@Malone well, working as much as good weather and my proximity to a full fridge will allow. I think they had no choice about the furlough payments as they recognised that their constituency of self-employed, small and medium businesses would have been devastated. (Although I do understand some of the huge multinationals have taken a mint off the government in those payments as well...who would have thought anything else?!) @bookertease them numbers is tricky things. As our Glorious Leader explained today about the success of the track and trace system just because the government's own figures seem to suggest otherwise does not make them correct.
They’ll have to keep compiling the Covid deaths as it’s a notifiable disease. When they stop telling you the figures, you’ll pretty much know what’s happening.
Interestingly, my other half (NHS employee) tells me the NHS is still at level 4 on the Covid threat level index, despite all the hype about England moving to 3. Doesn’t seem to have been reported anywhere publicly.
Shadier than a cave this government.
Once pubs are open and we have no accurate idea how many people are really dying and the government have decided on the date of the Victory Over Virus Day, I am pretty sure Boz will be at a packed Anfield for the kick-off in September...Mission Accomplished. Virus Done. etc etc.
12 September seems to have been bandied about a fair bit.
But back to the main theme of this thread, I am (as has been noted previously) as near to apolitical as it’s possible to be. Ideology based/non-pragmatic and entrenched attitudes towards particular political parties are inevitably divisive and discussions on the Gasroom are clearly not immune. I didn’t vote at the last General Election because, frankly, I was equally unimpressed by both the main parties and the only small crumb of comfort is that we don’t have Trump.
The majority of people on this thread (or at least those who feel strongly enough about British politics to see significantly greater potential merit in one or other of the two main parties) have nothing but contempt for the present government. However, regardless of the obvious shortcomings and, as some would have it, more or less exclusive culpability of the government for the high death rate from the Covid19 pandemic, equal or greater culpability must surely rest with the “vast minority” of selfish, irresponsible and ignorant people who flock to beaches, parks and protest gatherings.
I am at the extreme end when it comes to taking precautions and I certainly won’t be dropping my guard because of seemingly ill-advised government guidance.
@micra - Like you, I didn't vote for either of the two main parties but I did place a cross against the Green candidate merely as a token and meaningless protest against Boris and Corbyn.
Blame firmly lies with the Boris for not following WHO scientific advice and delaying lockdown which has tragically cost many thousands of avoidable extra deaths. Carrying on with Cheltenham races on its own must have resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
You place most culpability on those individuals who flock to beaches protests and parks. This with respect is unfair. All they have done is followed the likes of Professor Ferguson, Catherine Calderwood, Robert Jenrick, Stephen Kinnock and King Cummings in ignoring the lockdown regulations.
The public response to the lockdown was initially better than expected, in the government's own words at the time.
They then deliberately became vague, confused the message and undermined it, it is almost entirely their fault that public trust in the rules broke down so severely.
They also pull the strings in the media which have highlighted the gatherings, picking out a group to blame rather than the govt.
I'm not a labourite, I've voted for various parties, would call myself a rationalist. This govt is objectively untrustworthy and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - there is no debate or "alternative opinion", that is an undeniable fact.
The government also deliberately moved covid-positive people out of hospitals and into care homes contributing to the deaths of several thousand people. Even the Torygraph found this horrific enough to bother reporting on. I consider it mass murder.
The public response to the lockdown was initially better than expected, in the government's own words at the time.
They then deliberately became vague, confused the message and undermined it, it is almost entirely their fault that public trust in the rules broke down so severely.
They also pull the strings in the media which have highlighted the gatherings, picking out a group to blame rather than the govt.
I'm not a labourite, I've voted for various parties, would call myself a rationalist. This govt is objectively untrustworthy and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - there is no debate or "alternative opinion", that is an undeniable fact.
I don't discuss politics on web forums for many reasons, so am loathe to wade into this... but for someone who describes himself as a rationalist (and an Oxford-educated rationalist, no less) you're making some pretty absolutist claims here. The govt deliberately undermined their own message? They pull the strings of the media? There is no debate over the govt being untrustworthy, that is an objective fact? You could make strong arguments for each of those claims but I'm not sure any of them are beyond argument. Your post reminds me of those (less eloquent) social media warriors who make a bold claim then follow it with a pithy "end of". Generally I find it's merely the beginning...
