|
Post by number13 on Feb 23, 2021 3:47:08 GMT
I'm so pleased you approve of the splendid example set to future generations by the appointment of Winston Churchill as PM. I do too of course, what a hero, the right man for the hour who united left and right in a national government, and that change of PMs and government saved the nation and thus quite possibly, the world.
But right now, we are hopefully well on the way to winning this virus "war" (to follow your analogy) and it's going to be in no small part thanks to the decisions taken last spring at the Department of Health. Whatever other mistakes were made, the UK's vaccine programme didn't happen by accident.
So why change the Health Secretary? If he was the one to blame for bad paperwork, surely he must also be the one to praise for the vaccine rollout? Which do you think the public will value more?
Sorry, 120 thousand dead aren't here to argue the point and I'll never see my twin brother again to discuss it with him either so I've got no real interest in point scoring. I'm not anti-Tory here. I'm against the people who watched this virus sweep West across Asia then Europe KNOWING it was coming here and kept the country (read: economy) open until the last second. Many people would still be with us now if we shut down just a week or two earlier knowing what we saw in Italy and Spain after China. I'm not having that just filed away under "whatever other mistakes were made". We're an Island. We were one of the last countries in the West to have the virus hit and yet we still got caught unprepared. We had every advantage and we pissed them away. I'd play poker with this government any day. We've got one of the highest death rates per capita in the world (worse than even the US under Trump that we're so eager to sneer at here because the bare numbers are higher even though the percentages show we did a lot worse here. Is the vaccine rollout a success? Yes, absolutely. But is it enough to hide the fact more people per thousand here have grieving families than nearly any country on Earth? Never. Never. No. If we locked down earlier, as was being called for by the scientific community (and even many businesses - I was sent home 2 weeks before "official lockdown"), then I might be able to talk to Michael again. Maybe not. I can never know. But it's a scientific certainty that lives would have been saved had different decisions been made earlier. Too little too late. Not interested in cronyism debates and the like. There'll be time for it - it's part of the game - but blood doesn't wash off the hands as easily as corruption. It's not "my side would have done better" it's "You have to answer for the dead - and why there didn't need to be so many". Since silly Churchill comparisons seem to be in order - why did we have a Gallipoli and not a Dunkirk? Davy, I hope you don't mind me addressing you familiarly when I'm only a user name on the internet, but I can only say what I hope I said before, how very sorry I was to hear of your dreadful loss. I can't imagine it.
I'm not dismissive at all of what people have suffered through this last year, far from it, either in the wider 'real world' or what I have learned on DU. I have been very moved by the courage of people on this forum who have shared their suffering, and other far lesser, but still important challenges, with all of us. I don't have that sort of courage and I suppose I am private by instinct, but I have found the forum a very helpful and pleasant 'other place' to be over the last four years now and if I have sometimes seemed too superficial and inclined to 'play politics' or to talk of trivia on important topics, for me it is a useful way of looking outward to "big picture" stuff; I'm sorry if it has sometimes come across badly.
(This next detail is ridiculously minor, but I don't want to go misunderstood, so I'll reiterate what I said earlier: the specific point I was responding to was, should he have resigned now, over this specific administrative issue. Compared with everything else that has happened in the past year it was a minor matter, but it was the matter his resignation was being demanded over. And for clarity I would not have made 'Churchill' comparisons, silly or otherwise, except in (I'll admit) being sarcastic about seeing him raised positively in support of the argument.)
With all best wishes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2021 4:44:51 GMT
Sorry, 120 thousand dead aren't here to argue the point and I'll never see my twin brother again to discuss it with him either so I've got no real interest in point scoring. I'm not anti-Tory here. I'm against the people who watched this virus sweep West across Asia then Europe KNOWING it was coming here and kept the country (read: economy) open until the last second. Many people would still be with us now if we shut down just a week or two earlier knowing what we saw in Italy and Spain after China. I'm not having that just filed away under "whatever other mistakes were made". We're an Island. We were one of the last countries in the West to have the virus hit and yet we still got caught unprepared. We had every advantage and we pissed them away. I'd play poker with this government any day. We've got one of the highest death rates per capita in the world (worse than even the US under Trump that we're so eager to sneer at here because the bare numbers are higher even though the percentages show we did a lot worse here. Is the vaccine rollout a success? Yes, absolutely. But is it enough to hide the fact more people per thousand here have grieving families than nearly any country on Earth? Never. Never. No. If we locked down earlier, as was being called for by the scientific community (and even many businesses - I was sent home 2 weeks before "official lockdown"), then I might be able to talk to Michael again. Maybe not. I can never know. But it's a scientific certainty that lives would have been saved had different decisions been made earlier. Too little too late. Not interested in cronyism debates and the like. There'll be time for it - it's part of the game - but blood doesn't wash off the hands as easily as corruption. It's not "my side would have done better" it's "You have to answer for the dead - and why there didn't need to be so many". Since silly Churchill comparisons seem to be in order - why did we have a Gallipoli and not a Dunkirk? Davy, I hope you don't mind me addressing you familiarly when I'm only a user name on the internet, but I can only say what I hope I said before, how very sorry I was to hear of your dreadful loss. I can't imagine it.
