Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Nice try, but your defence runs out of steam as you go. What I don’t like is the way they hide behind scientists, ready to hang them out to dry if things don’t go well.
The buck stops with the ministers, not the advisers.
They are standing together with the scientists as far as I can see, very little differences if any between CMO, CSO and govt. I applaud that, much prefer it to jumping at the orders, delusions and whims of Piers Morgan et al.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
I see the civil servant who made the 'political decision' comment about the EU procurement scheme has admitted he was wrong - so to paraphrase Meeks comment yesterday was lying.
Yes. He absolutely decided to write a letter. He personally wrote every word and was happy to send it. He was delighted to be given the opportunity entirely unprompted to say that when he said that he could see Boris Johnson's cock, due to a misunderstanding he meant to say that he could see the Prime Minister's fine suit and what a suit it is.
All his own work.
Must admit the Sir Humphrey letter feels a bit weird to me.
The wording looks carefully drafted to ensure that it is formally true. Which means that a few well chosen questions should elicit more of the full picture.
The alternative is that a senior civil servant should have gone to a select committee, for which he no doubt prepared thoroughly, and then held forth on a subject about which he knew nothing. That seems improbable.
If you watch the video clip, he was clearly choosing his words carefully there and he wasn't looking to be indiscreet - the opposite, he looks as though he could say an awful lot more.
David Allen Green on Twitter tears the letter apart structurally and describes it as an "I've been kidnapped note". For a Senior Civil Servant to say the direct opposite of reality at a select committee beggars belief. for him to quickly issue a rebuttal so bizarrely worded is doubly so.
He went to the committee. He told the truth. The government has gone postal. A "did I say black? I meant white" letter has been thrown together - by SPADS not the author - which he has been forced to sign on pain of his career.
And its such an awful job that its blatantly obvious he's been nobbled - which enables the truth of his statements to the select committee to be amplified far more than then were. Well done Boris!
Really, someone has torn a letter apart structually???
What a shame he could not divert his energies to helping vunerable people rather than tearing a letter apart structually. Does he not realise how ridiculous that sounds with what is going on in the world?
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
The root of the government’s failings was hubris. Having won what Johnson described as a “stonking” victory in last December’s general election, the government’s focus was on extracting the UK from the European Union as fast as possible. But even as it celebrated our formal departure with parties and light shows on 31 January, the first coronavirus cases were being confirmed on these shores.
On 13 February, Johnson conducted a ministerial reshuffle that completed the purge of experienced “grown-ups” from the government and backbenches that began at the end of the last parliament. He instead awarded top jobs to relative mediocrities whose top qualifications were their loyalty to the Prime Minister and commitment to Brexit. In Johnson’s absence, the likes of Dominic Raab, Matthew Hancock and Priti Patel have found themselves running the country.
Johnson then departed on a 12-day “working holiday” with Carrie Symonds at Chevening, his grace and favour mansion, notwithstanding the fact they had spent ten days in Mustique together over New Year. His chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, was meanwhile pursuing his destructive vendettas against the civil service, the BBC, the judiciary and the establishment in general.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
The first line is interesting. Of the complainers are there any who are confident enough to say they would have done a better job personally and would have wanted the burden of such responsibility.
I accept it is perhaps an unfair question, but equally many ministers would not have expected to face this kind of challenge either.
My prediction is that we'll soon enough see a number of big press names go to the wall. They're all chasing diminishing returns, they're all seeing the success of being a c*nt, and its clearer and clearer that that doesn't necessarily sell papers. One high profile collapse and others will follow.
I am not sure it will fix the underlying problems though.
ArsTechnica shows that you can construct an aggregation of knowledgable people who are allowed to write interesting but accurate information and make it successful financially.
Note that they are ridiculed as "not a proper new site" by traditional journalists.
Also look at www.theregister.co.uk and www.nasaspaceflight.com
We’re on the curve shown by the ONS dates of death as registered by 1 May or so. PHE curve doesn’t show deaths outside of hospitals. ONS 27 Mar curve doesn’t show prior deaths not registered until after that date. ONS 1 Apr curve doesn’t show prior deaths not registered until after that date. (Note the difference that four days makes in improvement of ONS stats. The further back you go, the less they will continue to climb with deaths counted later). By 1 May or so, I’d count the ONS data for the period shown as fairly solid. But prior to then - well, you’ll obviously always get a drop off in your most recent few days. Not because of deaths subsiding, but reporting latency.
Need to give time for the data to come in, unfortunately, although we always want it immediately.
Of course the media is getting more critical as time goes on and more things happen which means more opportunities for either mistakes or for perfection to not be reached.
The opposition and the public will also get more critical I have no doubt, though not necessarily at the same rate.
Avoiding criticism would not be a realistic goal. Handling it, and having successes to counter criticism, would be. The government has some, but clearly is more vulnerable on some issues.
But governments usually get unpopular. At some point this one will be. Corbyn really messed up the expectations on governments long into office.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
Well the French (unlike the UK who were equally careful & cautious in 1939-40) didn't have the advantage of several billion cubic tons of water between them and a rampant enemy.
I'd say Britain under Churchill managed not to lose the war until the Reds and the Yanks were in a position to win it might be a more accurate description.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
Surely the key distinction, regardless of any other differences, was the English Channel.
My prediction is that we'll soon enough see a number of big press names go to the wall. They're all chasing diminishing returns, they're all seeing the success of being a c*nt, and its clearer and clearer that that doesn't necessarily sell papers. One high profile collapse and others will follow.
I am not sure it will fix the underlying problems though.
The local papers are really struggling - I actually suspect it would be almost better to take a break.
I see the civil servant who made the 'political decision' comment about the EU procurement scheme has admitted he was wrong - so to paraphrase Meeks comment yesterday was lying.
