Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)
Discussion
markyb_lcy said:
It’s going to be funny watching the usual Boris boot-licker, self-contortionists defend these comments from Boris blaming care homes that the govt are already trying to row back on.
Again, there seems to be some interpretation going on.People have taken Johnson's comments as "blame". The government are being clear that he did not intend to confer blame.
The post above yours claims to define the mechanism by which care homes should be blamed, despite nothing of the sort being said by BJ.
As for the descriptors of your fellow forum posters - classy.
Sway said:
markyb_lcy said:
It’s going to be funny watching the usual Boris boot-licker, self-contortionists defend these comments from Boris blaming care homes that the govt are already trying to row back on.
Again, there seems to be some interpretation going on.People have taken Johnson's comments as "blame". The government are being clear that he did not intend to confer blame.
The post above yours claims to define the mechanism by which care homes should be blamed, despite nothing of the sort being said by BJ.
As for the descriptors of your fellow forum posters - classy.
Johnson said something that sounded like blame to almost anybody reading or commenting on it. They’ve realised it’s gone down like a lead balloon and now they’re trying to row back on it with ministers saying it’s not blame and the procedures weren’t clear.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Tuesday 7th July 10:52
Sway said:
He didn't say "because they couldn't be f
ked, the idiots".
He then went on to say they needed more funding (and announced I believe £600M) and also that government needed to provide more and better support otherwise.
That doesn't sound like blame to me, that sounds like recognition of something that could be done better in future.
You can’t honestly believe this?ked, the idiots".He then went on to say they needed more funding (and announced I believe £600M) and also that government needed to provide more and better support otherwise.
That doesn't sound like blame to me, that sounds like recognition of something that could be done better in future.
If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
Sway said:
Again, there seems to be some interpretation going on.
People have taken Johnson's comments as "blame". The government are being clear that he did not intend to confer blame.
The post above yours claims to define the mechanism by which care homes should be blamed, despite nothing of the sort being said by BJ.
As for the descriptors of your fellow forum posters - classy.
The only interpretation going on is being done by you and other Boris fans trying to excuse his comments.People have taken Johnson's comments as "blame". The government are being clear that he did not intend to confer blame.
The post above yours claims to define the mechanism by which care homes should be blamed, despite nothing of the sort being said by BJ.
As for the descriptors of your fellow forum posters - classy.
El stovey said:
You can’t honestly believe this?
If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
And if Sway simply asked "As you've just said I didn't follow the procedures would you mind telling me what the procedures are that I didn't follow please?" what would he expect the answer to be?If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
El stovey said:
gooner1 said:
Sway said:
Agreed the "ring" was anything but.
However, Johnson's proposals yesterday were all about improvements at government not care home level.
That is commonly known, but the pitchfork mob hear what they want to hear.However, Johnson's proposals yesterday were all about improvements at government not care home level.
"We discovered too many care homes didn't really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we're learning lessons the whole time.“
It’s quite clearly early enough for him to blame care homes for not apparently following procedures but too early for him to be scrutinised for anything.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-boris-johns...
[/Mr Johnson replied: "One of the things the crisis has shown is we need to think about how we organise our social care package better and how we make sure we look after people better who are in social care.
"We discovered too many care homes didn't really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we're learning lessons the whole time.
"Most important is to fund them properly... but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported."
Always better with the whole quote and as for Johnson or our government not being scrutinised......
El stovey said:
Sway said:
He didn't say "because they couldn't be fked, the idiots".
He then went on to say they needed more funding (and announced I believe £600M) and also that government needed to provide more and better support otherwise.
That doesn't sound like blame to me, that sounds like recognition of something that could be done better in future.
You can’t honestly believe this?ked, the idiots".He then went on to say they needed more funding (and announced I believe £600M) and also that government needed to provide more and better support otherwise.
That doesn't sound like blame to me, that sounds like recognition of something that could be done better in future.
If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
It's not a root cause. It's a statement of bland fact - and the next steps are for root cause analysis and solution definition. Solutions being absolutely targeted at eliminating root causes.
Considering the solutions are all relating to improvements at government, I'm fairly comfortable that in this situation I'd not feel blamed.
We're not alone in this. The vast majority of developed world nations utterly f
ked up in a systemic way when it came to protecting care home residents - something that should have been absolutely avoidable considering the residents are by definition an increased risk for any virus.There appear to be fairly clear examples to understand differences in approach - prevention of movement from clinical to residential care (or strict isolation of those moved under presumption of infection). Isolation around care homes. Isolation within care homes.
