Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Damning polling for Sunak – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2023 in General
Damning polling for Sunak – politicalbetting.com

Wow.A separate poll by Focaldata has revealed that 59 per cent of voters believe Sunak intentionally hid his WhatsApp messages from the Covid inquiry. Even among Conservative voters, 48 per cent believe he deliberately kept his the messages hidden.https://t.co/rAChCbdURp

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • I apologise for the horrendous tautology in the header that is 'brilliant lawyer'.
  • I wonder what the odds are on a proper meltdown? Or a quote that writes everyone else's election campaign for them?

    Starmer asks him difficult questions for about five minutes, the enquiry is going to be asking difficult questions for two whole days.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Surely an oxymoron, Mr Eagles.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    Another mad, out of control, XL Bully, why on Earth are, or were, the Scottish Govt encouraging people to relocate these beasts North of the Border.

    https://x.com/crimeldn/status/1733978594051842551?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388

    I wonder what the odds are on a proper meltdown? Or a quote that writes everyone else's election campaign for them?

    Starmer asks him difficult questions for about five minutes, the enquiry is going to be asking difficult questions for two whole days.

    At PMQs he never answers the question, but that tactic won't wash at the enquiry.

  • I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?
  • Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Yes and they also know it is really easy to backup and transfer the messages when getting a new phone.

    As with Boris Johnson and the SNP government there's a pattern when it comes to WhatsApp messages from the pandemic.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    I don't disagree with the headline, though it's not much change. The question is not whether the electorate will defenestrate Sunak, but the storey from which he will be flung.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,302
    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Marginally skeptical would be a huge understatement. The average Joe has absolutely no idea and believes what the media pump out and more to the point the shite on twitter and the BBC .
    When Da youfff of the Country think Hitler was a good guy... its not difficult to be skeptical.
    Its more about the perception even if its wrong.
  • Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.

    Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.

    But you are right, fewer people would care.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    I apologise for the horrendous tautology in the header that is 'brilliant lawyer'.

    The Post Office in house counsel would beg to differ.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Marginally skeptical would be a huge understatement. The average Joe has absolutely no idea and believes what the media pump out and more to the point the shite on twitter and the BBC .
    When Da youfff of the Country think Hitler was a good guy... its not difficult to be skeptical.
    Its more about the perception even if its wrong.
    That misses the point, which is that asked any random question about Sunak, a large majority would appear to pick the answer which does him least credit.
  • DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    The line that seems to be being tried in the papers is that if the boffins were that unhappy, they should have complained in the interval between the announcement and implementation. That probably works fine in Rishi's head. But only there.

    Suspect the polling is more about vibes than details. The public have mostly decided that they don't like Rishi, and view everything he says and does through that lens. A politician complaining about that is as absurd an idea as a fish complaining about the wetness of water.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388
    Nigelb said:

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Marginally skeptical would be a huge understatement. The average Joe has absolutely no idea and believes what the media pump out and more to the point the shite on twitter and the BBC .
    When Da youfff of the Country think Hitler was a good guy... its not difficult to be skeptical.
    Its more about the perception even if its wrong.
    That misses the point, which is that asked any random question about Sunak, a large majority would appear to pick the answer which does him least credit.
    Yes, I think that right. We see it with polling on almost any question. People have decided on Sunak.

    Worth noting that approval of the government itself is even worse than Sunak as PM.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    I would price the Rwanda scheme as a 3 factor accumulator at 200/1, as I posted last night:
    Foxy said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Late in the day, today’s Sunday Rawnsley:

    Four successive Tory prime ministers have been and gone, each arriving at Number 10 brandishing promises to deliver a better Britain, each departing a humiliated failure and leaving Britain in a worse place than they found it. Now, in another zoom around the Tory doom loop, a fifth prime minister is struggling to keep his head above water in a raging tempest of division and chaos self-generated by the Conservatives.

    Research recently unveiled by Professor Jane Green, a political scientist at Oxford, suggests that the disintegration of support for the Tories is much less down to ideology than it is about a collapse of trust in their competence.

    On Planet Tory, the struggle over the Rwanda legislation is being waged as if it is existential. Seen from Planet Earth, this is another and especially startling example of their incompetence. Their sole achievement has been to expel from the UK bagloads of taxpayers’ money without anything to show for it.

    It is a rare government that does not commit any blunders and past ones have perpetrated some shockers as well. What marks this one out when you survey the 13-year span of Tory rule is the gobsmacking quantity of their fumbles, foul-ups, flops and fiascos. Every day makes it look more certain that Tory government is destined for the grave. It will be buried under the crushing weight of their sheer, blithering and boundless incompetence.

    I don't think it takes a lot of research to work out that competence is a bigger issue than policy.

    The only people apparently unaware of this is the Tories, as they continue to pursue an utterly fruitless policy of sending Paddington Bear to Rwanda while about 30 million people are worried about getting a appointment to see a GP and the other 30 million are working out how to pay the rent/mortgage.
    Yebbut if they send a few hapless refugees to Rwanda all that will be fixed, shirley?
    If that actually happens, a Tory victory is then conditional on:

    1) a few deportations then "Stopping the Boats"

    2) that then overriding all other considerations in voters mins.