Yes. He absolutely decided to write a letter. He personally wrote every word and was happy to send it. He was delighted to be given the opportunity entirely unprompted to say that when he said that he could see Boris Johnson's cock, due to a misunderstanding he meant to say that he could see the Prime Minister's fine suit and what a suit it is.
All his own work.
Must admit the Sir Humphrey letter feels a bit weird to me.
The wording looks carefully drafted to ensure that it is formally true. Which means that a few well chosen questions should elicit more of the full picture.
The alternative is that a senior civil servant should have gone to a select committee, for which he no doubt prepared thoroughly, and then held forth on a subject about which he knew nothing. That seems improbable.
If you watch the video clip, he was clearly choosing his words carefully there and he wasn't looking to be indiscreet - the opposite, he looks as though he could say an awful lot more.
David Allen Green on Twitter tears the letter apart structurally and describes it as an "I've been kidnapped note". For a Senior Civil Servant to say the direct opposite of reality at a select committee beggars belief. for him to quickly issue a rebuttal so bizarrely worded is doubly so.
He went to the committee. He told the truth. The government has gone postal. A "did I say black? I meant white" letter has been thrown together - by SPADS not the author - which he has been forced to sign on pain of his career.
And its such an awful job that its blatantly obvious he's been nobbled - which enables the truth of his statements to the select committee to be amplified far more than then were. Well done Boris!
The description of the letter is a bit overblown. All you say may be true but ive seen much worse constructed 'clarification' statements.
We haven't poked the Brexit hornets nest for a while, have we?
Ok, I will. There's an increasingly detectable division in Leaver ranks on Coronavirus. It's coming out through press, twitter and even on here.
On the one hand, you have the libertarian Leavers (Dan Hannan, Alison Pearson, Toby Young and Steve Baker) who are arguing for a loosening and lifting of the lockdown as soon as possible.
On the other, you have hitherto staunch Leavers walking lockstep hand in hand with them (mostly older and more vulnerable with health issues) now starting to throw stones at them the other way - wanting the lockdown to continue as long as possible.
I haven't detected too many divisions on the Remainer side. Except some want to make a thing out of the EU ventilator procurement scheme and a few irreconcilables want to attack Boris and his Government and undermine it as much as possible.
To an extent, that division was always there on the Leaver side; there were those who wanted Brexit in order that the UK could globalise and liberalise a lot more, and those who wanted the UK to globalise and liberalise a lot less. That divsion probably maps pretty well onto the anti- / pro- lockdown divide. It's not obvious how that plays out Brexitwise from here.
I see the civil servant who made the 'political decision' comment about the EU procurement scheme has admitted he was wrong - so to paraphrase Meeks comment yesterday was lying.
Yes. He absolutely decided to write a letter. He personally wrote every word and was happy to send it. He was delighted to be given the opportunity entirely unprompted to say that when he said that he could see Boris Johnson's cock, due to a misunderstanding he meant to say that he could see the Prime Minister's fine suit and what a suit it is.
All his own work.
Must admit the Sir Humphrey letter feels a bit weird to me.
The wording looks carefully drafted to ensure that it is formally true. Which means that a few well chosen questions should elicit more of the full picture.
The alternative is that a senior civil servant should have gone to a select committee, for which he no doubt prepared thoroughly, and then held forth on a subject about which he knew nothing. That seems improbable.
If you watch the video clip, he was clearly choosing his words carefully there and he wasn't looking to be indiscreet - the opposite, he looks as though he could say an awful lot more.
David Allen Green on Twitter tears the letter apart structurally and describes it as an "I've been kidnapped note". For a Senior Civil Servant to say the direct opposite of reality at a select committee beggars belief. for him to quickly issue a rebuttal so bizarrely worded is doubly so.
He went to the committee. He told the truth. The government has gone postal. A "did I say black? I meant white" letter has been thrown together - by SPADS not the author - which he has been forced to sign on pain of his career.
And its such an awful job that its blatantly obvious he's been nobbled - which enables the truth of his statements to the select committee to be amplified far more than then were. Well done Boris!
A Facebook line that I've been watching keeps referring to the late Dr David Kelly. Remember him?
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Yet, still, independence is the only way the SNP can mask their disasters when asked about them.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
I didn’t, but Oasis are a really good example.
Still, one better than Tracy Chapman, who had one great album, then the well ran dry.
But that first album was magnificent. Most of it is still on my play list to this day.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
Surely the key distinction, regardless of any other differences, was the English Channel.
Yes, that argument can be made.
A vital difference, was the attitude in the UK system vs the French system.
The French concept of warfare was based on using fixed defences (massively built) to pin the enemy and then punch him when he staggered back. The problem was the Germans (unsportingly) changed the game. The French C&C system had a loop of 12-24 hours. The Germans were looping in minutes, in some cases. The French system showed no interest in adapting - when asked why new fighters were on the ground, the commander explained that he was waiting for the guns to be delivered. And he waited and waited.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
In the UK, defences were improvised on the basis of stop lines and strong points - individually rated to hold the enemy for a certain period of time and create a level of casualties. Defense in depth.
In addition, there was an attitude on intelligent improvisation. For example - an anti-aircraft commander for (forget which city) stated that his command had already setup to use his heavy stuff for anti-tank work, and also to use as long range group artillery. Firezones and radio callsigns ready to be distributed.... all without even being asked.
In short, the French had a plan - it didn't work. They lost.
The UK had a plan. Parts didn't work. They changed it. Stuff didn't work. They changed it.....
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
I am not sure that is true. Mindful of the mass casualties of the first war, the approach to the second one was much more cautious.
While there were individual bold acts at tactical level, by and large the British military succeeded by meticulous planning and logistics, carefully husbanding personnel and resources. The Battle of Britain, El Alamein and D Day spring to mind (though errors were made in all of these). The bolder operations were less successful, The Norway Campaign or Arnhem for example.
Britain did not produce a successful general of the boldness of Guderian, Rommel or Patton*. That is not to disparage our generals, nor to minimise the importance of meticulous staff planning.
