O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[drillerpie]

IMO it’s worth seeing the end result rather than where we sit now before assessing the Government’s performance in all of this. It’s a bit like getting up/down on where Notts sit in the League when there are still games to play.

It'd be like assessing Notts performance before, during, after, and between games, like we all do all the time? Yes I suppose it would.

Ok so we can't comment on the actual government either at all, because it's unpatriotic, or until the Covid emergency is over.

Even then people who don't like the government (usual suspects) can't criticise it, because they always criticise it. Only people who never criticise it should be able to criticise it, but they never criticise it.

We can however comment on Diane Abbott's hypothetical management of the crisis in the parallel reality in which she is part of a hypothetical government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The more I read these opinions the more I come to the conclusion they are just bizarre excuses designed to absolve Boris Johnson of blame at any cost.

[Elite_Pie]

when looking at the number of deaths and comparing them to other countries, then these figures can not be compared, since each country has a different way of reporting.

Thanks, that ticks off excuse number one.

[Elite_Pie]

He is probably relieved that Corbyn isn’t running the show as the UK would certainly be in a much worse place. Dianne Abbott giving daily updates congratulating the government on achieving its target of 8 billion tests a day.
All staff furloughed on 110% of normal salary. 800 new hospitals built in recorded time and (wo)manned accordingly. Hang on a minute we shouldn’t have needed the 800 hospitals because less people would have been infected under Labour so wouldn’t have needed hospital treatment.

Thanks, that ticks off excuse number two.

[Notts78]

It'd be like assessing Notts performance before, during, after, and between games, like we all do all the time? Yes I suppose it would.

Ok so we can't comment on the actual government either at all, because it's unpatriotic, or until the Covid emergency is over.

Even then people who don't like the government (usual suspects) can't criticise it, because they always criticise it. Only people who never criticise it should be able to criticise it, but they never criticise it.

We can however comment on Diane Abbott's hypothetical management of the crisis in the parallel reality in which she is part of a hypothetical government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The more I read these opinions the more I come to the conclusion they are just bizarre excuses designed to absolve Boris Johnson of blame at any cost.

Has anyone absolved Boris Johnson? I know I certainly haven’t and hope that Parliament looks at the handling of this pandemic to see what can be done when future pandemics occur.
Just out of curiosity, with what you now know (you have the benefit of hindsight), what would you have done differently?
Question extended to Elite as well.

[drillerpie]

Has anyone absolved Boris Johnson? I know I certainly haven’t and hope that Parliament looks at the handling of this pandemic to see what can be done when future pandemics occur.
Just out of curiosity, with what you now know (you have the benefit of hindsight), what would you have done differently?
Question extended to Elite as well.

The UK government actually had the benefit of hindsight, in as much as they had the advantage of seeing what the virus was doing in other countries before it hit the UK.

Leaving aside the whole issue of austerity, which I would've done differently, I would've:

Not ignored the findings of the report in 2016 which warned about the shortage of PPE in the event of a pandemic. The government instead took a conscious decision to rely on international supply chains, which in the event of a pandemic could only ever lead to the outcomes we have seen.

I wouldn't have disappeared off to Chequers for ten days and put a do-not-disturb sign on the door at the beginning of the crisis.

I wouldn't have shaken hands with people in a coronavirus hospital, then boasted about it. Then got ill, nearly died, infected my pregnant partner, and left the government without a leader during a crisis.

I would have imposed the lockdown quicker, in the hope that it would allow for a shorter lockdown. I wouldn't have waffled on so long about the inalienable right of an Englishman to go to the pub (which got alienated a few days afterwards anyway).

I wouldn't have promised a huge testing scheme, failed to deliver it, abolished testing altogether, restarted it again, failed to meet targets again, often due to the fact that the testing centres were in the middle of nowhere and couldn't be reached by public transport. I then wouldn't have sent tests through the post directly to people who didn't know how to use them, and which will undoubtedly result in a large number of false negatives, but which allow the government to say they are meeting targets.

I think you could argue the first one is being wise after the event, although I would disagree. The others are pretty much common sense.

[navypie]

For me, the 'leadership' hit a disturbing new low the other day, when the utterly useless Matt Hancock actually did a great Donald Trump impersonation! He congratulated himself profusely for achieving what he described as an "audacious target" of 100,000 tests per day. His claim was proved to be a complete lie, but it was the self-congratulatory tone that was sickening. It seemed a definite move towards Trumpism, where you make a complete f@ck up of the situation but tell people you have done a brilliant job in the hope that some dimwits are sucked in. I just wonder whether this outright lying came from Hancock himself, or whether it is now a strategy decided by the leader (Dominic Cummings).
With the failure by our government becoming more apparent by the day*, expect to see and hear more of this.