    I would price that as:

    Evens on deportations actually happening.
    10/1 on stopping the boats
    10/1 on that being the primary factor in voters minds.

    So Sunak has bet the house on a 200/1 shot, with no back up plan.

    It doesn't seem wise to me.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    Nigelb said:

    I apologise for the horrendous tautology in the header that is 'brilliant lawyer'.

    The Post Office in house counsel would beg to differ.
    The Post Office house counsel were so brilliant that they got record numbers of innocent people to return money they hadn’t stolen, confess to crimes that didn’t exist and be sent to prison.

    “The law is a system of rules without morality”
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,075

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    “It’s terrible only because it isn’t working”

    I don’t know where to start with that absolute pearl of an observation.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,946
    Scott_xP said:

    From The Times

    2 of the richest men in aviation:

    Name: Michael O'Leary.
    Occupation: CEO Ryanair.
    Net worth: 800 million.
    Number of planes: 500.

    Name: Paul Kagame.
    Occupation; President of Rwanda.
    Net worth: 290 Million.
    Number of planes: None.

    It's pity that the UK can't vote for the Rwandan PM to run the UK because that guy is a smooth operator who done over Big Rish.
  • DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    “It’s terrible only because it isn’t working”

    I don’t know where to start with that absolute pearl of an observation.
    It's the slogan of Trussites.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,876

    I apologise for the horrendous tautology in the header that is 'brilliant lawyer'.

    Shiny, smooth, hard and unyielding?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    edited December 2023
    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 818

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    You’re right that it is only salient because it is failing so visibly. There are plenty of other cruel things that go on in the world unnoticed.

    The point is that it shows (once again) Sunak’s terrible political judgement in allowing this policy to remain so salient.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,876

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Yes and they also know it is really easy to backup and transfer the messages when getting a new phone.

    As with Boris Johnson and the SNP government there's a pattern when it comes to WhatsApp messages from the pandemic.
    I’m just more started there isn’t already a legal obligation to preserve government records
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
    The problem with that approach, as we are seeing, is that it becomes an exercise in hindsight with a random generator of bad headlines for the existing government. Only a bunch of idiots would have set it up this way. When, in a few years time, it comes up with banal conclusions about those who have long since left the stage no one will care (see Iraq). The damage is being done now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
    Indeed. If and when a similar crisis occurs, the response to that will be governed by political decision making rather than cool scientific and economic heads. Most likely by an overreaction to what went wrong this time.
  • Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Yes. But it can't come into force.
    We can't catch all the boats
    We have nowhere to intern all the people we do catch. Hotels bad, army bases not in my constituency, barges don't exist and the single one they got was dangerous
    We have no capacity or capability in the Home Office to generate legal cases for deportation, nor capacity in the courts to hear those legal cases
    We can't "send them to Rwanda" having legally removed them. Rwanda can only take a fraction of the number we have, and won't take any if we break international law which is the only way to get through the courts.

    This was a crayon policy thrown out as a distraction. Quite why Rishi chose to make it the hill he dies on I have no idea. Its not happening, and the angrier the right get the funnier this is.
  • DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    Also worth pointing out that it did nothing to save the hospitality industry. A rapid slide into the abyss during lockdown one, then a brief period of relative calm, followed by a slower slide into the abyss during lockdown 2.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    We don’t know what the next pandemic will be, but there’s a reasonable likelihood it will be a flu (like Spanish flu, swine flu or Hong Kong flu) or another coronavirus (like COVID-19, SARS and MERS). Taiwan and some other places did well because they learnt from SARS and COVID-19 is closely related to SARS.

    A lot of the lessons around testing and how the testing technology works generalises to other viruses and indeed other pathogens. RNA-based vaccine technology also generalises a fair amount.

    So, I think there’s plenty of learning that may carry forward, around testing, vaccines, NPIs, etc.
  • DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
    The problem with that approach, as we are seeing, is that it becomes an exercise in hindsight with a random generator of bad headlines for the existing government. Only a bunch of idiots would have set it up this way. When, in a few years time, it comes up with banal conclusions about those who have long since left the stage no one will care (see Iraq). The damage is being done now.
    The criticism of the enquiry largely comes from conservatives unhappy that their "he got all the big decisions right" spin line has been torn apart under questioning. As you point out, the cause of that are the terms of the enquiry, set up by "a bunch of idiots" - the very same politicians you lot still support.

    The reason why we need to tear apart the spin is that lies can get solidified into truth. "He got all the big calls right" could easily have become accepted political reality. Thanks to the enquiry he set up we know know the opposite is true. And people will vote accordingly.

    Oh year, thats why the right don't like this enquiry...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.

    What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    .

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Yes and they also know it is really easy to backup and transfer the messages when getting a new phone.

    As with Boris Johnson and the SNP government there's a pattern when it comes to WhatsApp messages from the pandemic.
    I’m just more started there isn’t already a legal obligation to preserve government records
    There is - The Public Records Act 1958 (and 1967).

    The obligation to take records of government decisions in the first place, arises under the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes - the first if which, but not the second, is based in statute.

    So it's a fairly long standing muddle which, if government ever has the time, could do with sorting out. Hopefully without making it worse.

    I'd put someone like @Cyclefree in charge of drafting any new policy framework.
    (That will never happen, of course.)
  • Scott_xP said:

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.

    Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.

    But you are right, fewer people would care.
    In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.

    Also, more European countries would emulate it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
    Although tbf (why?), many of the calls for the inquiry were coming from the bereaved family groups, who (as well as not representing all bereaved families) were very firm in what they wanted, and what they wanted was political blood. They knew what the 'truth' was, and their calls for the inquiry were to reveal that truth. And the media loved that agenda.

    As opposed to the real truth. Or the helpful truth...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
    Indeed. If and when a similar crisis occurs, the response to that will be governed by political decision making rather than cool scientific and economic heads. Most likely by an overreaction to what went wrong this time.
    If you don't have a good plan in place pre-pandemic, that will always be the case.
  • Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    It's great to see the luvvies, many of whom who were uncharacteristically silent when the terrorists of Hamas slaughtered some Jews, have found their moral compass again and have come out in favour of more likes and retweets on social media by criticising something vocal social media users do not like

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/national/actors-tv-personalities-and-campaigners-call-for-scrapping-of-rwanda-scheme/ar-AA1lii9F?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=17aa18ee48bf4cd7a529302ba2edc870&ei=16
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Yes. But it can't come into force.
    We can't catch all the boats
    We have nowhere to intern all the people we do catch. Hotels bad, army bases not in my constituency, barges don't exist and the single one they got was dangerous
    We have no capacity or capability in the Home Office to generate legal cases for deportation, nor capacity in the courts to hear those legal cases
    We can't "send them to Rwanda" having legally removed them. Rwanda can only take a fraction of the number we have, and won't take any if we break international law which is the only way to get through the courts.

    This was a crayon policy thrown out as a distraction. Quite why Rishi chose to make it the hill he dies on I have no idea. Its not happening, and the angrier the right get the funnier this is.
    It was a ruse by Priti to Save BigDog. It was so absurdly expensive and crazy no one in government thought it serious. Then along came Suella, who liked its callousness, picked it up and ran with it. Then along came wall-painter Jenrick who also liked its callousness. The SC saw through it and it should have withered and died there and then.

    The shock is that rather than counting the awful value for money element and the damage the programme would have on our reputation as the World's policeman, why did Rishi double down?

    Sunak is going to get a right spanking today too. His defence of course must be EOTHO was nowhere near as egregious or dangerous as Currygate.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793

    In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.

    Also, more European countries would emulate it.

    Nope

    No other Country is copying it, cos it doesn't, can't and won't work.

    Apart from that, great point...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    edited December 2023
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Yes and they also know it is really easy to backup and transfer the messages when getting a new phone.

    As with Boris Johnson and the SNP government there's a pattern when it comes to WhatsApp messages from the pandemic.
    I’m just more started there isn’t already a legal obligation to preserve government records
    There is - The Public Records Act 1958 (and 1967).

    The obligation to take records of government decisions in the first place, arises under the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes - the first if which, but not the second, is based in statute.

    So it's a fairly long standing muddle which, if government ever has the time, could do with sorting out. Hopefully without making it worse.

    I'd put someone like @Cyclefree in charge of drafting any new policy framework.
    (That will never happen, of course.)
    Several recent Inquiries have established that the Scottish government seems to have a deliberate policy of not minuting meetings or even recording that they happened. The total lack of records about the allocation of the ferry contracts is a good example as, of course, is the lack of material for the Scottish version of the Covid Inquiry. It is a complete shambles and a very good example of how Civil Service standards were utterly destroyed under Nicola's coterie who lost all sense of independence (ironically).
  • Scott_xP said:

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.

    Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.

    But you are right, fewer people would care.
    In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.

    Also, more European countries would emulate it.
    Nobody is doing or proposing our Rwanda scheme. Noone.

    Processing asylum claims offshore is fine. That is the Australia scheme. Our scheme is that we do not process asylum claims at all.

    Had we copied Australia we would have set up a processing centre in Rwanda, have already sent plane-loads of people there. And already brought some back having successfully applied for asylum in the UK.

    Our scheme is illegal because we are abrogating our obligations under international law. We don't want *any* asylum claims other than the chosen few we invite over to claim it. Which legally we cannot do. But Tories think we just tell foreigners how it is and they accept...
  • That's the UN ("that woman" N. Sturgeon) onboard:

    I welcome this decision. In my 2022 letter to the UK Government and subsequent engagements with the Parliament of #Scotland regarding the #GRA Reform Bill, I had stressed that it "would be important to clarify the relationship between the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Equality Act 2010". I also welcome the court's ample consideration of the extent of the potential effects of the proposed reform, from a range of sources, including women's organizations, experts and civil society.

    https://x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1734056224327434494?s=20
  • DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    “It’s terrible only because it isn’t working”

    I don’t know where to start with that absolute pearl of an observation.
    Why don't you try us?

    For you it's terrible because of what it is. If planes were taking off and deporting people there, and it was having a notable impact on boat crossings as a result, this sort of polling would start to melt away.

    I imagine your fury would then be directed against the narrow mindedness of a majority of the British public.
  • Scott_xP said:

    In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.

    Also, more European countries would emulate it.

    Nope

    No other Country is copying it, cos it doesn't, can't and won't work.

    Apart from that, great point...
    Read my tenses carefully.

