopefully things don't end up as horrendous as they're now being predicted, but if we do end up with a death rate that's way higher than other countries due to their negligence then I'd go as far as charges being bought. At least we're not in America...
Whenever we approach a situation of normalcy I’d like to see an independent report on the causes of the virus, the Chinese governments actions and culpability and the British governments preparedness and response.
Now you can return to the shit job/great job mudslinging based upon your personal preferences
Whenever we approach a situation of normalcy I’d like to see an independent report on the causes of the virus, the Chinese governments actions and culpability and the British governments preparedness and response.
Now you can return to the shit job/great job mudslinging based upon your personal preferences
And an explanation why Germany's outcomes from the virus are so incredibly better than ours (and the rest of Europe to be fair).
@BuckinghamBlue said:
Whenever we approach a situation of normalcy I’d like to see an independent report on the causes of the virus, the Chinese governments actions and culpability and the British governments preparedness and response.
Now you can return to the shit job/great job mudslinging based upon your personal preferences
Well said, @BuckinghamBlue. You’ve succinctly summed up the situation although, like you, I fear that the blame game hypotheses will continue.
@BuckinghamBlue said:
Whenever we approach a situation of normalcy I’d like to see an independent report on the causes of the virus, the Chinese governments actions and culpability and the British governments preparedness and response.
Now you can return to the shit job/great job mudslinging based upon your personal preferences
Criticism of the government isn't solely down to party leanings you know, it can be based on the blindingly obvious evidence...
On that note I do think some people have come across well despite not agreeing with their general outlook, eg Sunak for me personally.
If people get into power on the basis of personality, bluster and undermining of the opposition rather than actual policies, then it's a bit rich to complain that they're being criticised for the policies they didn't present before, as that's what was being argued at the time - it's anything but hypocritical.
The difference is now the problems can't be brushed over by bumbling a few long words, saying the opposition is incompetent or blaming a section of society.
Maybe this crisis will change the course of modern democracy and the media surrounding it as it's shown clearly that unregulated Internet media and democracy doesn't work and costs lives.
If there hadn’t been people critical of the government’s initial ‘herd immunity’ approach we might had lockdown even later in the process and had more unnecessary deaths. It’s not ‘the blame game’, it’s wanting the best possible outcome.
I am not an expert in infectious diseases Chris and I assume that you aren’t either. I am not comfortable with people seeking to point the finger of blame at anyone, including the population of China where Covid-19 originated, until the full facts are known. The truth will come out one day and until then we should deal with the immediate problems and not be looking for scapegoats.
@Chris said:
If there hadn’t been people critical of the government’s initial ‘herd immunity’ approach we might had lockdown even later in the process and had more unnecessary deaths. It’s not ‘the blame game’, it’s wanting the best possible outcome.
We were with Sweden until then. Wonder how long they'll stick to their guns?
@Chris said:
If there hadn’t been people critical of the government’s initial ‘herd immunity’ approach we might had lockdown even later in the process and had more unnecessary deaths. It’s not ‘the blame game’, it’s wanting the best possible outcome.
@Right_in_the_Middle ‘Herd immunity’ being shorthand for limited intervention. On 5 March (which seems like a lifetime ago) the advice Boris Johnson gave was “basically we’re saying, ‘Wash your hands and business as usual.’”
You are free to define your own best possible outcome. I’d say a practical way to judge success would be to look at how similar countries are doing.
Comments
Have you asked yourself what your opinion might have been if the two above had been in charge and the figures being reported were as they are now?
Hard to see how our ability to deal with this crisis isn't political or linked to years of spending cuts leaving us with a health system that can't handle a bad winter, and staffing shortages that just seemed to coincide with telling many of the staff they aren't wanted here even if they are prepared to work for a small amount. Add in ignoring countries around you as it doesn't fit the agenda, culture of ignoring facts, and cronyism and there will be many questions to answer.
Out of interest @StrongestTeam. If Labour had been in charge the last 10 years, how do you believe the country would have funded the NHS? My understanding is that the previous Labour government, (Blair & Brown), had left us potless. To the point, from memory, we as a nation were downgraded a level by the IMF, which would have made borrowing more expensive & difficult. Is this not why we had the years of austerity that we have gone through? Also had we not had these austere years, would we be in a position to borrow now, to see us through this crisis?
