Jump to content

Announce your plans - so I’ll have something to criticise?


StuartO

Recommended Posts

Sir Kier is demanding that the Government announce their exit strategy this week - but is this just so he will have something to launch his leadership by getting his teeth into?

 

The Government seem to have been timing their steps carefully in order to manage public confidence and compliance and doing quite well at it. Why would they want to announce steps involving relaxations of restrictions in advance when it would encourage some folk to jump the gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2020-04-16 7:23 AM

 

StuartO - 2020-04-15 11:10 AM

 

The Government seem to have been timing their steps carefully in order to manage public confidence and compliance

Is this a joke?

 

Nope ............That's Labours job (lol) (lol) (lol) ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-15 11:10 AM

 

The Government seem to have been timing their steps carefully in order to manage public confidence and compliance and doing quite well at it.

 

 

 

I very much doubt if the staff of Care Homes would agree with you.

 

:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care homes are private businesses but they've always had Public Health England guidance, even if that was changing rapidly as PHE was mounting its own learning curve.  It should have been obvious to Care Homes that isolation was the  key to their residents (and their busness's) survival.  As as well as banning visitors, they would also need to reconfigure staffing and work practices so that those in contact with residents also became resident, staying within their infection control perimeter, and those who could do their job without contact with residents stayed outside this new perimeter, going home after working as usual.  It might not have been easy to do this but it was the only way. They would also need to quarantine all new residents coming in.  These are very challenging requirements but the alternative would be that sooner or later, their fee-paying customers would die off.

Maybe the Government could have done more, but testing alone could not have protected Care Homes from coronavirus getting inside and once inside, coronavirus was always going to cause mayhem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-15 11:10 AM  The Government seem to have been timing their steps carefully in order to manage public confidence and compliance

John52 - 2020-04-16 7:23 AM  Is this a joke? Its not as if businesses need to know when they can re-open is it?

Not intended to be a joke, although of course it is an opinion.

Business do indeed need to know when they can re-open, some more desperately than others.  But the Government, although well aware of the economic pressures, has to make that call when the time is right and not before.  If it's heralded in advance the compliance with restrictions would be at risk of being undermined, as some businesses and some of the public would start jumping the gun. Hence the unhelpfulness of challenges from some reporters (and from Sir Kier) to open a discussion, i.e. an Irish parliament, about the issue, in Sir Kier's case maybe just so he can get noticed in order to launch his new leadership.

Sir Kier was an argumentative obstacle to progress when he was determined to keep pressing his case against Brexit; a skiiled lawyer can always make an argument of things.  And it looks like he's planning to use his barrister skills to argue the toss about the best way to manage the COVID-19 crisis.  He needs to be very careful not to destabilise the situation by using his arguing skills for selfish reasons again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
StuartO - 2020-04-16 11:00 AMSir Kier was an argumentative obstacle to progress when he was determined to keep pressing his case against Brexit; a skiiled lawyer can always make an argument of things.  And it looks like he's planning to use his barrister skills to argue the toss about the best way to manage the COVID-19 crisis.  He needs to be very careful not to destabilise the situation by using his arguing skills for selfish reasons again.

He has a long history of defending the indefensible :-| ...........
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-16 11:00 AM

 

Sir Kier was an argumentative obstacle to progress when he was determined to keep pressing his case against Brexit; a skiiled lawyer can always make an argument of things. 

 

And it looks like he's planning to use his barrister skills to argue the toss about the best way to manage the COVID-19 crisis. 

 

 

I can see nothing wrong about arguing the toss about the best way to manage Covid-19.

 

Seems to me to be in all our interests.

 

:-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the benefit of hindsight I don't think even the most ardent Tory would argue that the government has got it entirely right so far and there is a great need for a strong public figure, like the new leader of the opposition, to make the case and by debate, hopefully improve things.

 

A strong and democratic governement should never be afraid to be questioned by those who gave them their authority to govern.

 

So far KS it seems is doing a fair job in a new role and already he is considerably more credible that JC was after so many years of ranting.

 

I doubt the government yet has full plans for 'corvexit' and whilst I can see the sense in debate I doubt it would serve any useful purpose, other than giving the media more whinging ammunition, to publish any plans just yet as so much is open to change as the knowledge base expands.

 

But I don't expect the idiots amongst us to be able to grasp and undertstand that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-16 11:00 AM

Sir Kier was an argumentative obstacle to progress when he was determined to keep pressing his case against Brexit;

 

To believe that you would have to believe Brexit is 'progress' - the majority of people probably don't as they voted for parties that support a second referendum (but were thwarted by Tory Divide & Rule)

As you haven't actually pointed out anything useful BoJo has done so far I'm trying to help you.