    They were watching to see if it could work and, indeed, if it did they would copy it.
  • DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Yes and they also know it is really easy to backup and transfer the messages when getting a new phone.

    As with Boris Johnson and the SNP government there's a pattern when it comes to WhatsApp messages from the pandemic.
    I’m just more started there isn’t already a legal obligation to preserve government records
    There is - The Public Records Act 1958 (and 1967).

    The obligation to take records of government decisions in the first place, arises under the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes - the first if which, but not the second, is based in statute.

    So it's a fairly long standing muddle which, if government ever has the time, could do with sorting out. Hopefully without making it worse.

    I'd put someone like @Cyclefree in charge of drafting any new policy framework.
    (That will never happen, of course.)
    Several recent Inquiries have established that the Scottish government seems to have a deliberate policy of not minuting meetings or even recording that they happened. The total lack of records about the allocation of the ferry contracts is a good example as, of course, is the lack of material for the Scottish version of the Covid Inquiry. It is
    The Scottish government? Or the SNP? The problem of course is that they are largely interchangeable. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    The comedy is that come the election some people will be insisting that we cannot allow corruption and malfeasance and incompetence and grifting to be embedded in our politics. That to stop the SNP we must vote Conservative. Who offer corruption and malfeasance and incompetence and grifting on a much larger scale. The size of the plank in Scottish Tory eyes is truly spectacular...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    We don’t know what the next pandemic will be, but there’s a reasonable likelihood it will be a flu (like Spanish flu, swine flu or Hong Kong flu) or another coronavirus (like COVID-19, SARS and MERS). Taiwan and some other places did well because they learnt from SARS and COVID-19 is closely related to SARS.

    A lot of the lessons around testing and how the testing technology works generalises to other viruses and indeed other pathogens. RNA-based vaccine technology also generalises a fair amount.

    So, I think there’s plenty of learning that may carry forward, around testing, vaccines, NPIs, etc.
    Oh, I don't disagree with that (though an assumption about the specific kind of virus is, as we saw with the UK plan, a mistake).

    Capacity for testing (and particularly for domestic production of mass tests) and rapid vaccine production are generally applicable.

    As is better surveillance testing (eg of aircraft waste water).

    Given the UK's life science strengths, such things needn't be unduly expensive.
  • DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.

    What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
    Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.

    But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.

    Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
  • Nigelb said:

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Marginally skeptical would be a huge understatement. The average Joe has absolutely no idea and believes what the media pump out and more to the point the shite on twitter and the BBC .
    When Da youfff of the Country think Hitler was a good guy... its not difficult to be skeptical.
    Its more about the perception even if its wrong.
    That misses the point, which is that asked any random question about Sunak, a large majority would appear to pick the answer which does him least credit.
    The power of the narrative. You can see it for good and I'll in every premiership. Teflon Tony could do no wrong until he could not do right, Gordon Brown was a sober elder statesman (briefly) until he became a cold, paranoid misery guts, The Iron May was a steely eyed crusher of sabateurs until she became an ineffectual ditherer etc. Once these things take hold, it's very difficult for a PM to recover and the only thing that can save them are either events or an unacceptable opposition.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.

    What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
    Countries like Japan avoided national lockdowns. We can learn from them: move fast; and invest in public health.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793

    They were watching to see if it could work and, indeed, if it did they would copy it.

    It can't.

    They didn't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    As a policy, it's a failure on both a practical and a principled basis, IMO.

    Has anyone even looked at the alternative effect of spending an extra £250m on asylum claims processing, for example ?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,946

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    My car isn't working because I removed the engine and transmission. In principle my car is an excellent mode of transport.
    This is actually true in my case because the car in question is an E63 M6.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    My car isn't working because I removed the engine and transmission. In principle my car is an excellent mode of transport.
    Or, I have an electric car, but have no mains electricity. In principle Electric cars are an excellent economic means of transport
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    Grant Shapps not done well on R4 this morning, I had him down as a possible replacement for Rishi S post election, he's come across as not well prepped, rather vague and not exactly on top of his brief (mind you no questions about Defence) on top of that he's hardly strengthened the PM
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    If the Tories were able to implement their policies and they actually worked, their poll ratings would be hugely better. The point is that they can't and they don't.
  • DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.

    What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
    Countries like Japan avoided national lockdowns. We can learn from them: move fast; and invest in public health.
    Countries like Japan & Taiwan don't have thousands of lorries entering every day to deliver the stuff they need. I was on Guernsey for COVID and we got off very lightly because they controlled the border with ruthless efficiency - something much easier to do on a small island, or a big one without a roro delivery system.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,765
    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    My car isn't working because I removed the engine and transmission. In principle my car is an excellent mode of transport.
    This is actually true in my case because the car in question is an E63 M6.
    Well if you’re going to buy such an unreliable turd of a car in the first place…
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    My car isn't working because I removed the engine and transmission. In principle my car is an excellent mode of transport.
    This is actually true in my case because the car in question is an E63 M6.
    In principle excellent and very, very fast. Much like Rwanda in principle.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    We don’t know what the next pandemic will be, but there’s a reasonable likelihood it will be a flu (like Spanish flu, swine flu or Hong Kong flu) or another coronavirus (like COVID-19, SARS and MERS). Taiwan and some other places did well because they learnt from SARS and COVID-19 is closely related to SARS.