*It is possible to argue the case for Slim, who had the advantage of being left in post despite initial unsuccessful campaigns.
A bubble story about not joining a scheme that hasn’t delivered anything anyway..
Newspapers struggling...
Hardy needs Poirot does it ?
If the scheme was producing vast loads of PPE for Italy and Spain then I could understand the "Scandal". Its very hard to understand how people don't see the stupidity of their accusations of failure against the Government for not joining a scheme which has so far manifestly failed.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
The rest of the world is looking at us with envious eyes. "If only we were in Britain," everyone is thinking.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
Without oil, how does Scotland support it's budget deficit?
Hint, without a fiat currency you can't just print money nor can you borrow money from a central bank that later burns the IOU.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
As noneoftheabove points out above, "the key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function". Recall that this was given as the reason - a very good one - for the lockdown policy. Have you noticed how this has been changed by many, who see that the NHS hasn`t fallen over, into "minimising the infections even though the NHS is nowhere near capacity".
Containment won`t work, this is endemic, the virus will still be present when we get out of lockdown, we need to maximise herd immunity whilst getting our economy back up-and-running. We have to live with this virus at some point.
We haven't poked the Brexit hornets nest for a while, have we?
Ok, I will. There's an increasingly detectable division in Leaver ranks on Coronavirus. It's coming out through press, twitter and even on here.
On the one hand, you have the libertarian Leavers (Dan Hannan, Alison Pearson, Toby Young and Steve Baker) who are arguing for a loosening and lifting of the lockdown as soon as possible.
On the other, you have hitherto staunch Leavers walking lockstep hand in hand with them (mostly older and more vulnerable with health issues) now starting to throw stones at them the other way - wanting the lockdown to continue as long as possible.
I haven't detected too many divisions on the Remainer side. Except some want to make a thing out of the EU ventilator procurement scheme and a few irreconcilables want to attack Boris and his Government and undermine it as much as possible.
To an extent, that division was always there on the Leaver side; there were those who wanted Brexit in order that the UK could globalise and liberalise a lot more, and those who wanted the UK to globalise and liberalise a lot less. That divsion probably maps pretty well onto the anti- / pro- lockdown divide. It's not obvious how that plays out Brexitwise from here.
The pro lockdown Leavers also have both the age related risk and the security of retirement pensions to influence their decisions.
The Sinophile Leavers wanting free trade agreements with China and other Asian economies seem to have gone quiet. Those talking of not needing domestic agriculture or manufacturing too.
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
I am not sure that is true. Mindful of the mass casualties of the first war, the approach to the second one was much more cautious.
While there were individual bold acts at tactical level, by and large the British military succeeded by meticulous planning and logistics, carefully husbanding personnel and resources. The Battle of Britain, El Alamein and D Day spring to mind (though errors were made in all of these). The bolder operations were less successful, The Norway Campaign or Arnhem for example.
Britain did not produce a successful general of the boldness of Guderian, Rommel or Patton*. That is not to disparage our generals, nor to minimise the importance of meticulous staff planning.
*It is possible to argue the case for Slim, who had the advantage of being left in post despite initial unsuccessful campaigns.
If you add The French campaign, the Far East, the Eastern Med comedies, Arnhem etc together you get the impression that the UK spent the whole war screwing up. Then rescuing things with caution.
It was more that the failures were survivable and pinched off before they could do real harm.
Rommel was a genius - when he had near-perfect intelligence on what the British forces were up to. When the shoe was on the other foot, his insane attitude to logistics caught up with him.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
The rest of the world is looking at us with envious eyes. "If only we were in Britain," everyone is thinking.
There is a place between utter failure and envy of the world. Clearly things have not gone perfectly, but even failures must be seen in context. In some cases the context might make us look worse, others better, or merely provide explanation for failure.
We haven't poked the Brexit hornets nest for a while, have we?
Ok, I will. There's an increasingly detectable division in Leaver ranks on Coronavirus. It's coming out through press, twitter and even on here.
On the one hand, you have the libertarian Leavers (Dan Hannan, Alison Pearson, Toby Young and Steve Baker) who are arguing for a loosening and lifting of the lockdown as soon as possible.
On the other, you have hitherto staunch Leavers walking lockstep hand in hand with them (mostly older and more vulnerable with health issues) now starting to throw stones at them the other way - wanting the lockdown to continue as long as possible.
I haven't detected too many divisions on the Remainer side. Except some want to make a thing out of the EU ventilator procurement scheme and a few irreconcilables want to attack Boris and his Government and undermine it as much as possible.
The Leave coalition, being the one in the ascendancy, is the one vulnerable to bad news The Remainers to good news, or a steady as you go plodding along nowt happening normalcy. We've plenty bad news. No surprise it's beginning to fissure.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
Things that the government has done well: Increasing the capacity of the NHS to beyond what has so far been required. The furlough job scheme. Grants for restaurants/cafes/pubs. Creating a genuine "we're all in this together" mindset. Bringing online the Nightengale extra capacity.
Things the government has done badly Very slow out of the blocks in appreciating the seriousness of the situation Having a consistent or credible story on testing. Not stopping free movement by air. Seriously underperforming in phase 1 through lack of resources, urgency etc. Not changing the advice re infectivity when new information came to hand allowing those still infected to go to places with vulnerable people, specifically care homes.
Things that are ok but no better The production and distribution of PPE The clarity of the messaging. The loan scheme for businesses which needs to be boosted to 100% to overcome the hurdles.
Overall, I would still say that they have been tested and not found completely wanting but this is seriously hard, harder than anything a government has had to cope with since WW2.
I haven't detected too many divisions on the Remainer side. Except some want to make a thing out of the EU ventilator procurement scheme and a few irreconcilables want to attack Boris and his Government and undermine it as much as possible.
Tony Blair seems to want to get things moving asap?