Only thing I have been ablre to think of so far is he has apparently sent me a letter - which might ease the shortage of toilet paper :D

Since people like me who shouldn't have got one did, and people who should have got one didn't - serious problem for them as the need it to show the supermarket to get an online delivery :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2020-04-16 12:26 PM

 

With the benefit of hindsight I don't think even the most ardent Tory would argue that the government has got it entirely right so far

and without the benefit of hindsight?

Because we knew about Covid-19 (and that we were surrounded by water so had a strong chance of keeping it out if we tested and quaranteed at the borders we have taken back control of) - long before BoJo woke up.

And BoJo should have known the law he made does not prohibit leaving yur home for exercise more than once in one day, before he went on TV effectively saying that it does. Sowing more chaos and confusion. But at least it got people snitching on their neighbours for going out twice in one day - same old Tory Divide and Rule. Was that the idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2020-04-16 12:24 PM
StuartO - 2020-04-16 11:00 AM Sir Kier was an argumentative obstacle to progress when he was determined to keep pressing his case against Brexit; a skiiled lawyer can always make an argument of things.  And it looks like he's planning to use his barrister skills to argue the toss about the best way to manage the COVID-19 crisis. 
I can see nothing wrong about arguing the toss about the best way to manage Covid-19.Seems to me to be in all our interests. :-|


The downside of the ease with which anyone can spread almost any word they choose on line these days is that the more gullible and stupider peole in our society (and even some of the cleverer ones) can be misled in potentially dangerous ways - for example recently the conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus which led to the vandalisation of 5G masts.  Charismatic orators can hold sway and some of them, at a time of national emergency, need to be stopped.  In suppressing free speech, which is what might be required during this national emergency, a government has to be very careful to do it reassuringly - which is presumably why Boris, right  from the beginning of his daily coronavirus briefings, was almost unctiously courteous to the journalists, even the ones seeking to make trouble.  It was a clever thing to do and I notice that all the other politicians who have done those briefings have taken a similarly careful line, never biting back.  Quite the opposite of course to President Trump's approach.  It was necessary to lead a democracy of people used to being allowed to choose into doing as they were told instead - and I think our Government have done it very well.  The habitually challenging journalists have even started calming down a bit.  It's gone pretty well and most people have done as they were told.  The number of cases admitted to hospitals has plateaued, the NHS has not become overwhelmed and overall, lives will have been saved.

Of course the Government will have missed some opportunities and made some bad choices but this is not the time for anyone to be trying to shoot them down because we need them to continue doing their best.  And so taking over as Leader of the Opposition at this time, when the Labour Party is still in a squabbling mess, presents Sir Kier with a complex challenge.  I just hope his demand for an open debate about the next step in managing the virus pandemic isn't him taking an opportunity to strut his stuff in order to get noticed as a political force.  There is an argument, especially from the chattering classes, for openess about their plans for the way forward followed by open debate.  But there is a downside to this idea too and so far I'm not remotely convinced that an open debate, criticising the Governments Plan before it is announced when they are ready, is in the public interest.  We have elected a Government, why should we allow the big-time losers in the General Election and the sensation-seeking journalist and self-promoting opinionators of the internet to demand an opportunity to rock the boat at this critical time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Tracker - 2020-04-16 12:26 PM

 

With the benefit of hindsight I don't think even the most ardent Tory would argue that the government has got it entirely right so far and there is a great need for a strong public figure, like the new leader of the opposition, to make the case and by debate, hopefully improve things.

 

A strong and democratic governement should never be afraid to be questioned by those who gave them their authority to govern.

 

So far KS it seems is doing a fair job in a new role and already he is considerably more credible that JC was after so many years of ranting.

 

I doubt the government yet has full plans for 'corvexit' and whilst I can see the sense in debate I doubt it would serve any useful purpose, other than giving the media more whinging ammunition, to publish any plans just yet as so much is open to change as the knowledge base expands.

 

But I don't expect the idiots amongst us to be able to grasp and undertstand that.

 

 

But the most ardent Tories can argue that the Tories are handling this crisis just as well or better than many countries ;-) ..........

 

Despite what the Loser Brigade would have us think *-) .........

 

One can only assume they're bitching has more than a hint of Remoaner bias about it :D ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violet1956 - 2020-04-16 1:24 PMToo soon for an exit plan probably - but also too soon to judge whether Kier Starmer is playing a political game in asking for one.

Perhaps so - but Sir Kier does have some “previous” in this respect. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-16 1:01 PM

 

Charismatic orators can hold sway and some of them, at a time of national emergency, need to be stopped. 

 

In suppressing free speech, which is what might be required during this national emergency ……….

 

 

I understand that is what the Chinese Govt decided.