    A lot of the lessons around testing and how the testing technology works generalises to other viruses and indeed other pathogens. RNA-based vaccine technology also generalises a fair amount.

    So, I think there’s plenty of learning that may carry forward, around testing, vaccines, NPIs, etc.
    One blind spot seems to be - what if the next ones is truly airborne?

    All the current PPE ideas seem based around non-airborne.

    Reusable PPE systems need to be investigated - there are some that exist already that are component based. Think mask you can attach to hoods/full body suits. Positive pressure (so they leak outwards) from a pump driven air filter.

    Fitting unusual facial geometry can be done by 3D printing the removable rubber seal around the face.

    This is all existing tech - far better than the medley of disposable mask, face shields, bin bag grade gowns that seems to be the current setup - full of gaps.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978

    That's the UN ("that woman" N. Sturgeon) onboard:

    I welcome this decision. In my 2022 letter to the UK Government and subsequent engagements with the Parliament of #Scotland regarding the #GRA Reform Bill, I had stressed that it "would be important to clarify the relationship between the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Equality Act 2010". I also welcome the court's ample consideration of the extent of the potential effects of the proposed reform, from a range of sources, including women's organizations, experts and civil society.

    https://x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1734056224327434494?s=20

    I think that she got at least 2 mentions in the judgment, possibly 3. Her opinions were taken as evidence that the Secretary of State had a reasonable evidential basis for his concerns about the integration of the bill and the Equality Act. it is hardly surprising that she likes the decision.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042

    What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.

    Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.

    Obviously the governments in question will resist.

    Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    Nigelb said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    As a policy, it's a failure on both a practical and a principled basis, IMO.

    Has anyone even looked at the alternative effect of spending an extra £250m on asylum claims processing, for example ?
    Yep, it fails on every measure. Even if it worked it shouldn't.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,876

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    Also worth pointing out that it did nothing to save the hospitality industry. A rapid slide into the abyss during lockdown one, then a brief period of relative calm, followed by a
    slower slide into the abyss during lockdown
    2.
    That’s a little unfair - easy to say with hindsight. At the time the concern was people were nervous of going out / had lost the cultural habit of eating out!and the policy was intended to address that. There was a known risk of more infections but that was deemed an acceptable trade off vs the economic risks of the hospitality sector failing


  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited December 2023
    Taz said:

    It's great to see the luvvies, many of whom who were uncharacteristically silent when the terrorists of Hamas slaughtered some Jews, have found their moral compass again and have come out in favour of more likes and retweets on social media by criticising something vocal social media users do not like

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/national/actors-tv-personalities-and-campaigners-call-for-scrapping-of-rwanda-scheme/ar-AA1lii9F?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=17aa18ee48bf4cd7a529302ba2edc870&ei=16

    I think you've accidentally chewed up a copy of the Daily Mail and spewed it out as your own.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.

    What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
    Countries like Japan avoided national lockdowns. We can learn from them: move fast; and invest in public health.
    Countries like Japan & Taiwan don't have thousands of lorries entering every day to deliver the stuff they need. I was on Guernsey for COVID and we got off very lightly because they controlled the border with ruthless efficiency - something much easier to do on a small island, or a big one without a roro delivery system.
    The modern methodology of the international shipping trade actually helped here.

    Cargo is transported, typically, in containers which take a couple of weeks (minimum) to go from one port to another. With little human intervention.

    So countries like New Zealand could keep on importing and exporting with quite low risks.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978

    What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.

    Running these countries was something we tried in a fairly big way and it didn't prove particularly popular. The chaos of the countries generating refugees is not a result of failures by either us or our government. Let's face it, its becoming increasingly obvious our governments can't even run their own country or countries, let alone anyone else's,
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    No. Much of the opposition is down to the basic point that it is illegal, breaks our international commitments, sullies our reputation with the rest of the world and, most importantly, is grossly unfair on legitimate asylum seekers as it prevents them settling in the UK even when their cases are found to be valid.

    If it were actually working it would be even worse because we would be guilty of abrogating our responsibilities. It is the asylum equivalent of a loan shark sending a couple of heavies round to give a good beating to a defaulting single Mum to 'make an example'.
    Well put. 'Sullies our reputation' sums it up perfectly.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    Me, when my code doesn't work.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,430
    edited December 2023
    If the Rwanda bill gets past then the first flight will include carefully selected individuals. The government will choose those with the least risk of a successful challenge in the courts to try and prove the concept.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    No. Much of the opposition is down to the basic point that it is illegal, breaks our international commitments, sullies our reputation with the rest of the world and, most importantly, is grossly unfair on legitimate asylum seekers as it prevents them settling in the UK even when their cases are found to be valid.

    If it were actually working it would be even worse because we would be guilty of abrogating our responsibilities. It is the asylum equivalent of a loan shark sending a couple of heavies round to give a good beating to a defaulting single Mum to 'make an example'.
    Not a fan of the TV license then?

    We are unlikely to have a grown up conversation on immigration anytime soon. In any country that has significant immigration.

    Because bothering to qualify the cost/benefits of various levels of immigration from various social/economic backgrounds is hard and involves those nasty number things.