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
The root of the government’s failings was hubris. Having won what Johnson described as a “stonking” victory in last December’s general election, the government’s focus was on extracting the UK from the European Union as fast as possible. But even as it celebrated our formal departure with parties and light shows on 31 January, the first coronavirus cases were being confirmed on these shores.
On 13 February, Johnson conducted a ministerial reshuffle that completed the purge of experienced “grown-ups” from the government and backbenches that began at the end of the last parliament. He instead awarded top jobs to relative mediocrities whose top qualifications were their loyalty to the Prime Minister and commitment to Brexit. In Johnson’s absence, the likes of Dominic Raab, Matthew Hancock and Priti Patel have found themselves running the country.
Johnson then departed on a 12-day “working holiday” with Carrie Symonds at Chevening, his grace and favour mansion, notwithstanding the fact they had spent ten days in Mustique together over New Year. His chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, was meanwhile pursuing his destructive vendettas against the civil service, the BBC, the judiciary and the establishment in general.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
The rest of the world is looking at us with envious eyes. "If only we were in Britain," everyone is thinking.
If countries had personalities the UK would be quite narcissistic. The rest of the world is thinking, how do we deal with coronavirus in their own countries, not wondering whether the UK should have gone into lockdown on 17 March or 20 March, or exactly how much PPE we have here.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
As noneoftheabove points out above, "the key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function". Recall that this was given as the reason - a very good one - for the lockdown policy. Have you noticed how this has been changed by many, who see that the NHS hasn`t fallen over, into "minimising the infections even though the NHS is nowhere near capacity".
Containment won`t work, this is endemic, the virus will still be present when we get out of lockdown, we need to maximise herd immunity whilst getting our economy back up-and-running. We have to live with this virus at some point.
Things that the government has done well: Increasing the capacity of the NHS to beyond what has so far been required. The furlough job scheme. Grants for restaurants/cafes/pubs. Creating a genuine "we're all in this together" mindset. Bringing online the Nightengale extra capacity.
Things the government has done badly Very slow out of the blocks in appreciating the seriousness of the situation Having a consistent or credible story on testing. Not stopping free movement by air. Seriously underperforming in phase 1 through lack of resources, urgency etc. Not changing the advice re infectivity when new information came to hand allowing those still infected to go to places with vulnerable people, specifically care homes.
Things that are ok but no better The production and distribution of PPE The clarity of the messaging. The loan scheme for businesses which needs to be boosted to 100% to overcome the hurdles.
Overall, I would still say that they have been tested and not found completely wanting but this is seriously hard, harder than anything a government has had to cope with since WW2.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
Without oil, how does Scotland support it's budget deficit?
Hint, without a fiat currency you can't just print money nor can you borrow money from a central bank that later burns the IOU.
Eek, the Nats just say that an indy Scotland will continue to use the pound. Small details like those you mention will be glossed over. Makes you despair TBH.
I'm pleased hes doing it though Johnson is away. The PM being away for any reason doesnt diminish the LoTO if they ask questions of a deputy. Good man.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
The government’s main problem is that most of its members are just not up to the job. Sunak may be - we’ll see how he handles the sftermath of the crisis - but as hard as they sre undoubtedly trying most others aren’t. You would not put people like Hancock, Raab, Williamson or Patel anywhere near a crisis like this if you didn’t have to, or a PM like Johnson for that matter. I have no doubt thry are doing the best they can and working incredibly hard, but they are not first-rate operators. That, though, is the nature of democratic politics. You have to get very lucky to have the right people in thecright olace at the right time when a crisis like this breaks.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that in 1939 the War Cabinet consisted of these luminaries:
Neville Chamberlain – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare – Lord Privy Seal (previously Sacked over the Hoare-Laval pact) Sir John Simon – Chancellor of the Exchequer (a former Liberal described by his own friends as a corrupt, dishonest and treacherous slimeball) Lord Halifax – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Leslie Hore-Belisha – Secretary of State for War (spent most of his time trying to get all his top generals sacked) Sir Kingsley Wood – Secretary of State for Air (opposed to the idea of bombing Germany’s industrial centres, although ironically he was arguably right about that) Winston Churchill – First Lord of the Admiralty (unstable and racist adventurer who had just happened to be right about Hitler) Lord Chatfield – Minister for Coordination of Defence (former admiral who believed the key weapon of war was the battleship, supported by cruisers) Lord Hankey – Minister without Portfolio (former Civil Servant who had advised Lloyd George).
What a bunch of luminaries, eh?
To be fair, between 1939 and the summer of 1940, things did not go well and many errors were made. Things only got better after the opposition parties were incorporated. Even then mistakes were made, notably the diasastrous Malaysian campaign, Greek and Crete battles, Dieppe raid etc.
1939-40 wasn't even the end of the beginning of the mistakes.
It could be said that Britain under Churchill was somewhat reckless and made many mistakes, but won the war.
The French carefully, cautiously and quite definitely lost the war in months.
I am not sure that is true. Mindful of the mass casualties of the first war, the approach to the second one was much more cautious.
While there were individual bold acts at tactical level, by and large the British military succeeded by meticulous planning and logistics, carefully husbanding personnel and resources. The Battle of Britain, El Alamein and D Day spring to mind (though errors were made in all of these). The bolder operations were less successful, The Norway Campaign or Arnhem for example.
Britain did not produce a successful general of the boldness of Guderian, Rommel or Patton*. That is not to disparage our generals, nor to minimise the importance of meticulous staff planning.
*It is possible to argue the case for Slim, who had the advantage of being left in post despite initial unsuccessful campaigns.
If you add The French campaign, the Far East, the Eastern Med comedies, Arnhem etc together you get the impression that the UK spent the whole war screwing up. Then rescuing things with caution.
It was more that the failures were survivable and pinched off before they could do real harm.
Rommel was a genius - when he had near-perfect intelligence on what the British forces were up to. When the shoe was on the other foot, his insane attitude to logistics caught up with him.