I'm not dismissive at all of what people have suffered through this last year, far from it, either in the wider 'real world' or what I have learned on DU. I have been very moved by the courage of people on this forum who have shared their suffering, and other far lesser, but still important challenges, with all of us. I don't have that sort of courage and I suppose I am private by instinct, but I have found the forum a very helpful and pleasant 'other place' to be over the last four years now and if I have sometimes seemed too superficial and inclined to 'play politics' or to talk of trivia on important topics, for me it is a useful way of looking outward to "big picture" stuff; I'm sorry if it has sometimes come across badly.
(This next detail is ridiculously minor, but I don't want to go misunderstood, so I'll reiterate what I said earlier: the specific point I was responding to was, should he have resigned now, over this specific administrative issue. Compared with everything else that has happened in the past year it was a minor matter, but it was the matter his resignation was being demanded over. And for clarity I would not have made 'Churchill' comparisons, silly or otherwise, except in (I'll admit) being sarcastic about seeing him raised positively in support of the argument.)
With all best wishes.
I appreciate that response - sincerely. A classy response from a classy person. I'd just ask - and this isn't for you 13, just generally for all, that people bare in mind that these political games, which sometimes it seems all politics is, are a sideshow compared to the real human issues that are a product of the "games". If Matt Hancock's actions led to any more suffering than was necessary and that was knowing,that he was indeed acting out of anything but the public good...there's consequences to be answered. If it was a mistake, it's for people to decide whether that was human error or negligence that demands action. I think anyone just trying to get a high profile Tory out is not worth our time. If their argument comes just from trying to remove him than it does from holding power to account, it's just noise. I'd expect no less from a Labour Government or my own SNP government. When Alex Salmond - a great hero of mine growing up in the 90s with the dawn of our own Parliament and the beginning of our fight for Independence - was accused by so many women of sexual misconduct, I had zero issue standing with the accusers and making sure they got their days in court. If Nicola Sturgeon did something unforgivably against the public good, I'd be the first to call for her to go. I can't abide tribal hypocrisy. What's good for the goose etc.. Yet conversely we can't allow legitimate failings to go unchecked. I expect a full enquiry into the Government's handling from the outset. From the day it became clear the virus was moving it's way towards us and the government did little to nothing. We must hold anyone who let PPE stock go out of date or under-funded to account. We have to ask the very simple questions I've posed about how we, who had more warning than just about anyone, ended up worse than almost everyone. How an Island can be hit worse than a landmass with open borders in Europe. Why calls for an earlier lockdown were ignored. Why "Eat Out To Help Out" was allowed when it demonstrably KILLED people. I know you think - and you're right with some people - it's an anti-Tory thing but...they're the ones in office. If any other cooured tie were the ones making the same calls, I'd want the same answers. The dead don't care what colour the rosettes are. I've been guilty myself of being superficial and kicking the political football about - we all have. We don't think of the human side of events because it's probably too hard and as a result, we can get a bit...if not flippant then at least complacent. It's easily done when it's knocking at someone else's door. I wouldn't beat yourself up over it - God knows we need some levity. And I appreciate your response was also based in the Churchill rhetoric - I know we both have different opinions of the man but I know more than that we're both sick to the back teeth of the debate over his legacy quickly descending into tribalism. He was too complicated a man to be reduced to that, whatever one thinks of his actions. And as always - both sides probably need to listen a bit more to the other even just a tad. Very easy to become entrenched in opinion in the face of the opposite view. And no, you are not just a name on a screen to me - I've learned much from you and hope to continue to do so for a long time to come. I find I learn much more from people of reason who I happen to disagree with than I do people who are "on my side". You don't learn much only talking to people you always agree with. We don't agree on much politically - being raised in a very traditional Socialist part of the most left-wing area of the UK as I am here will do that - but I never find you to be anything but yourself. And like me you prefer a reasoned debate to copying and pasting a headline and not engaging. We've always managed to do that civilly, and even more often in friendship. We can disagree on a political thread, then go straight to one about Who blurays and gush over what's coming out together! And again - long may it continue. Best - and stay safe! I'm getting my first jag tonight - so I DO commend anyone responsible for the rollout being done so well. It's been a model for many nations and - and would you ever think I'd say a phrase like this - shows the "Best Of British". Oh.....I think I need a lie down. - Davy
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
Member is Online
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 23, 2021 9:13:03 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
My own politics tends more towards the Daily Telegraph (brexit idiocy aside), but in practice I read the Guardian online because there is no paywall
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Feb 23, 2021 9:39:25 GMT
Not forgetting what your boss, your teacher and the person down the job centre told you when you wanted to get on in life and find a good job -
It's not what you know, it's WHO you know that really counts.