The public response to the lockdown was initially better than expected, in the government's own words at the time.
They then deliberately became vague, confused the message and undermined it, it is almost entirely their fault that public trust in the rules broke down so severely.
They also pull the strings in the media which have highlighted the gatherings, picking out a group to blame rather than the govt.
I'm not a labourite, I've voted for various parties, would call myself a rationalist. This govt is objectively untrustworthy and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - there is no debate or "alternative opinion", that is an undeniable fact.
I don't discuss politics on web forums for many reasons, so am loathe to wade into this... but for someone who describes himself as a rationalist (and an Oxford-educated rationalist, no less) you're making some pretty absolutist claims here. The govt deliberately undermined their own message? They pull the strings of the media? There is no debate over the govt being untrustworthy, that is an objective fact? You could make strong arguments for each of those claims but I'm not sure any of them are beyond argument. Your post reminds me of those (less eloquent) social media warriors who make a bold claim then follow it with a pithy "end of". Generally I find it's merely the beginning...
I do get where you're coming from, but I'm assuming that the govt are actually (highly) intelligent people - they 100% knew what would happen once they allowed Cummins to stay, and they knew the effect on the public of suggesting "common sense" and other deliberately vague instructions. When you're in charge of ~70 million people, it's not debateable to say that trust and tone are very significant factors, which they took a decision to undermine.
The govt pulling strings in the media is hardly news? Bojo and Cummins have well publicised links with certain papers and there are numerous articles which have exposed direct links between nonsene generators/ bot accounts on social media with the Tory party going back to the Brexit debacle. The current insistence that the "MSM" is left wing is frankly bizarre when you look at the print media in the UK
@aloysius is right...I think the government inadvertently undermined it's own initially strong position as the story moved on by appearing to be totally incompetent.
OK but I think claiming the government are pulling the strings of the media on a day when both the Mail and the Times splash on their own investigations into a cabinet minister's links to a property developer (an investigation Labour have now piggy backed on but did not start) makes it a bit of a stretch for you to claim that "the media" takes its orders from the govt.
Whenever the Times or Mail publish a story that paints the tories in a bad light you honestly have to ask yourself why - the owners of the Daily Mail and The Times have both decided that they want Michael Gove as PM, that's all. Obviously you then have to ask why that might be too, and it's because Johnson does what Cummings tells him to do and not what they tell him to do. Gove on the other hand will do absolutely anything for Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre or any other non-dom billionaire.
Long story short, almost everyone in Westminster has some kind of unhealthy relationship with someone from Fleet Street, everything you read is because it advances the interests of one person ahead of another, otherwise you and the Daily Mail would have no idea what's going on. The Mail and Times reporting this story is entirely unrelated to any concept of "news" or "truth", it's there to ensure their tax breaks aren't interfered with.
@aloysius said:
OK but I think claiming the government are pulling the strings of the media on a day when both the Mail and the Times splash on their own investigations into a cabinet minister's links to a property developer (an investigation Labour have now piggy backed on but did not start) makes it a bit of a stretch for you to claim that "the media" takes its orders from the govt.
Fair cop, I do think they are pulling strings, but I accept it's debateable.
I do feel that the failings of this govt are so huge that a relatively small scandal like that is simply distraction, I can't imagine what the papers would be saying if another govt had overseen such deadly incompetence (at best) as we've seen
Comparing the lack of outrage with the deaths of 10,000s due to their decisions with the outrage of the same papers to Corbyn sitting on a train, or any of the other smear stories, or even with photos of people at the beach, and its pretty stark. The govt should be being strung up by the papers, but they're not, and I wonder why? If their main aim is to write papers to sell, what bigger story is there than a govt allowing its citizens by the tens of thousands and then calling it a success?