The notable exception was the boldness off the hoof of Dunkirk, but that was very much the outlier.
A national strength at quiet, competent, detailed planning and administration is nothing to be ashamed of.
Our bureaucracy certainly makes errors, that is human, but the equivalent in many other countries has me reaching for the smelling salts.
In short, the French had a plan - it didn't work. They lost.
The UK had a plan. Parts didn't work. They changed it. Stuff didn't work. They changed it.....
Let me guess; the BBC and the Guardian liked the French response better?
It stayed static long enough that they finally understood it.
There was a surprising amount (to modern believers in the myth of the war) of "Doesn't Churchill realise he's lost?" stuff written. And not just from the right.
The pro-Soviet lot permanently damaged themselves in UK politics with their following the Stalinist line - anti-war and anti-UK until 1941, then suddenly....
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
The rest of the world is looking at us with envious eyes. "If only we were in Britain," everyone is thinking.
Im sure Americans who have just been made unemployed are looking at our Furlough scheme with envious eyes.
And yes the rest of world will be looking at the NHS and wishing their health systems were coping as well
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
I'm pleased hes doing it though Johnson is away. The PM being away for any reason doesnt diminish the LoTO if they ask questions of a deputy. Good man.
We certainly needed him to draw a line under the awful Corbyn era asap. This is one of the best chances to start that process.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
Roxy Music's third album, "Stranded", is just great. The prospects were not good. Brian Eno, who contributed the cutting-edge electronica, had left after a fall-out with Bryan Ferry. But Ferry pulled out the song-writing stops ("Mother of Pearl", "A Song for Europe") and even Eno, rather graciously, was moved to say it was their best album yet.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
I'm pleased hes doing it though Johnson is away. The PM being away for any reason doesnt diminish the LoTO if they ask questions of a deputy. Good man.
Its very important to him that he is seen to be in charge. He has got a lot less attention than a new LOTO would normally get and the anti-Semitism report hardly helped. He needs profile and he is absolutely right to do this.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
Without oil, how does Scotland support it's budget deficit?
Hint, without a fiat currency you can't just print money nor can you borrow money from a central bank that later burns the IOU.
Eek, the Nats just say that an indy Scotland will continue to use the pound. Small details like those you mention will be glossed over. Makes you despair TBH.
Not really, if independence occurs I will sit south of the border with the popcorn out watching in fascination as another experiment in stupidity occurs.
It is easy to criticise, much more difficult to engage in constructive criticism
This pandemic is like no other crisis since WW11 and so many different views are inevitable and of course there are political agendas
I accept HMG have made mistakes, some based on science that may prove to be wrong, but others have been self inflicted most notably Hancock promising 100,000 tests and of course the stupid announcement about the Turkey shipment , when it had not even arrived. I also have great sympathy with Nigel over the absurd decision to relocate covid hospital patients to care homes without testing or quarantine
It is easy to attack Boris, Raab and Hancock as per Scott (who is on automatic when tweeting anti posts because he is enraged over Brexit) and others, but they are only doing as well as most any other politician on the scene today would. As far as the others, they have been underwhelmimg and Patel just is not up to the job at all
As far as the media are concerned and especially the broadcast media they are having a terrrible covid and I suspect many have stop listening in favour of netflix and other streaming services. Sky is non stop gloom and doom, talking constantly of deaths and suffering, picking up the most upsetting stories and generally negative on everything, so much so that the public will just turn away, or as likely switch mute on
The negativity may have an effect on public opinion but one thing the British are famous for is 'Fair Play' 'Chwarae Teg' in Welsh and I expect that it may be their view, and that they are giving the government the benefit of any doubt. The polls will vary as this crisis continues but as we see the cases and deaths reducing, and some easing of restrictions, I expect that public support will remain on the whole positive
However, the bigger test will be be the post covid actions on the economy and to that I have no idea how the ratings will move
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
Wiki
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
My mum, who's not a rabid right-winger, is utterly fed up with the media and the PPE story.
'They're clearly doing all they can do get the equipment, and it's all the media are interested in over and over again' is her line.
I expect she's not alone at all.
Yes, the pandemic has given people a chance to hate on the politicians they hate, with a liberal dash of virtue signalling to boot.
I'm never shy of criticising the British press, and think they're just doing their usual thing - stories of Government fumbles always sell better than "Government doing quite well" stories (I've never been sure why). That said, a pollyannish press doing nothing but printing cheery stories of how the community collected sandwiches for injured veteran Fred is not in the interest of the Government, let alone the community - someone needs to point out problems, or we end up with the Chinese case of bad news being actively suppressed, *against* the national interest.
I'm pleased hes doing it though Johnson is away. The PM being away for any reason doesnt diminish the LoTO if they ask questions of a deputy. Good man.
If you want to emphasise Johnson's long-term tendency to avoid scrutiny then you have to show up when he doesn't. Unfortunate that this begins when the PM is convalescing after illness, but good to establish the principle now for use later.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is underway to develop one.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
As I took down my temperature readings yesterday evening I characterised the weather of the day as, "averagely below average," and I think that's a fair assessment of the performance of HMG to the pandemic so far.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
Mr. Divvie, on AA guns versus tanks: I saw a Lindybeige video some time ago (and can't find it now, alas, did look) about AA guns being used during... WWII, I think, against German tanks in France (heading off Dunkirk, I believe) to good effect.
Was a year or two ago I saw it, but seems to have happened.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe
That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.
Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
France does not have a bigger population than the UK.
UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million
My mum, who's not a rabid right-winger, is utterly fed up with the media and the PPE story.
'They're clearly doing all they can do get the equipment, and it's all the media are interested in over and over again' is her line.
I expect she's not alone at all.
Yes, the pandemic has given people a chance to hate on the politicians they hate, with a liberal dash of virtue signalling to boot.