Networks of friends and acquaintances matter.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 23, 2021 10:51:01 GMT
Not forgetting what your boss, your teacher and the person down the job centre told you when you wanted to get on in life and find a good job -
It's not what you know, it's WHO you know that really counts.
Networks of friends and acquaintances matter.
Yeah, but you know there's no shortage of people who will still shriek 'meritocracy' when it comes to defending instituitions, however non-existent it is.
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Feb 23, 2021 11:18:59 GMT
Two sides to everything. For every Old Etonian/Wyckhamist etc who is where he is because of his family and friends, there's at least one person from a council estate who's dragged themselves through school, even college, against the prevailint attitude, working all hours to build up their own business and bring employment to their town and fellow citizens. (And if I hadn't dismissed my old boss as a ++++++ and kept my head down instead of taking notice of what they were up to, I might still have had paid employment at some point in the last decade or so instead of being made redundant and my job shipped out to India.) Meh.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 23, 2021 11:24:43 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
It does seem a sensible plan. Thank god there’s no dumb attempt at a Easter compromise. That said the government should probably have had this “data not dates” approach all along.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Feb 23, 2021 11:26:43 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
It does seem a sensible plan. Thank god there’s no dumb attempt at a Easter compromise. That said the government should probably have had this “data not dates” approach all along. To give them their dues, they at least seem optimistic about it. Especially considering they’ve given exact dates rather than say just being vague and saying ‘Sometime in the middle of April..’
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2021 12:17:16 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
It does seem a sensible plan. Thank god there’s no dumb attempt at a Easter compromise. That said the government should probably have had this “data not dates” approach all along. They hadn't nicked the approach from Nicola Sturgeon yet! If Westminister copied her work just a bit more, Boris would be campaigning for Scottish Independence! Still - better copying a good idea than coming up with bad ones yourself!
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 23, 2021 12:36:03 GMT
It does seem a sensible plan. Thank god there’s no dumb attempt at a Easter compromise. That said the government should probably have had this “data not dates” approach all along. They hadn't nicked the approach from Nicola Sturgeon yet! If Westminister copied her work just a bit more, Boris would be campaigning for Scottish Independence! Still - better copying a good idea than coming up with bad ones yourself! Also would've been nice if they thought 'let's vaccinate teachers and TAs too if we want to do a big school reopening, thus also making ourselves look good too and getting free tongue baths from the press'. (Seriously, what's the logic meant to be in not doing it?)
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 23, 2021 16:23:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 25, 2021 11:45:02 GMT
This is not about the government (unless you live in Scotland, when you might think of them as the government) but I suppose this is the right thread for it?
Even if you don't usually give a second's thought to Scottish politics, this is unfolding right now in part of the UK and it's well worth a read.
I tried to imagine the same story with equivalent names from Westminster politics (which would be any sitting Prime Minister and their immediate predecessor from the same party) and I couldn't imagine it.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 25, 2021 15:47:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 16:41:37 GMT
This is not about the government (unless you live in Scotland, when you might think of them as the government) but I suppose this is the right thread for it?