Genuinely not looking for a fight, (as I've already stated, I am a political atheist, never been one for "my parents and their parents before them always voted X so I must do so as well), just looking for clarity as generally I'm confused by all the political posturing & twisted mathematics.
It wasn’t the Labour government, it was the global financial crisis.
Good question @EwanHoosaami , I'm no expert, when I discussed this a while back with (perfectly decent) people of a blue voting persuasion they'd always bring out this magic money tree argument, although that got ditched recently when it turned out we needed to pay for Brexit prep , yep, difficult to swerve the B word when every press conference for months was held in front of banner repeating the Bus maths that was to fund the NHS.
I think to some extent we recovered pretty slowly from the financial crisis as austerity became so entrenched a dogma it stopped growth and prevented investment which we then had to make later and will certainly be making now.
I don't for one second imagine Labour would have got it all right either but the current government can't blame it's predecessor forever and deserve scrutiny for decisions as much as a Trump or Bolsainairo.
Also from above "The Science" isn't one thing to be either followed or blamed blindly. It's lots of expert opinion and information which lead to decisions by which politicians will be judged.
And lastly I genuinely wish Boris well in his own health and his response to the crisis going forward but as has been pointed out he isn't the hero of the story, He was reckless and put others at risk.
Anyone read the university of California study on the ability of people to rationally judge the actions of others when they hold polarised political opinions.
So the war on Iraq & the missing WMD didn't contribute then? Again not looking for an argument, but Blair was so far right he may as well have had a blue rosette! He must be the wealthiest Labour PM in my living memory.
The war on Iraq was a mistake, but not responsible for the UK annual deficits. That was because of the global financial crisis in 2008, which in turn was caused by financial deregulation - a lack of rules on the banking sector (largely in the US and UK) meaning banks (in relatively simple terms) were free to make very risky investments (investing, indirectly, in sub-prime mortgages, which had high rates of return but were also likely to default) which then failed. Gordon Brown as chancellor could have stopped this (in the UK at least) by putting in more bank regulation - but the Tories are on record at the time saying there should be less not more rules on the banks. When the crisis did happen Brown (who was then PM) took a lead role in the world in putting together an approach that minimised the impact, in contrast to in the US where major financial institutions went out of business.
Somehow the Tories (and sympathetic media) managed to construct a narrative that it was Labour overspending that led to the annual deficit, but it was a lack of government intervention in markets that caused the problem.
Can we get back to the issue at hand: Wycombe Wanderers being used as a derogatory analogy? For shame!
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/11/a-national-scandal-a-timeline-of-the-uk-governments-woeful-response-to-the-coronavirus-crisis/
Prison sentences should follow the post pandemic investigation into the UK government’s response particularly taking into account the fact they had ample time to prepare given the situation in Italy.
.... and then there’s this...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/amp/
Firstly apologies to @Shev, but receiving ideas/opinions without too much bias is refreshing & nice to be able to ask the questions without a volley of angst in replies.
It is clear from the articles posted by @Gerry47 that there is an element of under preparedness. No doubt that under funding is an issue in general, however in some part mitigation can be sought, (if the statement is true), that quote: "Projected shortages of PPE and ICU beds were not filled with bulk purchase because of cash constraints and worries they would become outdated or obsolete if left in storage. Key words there being, "outdated or obsolete if left in storage? It appears that when a pandemic breaks out, (assuming that certain equipment could become outdated or obsolete), that a surge in global demand will always leave a gaping whole in supply chains with the obvious critical & lethal consequences. I have been wondering in recent days, post outbreak, how any government can justify the cost of, purchasing & storage of 10,000 ventilators & beds etc gathering dust in some warehouse, "in case some day they are needed"? Surely then they are laying themselves open for criticism to wasting treasured financial resources.
The NHS is a bottomless pit of money, that, I think everyone can agree on. When this current pandemic fades, I am sure that some valuable lessons will have been taken on board. The next questions will no doubt be centred around how will the NHS be further funded & how much more will the general public be prepared to dip into their pockets?
I am genuinely interested to hear peoples thoughts and if my questions are causing irritation, perhaps @drcongo can move this exchange of ideas to a new thread where those who don't want to participate need not open it?