I'm never shy of criticising the British press, and think they're just doing their usual thing - stories of Government fumbles always sell better than "Government doing quite well" stories (I've never been sure why). That said, a pollyannish press doing nothing but printing cheery stories of how the community collected sandwiches for injured veteran Fred is not in the interest of the Government, let alone the community - someone needs to point out problems, or we end up with the Chinese case of bad news being actively suppressed, *against* the national interest.
If scrutiny was in the form of "why hasnt x happened? how can we change that?" rather than "are you ashamed and will you apologise for x" I would agree with you.
In short, the French had a plan - it didn't work. They lost.
The UK had a plan. Parts didn't work. They changed it. Stuff didn't work. They changed it.....
Let me guess; the BBC and the Guardian liked the French response better?
It stayed static long enough that they finally understood it.
There was a surprising amount (to modern believers in the myth of the war) of "Doesn't Churchill realise he's lost?" stuff written. And not just from the right.
The pro-Soviet lot permanently damaged themselves in UK politics with their following the Stalinist line - anti-war and anti-UK until 1941, then suddenly....
There's a body of opinion, I understand, which believes that had Edward VIII remained on the throne, Halifax would have been PM, and there would have been an end to the war. King George VI wasn't a Churchill fan at the beginning, either, I believe.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
In short, the French had a plan - it didn't work. They lost.
The UK had a plan. Parts didn't work. They changed it. Stuff didn't work. They changed it.....
Let me guess; the BBC and the Guardian liked the French response better?
It stayed static long enough that they finally understood it.
There was a surprising amount (to modern believers in the myth of the war) of "Doesn't Churchill realise he's lost?" stuff written. And not just from the right.
The pro-Soviet lot permanently damaged themselves in UK politics with their following the Stalinist line - anti-war and anti-UK until 1941, then suddenly....
There's a body of opinion, I understand, which believes that had Edward VIII remained on the throne, Halifax would have been PM, and there would have been an end to the war. King George VI wasn't a Churchill fan at the beginning, either, I believe.
Churchill was the fruit loop best known for Gallipoli and the Norwegian Campaign.
Halifax was an interesting case - it depends who you ask. What seems to have been his idea was to defend the UK, but not try to try and fight the Continent, again. Which was the UK plan if the Germans had reached the channel in WWI.....
Well as I showed with 10 minutes research, the Guardian story on PPE doesn't pass the smell test. Unlike the Telegraph story where at least the reality tv show contest contestant did actually have a legit operating properly development company, the two firms mentioned have no online presence and don't appear to do much more business every year than a car booter.
And i dont think many people would order 10 million masks from a business who has no website, no social media, etc or a defunct eco-paint stripping company.
I'll chip in on the Cheltenham Festival because I was there.
The weather was quite good, mercifully, so as usual it was very largely an outdoor occasion for the majority of racegoers. It's true the bars and restaurants were packed, as they always are, but the kind of people who spend most of their time in them would probably have been doing something similar elsewhere anyway. That's the point really. Why pick on Cheltenham when there was no general prohibition on public life?
I've looked at the distribution of C-19 cases around the country and Gloucestershire does not appear to be out of line with nearby and comparable counties. That actually surprises me because as any local resident can tell you, the Festival has a huge impact on the local population within a radius of about 100 miles. You might have thought there would be some measurable impact on Ireland too in view of the numbers that travel over. There doesn't seem to have been.
The argument then is not so much about whether the Festival should have gone ahead but whether the lockdown encompassing all such activity should have kicked in sooner. The answer to that is almost certainly yes, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. In hindsight, I shouldn't have gone but I made a judgement call that it was ok. Like most people, in hindsight I've made a lot of bad calls in my life and I don't mind admitting it.
The first line is interesting. Of the complainers are there any who are confident enough to say they would have done a better job personally and would have wanted the burden of such responsibility.
I accept it is perhaps an unfair question, but equally many ministers would not have expected to face this kind of challenge either.
There's little doubt in my mind that I could do a better job than Donald Trump or probably Bolsonaro. I suspect most people could.
Other leaders who are at least trying I've no idea and I wouldn't want the responsibility. But vs those two I would at least:
a) listen to scientists and public health experts b) try to save lives rather than trying to blame others c) avoid firing people when they disagreed with me
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.
We just need Project Remember.
That'll do the trick.
Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.
As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.
Up until now. Scottish Independence is undoubtedly one of the political casualties of Covid-19. You can see it in the desperate - and unsuccessful - attempts by the Nats to blame their PPE woes on the English.
There are some very difficult questions for the SNP come the autumn.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
Roxy Music's third album, "Stranded", is just great. The prospects were not good. Brian Eno, who contributed the cutting-edge electronica, had left after a fall-out with Bryan Ferry. But Ferry pulled out the song-writing stops ("Mother of Pearl", "A Song for Europe") and even Eno, rather graciously, was moved to say it was their best album yet.
Spot on. For my money Mother of Pearl and Psalm, both off Stranded, are probably the two best tracks Roxy Music ever did.
That difficult third album where all the best tunes have been used up twice and the band have nothing new to say. Meanwhile, the audience starts to get restless.
The government was ridiculously overpraised at the outset and some of its early poor decisions are coming under belated scrutiny. The public is willing the government to succeed, being personally invested in its success, so it has a lot of support to draw upon. A lot, but not limitless.
Did you watch the Oasis documentary the other day? Noel Gallagher admits to exactly that!
He wrote all the songs for the first three albums before the first one was recorded, that’s why the third one was not all that.
Is not the standard music industry term the contractual obligation album?
Radiohead’s third album was the seminal, highly lauded OK Computer...
An experiment (as they had no songs) that work...
No songs?! Have you seen the track list?
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
Wow I love Nirvana, but would have In Utero as their worst album by quite a distance. Nevermind might be relatively overproduced but I think it’s almost perfect for the kind of music I like... melodic hard rock
I went to blur at Mile End but left before they came on because it was raining, and had a ticket for Oasis at Earls Court but fell asleep round my girlfriends and missed the train.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is underway to develop one.
