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

[countygump]

The hole lock down was a load of bollox, not that I care for these pieces of sh1t, or the Labour lot of captured muppets either.
Best politician I've heard in a long time is Robert Kennedy Jr on the Rogan show, big respect.

You have a point. It seems the "swedish model" was as successful, if not even more so, than ours. But that comes with a stonkingly huge dollop of hindsight that unfortunately, wasn't available at the time. All Govs can do is accept, (and trust in), the best medical advice available to them at that time. As some smart ar5e once said, "It's easy to be wise after the event, but it's wiser to be cautious before it".


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...says-scientist

[upthemaggies]

All Govs can do is accept, (and trust in), the best medical advice available to them at that time.

There was plenty of scientists advising taking a route akin to the Swedish model, which our government initially favoured. but they were all ultimately censored and dismissed as cranks, probably after the bribes from one of the most powerful institutions on Earth were increased.

[jackal2]

The whole lock down was a load of bollox, not that I care for these pieces of sh1t, or the Labour lot of captured muppets either.

Difficult to disagree.

The obvious conclusion to take from videos such as the one above is that those involved, and their political leaders, did not privately believe that the severity of the lockdown was as necessary as they publicly said it was, as demonstrated by their own actions. So why did they advocate such policies?

A lot of politicians these days are getting themselves into strife by saying words and advocating policies recommended to them by experts/think tanks/focus groups rather than saying what they actually believe in their heart (if they even know what a heartfelt belief is!), and that's why they get caught out when their private actions inevitably don't match their public statements.

What's the point of going into politics if you're not actually going to say and stand by what you believe?

It's a rhetorical question. The answer is that we have a raft of people who now think the main point of politics is not to change/shape the world to the way they believe it should be, but rather, to provide them with a lucrative career. I can't imagine the likes of (e.g.) Margaret Thatcher or Tony Benn routinely advocating policies that they didn't believe in their heart, but these days we've got a situation where unelected officials can very easily manipulate the public's elected representatives to parrot whatever they recommend.

In Civil Service parlance, a lot of modern politicians seem to be very easily "professionally guided" and are no doubt considered "a joy to work with", while the few remaining awkward sods who actually have some core beliefs and refuse to compromise are "bullies".

[Old_pie]

Difficult to disagree.

The obvious conclusion to take from videos such as the one above is that those involved, and their political leaders, did not privately believe that the severity of the lockdown was as necessary as they publicly said it was, as demonstrated by their own actions. So why did they advocate such policies?

A lot of politicians these days are getting themselves into strife by saying words and advocating policies recommended to them by experts/think tanks/focus groups rather than saying what they actually believe in their heart (if they even know what a heartfelt belief is!), and that's why they get caught out when their private actions inevitably don't match their public statements.

What's the point of going into politics if you're not actually going to say and stand by what you believe?

It's a rhetorical question. The answer is that we have a raft of people who now think the main point of politics is not to change/shape the world to the way they believe it should be, but rather, to provide them with a lucrative career. I can't imagine the likes of (e.g.) Margaret Thatcher or Tony Benn routinely advocating policies that they didn't believe in their heart, but these days we've got a situation where unelected officials can very easily manipulate the public's elected representatives to parrot whatever they recommend.

In Civil Service parlance, a lot of modern politicians seem to be very easily "professionally guided" and are no doubt considered "a joy to work with", while the few remaining awkward sods who actually have some core beliefs and refuse to compromise are "bullies".

Well either as you say or they really are stupid. By stupid I mean that today's politicians are incapable of practical comprehensions.

On Tw@tter:

John Redwood
@johnredwood
How can some water companies need to ration water when there is more demand on a few hot dry days? The bakers do not have to ration hot cross buns when many want them at Easter.

[BigFatPie]

Difficult to disagree.

The obvious conclusion to take from videos such as the one above is that those involved, and their political leaders, did not privately believe that the severity of the lockdown was as necessary as they publicly said it was, as demonstrated by their own actions. So why did they advocate such policies?

A lot of politicians these days are getting themselves into strife by saying words and advocating policies recommended to them by experts/think tanks/focus groups rather than saying what they actually believe in their heart (if they even know what a heartfelt belief is!), and that's why they get caught out when their private actions inevitably don't match their public statements.

What's the point of going into politics if you're not actually going to say and stand by what you believe?

It's a rhetorical question. The answer is that we have a raft of people who now think the main point of politics is not to change/shape the world to the way they believe it should be, but rather, to provide them with a lucrative career. I can't imagine the likes of (e.g.) Margaret Thatcher or Tony Benn routinely advocating policies that they didn't believe in their heart, but these days we've got a situation where unelected officials can very easily manipulate the public's elected representatives to parrot whatever they recommend.

In Civil Service parlance, a lot of modern politicians seem to be very easily "professionally guided" and are no doubt considered "a joy to work with", while the few remaining awkward sods who actually have some core beliefs and refuse to compromise are "bullies".

To be clear, you think politicians should form policy on issues like Covid or climate change based on what they personally believe rather than what a majority of experts in the field are telling them?

[Magpies1959]

The truth coming out about covid now is what people like me got absolutely ridiculed for at the time. This is because politicians the world over, and saw covid as a way to enforce their power, to levels they could only have dreamed of. They now have a perfect excuse to squeeze the pips, with most people happy to go along with their narrative about it all being down to the effects of the virus.

[upthemaggies]

The truth coming out about covid now is what people like me got absolutely ridiculed for at the time. This is because politicians the world over, and saw covid as a way to enforce their power, to levels they could only have dreamed of. They now have a perfect excuse to squeeze the pips, with most people happy to go along with their narrative about it all being down to the effects of the virus.

Tell me about it!

Total silence now too from the media on the alarming excess death levels across the past 2 years in developed countries (not being caused by respiratory illness, but inflammation issues for the most part) that show no sign of going down.

[countygump]

Tell me about it!

Total silence now too from the media on the alarming excess death levels across the past 2 years in developed countries (not being caused by respiratory illness, but inflammation issues for the most part) that show no sign of going down.

Yeah, that is worrying and could really do with some investigation/research funded and carried out by the major pharmaceutical companies. But they won't do that, as not only is it not profitable, who knows what answers it might reveal?

[maddogslater]

Oh how I wish I could triple un vaccinate myself.
100 percent effective? Why because ONE person in the 11,000 trial group who got the vaccine died and TWO people in the 11,000 placebo group died. 100 percent effective!!

[JoePass]

Oh how I wish I could triple un vaccinate myself.
100 percent effective? Why because ONE person in the 11,000 trial group who got the vaccine died and TWO people in the 11,000 placebo group died. 100 percent effective!!

Can’t argue with that.