Even if you don't usually give a second's thought to Scottish politics, this is unfolding right now in part of the UK and it's well worth a read.
I tried to imagine the same story with equivalent names from Westminster politics (which would be any sitting Prime Minister and their immediate predecessor from the same party) and I couldn't imagine it.
It's amazing to me - if House Of Cards tried it, people would think it fiction. Yet it isn't denting support for the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon or Independence. Salmond is being portrayed here as a malicious predator just out for revenge. And he may well be. And the current Government may be massively corrupt, or be the victims of Salmond's legendary oratory and self-promotion in an attempt to not have his legacy tarnished even further. My own instincts having followed the players for decades now...I trust Nicola Sturgeon more than I ever did Alex Salmond - yet that has little bearing on the objective truth. And I hope it comes out soon. It is very telling that the Tories, Labour and the Liberals aren't gaining traction out of this at all - it's "Salmond SNP" vs. "Sturgeon SNP" and no-one else is laying a glove on the party. Either way justice has to be done whereever the wrong was committed and if no wrong was done, then Alex Salmond must face the consequences of attempting some kind of scorched earth retribution. It'll be interesting to see how this affects May's election but I suspect it won't to any real degree. If the SNP lose support, it tends to go to the Greens who are also pro-Indy anyway so it's a relatively small loss. The lines in the sand here are such that crossing the pro-Union and pro-Indy divide is rare indeed. And since we don't use the First Past The Post system, but the STV form of PR instead, things like polls are harder to easily assess. Right now, live - so taking all this into account - the bookies still give the SNP an 80% chance of not just winning in May but winning an overall majority - which would be an increase on their position just now. It's very much - here at least - playing as Salmond as the scorned lover of the SNP more than anything. Whether that changes...time will tell.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
Member is Online
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 26, 2021 9:50:09 GMT
This is not about the government (unless you live in Scotland, when you might think of them as the government) but I suppose this is the right thread for it?
Even if you don't usually give a second's thought to Scottish politics, this is unfolding right now in part of the UK and it's well worth a read.
I tried to imagine the same story with equivalent names from Westminster politics (which would be any sitting Prime Minister and their immediate predecessor from the same party) and I couldn't imagine it.
It's amazing to me - if House Of Cards tried it, people would think it fiction. Yet it isn't denting support for the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon or Independence. Salmond is being portrayed here as a malicious predator just out for revenge. And he may well be. And the current Government may be massively corrupt, or be the victims of Salmond's legendary oratory and self-promotion in an attempt to not have his legacy tarnished even further. My own instincts having followed the players for decades now...I trust Nicola Sturgeon more than I ever did Alex Salmond - yet that has little bearing on the objective truth. And I hope it comes out soon. It is very telling that the Tories, Labour and the Liberals aren't gaining traction out of this at all - it's "Salmond SNP" vs. "Sturgeon SNP" and no-one else is laying a glove on the party. Either way justice has to be done whereever the wrong was committed and if no wrong was done, then Alex Salmond must face the consequences of attempting some kind of scorched earth retribution. It'll be interesting to see how this affects May's election but I suspect it won't to any real degree. If the SNP lose support, it tends to go to the Greens who are also pro-Indy anyway so it's a relatively small loss. The lines in the sand here are such that crossing the pro-Union and pro-Indy divide is rare indeed. And since we don't use the First Past The Post system, but the STV form of PR instead, things like polls are harder to easily assess. Right now, live - so taking all this into account - the bookies still give the SNP an 80% chance of not just winning in May but winning an overall majority - which would be an increase on their position just now. It's very much - here at least - playing as Salmond as the scorned lover of the SNP more than anything. Whether that changes...time will tell. I haven't followed every twist and turn of this, I have just dipped in and out. While a lot of it seems to focus on who said what & when, and whether or not there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond.
What I don't understand is why there would be a conspiracy against Mr Salmond in the first place. Sturgeon and Salmond seemed pretty close up to 2014 and then once the allegations emerged in 2018 she then allegedly got involved in a conspiracy to destroy him. Nobody seems to be saying why she would do this. Surely, once the allegations emerged with their potential to discredit the SNP and the independence movement, the rational course for her to follow was to keep her distance from the investigation and keep her fingers crossed that he was cleared. If she did get involved unofficially - and she shouldn't have - would it not have been in her interest to weigh in on Mr Salmond's side rather than against him? Nobody seems to be explaining why she would want to discredit him in the first place. Instead the focus is on whether there was a conspiracy or not. On the face of it, given the damage such an outcome could do to the SNP, it seems to make no sense unless it is part of a bigger feud between them - but there doesn't seem to be much mention of bad feeling between them prior to 2018.