Ventilators are not a treatment of the disease. They are an attempt to prevent one of the symptoms of the disease killing the patient. Buying time for the patient to recover, basically.
The issue with them is that using them is a major medical procedure with inflicts a great deal of physical stress on the patient. Hence the interest in non-ventilation assisted breathing systems.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives) Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable) Representing the electorates priorities inside government Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving) Communication
Not sure we can give any of them a great score.
objectives have been unrealistic Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective communication has at times been very confused and counter productive
Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.
Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?
The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved. What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists? Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation. On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time. Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.
Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.
You realise that there is no treatment for Covid-19?
Of course there is treatment for Covid-19. That's what all the ventilators are for. There is not yet a vaccine, but work is under way to develop one.
So you think that we should stay locked down until a vaccine is found (which probably will be nowhere near 100% effective) for an indefinite period regardless of the destruction it is doing? Do you have a political agenda?
I think we should have locked down more rapidly and more strictly from the start. Then it's likely that we would have already passed a much lower peak in deaths and could have been cautiously easing our lockdown. We could then have continued to tune the lockdown as our understanding of the virus improved, gradually lessening the economic impact while keeping new infections at a low level. This could have then continued indefinitely until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached. Note also that as more people become immune, the degree of lockdown required lessens.
If we had locked down earlier our herd immunity would be lower.
No win game.
And the object of using the additional resources provided to the NHS effectively would not have been achieved with the result that the demands would be higher when other demands are greater in the winter. The government was quite explicit about this. On one view, in many parts of the country, the lockdown came too soon but I appreciate that it would have been too complicated to have different rules in different places and London was getting close to the edge.
Comments
Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily
Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No
Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked
Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes
Are people still being paid? Yes
The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.
Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.
The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.
What a shame he could not divert his energies to helping vunerable people rather than tearing a letter apart structually. Does he not realise how ridiculous that sounds with what is going on in the world?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted
On 13 February, Johnson conducted a ministerial reshuffle that completed the purge of experienced “grown-ups” from the government and backbenches that began at the end of the last parliament. He instead awarded top jobs to relative mediocrities whose top qualifications were their loyalty to the Prime Minister and commitment to Brexit. In Johnson’s absence, the likes of Dominic Raab, Matthew Hancock and Priti Patel have found themselves running the country.
Johnson then departed on a 12-day “working holiday” with Carrie Symonds at Chevening, his grace and favour mansion, notwithstanding the fact they had spent ten days in Mustique together over New Year. His chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, was meanwhile pursuing his destructive vendettas against the civil service, the BBC, the judiciary and the establishment in general.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/04/boris-johnson-lockdown-government-coronavirus-response
I accept it is perhaps an unfair question, but equally many ministers would not have expected to face this kind of challenge either.
Note that they are ridiculed as "not a proper new site" by traditional journalists.
Also look at www.theregister.co.uk and www.nasaspaceflight.com
We’re on the curve shown by the ONS dates of death as registered by 1 May or so.
PHE curve doesn’t show deaths outside of hospitals.
ONS 27 Mar curve doesn’t show prior deaths not registered until after that date.
ONS 1 Apr curve doesn’t show prior deaths not registered until after that date.
(Note the difference that four days makes in improvement of ONS stats. The further back you go, the less they will continue to climb with deaths counted later).
By 1 May or so, I’d count the ONS data for the period shown as fairly solid. But prior to then - well, you’ll obviously always get a drop off in your most recent few days. Not because of deaths subsiding, but reporting latency.
Need to give time for the data to come in, unfortunately, although we always want it immediately.
The opposition and the public will also get more critical I have no doubt, though not necessarily at the same rate.
Avoiding criticism would not be a realistic goal. Handling it, and having successes to counter criticism, would be. The government has some, but clearly is more vulnerable on some issues.
But governments usually get unpopular. At some point this one will be. Corbyn really messed up the expectations on governments long into office.
Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.
Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.
No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.
I'd say Britain under Churchill managed not to lose the war until the Reds and the Yanks were in a position to win it might be a more accurate description.
I will tomorrow have to go to Aldi though as I want some yogurts and Mrs Eek doesn't go there.
Newspapers struggling...
Hardy needs Poirot does it ?
'They're clearly doing all they can do get the equipment, and it's all the media are interested in over and over again' is her line.
I expect she's not alone at all.
A vital difference, was the attitude in the UK system vs the French system.
The French concept of warfare was based on using fixed defences (massively built) to pin the enemy and then punch him when he staggered back. The problem was the Germans (unsportingly) changed the game. The French C&C system had a loop of 12-24 hours. The Germans were looping in minutes, in some cases. The French system showed no interest in adapting - when asked why new fighters were on the ground, the commander explained that he was waiting for the guns to be delivered. And he waited and waited.
The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.
In the UK, defences were improvised on the basis of stop lines and strong points - individually rated to hold the enemy for a certain period of time and create a level of casualties. Defense in depth.
In addition, there was an attitude on intelligent improvisation. For example - an anti-aircraft commander for (forget which city) stated that his command had already setup to use his heavy stuff for anti-tank work, and also to use as long range group artillery. Firezones and radio callsigns ready to be distributed.... all without even being asked.
In short, the French had a plan - it didn't work. They lost.
The UK had a plan. Parts didn't work. They changed it. Stuff didn't work. They changed it.....
While there were individual bold acts at tactical level, by and large the British military succeeded by meticulous planning and logistics, carefully husbanding personnel and resources. The Battle of Britain, El Alamein and D Day spring to mind (though errors were made in all of these). The bolder operations were less successful, The Norway Campaign or Arnhem for example.
Britain did not produce a successful general of the boldness of Guderian, Rommel or Patton*. That is not to disparage our generals, nor to minimise the importance of meticulous staff planning.