 

The doctor who first exposed the presence of the virus was imprisoned for talking about it.

 

:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2020-04-16 2:41 PM
StuartO - 2020-04-16 1:01 PM Charismatic orators can hold sway and some of them, at a time of national emergency, need to be stopped.  In suppressing free speech, which is what might be required during this national emergency ……….
I understand that is what the Chinese Govt decided.The doctor who first exposed the presence of the virus was imprisoned for talking about it. :-(


But it doesn't follow from the fact that a totalitarian regime suppresses free  speech routinely that an elected government in a well establish democracy would do so oppressively even if they did need to tell Sir Kier that he can't have advanced notice of their plans just so he could make a nuisance of himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-16 10:43 AM

 

Care homes are private businesses....

Whilst most are, not all. Some are run by local authorities.

 

It should have been obvious to Care Homes that isolation was the key to their residents (and their busness's) survival. As as well as banning visitors, they would also need to reconfigure staffing and work practices so that those in contact with residents also became resident, staying within their infection control perimeter, and those who could do their job without contact with residents stayed outside this new perimeter, going home after working as usual.

Where logistical possible some staff did this by remaining in the care home but how many have rooms and beds to spare for its staff? I suspect not very many so a number would still have had to return to their own homes after each shift.

 

Maybe the Government could have done more, but testing alone could not have protected Care Homes from coronavirus getting inside and once inside, coronavirus was always going to cause mayhem.

Early widespread testing was proved to be key in the battle against coronavirus, not only in care homes but everywhere. We did not do that and afaik have still not implemented it. So that is a major fail on governments part. We also didn't test or quarantine returning Brits many of whom were coming back from known 'hot spots', unlike New Zealand which did test and quarantine its returning citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2020-04-16 12:24 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-04-16 11:00 AM

 

Sir Kier was an argumentative obstacle to progress when he was determined to keep pressing his case against Brexit; a skiiled lawyer can always make an argument of things. 

 

And it looks like he's planning to use his barrister skills to argue the toss about the best way to manage the COVID-19 crisis. 

 

 

I can see nothing wrong about arguing the toss about the best way to manage Covid-19.

 

Seems to me to be in all our interests.

 

:-|

Neither can i. I'm surprised why anyone would object to seeking some common sense management unless they prefer chaos to prevail. :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Violet1956 - 2020-04-16 1:24 PM

 

Too soon for an exit plan probably - but also too soon to judge whether Kier Starmer is playing a political game in asking for one.

 

Too soon? 8-) .........

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) ........

 

It's the Raison detra of the opposition ;-) .........

 

I've yet to see anything from Er Madges opposition except petty point scoring *-) .......

 

I see Van der Bird made a speech in the EU Parliament admitting they were rubbish too in their preparations along with the rest of the EU countries :D .......

 

Not that our resident Remoaner Losers will accept that FACT >:-) .......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-16 3:22 PM

 

But it doesn't follow from the fact that a totalitarian regime suppresses free  speech routinely that an elected government in a well establish democracy would do so oppressively

 

 

Is there another way of banning free speech - other than oppressively ?

 

(…. and who decides who can speak and who can't ? )

 

:-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2020-04-16 4:41 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-04-16 3:22 PM

 

But it doesn't follow from the fact that a totalitarian regime suppresses free  speech routinely that an elected government in a well establish democracy would do so oppressively

 

 

Is there another way of banning free speech - other than oppressively ?

 

(…. and who decides who can speak and who can't ? )

 

:-|

 

Well up until a few days ago it was Warners in my particular situation ;-) ........

 

Not that I blame them :-| .......

 

The build up of complaints about me must have reached Dan the man :D .......

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-04-16 1:01 PM

 

the more gullible and stupider peole in our society (and even some of the cleverer ones) can be misled in potentially dangerous ways -.... Boris, right  from the beginning of his daily coronavirus briefings, was almost unctiously courteous to the journalists,

 

Yep, he had you misled

What would have been courteous would be to have answered the question he was asked, not the question he would have liked to be asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2020-04-16 4:51 PM

 

malc d - 2020-04-16 4:41 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-04-16 3:22 PM

 

But it doesn't follow from the fact that a totalitarian regime suppresses free  speech routinely that an elected government in a well establish democracy would do so oppressively

 

 

Is there another way of banning free speech - other than oppressively ?

 

(…. and who decides who can speak and who can't ? )

 

:-|

 

Well up until a few days ago it was Warners in my particular situation ;-) ........

 

Not that I blame them :-| .......

 

The build up of complaints about me must have reached Dan the man :D .......

 

 

 

 

Well none of them came from me

I believe in leaving the moderating to the moderators - as I leave parking infringements to the Traffic wardens we have more than enough of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...