As I say, I haven't followed all of this, and maybe I am missing something, but the whole thing rather puzzles me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2021 10:04:21 GMT
It's amazing to me - if House Of Cards tried it, people would think it fiction. Yet it isn't denting support for the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon or Independence. Salmond is being portrayed here as a malicious predator just out for revenge. And he may well be. And the current Government may be massively corrupt, or be the victims of Salmond's legendary oratory and self-promotion in an attempt to not have his legacy tarnished even further. My own instincts having followed the players for decades now...I trust Nicola Sturgeon more than I ever did Alex Salmond - yet that has little bearing on the objective truth. And I hope it comes out soon. It is very telling that the Tories, Labour and the Liberals aren't gaining traction out of this at all - it's "Salmond SNP" vs. "Sturgeon SNP" and no-one else is laying a glove on the party. Either way justice has to be done whereever the wrong was committed and if no wrong was done, then Alex Salmond must face the consequences of attempting some kind of scorched earth retribution. It'll be interesting to see how this affects May's election but I suspect it won't to any real degree. If the SNP lose support, it tends to go to the Greens who are also pro-Indy anyway so it's a relatively small loss. The lines in the sand here are such that crossing the pro-Union and pro-Indy divide is rare indeed. And since we don't use the First Past The Post system, but the STV form of PR instead, things like polls are harder to easily assess. Right now, live - so taking all this into account - the bookies still give the SNP an 80% chance of not just winning in May but winning an overall majority - which would be an increase on their position just now. It's very much - here at least - playing as Salmond as the scorned lover of the SNP more than anything. Whether that changes...time will tell. I haven't followed every twist and turn of this, I have just dipped in and out. While a lot of it seems to focus on who said what & when, and whether or not there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond.
What I don't understand is why there would be a conspiracy against Mr Salmond in the first place. Sturgeon and Salmond seemed pretty close up to 2014 and then once the allegations emerged in 2018 she then allegedly got involved in a conspiracy to destroy him. Nobody seems to be saying why she would do this. Surely, once the allegations emerged with their potential to discredit the SNP and the independence movement, the rational course for her to follow was to keep her distance from the investigation and keep her fingers crossed that he was cleared. If she did get involved unofficially - and she shouldn't have - would it not have been in her interest to weigh in on Mr Salmond's side rather than against him? Nobody seems to be explaining why she would want to discredit him in the first place. Instead the focus is on whether there was a conspiracy or not. On the face of it, given the damage such an outcome could do to the SNP, it seems to make no sense unless it is part of a bigger feud between them - but there doesn't seem to be much mention of bad feeling between them prior to 2018.
As I say, I haven't followed all of this, and maybe I am missing something, but the whole thing rather puzzles me.
It's no great secret they hadn't been getting on for a while before 2014's Salmond resignation. She felt he was trying to make himself the party and that (as happened after Salmond's first stint as leader ended) means that you get a UKIP scenario where you rely on one face and lose ground if they go. Alex felt he needed to be that face to give Independence campaigning a high profile. There's a case to be made they both have a point. Indeed you could argue Alex's polarising ways cost the 2014 referendum but in turn we'd never have had it without him. Catch 22, I guess. Yet NONE of that is enough to justify what Alex says has gone on. You've essentially made Sturgeon and the Government's case for them - where's the motive? What's the need to do this when Salmond was gone anyway? He'd resigned as leader then lost his seat as an MP. He was finished without any action needed internally. Sturgeon has asked for a shred of evidence that isn't just playground "So and so doesn't like so and so". We'll see later whether Alex Salmond has any or whether he's a new George Galloway - a once famed parliamentarian who would amaze even his enemies with his oratory skills gone totally loco and doing increasingly odd things to remain relevant. Maybe it's something in the water up here.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 26, 2021 10:44:51 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
Member is Online
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 26, 2021 11:36:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 27, 2021 8:30:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Feb 27, 2021 9:13:42 GMT
Resignation is something the person decides to do all on their own, after examining their conscience and taking advice if necessary.
'Nuf said.
|
|