*It is possible to argue the case for Slim, who had the advantage of being left in post despite initial unsuccessful campaigns.
Hint, without a fiat currency you can't just print money nor can you borrow money from a central bank that later burns the IOU.
That'll do the trick.
Containment won`t work, this is endemic, the virus will still be present when we get out of lockdown, we need to maximise herd immunity whilst getting our economy back up-and-running. We have to live with this virus at some point.
The Sinophile Leavers wanting free trade agreements with China and other Asian economies seem to have gone quiet. Those talking of not needing domestic agriculture or manufacturing too.
It was more that the failures were survivable and pinched off before they could do real harm.
Rommel was a genius - when he had near-perfect intelligence on what the British forces were up to. When the shoe was on the other foot, his insane attitude to logistics caught up with him.
We've plenty bad news. No surprise it's beginning to fissure.
Increasing the capacity of the NHS to beyond what has so far been required.
The furlough job scheme.
Grants for restaurants/cafes/pubs.
Creating a genuine "we're all in this together" mindset.
Bringing online the Nightengale extra capacity.
Things the government has done badly
Very slow out of the blocks in appreciating the seriousness of the situation
Having a consistent or credible story on testing.
Not stopping free movement by air.
Seriously underperforming in phase 1 through lack of resources, urgency etc.
Not changing the advice re infectivity when new information came to hand allowing those still infected to go to places with vulnerable people, specifically care homes.
Things that are ok but no better
The production and distribution of PPE
The clarity of the messaging.
The loan scheme for businesses which needs to be boosted to 100% to overcome the hurdles.
Overall, I would still say that they have been tested and not found completely wanting but this is seriously hard, harder than anything a government has had to cope with since WW2.
Also Blur’s Parklife. Nirvana‘s In Utero, far superior to Nevermind.
I’m showing my 90s vintage here.
A national strength at quiet, competent, detailed planning and administration is nothing to be ashamed of.
Our bureaucracy certainly makes errors, that is human, but the equivalent in many other countries has me reaching for the smelling salts.
The pro-Soviet lot permanently damaged themselves in UK politics with their following the Stalinist line - anti-war and anti-UK until 1941, then suddenly....
And yes the rest of world will be looking at the NHS and wishing their health systems were coping as well
Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.
It is easy to criticise, much more difficult to engage in constructive criticism
This pandemic is like no other crisis since WW11 and so many different views are inevitable and of course there are political agendas
I accept HMG have made mistakes, some based on science that may prove to be wrong, but others have been self inflicted most notably Hancock promising 100,000 tests and of course the stupid announcement about the Turkey shipment , when it had not even arrived. I also have great sympathy with Nigel over the absurd decision to relocate covid hospital patients to care homes without testing or quarantine
It is easy to attack Boris, Raab and Hancock as per Scott (who is on automatic when tweeting anti posts because he is enraged over Brexit) and others, but they are only doing as well as most any other politician on the scene today would. As far as the others, they have been underwhelmimg and Patel just is not up to the job at all
As far as the media are concerned and especially the broadcast media they are having a terrrible covid and I suspect many have stop listening in favour of netflix and other streaming services. Sky is non stop gloom and doom, talking constantly of deaths and suffering, picking up the most upsetting stories and generally negative on everything, so much so that the public will just turn away, or as likely switch mute on
The negativity may have an effect on public opinion but one thing the British are famous for is 'Fair Play' 'Chwarae Teg' in Welsh and I expect that it may be their view, and that they are giving the government the benefit of any doubt. The polls will vary as this crisis continues but as we see the cases and deaths reducing, and some easing of restrictions, I expect that public support will remain on the whole positive
However, the bigger test will be be the post covid actions on the economy and to that I have no idea how the ratings will move
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.
The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/business/coronavirus-department-stores-neiman-marcus.html
https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/
However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe
Was a year or two ago I saw it, but seems to have happened.
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/population
http://population.city/united-kingdom/
King George VI wasn't a Churchill fan at the beginning, either, I believe.
No win game.
Halifax was an interesting case - it depends who you ask. What seems to have been his idea was to defend the UK, but not try to try and fight the Continent, again. Which was the UK plan if the Germans had reached the channel in WWI.....
And i dont think many people would order 10 million masks from a business who has no website, no social media, etc or a defunct eco-paint stripping company.
The weather was quite good, mercifully, so as usual it was very largely an outdoor occasion for the majority of racegoers. It's true the bars and restaurants were packed, as they always are, but the kind of people who spend most of their time in them would probably have been doing something similar elsewhere anyway. That's the point really. Why pick on Cheltenham when there was no general prohibition on public life?
I've looked at the distribution of C-19 cases around the country and Gloucestershire does not appear to be out of line with nearby and comparable counties. That actually surprises me because as any local resident can tell you, the Festival has a huge impact on the local population within a radius of about 100 miles. You might have thought there would be some measurable impact on Ireland too in view of the numbers that travel over. There doesn't seem to have been.
The argument then is not so much about whether the Festival should have gone ahead but whether the lockdown encompassing all such activity should have kicked in sooner. The answer to that is almost certainly yes, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. In hindsight, I shouldn't have gone but I made a judgement call that it was ok. Like most people, in hindsight I've made a lot of bad calls in my life and I don't mind admitting it.
Other leaders who are at least trying I've no idea and I wouldn't want the responsibility. But vs those two I would at least:
a) listen to scientists and public health experts
b) try to save lives rather than trying to blame others
c) avoid firing people when they disagreed with me
There are some very difficult questions for the SNP come the autumn.
I went to blur at Mile End but left before they came on because it was raining, and had a ticket for Oasis at Earls Court but fell asleep round my girlfriends and missed the train.
The issue with them is that using them is a major medical procedure with inflicts a great deal of physical stress on the patient. Hence the interest in non-ventilation assisted breathing systems.