O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[swaledale]

I think you're allowing yourself to get sucked deeper into a left v right thing than is useful for healthy discussion, and for confusing observation with opinion. You (and Swale when he switches on the insult filter) make valid although boringly repetitive observations (lets say, Boris is a twerp) and others here, me included, broadly agree. Likewise observations about the competence of certain other members of The Executive - again we broadly agree. The problem arises when subsequential observations are made, such as 'Boris' faux pas have little effect on his popularity', 'the executives' incompetence/hypocricy will be lost in the mix', ' etc and are responded to (mainly by your oppo) as if the originators of these observations are unethical, raging redneckswho condone, rather than comment, on such issues. Swale is beyond salvation on the subject of rational debatebut I'm sure you're not

Says the guy who isn't averse to, throwing the odd insult (even in a discourse which until that point had been conducted by all parties in a reasonable tone), who makes frequent asides denigrating people from an ethnic background albeit cloaked in the speech of a "reasonable man". As expressing dislike for "the number of BAME presenters on the BBC". Or sarcastic use of labels such as "woke" or "liberal".

Who will quickly go off topic and try and confuse when clearly shown to be wrong on a subject being debated or in something he has said.

But most of all as a Moderator on this Forum defends a poster whose posts when not on football tend to be nothing more than the regurgitation of racist, xenophobic, bigoted and false media sources. Yet accuses me of posting poisonous bile.

Still gammon is popular at Christmas!

[ramAnag]

Swale and Andy’s differences apart...if anyone doubts the insincerity, incompetence and sheer hypocrisy of this Government just watch about five minutes of Dominic Raab being interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning. I have never seen such a disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical set of answers - specifically about last year’s Downing Street party - from any politician ever...and this from the so called ‘Justice Secretary’!

[Andy_Faber]

Swale and Andy’s differences apart...if anyone doubts the insincerity, incompetence and sheer hypocrisy of this Government just watch about five minutes of Dominic Raab being interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning. I have never seen such a disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical set of answers - specifically about last year’s Downing Street party - from any politician ever...and this from the so called ‘Justice Secretary’!

Yes I saw Raab this morning, and unusually in company. General concensus was he didn't answer any of the questions but the concensus also was why does it matter, all politicians of all leanings do it, it seems to be a pre-requisite for the job, so the greater 'crime' is we plebs wasting our short lives watching such interviews in the first place.

I do agree with the slapdown Oliver Dowdon gave the interviewer on the news the other day to the effect that rather than comment on a possible indiscretion from over a year ago he has real, current issues to deal with and would rather focus on them. So would I.

[swaledale]

Yes I saw Raab this morning, and unusually in company. General concensus was he didn't answer any of the questions but the concensus also was why does it matter, all politicians of all leanings do it, it seems to be a pre-requisite for the job, so the greater 'crime' is we plebs wasting our short lives watching such interviews in the first place.

I do agree with the slapdown Oliver Dowdon gave the interviewer on the news the other day to the effect that rather than comment on a possible indiscretion from over a year ago he has real, current issues to deal with and would rather focus on them. So would I.

Ah so your happy for a government who legislate and fine people who broke that legislation to act as they wish and ignore that very legislation?

Isn't that how authoritarianism gains a hand? The general public get to thinking "so what if they broke the law, ignored the instructions they gave to the people or simply ignored the law", there are more important things to be dealing with?

I do find it amazing that many people are happy to ignore or excuse flagrant breaches of trust, ethics and standards of behaviour on the basis that there are real issues to be dealt with.

I'm sure that's how the "good" German thought about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, yeah its bad but he is dealing with the economic problems and that excuses a bit of xenophobia and antisemitism! Plus of course it didn't affect them or so they thought, its that narrow personal perspective again, these things do matter.

The problem here is its a pattern of how this government behaves, and people are just very gullible if they think these things don't matter or don't impact on them.

Also as a I assume a law abiding citizen, you'd want the law to be applied to those in power as well as the people?

[swaledale]

Swale and Andy’s differences apart...if anyone doubts the insincerity, incompetence and sheer hypocrisy of this Government just watch about five minutes of Dominic Raab being interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning. I have never seen such a disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical set of answers - specifically about last year’s Downing Street party - from any politician ever...and this from the so called ‘Justice Secretary’!

rA mine and AF's differences stem from the fact he is generally Ok with this sort of thing, he doesn't think it matters because from his narrow personal perspective it doesn't impact on him.

[ramAnag]

Yes I saw Raab this morning, and unusually in company. General concensus was he didn't answer any of the questions but the concensus also was why does it matter, all politicians of all leanings do it, it seems to be a pre-requisite for the job, so the greater 'crime' is we plebs wasting our short lives watching such interviews in the first place.

I do agree with the slapdown Oliver Dowdon gave the interviewer on the news the other day to the effect that rather than comment on a possible indiscretion from over a year ago he has real, current issues to deal with and would rather focus on them. So would I.