    It’s much easier to throw mud at each other.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,876

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    theProle said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't believe him about the WhatsApp messages but don't particularly criticise him for it. The absurd use made of the messages they do have shows the government were right to try and stop the inquiry having these in the first place.

    The big problem for Sunak is that he has always insisted that he followed the scientific advice about EOTHO but the scientists have already given evidence that they knew nothing about it until it was in force. His contention that he was relying on advice is looking like a lie right now. Not sure what he can come up with.

    Quite. I'm sure that with most of these politicians whose WhatsApp messages have disappeared, they have taken steps ensure that their messages don't see the light of day. I don't blame them either - publishing every frustrated message sent between them and their advisors is unlikely to show them in a good light, nor yet is it likely to reveal anything of any great importance to the enquiry.
    The whole enquiry is demonstrating how not to do this sort of thing. One of the the reasons that airplanes and trains are so safe is that when things go wrong, the resultant investigations are conducted deliberately not to assign blame, but to figure out what went wrong, then work out how a similar incident it could be prevented or mitigated next time. This fosters a culture of openness where people will actually admit to making mistakes, and will give accurate accounts of what happened when to the best of their knowledge.
    I am somewhat in despair about the way the Inquiry has been conducted to date. The questions surely should be:

    What worked?
    What didn't?
    What can we do better the next time anything similar comes along?

    Of these 3 questions the third is by far the most important. This absurd focus on who said what about whom is beyond irritating.
    Bearing in mind that it was set up and its terms of reference determined under Boris, that's hardly a surprise.
    A broad brush enquiry into government, such as this, is a long grass exercise masquerading as one of accountability.

    In terms of biosecurity and public health policy, it was always going to be largely a waste of time. And money, and political attention.
    The problem with that approach, as we are seeing, is that it becomes an exercise in hindsight with a random generator of bad headlines for the existing government. Only a bunch of idiots would have set it up this way. When, in a few years time, it comes up with banal conclusions about those who have long since left the stage no one will care (see Iraq). The damage is being done now.
    The criticism of the enquiry largely comes from conservatives unhappy that their "he got all the big decisions right" spin line has been torn apart under questioning. As you point out, the cause of that are the terms of the enquiry, set up by "a bunch of idiots" - the very same politicians you lot still support.

    The reason why we need to tear apart the
    spin is that lies can get solidified into truth.
    "He got all the big calls right" could easily
    have become accepted political reality. Thanks to the enquiry he set up we know
    know the opposite is true. And people will
    vote accordingly.


    Oh year, thats why the right don't like this
    enquiry...
    I haven’t paid too much attention because political tittle tattle bores me.

    But for me the big 3 topics are:

    - The decision to devolve vaccine strategy to a non Civil Service body and lead them to get on with it. That worked
    - An instinctive bias to liberty be state control. Not talking about specific decisions which could be argued but mindset. Starmer was always “harder, longer, stricter” which worries me
    - A tendency by the civil service to gold plate rules in ridiculous detail and a pettifogging desire by police and others to enforce control. That’s worrying
    - Use of WhatsApp to prevent government records being kept. Problematic - but given the way the inquiry has resulted in political games being played out perhaps understandable (if not forgoveable)
    - Boris was a chaotic disorganised jerk who thought rules didn’t apply to him. That was priced in anyway and ultimately cost him his job

    So yes, the biggest call of all and the mindset were both right

  • DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    Also worth pointing out that it did nothing to save the hospitality industry. A rapid slide into the abyss during lockdown one, then a brief period of relative calm, followed by a
    slower slide into the abyss during lockdown
    2.
    That’s a little unfair - easy to say with hindsight. At the time the concern was people were nervous of going out / had lost the cultural habit of eating out!and the policy was intended to address that. There was a known risk of more infections but that was deemed an acceptable trade off vs the economic risks of the hospitality sector failing


    An acceptable risk - by whom? Not by the scientists. Rishi has been caught in a lie that they "followed the science". Nope. My point is that EOTHO injected some cash and life back into hospitality. Which then needed a lot more cash thanks to the winter that followed. A winter made worse by EOTHO. As the scientists were modelling.

    Sunak got so many things right during Covid - a bazooka of cash to keep businesses alive. EOTHO was hubris.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978

    Nigelb said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    As a policy, it's a failure on both a practical and a principled basis, IMO.

    Has anyone even looked at the alternative effect of spending an extra £250m on asylum claims processing, for example ?
    Yes, the sense that it's performative politics, not actually something that anyone thinks will work, is pervasive. Cutting the number waiting for a decision would be a far better use of money.
    Extraditing and returning a few thousand that have had their decision and not left would be an even better one.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455

    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    No. Much of the opposition is down to the basic point that it is illegal, breaks our international commitments, sullies our reputation with the rest of the world and, most importantly, is grossly unfair on legitimate asylum seekers as it prevents them settling in the UK even when their cases are found to be valid.

    If it were actually working it would be even worse because we would be guilty of abrogating our responsibilities. It is the asylum equivalent of a loan shark sending a couple of heavies round to give a good beating to a defaulting single Mum to 'make an example'.
    Everyone is right. If a Rwanda style policy had been in place for ages and therefore we received no asylum seekers landing except by prior agreement it would not be a huge issue. This does not make it right.