Recommended read on the subject, and one of my favourite non-fiction books of all time, is Flat Earth News by Nick Davis - it goes into detail about how these stories make it into the papers. It's now 12 years old, and if anything the parasitic Fleet Street / Westminster relationship has gotten much worse.
In defence of the mainstream broadcast media at least...they are accused of being 'bias' (by both sides I hasten to add) while trying to clarify and inform in the face of massive non-cooperation (by both sides I hasten to add) and Trumpian accusations. That is why often you don't get ministers or shadow ministers (except for possibly on the sofa with Pip and Holly) but £60 a shot gobshites like Francois, Burgen, McCluskey, or (insert name of even more obscure Labour backbenchers here) who will turn up from their London homes to say anything about anything if you send a car. (At one time it used to be Hancock and Rees-Mogg that could be guaranteed to turn up and blather but they tend to swerve the mikes nowadays!)
If anything Gove is more pro-Cummings than Johnson is. Cummings was the brains behind free schools and the expansion of the academies programme when Gove was the Education Secretary.
@aloysius. Providing you view discussing politics on forums with the same understanding of discussing football on forums you can’t go far wrong. We are all armchair/terrace-standing experts with our own biases and opinions and different ways of thinking
Most of it is really just jousting - Wheeler over Smyth, Starmer over Corbin, etc and we spin our views to varying lengths accordingly.
But every now and then there are things that go beyond debate. Derek Adams as a lamentable human being at Plymouth for one. Boris Johnson as an contemptible incompetent at No 10 for another.
So sometimes you just have to go with it and thank whatever diety or brewery you worship you don’t support Plymouth or live in Engl... Shit
Well, today’s Gasroom debate and the Jenrick/Long-Bailey stories epitomise why I have (some would say irresponsibly) opted out of the debate. It is all so black and white and there seems to be no scope for seeing merit in anything the other party says or does.
@mooneyman said: @micra - Like you, I didn't vote for either of the two main parties but I did place a cross against the Green candidate merely as a token and meaningless protest against Boris and Corbyn.
Blame firmly lies with the Boris for not following WHO scientific advice and delaying lockdown which has tragically cost many thousands of avoidable extra deaths. Carrying on with Cheltenham races on its own must have resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
You place most culpability on those individuals who flock to beaches protests and parks. This with respect is unfair. All they have done is followed the likes of Professor Ferguson, Catherine Calderwood, Robert Jenrick, Stephen Kinnock and King Cummings in ignoring the lockdown regulations.
I agree @mooneyman with your second paragraph but to describe deaths from the Covid19 pandemic (as @drcongo did) as “mass murder” by the government really is beyond the pale.
I was out of order to suggest that irresponsible members of the public have been equally or more culpable for deaths than government’s incompetence but I was basing that on my expectation (having seen pictures of so many crowded streets, parks and beaches) that in due course, ignorance, irresponsibility and sheer selfishness would be largely responsible for the expected “spike”.
I strongly disagree with @Chris’s comment at 1.29pm. Just because the government has advised that people may go to parks and beaches doesn’t mean that they don’t need to observe well established sensible protocols. Nor does it make sense to me that the behaviour of one megalomaniacal government adviser and resulting loss of trust in the government’s advice should cause people to behave in ways that could easily compromise their health and, more importantly, the health of people who continue to behave in a cautious and responsible way.
@drcongo said:
Whenever the Times or Mail publish a story that paints the tories in a bad light you honestly have to ask yourself why - the owners of the Daily Mail and The Times have both decided that they want Michael Gove as PM, that's all. Obviously you then have to ask why that might be too, and it's because Johnson does what Cummings tells him to do and not what they tell him to do. Gove on the other hand will do absolutely anything for Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre or any other non-dom billionaire.
Long story short, almost everyone in Westminster has some kind of unhealthy relationship with someone from Fleet Street, everything you read is because it advances the interests of one person ahead of another, otherwise you and the Daily Mail would have no idea what's going on. The Mail and Times reporting this story is entirely unrelated to any concept of "news" or "truth", it's there to ensure their tax breaks aren't interfered with.