Sorry, but I can only echo Swale’s sentiment.
It matters because it’s about example. If those at the top show a poor and hypocritical example then how can we expect the ‘plebs’, using your words, to behave properly.
You know Andy...it’s not so surprising that people behave as they did at Wembley back in the summer if people like you, who I assume to be essentially decent and law abiding, make such excuses for those at the top.
As for Dowden...I didn’t hear him, but Raab used exactly the same strategy this morning...saying he had more important things to worry about and trying to deflect via poor Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. Weasel words that personally I found quite despicable.

[Andy_Faber]

rA mine and AF's differences stem from the fact he is generally Ok with this sort of thing, he doesn't think it matters because from his narrow personal perspective it doesn't impact on him.

No I'm not (necessarily) OK with it, I bloody hate people not answering questions directly, I'm observing that its become so ubiquitous that most folk now just shrug their shoulders and move on. I disagree that it doesn't impact me, the behaviour and abilities of those in charge (and those holding same to account) impact everyone to some degree, I'll admit to relative prosperity sheilding me (and no doubt you) from the greater impact of it

People also move on when commentators repeatedly use catchphrases like 'narrow perspective', 'dog whistle' and 'gammon' by the way, because they they see in that behaviour the inability of the originator to put forward a strong enough argument

'

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry, but I can only echo Swale’s sentiment.
It matters because it’s about example. If those at the top show a poor and hypocritical example then how can we expect the ‘plebs’, using your words, to behave properly.
You know Andy...it’s not so surprising that people behave as they did at Wembley back in the summer if people like you, who I assume to be essentially decent and law abiding, make such excuses for those at the top.
As for Dowden...I didn’t hear him, but Raab used exactly the same strategy this morning...saying he had more important things to worry about and trying to deflect via poor Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. Weasel words that personally I found quite despicable.

Its not 'excusing it' rA, see the first paragraph of my response to Swale, its acceptance (from my viewpoint) that whingeing about it ain't gonna change it because its endemic amongst politicians, its a snowball thats so big and rolling so fast that standing in its way will just get me flattened. There are things in life I can influence more for the same effort

[ramAnag]

Its not 'excusing it' rA, see the first paragraph of my response to Swale, its acceptance (from my viewpoint) that whingeing about it ain't gonna change it because its endemic amongst politicians, its a snowball thats so big and rolling so fast that standing in its way will just get me flattened. There are things in life I can influence more for the same effort

Who’s ‘whingeing about it’? This is a forum discussion about the Government’s handling of Covid and making a critical comment about that subject isn’t ‘whingeing’.
One can only ever try and change what you now accept is wrong by drawing attention to it. Whether there remain sufficient readers on here to make a difference is debatable, but this thread has attracted over 40,000 ‘visits’ over the last sixte en months.

[swaledale]

No I'm not (necessarily) OK with it, I bloody hate people not answering questions directly, I'm observing that its become so ubiquitous that most folk now just shrug their shoulders and move on. I disagree that it doesn't impact me, the behaviour and abilities of those in charge (and those holding same to account) impact everyone to some degree, I'll admit to relative prosperity sheilding me (and no doubt you) from the greater impact of it

People also move on when commentators repeatedly use catchphrases like 'narrow perspective', 'dog whistle' and 'gammon' by the way, because they they see in that behaviour the inability of the originator to put forward a strong enough argument

'

I think you may have missed the fact that I was addressing your agreement that there were more important things to deal with than blatant rule breaking by members of the government who make the rules? On the other hand you may be acting true to form and deflecting criticism by being opaque about the point you were trying to make.

I disagree that as you put it "whining" about such things is pointless, if it were so then why do authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, Burma and the like clamp down on such "whining"?

Indeed there are signs that the hypocritical stance of the government is "cutting through" with voters.

On the subject of a failure to answer the question, yes your right that is and has been the way of politicians of all colours for a long time, though tbh, when politicians do give straight answers, they tend to get flack, especially if the answers are not what the voters want to hear.

Which is where those voters who want simple answers to complex issues, who are unable to see a bigger picture in things and who actively support politicians who are proven lairs, bull ****ters and break the promises they make are part of the problem.

I would think that the same also applies to those who see phrases such as "dog whistle", "narrow perspective" and "gammon" indeed it is entirely possible that they are some of the same people. After all if one can't recognise a "dog whistle" - example blaming immigrants and asylum seekers for society's ills, been used by disreputable politicians for aeons, it appeals to base instincts.

"Narrow perspective" - making repeated comments about BAME people appearing in the media and BBC and saying "its not reflective of the world I live in". Maybe not but the world you live in, but it might be for a large proportion of the population and anyway surely its the ability of the person that should be judged, not their ethnicity?

As for gammon, as an older, sometimes pink faced white bloke myself, I can only think that those upset by this term are those who think it applies to them, now what vaguely sentient, reasonable minded older white man would think that?