    However, the liberal western world is not rushing to suggest, for example, that it would be a great and peace making idea to open the gates to all and every resident of Gaza, every single one of whom without exception would be fleeing war.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865

    What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.

    Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.

    Obviously the governments in question will resist.

    Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
    That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042

    What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.

    Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.

    Obviously the governments in question will resist.

    Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
    That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
    After our latest imperial project there failed.

    We should have done Butcher & Bolt.
  • Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    Ha, that reminds of the brilliant TTOI Inquiry episodes, specifically Peter Mannion’s quote: “Well, he was only homeless in the sense that he had no home.”
    My point is that much of the opposition is down to the fact it isn't working and is embarrassment and not a objection to it in principle, as many tend to assume it must be.
    No. Much of the opposition is down to the basic point that it is illegal, breaks our international commitments, sullies our reputation with the rest of the world and, most importantly, is grossly unfair on legitimate asylum seekers as it prevents them settling in the UK even when their cases are found to be valid.

    If it were actually working it would be even worse because we would be guilty of abrogating our responsibilities. It is the asylum equivalent of a loan shark sending a couple of heavies round to give a good beating to a defaulting single Mum to 'make an example'.
    Not a fan of the TV license then?

    We are unlikely to have a grown up conversation on immigration anytime soon. In any country that has significant immigration.

    Because bothering to qualify the cost/benefits of various levels of immigration from various social/economic backgrounds is hard and involves those nasty number things.

    It’s much easier to throw mud at each other.
    No I am not a fan of the TV licence. And indeed one of my arguments against criminalising people over it - now long accepted by those in power - is that it disproportionately affected those least able to actually do anything about it.

    And given that the vast majority of immigration is completely under the control of the Government and that they have previously actively chosen (rightly in my opinion) to prioritise keeping the economy and services running over shutting the doors to migration, this idiotic policy on 'stopping the boats' is simply a performance by Sunak to pander to a small, ignorant, section of society (and a far larger but equally ignorant section of his own party).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    It's a largely irrelevant question, as far as Sunak's scheme was concerned.

    Any future pandemic will be courtesy of a different virus, likely with completely different epidemiological characteristics.
    And the interventions available to us - for example testing and vaccines - will also be of a completely different order to what was available even a couple of years ago.

    The more interesting question is what day 1 measures could we be in a position in future to take in order to limit (and if possible halt) spread of virus, without destroying the economy in the process ?

    Having such a plan was what made Taiwan such a notable success in dealing with Covid.

    Beyond already having capacity in place, plans for dealing with pandemics once they have taken hold are necessarily ad hoc, I suspect.
    I agree that we are much more likely to have a vaccine much faster the next time with the scientific advances made during this one, specifically the computer modelling. It is also obviously the case that any new virus will have its own characteristics.

    What I think is important is that we recognise that complete and total shutdown is simply not economically viable for anything other than the shortest of periods and that we need to focus as much on what we can do safely as what we can't.
    Though the faster a vaccine can be got into arms from a standing start, the more viable a shutdown in the meantime becomes. In the early days, Swedish theory was that we needed measures that could be sustained for several years because a vaccine could take that long.

    But the central irony remains. The UK government were desperate to avoid lockdowns and return to normality. (See also EOTHO, which wouldn't have been a bad idea once the pandemic was actually over.) In doing so, in trying to run the pandemic warm, if not hot, they ended up in a situation where they had to lockdown- and the winter 2021 lockdown was longer and grimmer than in many other countries, despite our vaccine advantage.

    Stitches in time saving nine is not a new insight.
    The other factor, of course, is how long you can delay the onset of the pandemic in your country (see Taiwan).
    In both cases, actions taken in preparation before any new pandemic are at least an order of magnitude (probably a couple of orders) more important than anything government does once it's started.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.

    Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.

    Obviously the governments in question will resist.

    Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
    That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
    After our latest imperial project there failed.

    We should have done Butcher & Bolt.
    It wasn't an imperial project, we were there to remove Bin Laden and then should have got out
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,075

    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This wretched Rwanda plan will sink Sunak
    The prime minister has bet his political future on legislation that is not only unworkable but dreadful in principle

    It is already clear that, after David Cameron and Theresa May, Sunak will go down as yet another Conservative casualty of Brexit. Desperate for something to unite a political coalition that had only Brexit in common, he has cleaved to a terrible policy he cannot enact and which has besmirched the one thing he had going for him — the claim that he was better, more constitutionally proper and less reckless than the two prime ministers who had preceded him.

    Shredding what is left of his reputation as he goes, all that is left for a sunk Rishi now is an election defeat and safe passage to California.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-wretched-rwanda-plan-will-sink-sunak-nh9djh2js

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.
    “It’s terrible only because it isn’t working”

    I don’t know where to start with that absolute pearl of an observation.
    Why don't you try us?

    For you it's terrible because of what it is. If planes were taking off and deporting people there, and it was having a notable impact on boat crossings as a result, this sort of polling would start to melt away.

    I imagine your fury would then be directed against the narrow mindedness of a majority of the British public.
    No. I think it’s terrible because it doesn’t work. Like I’d find a car terrible if it didn’t work, as a member of the British public I am far more in tune with them than your elitist abject failure of a party. I’m never angry at the British public, of which I am a member.