This is the sort of conspiracy theory nonsense that Josh Parker would be proud of. Do you also believe that 5G caused Covid?
Try reading "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, or "Flat Earth News" as suggested by the good Doctor to get a handle on how the powerful manipulate what we see and hear in the media to further their own agendas.
As for Long-Bailey perhaps she should have read the article by Maxine Peake closely before she decided to "promote" it especially given the rightful fuss in the Labour Party over antisemitism, she gave Starmer no choice.
@drcongo said:
Whenever the Times or Mail publish a story that paints the tories in a bad light you honestly have to ask yourself why - the owners of the Daily Mail and The Times have both decided that they want Michael Gove as PM, that's all. Obviously you then have to ask why that might be too, and it's because Johnson does what Cummings tells him to do and not what they tell him to do. Gove on the other hand will do absolutely anything for Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre or any other non-dom billionaire.
Long story short, almost everyone in Westminster has some kind of unhealthy relationship with someone from Fleet Street, everything you read is because it advances the interests of one person ahead of another, otherwise you and the Daily Mail would have no idea what's going on. The Mail and Times reporting this story is entirely unrelated to any concept of "news" or "truth", it's there to ensure their tax breaks aren't interfered with.
This is the sort of conspiracy theory nonsense that Josh Parker would be proud of. Do you also believe that 5G caused Covid?
If only it was, Tax dodging is at the heart of government policy. The leading papers in this country are all registered in tax havens owned by Dodgers, the papers aren't even making money anymore they are there to shout opinion as fact. Faux outrage if the days big story meets the agenda, puffed up campaigns or made up stuff if they don't.
They aren't turning on Boris or Jenrick they are turning on the former owner of the express.
Comments
@Malone well, working as much as good weather and my proximity to a full fridge will allow. I think they had no choice about the furlough payments as they recognised that their constituency of self-employed, small and medium businesses would have been devastated. (Although I do understand some of the huge multinationals have taken a mint off the government in those payments as well...who would have thought anything else?!) @bookertease them numbers is tricky things. As our Glorious Leader explained today about the success of the track and trace system just because the government's own figures seem to suggest otherwise does not make them correct.
With the tory party, I always find it useful to start from a position of an inverse Hanlon's razor.
Hector’s?
The inverse doesn't have a name. I propose Hancock's razor.
They’ll have to keep compiling the Covid deaths as it’s a notifiable disease. When they stop telling you the figures, you’ll pretty much know what’s happening.
Interestingly, my other half (NHS employee) tells me the NHS is still at level 4 on the Covid threat level index, despite all the hype about England moving to 3. Doesn’t seem to have been reported anywhere publicly.
Shadier than a cave this government.
So what's the expected date for footie then?
Once pubs are open and we have no accurate idea how many people are really dying and the government have decided on the date of the Victory Over Virus Day, I am pretty sure Boz will be at a packed Anfield for the kick-off in September...Mission Accomplished. Virus Done. etc etc.
12 September seems to have been bandied about a fair bit.
But back to the main theme of this thread, I am (as has been noted previously) as near to apolitical as it’s possible to be. Ideology based/non-pragmatic and entrenched attitudes towards particular political parties are inevitably divisive and discussions on the Gasroom are clearly not immune. I didn’t vote at the last General Election because, frankly, I was equally unimpressed by both the main parties and the only small crumb of comfort is that we don’t have Trump.
The majority of people on this thread (or at least those who feel strongly enough about British politics to see significantly greater potential merit in one or other of the two main parties) have nothing but contempt for the present government. However, regardless of the obvious shortcomings and, as some would have it, more or less exclusive culpability of the government for the high death rate from the Covid19 pandemic, equal or greater culpability must surely rest with the “vast minority” of selfish, irresponsible and ignorant people who flock to beaches, parks and protest gatherings.
I am at the extreme end when it comes to taking precautions and I certainly won’t be dropping my guard because of seemingly ill-advised government guidance.
@micra - Like you, I didn't vote for either of the two main parties but I did place a cross against the Green candidate merely as a token and meaningless protest against Boris and Corbyn.