No worries @EwanHoosaami - I was being facetious, and your posts are usually cordial, thoughtful, and well worth a read.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have 10000 spare beds and ventilators, and every other type of device on standby but we started from a base with one of the lowest numbers of ICU beds per population in Europe, low capacity for testing, unhealthy hours and poor pay as standard for healthcare professionals and seemingly little idea how to access large amount of new kit. Similarly we tax less than most countries and spend less on health and research than most countries. If anything there should be a consideration that we should be spending more.
Tax dodging is still rife if we need to target more income. Unfortunately we keep seeing news stories bashing funding raised or supported by shady bodies such as the IEA which operates in a similar way to how the tobacco companies used to. Inneficiency is also a thing in the public sector for huge companies.
We shouldn't forget great jobs being done by many in the service and at home and this is far from football related so maybe people can share local schemes in need of help on here.
Hats off @StrongestTeam that's a hell of a post
The Government's repeated lying and demeaning of "experts" over the past 18 months has also no doubt affected the response too.
How could a government who has told the public they've had enough of experts and pushed the country to a huge decision based on at best patriotism and optimism, and at worst (and realistically) lies and xenophobia expect to be able to put a country into complete lock down days / weeks in advance of the infection spreading significantly on the word of "experts" predictions.
People just wouldn't have believed them, and it would have directly contradicted their "We can get through anything we're Brtish" attitude they'd weaponised for months.
Hopefully things don't end up as horrendous as they're now being predicted, but if we do end up with a death rate that's way higher than other countries due to their negligence then I'd go as far as charges being bought. At least we're not in America...
Top quality posting this morning, @StrongestTeam and @Username. Points excellently made.
Assuming they got in in 2017 not 2019 (too recent for real change) I'm sure the NHS would have been better funded to start with.
How do you think Abbott and Corbyn would have been treated in the media / social media in comparison?
Whenever we approach a situation of normalcy I’d like to see an independent report on the causes of the virus, the Chinese governments actions and culpability and the British governments preparedness and response.
Now you can return to the shit job/great job mudslinging based upon your personal preferences
With respect not a time > @BuckinghamBlue said:
And an explanation why Germany's outcomes from the virus are so incredibly better than ours (and the rest of Europe to be fair).
Well said, @BuckinghamBlue. You’ve succinctly summed up the situation although, like you, I fear that the blame game hypotheses will continue.
There's a place for decent opposition of ideas not just parties, it's clear one days scandal is informing policy the next to some extent.
Criticism of the government isn't solely down to party leanings you know, it can be based on the blindingly obvious evidence...
On that note I do think some people have come across well despite not agreeing with their general outlook, eg Sunak for me personally.
If people get into power on the basis of personality, bluster and undermining of the opposition rather than actual policies, then it's a bit rich to complain that they're being criticised for the policies they didn't present before, as that's what was being argued at the time - it's anything but hypocritical.
The difference is now the problems can't be brushed over by bumbling a few long words, saying the opposition is incompetent or blaming a section of society.
Maybe this crisis will change the course of modern democracy and the media surrounding it as it's shown clearly that unregulated Internet media and democracy doesn't work and costs lives.
If there hadn’t been people critical of the government’s initial ‘herd immunity’ approach we might had lockdown even later in the process and had more unnecessary deaths. It’s not ‘the blame game’, it’s wanting the best possible outcome.
I am not an expert in infectious diseases Chris and I assume that you aren’t either. I am not comfortable with people seeking to point the finger of blame at anyone, including the population of China where Covid-19 originated, until the full facts are known. The truth will come out one day and until then we should deal with the immediate problems and not be looking for scapegoats.
We were with Sweden until then. Wonder how long they'll stick to their guns?
If we wait until afterwards then people die. I’m not comfortable with that.
And who in their right mind would blame ‘the population of China’. What would that even mean?
Refresh my memory @Chris.
Was this herd immunity thing a real Government policy or just a Dominic Cummins sound bite?
I must admit I've missed the definition of this 'best possible outcome'. Where are we against it and what was it based on?
And for those who haven't seen it on the 'conspiracy' thread, the Prof is well worth a watch.
@Right_in_the_Middle ‘Herd immunity’ being shorthand for limited intervention. On 5 March (which seems like a lifetime ago) the advice Boris Johnson gave was “basically we’re saying, ‘Wash your hands and business as usual.’”
You are free to define your own best possible outcome. I’d say a practical way to judge success would be to look at how similar countries are doing.