* Note to Soccerman, seriouspie, TheBlackHorse & Co. I know you will never, ever consider that a single word of criticism against this government might be valid, so allow me to help you out with your excuses:

1. We are the only country being honest with the figures, all the others are lying.
2. It would have been even worse with Corbyn in charge.
3. Typical whinging from lefty losers.

Are there any I've missed?

Oh dear, typical whinging from the lefty losers.

[drillerpie]

Oh dear, typical whinging from the lefty losers.

Navy if you're reading this your account has been hacked by Soccerman.

[Notts78]

The UK government actually had the benefit of hindsight, in as much as they had the advantage of seeing what the virus was doing in other countries before it hit the UK.

Leaving aside the whole issue of austerity, which I would've done differently, I would've:

Not ignored the findings of the report in 2016 which warned about the shortage of PPE in the event of a pandemic. The government instead took a conscious decision to rely on international supply chains, which in the event of a pandemic could only ever lead to the outcomes we have seen.

Agreed. Personally I find it astonishing that the NHS doesn’t have PPE supplied by a UK ran factory as and when it’s needed. It is nigh on impossible to stockpile PPE as like all perishable items it has an expiry date and if we were slinging let’s say a million PPE away a year at whatever cost the public would have seen it as a waste.

I wouldn't have disappeared off to Chequers for ten days and put a do-not-disturb sign on the door at the beginning of the crisis.

Agree completely.

I wouldn't have shaken hands with people in a coronavirus hospital, then boasted about it. Then got ill, nearly died, infected my pregnant partner, and left the government without a leader during a crisis.

All political leaders do this. I suppose has he not then this would have been reported negatively. Personally I don’t think he should have been visiting hospitals full stop, but then he needed to be seen as being in the fight with the NHS.

I would have imposed the lockdown quicker, in the hope that it would allow for a shorter lockdown. I wouldn't have waffled on so long about the inalienable right of an Englishman to go to the pub (which got alienated a few days afterwards anyway).

Can’t agree. Not with how Jo Public are dealing with lockdown now despite nearly 30k deaths. In the early throws of this pandemic, many felt they wouldn’t be affected, it’s only the flu etc. The government needed to show the public this was serious. Imagine if we had locked everything down when there were ‘only’ a few hundred deaths. Many more would have ignored the lockdown and the potential long term death rate much higher.

I wouldn't have promised a huge testing scheme, failed to deliver it, abolished testing altogether, restarted it again, failed to meet targets again, often due to the fact that the testing centres were in the middle of nowhere and couldn't be reached by public transport. I then wouldn't have sent tests through the post directly to people who didn't know how to use them, and which will undoubtedly result in a large number of false negatives, but which allow the government to say they are meeting targets.

Yeah, the whole testing thing has been the Governments biggest cock up IMO. This has been there biggest flaw. I personally would have liked to have seen local surgeries used as testing centres. They know how many patients they have and could have ordered the number needed. I think the government got backed in to a corner by the media because of how Germany were handling the testing and threw out 100k tests.

I think you could argue the first one is being wise after the event, although I would disagree. The others are pretty much common sense.

I have put my thoughts in with yours Driller.

[Disturbed]

What would be a better approach though? (Waits for ‘not this one’)

As we now have the benefit of hindsight, then lockdown should have happened sooner and that includes closing down the borders.
But what should have been done different from the outset was testing. This should have been made compulsory for everyone that entered the country and if this was impossible due to lack of test kits, then all these people should have self isolated for 2 weeks on arrival (the same rule as Poland and Germany imposed).
I do believe that the government, with the information supplied, has done what they thought correct at the time (as we are still learning about this virus and the advice changes), but to the minimum, as there was also an element of politics involved, because, as can you imagine, the uproar if they implemented the lockdown sooner would have been just as great as it is now.
So yes, the government has got things wrong, and they do need to learn from this in case a second wave hits. That is when they really do need to get it right as next time there can be no excuses

[Disturbed]

Thanks, that ticks off excuse number one.

* Note to Soccerman, seriouspie, TheBlackHorse & Co. I know you will never, ever consider that a single word of criticism against this government might be valid, so allow me to help you out with your excuses:

1. We are the only country being honest with the figures, all the others are lying.
2. It would have been even worse with Corbyn in charge.
3. Typical whinging from lefty losers.

Are there any I've missed?

So excuse 1 has not been ticked off. Where have I said that other countries have not been honest with their figures? All I pointed out was the figures are not a direct comparison due to the difference in reporting.
Over 30000 deaths is far too many, that I agree with, and could have been reduced with a different approach, but until the same reporting criteria is used, then a direct comparison in the numbers of deaths should not be used for any argument purpose