Blame firmly lies with the Boris for not following WHO scientific advice and delaying lockdown which has tragically cost many thousands of avoidable extra deaths. Carrying on with Cheltenham races on its own must have resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
You place most culpability on those individuals who flock to beaches protests and parks. This with respect is unfair. All they have done is followed the likes of Professor Ferguson, Catherine Calderwood, Robert Jenrick, Stephen Kinnock and King Cummings in ignoring the lockdown regulations.
The public response to the lockdown was initially better than expected, in the government's own words at the time.
They then deliberately became vague, confused the message and undermined it, it is almost entirely their fault that public trust in the rules broke down so severely.
They also pull the strings in the media which have highlighted the gatherings, picking out a group to blame rather than the govt.
I'm not a labourite, I've voted for various parties, would call myself a rationalist. This govt is objectively untrustworthy and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - there is no debate or "alternative opinion", that is an undeniable fact.
The government has said people can go to beaches and parks, so it seems silly to then blame them for doing so.
The government also deliberately moved covid-positive people out of hospitals and into care homes contributing to the deaths of several thousand people. Even the Torygraph found this horrific enough to bother reporting on. I consider it mass murder.
Not to worry though, Kier Starmer will call for an inquiry while sympathising with the government's situation.
I don't discuss politics on web forums for many reasons, so am loathe to wade into this... but for someone who describes himself as a rationalist (and an Oxford-educated rationalist, no less) you're making some pretty absolutist claims here. The govt deliberately undermined their own message? They pull the strings of the media? There is no debate over the govt being untrustworthy, that is an objective fact? You could make strong arguments for each of those claims but I'm not sure any of them are beyond argument. Your post reminds me of those (less eloquent) social media warriors who make a bold claim then follow it with a pithy "end of". Generally I find it's merely the beginning...
Stacks up. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/trust-uk-government-and-news-media-covid-19-information-down-concerns-over-misinformation
I do get where you're coming from, but I'm assuming that the govt are actually (highly) intelligent people - they 100% knew what would happen once they allowed Cummins to stay, and they knew the effect on the public of suggesting "common sense" and other deliberately vague instructions. When you're in charge of ~70 million people, it's not debateable to say that trust and tone are very significant factors, which they took a decision to undermine.
The govt pulling strings in the media is hardly news? Bojo and Cummins have well publicised links with certain papers and there are numerous articles which have exposed direct links between nonsene generators/ bot accounts on social media with the Tory party going back to the Brexit debacle. The current insistence that the "MSM" is left wing is frankly bizarre when you look at the print media in the UK
@aloysius is right...I think the government inadvertently undermined it's own initially strong position as the story moved on by appearing to be totally incompetent.
OK but I think claiming the government are pulling the strings of the media on a day when both the Mail and the Times splash on their own investigations into a cabinet minister's links to a property developer (an investigation Labour have now piggy backed on but did not start) makes it a bit of a stretch for you to claim that "the media" takes its orders from the govt.
Whenever the Times or Mail publish a story that paints the tories in a bad light you honestly have to ask yourself why - the owners of the Daily Mail and The Times have both decided that they want Michael Gove as PM, that's all. Obviously you then have to ask why that might be too, and it's because Johnson does what Cummings tells him to do and not what they tell him to do. Gove on the other hand will do absolutely anything for Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre or any other non-dom billionaire.
Long story short, almost everyone in Westminster has some kind of unhealthy relationship with someone from Fleet Street, everything you read is because it advances the interests of one person ahead of another, otherwise you and the Daily Mail would have no idea what's going on. The Mail and Times reporting this story is entirely unrelated to any concept of "news" or "truth", it's there to ensure their tax breaks aren't interfered with.
Fair cop, I do think they are pulling strings, but I accept it's debateable.