    Do you think we should have a one-minute silence now in this exchange, one for you to apologise for daring to suggest that you know how I think, and second perhaps in memory of your party and it’s policies?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richardr said:

    I'm marginally sceptical on this polling - does that proportion of the voting population really know about his missing WhatsApp messages?

    Marginally skeptical would be a huge understatement. The average Joe has absolutely no idea and believes what the media pump out and more to the point the shite on twitter and the BBC .
    When Da youfff of the Country think Hitler was a good guy... its not difficult to be skeptical.
    Its more about the perception even if its wrong.
    That misses the point, which is that asked any random question about Sunak, a large majority would appear to pick the answer which does him least credit.
    Yes, I think that right. We see it with polling on almost any question. People have decided on Sunak.

    Worth noting that approval of the government itself is even worse than Sunak as PM.
    Yes, with the possible exception of Mordaunt every alternative Tory leader would poll worse than Rishi which is why he likely stays until the general election
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,876
    edited December 2023

    DavidL said:

    So, applying my 3 questions, did EOTHO work or not?

    There is no doubt that the Chancellor was right to be concerned about the financial impact of Covid. The level of support required to maintain hundreds of thousands of businesses not allowed to trade was immense. It made sense to have such a scheme to encourage at least limited trading.

    But the scheme was not road tested in terms of its potential impact in spreading Covid. Whilst it is not hard to see the reasons for the scheme that would surely be in the do not repeat pile.

    So, in a future pandemic, we need to recognise that we will need to do what we can to keep things going as much as possible but these kind of ideas need to be integrated into the overall plan for handling and modelling the pandemic and not separate from it.

    I'll send my bill to the Inquiry.

    Also worth pointing out that it did nothing to save the hospitality industry. A rapid slide into the abyss during lockdown one, then a brief period of relative calm, followed by a
    slower slide into the abyss during lockdown
    2.
    That’s a little unfair - easy to say with hindsight. At the time the concern was people were nervous of going out / had lost the cultural habit of eating out!and the policy was intended to address that. There was a known risk of more infections but that was deemed an acceptable trade off vs the economic risks of the hospitality sector failing


    An acceptable risk - by whom? Not by the scientists. Rishi has been caught in a lie that they "followed the science". Nope. My point is that EOTHO injected some cash and life back into hospitality. Which then needed a lot more cash thanks to the winter that followed. A winter made worse by EOTHO. As the scientists were modelling.


    Sunak got so many things right during Covid - a bazooka of cash to keep businesses alive. EOTHO was hubris.
    It’s not the scientists job to judge the risk of infection vs the risk of economic damage. That’s the job of the Chancellor and the Cabinet.

    I’m sure the scientists were modelling all sorts of scenarios. And I suspect their denial is very narrow “we weren’t told about this specific scheme” rather than “we had no discussions about schemes to increase the number of customers in the hospitality sector”.

    If it is the latter then that is a massive failing of the scientists, the civil servants, the politicians and everyone involved in scenario planning and modelling. I doubt that is the case.

    They are pointing fingers and dodging the blame. Very effectively judging by your response.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    edited December 2023
    HYUFD said:

    What upsets me……understatement of the day ….. over the boats policy is that many of those trying to come are in fact entitled to come and have been failed by us/our government back in their home countries.

    Yes, what we need to do is fix the countries in question.

    Obviously the governments in question will resist.

    Tell you what, you can start assembling the troops, I’ll open another wing at the British Museum. Deal?
    That, I feel, is a bit unfair. We left, for example, Afghanistan, knowing that there were people there who had worked for us and who, with their families, would be in mortal danger under the new Government. Some of those people have now made their way to the French coast and, in the absence of alternative, are relying on smugglers to get them across the Channel.
    After our latest imperial project there failed.

    We should have done Butcher & Bolt.
    It wasn't an imperial project, we were there to remove Bin Laden and then should have got out
    Getting involved In Afghanistan has traditionally been a BAD IDEA for Britain. At least since about 1840!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Scott_xP said:

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.

    Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.

    But you are right, fewer people would care.
    In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.

    Also, more European countries would emulate it.
    Do you have any evidence that the idea is well supported outside a Tory/UKIP rump of extreme right wingers and racists?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,953
    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It's terrible only because it isn't working.

    If it was in force, and effective, then 60%+ of the populace would be supportive of it with only a small voluble liberal minority crying murder about it.

    Even if it worked (it won't, it doesn't, it can't) it would still be terrible.

    But you are right, fewer people would care.
    In your eyes, yes, just as some don't like Australia's approach. But, it would become established and generally accepted.

    Also, more European countries would emulate it.
    Do you have any evidence that the idea is well supported outside a Tory/UKIP rump of extreme right wingers and racists?
    More support it (48%) than oppose (35%):

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/14/30390/2
  • Foxy said:

    I wonder what the odds are on a proper meltdown? Or a quote that writes everyone else's election campaign for them?

    Starmer asks him difficult questions for about five minutes, the enquiry is going to be asking difficult questions for two whole days.

    At PMQs he never answers the question, but that tactic won't wash at the enquiry.

    Tony Blair shows how to answer a tricky PMQ. The comments suggest how Rishi would bluster.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbWpjGuNmTY
This discussion has been closed.