I do feel that the failings of this govt are so huge that a relatively small scandal like that is simply distraction, I can't imagine what the papers would be saying if another govt had overseen such deadly incompetence (at best) as we've seen
Comparing the lack of outrage with the deaths of 10,000s due to their decisions with the outrage of the same papers to Corbyn sitting on a train, or any of the other smear stories, or even with photos of people at the beach, and its pretty stark. The govt should be being strung up by the papers, but they're not, and I wonder why? If their main aim is to write papers to sell, what bigger story is there than a govt allowing its citizens by the tens of thousands and then calling it a success?
Recommended read on the subject, and one of my favourite non-fiction books of all time, is Flat Earth News by Nick Davis - it goes into detail about how these stories make it into the papers. It's now 12 years old, and if anything the parasitic Fleet Street / Westminster relationship has gotten much worse.
In defence of the mainstream broadcast media at least...they are accused of being 'bias' (by both sides I hasten to add) while trying to clarify and inform in the face of massive non-cooperation (by both sides I hasten to add) and Trumpian accusations. That is why often you don't get ministers or shadow ministers (except for possibly on the sofa with Pip and Holly) but £60 a shot gobshites like Francois, Burgen, McCluskey, or (insert name of even more obscure Labour backbenchers here) who will turn up from their London homes to say anything about anything if you send a car. (At one time it used to be Hancock and Rees-Mogg that could be guaranteed to turn up and blather but they tend to swerve the mikes nowadays!)
If anything Gove is more pro-Cummings than Johnson is. Cummings was the brains behind free schools and the expansion of the academies programme when Gove was the Education Secretary.
Good point Chris.
How can anything be taken seriously based purely on todays Jenrick and Long-Bailey news. Never has playing politics been more playing
@aloysius. Providing you view discussing politics on forums with the same understanding of discussing football on forums you can’t go far wrong. We are all armchair/terrace-standing experts with our own biases and opinions and different ways of thinking
Most of it is really just jousting - Wheeler over Smyth, Starmer over Corbin, etc and we spin our views to varying lengths accordingly.
But every now and then there are things that go beyond debate. Derek Adams as a lamentable human being at Plymouth for one. Boris Johnson as an contemptible incompetent at No 10 for another.
So sometimes you just have to go with it and thank whatever diety or brewery you worship you don’t support Plymouth or live in Engl... Shit
Well, today’s Gasroom debate and the Jenrick/Long-Bailey stories epitomise why I have (some would say irresponsibly) opted out of the debate. It is all so black and white and there seems to be no scope for seeing merit in anything the other party says or does.
I agree @mooneyman with your second paragraph but to describe deaths from the Covid19 pandemic (as @drcongo did) as “mass murder” by the government really is beyond the pale.
I was out of order to suggest that irresponsible members of the public have been equally or more culpable for deaths than government’s incompetence but I was basing that on my expectation (having seen pictures of so many crowded streets, parks and beaches) that in due course, ignorance, irresponsibility and sheer selfishness would be largely responsible for the expected “spike”.
I strongly disagree with @Chris’s comment at 1.29pm. Just because the government has advised that people may go to parks and beaches doesn’t mean that they don’t need to observe well established sensible protocols. Nor does it make sense to me that the behaviour of one megalomaniacal government adviser and resulting loss of trust in the government’s advice should cause people to behave in ways that could easily compromise their health and, more importantly, the health of people who continue to behave in a cautious and responsible way.
This is the sort of conspiracy theory nonsense that Josh Parker would be proud of. Do you also believe that 5G caused Covid?
Try reading "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, or "Flat Earth News" as suggested by the good Doctor to get a handle on how the powerful manipulate what we see and hear in the media to further their own agendas.
As for Long-Bailey perhaps she should have read the article by Maxine Peake closely before she decided to "promote" it especially given the rightful fuss in the Labour Party over antisemitism, she gave Starmer no choice.
If only it was, Tax dodging is at the heart of government policy. The leading papers in this country are all registered in tax havens owned by Dodgers, the papers aren't even making money anymore they are there to shout opinion as fact. Faux outrage if the days big story meets the agenda, puffed up campaigns or made up stuff if they don't.
They aren't turning on Boris or Jenrick they are turning on the former owner of the express.