The question is how can this best be ensured moving forwards?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:El stovey said:
You can’t honestly believe this?
If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
And if Sway simply asked "As you've just said I didn't follow the procedures would you mind telling me what the procedures are that I didn't follow please?" what would he expect the answer to be?If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
It’s terrible leadership. Not only blaming the carehomes but also distancing himself and the government from blame as he presumably was involved in those procedures that weren’t followed.
No wonder they’re backpedaling but the mud has already been flung and some of it will have stuck and it’s too early to have a proper investigation as Boris says so.
Zirconia said:
Best way forward is to start the public inquiry now as an ongoing thing to get all the evidence and look at ways to not make the mistakes again. It needs to be fully independent. That last bit I fear will never happen whilst this government is in power.
Too right.Finding out what’s going wrong years after it’s finished is too late. There’s still loads of pandemic management to go, and the economic recovery.
The root causes are group think and poor decision making processes and the government having a bunker mentality led by Cummings plus having a cabinet of yes men not scrutinising the PM or Cummings.
It’s not some investigation into what went wrong months ago, it’s still happening now.
I have a relative who has a chronic lung condition. She sees her doctor regularly. At one of the pre-lockdown appointments, she was told she should isolate herself and her husband because of Covid-19. She, and her husband, trust the doctor and did so. I think it was about a month later that we were all subject of lockdown.
She falls within the 'at risk' group by way of age, breathing problems and immune response. If a doctor in the wilds of the home counties knew about the risk for those of a certain age, one wonders why the same sort of message was not given to hospitals and rest homes.
If there was conflicting advice from scientists and doctors, that's still not an excuse as one should think the side of caution on the generally vulnerable might be the best route. Most people in the at-risk group don't work. Many are 'productive' in the sense of babysitting grandchildren and such arrangements, and although a number work, the proportion would not have cost the country a great deal to be put on standby.
I'm not into the blame game. We should learn from the mistakes and positives of our response to the pandemic, but I do feel that if the evidence was available, and it seems to have been, early on that there was a significant risk to the over 55s, and a much greater one to the over 70s, one wonders why simple, and much, much cheaper, methods to ensure the NHS could cope were not taken. Is it a learning point? I'm not sure as it would appear to be a question of judgment.
It would have been more or less the same for me as I'm in an at-risk group, so babysitting was gone, and I work largely from home, so no problem there. I might be looking at this rather selfishly as my kids have sorted out the babysitting problems themselves, but if I'd been incarcerated early on, I would have been far from happy, but would have had to lump it. I could have still worked. Enlightened self-interest would have kept me largely isolated.
She falls within the 'at risk' group by way of age, breathing problems and immune response. If a doctor in the wilds of the home counties knew about the risk for those of a certain age, one wonders why the same sort of message was not given to hospitals and rest homes.
If there was conflicting advice from scientists and doctors, that's still not an excuse as one should think the side of caution on the generally vulnerable might be the best route. Most people in the at-risk group don't work. Many are 'productive' in the sense of babysitting grandchildren and such arrangements, and although a number work, the proportion would not have cost the country a great deal to be put on standby.
I'm not into the blame game. We should learn from the mistakes and positives of our response to the pandemic, but I do feel that if the evidence was available, and it seems to have been, early on that there was a significant risk to the over 55s, and a much greater one to the over 70s, one wonders why simple, and much, much cheaper, methods to ensure the NHS could cope were not taken. Is it a learning point? I'm not sure as it would appear to be a question of judgment.
It would have been more or less the same for me as I'm in an at-risk group, so babysitting was gone, and I work largely from home, so no problem there. I might be looking at this rather selfishly as my kids have sorted out the babysitting problems themselves, but if I'd been incarcerated early on, I would have been far from happy, but would have had to lump it. I could have still worked. Enlightened self-interest would have kept me largely isolated.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:El stovey said:
You can’t honestly believe this?
If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
And if Sway simply asked "As you've just said I didn't follow the procedures would you mind telling me what the procedures are that I didn't follow please?" what would he expect the answer to be?If something went wrong in your workplace and someone said
“Sway didn't really follow the procedures in the way that he could have”
Would you feel like you were getting blamed in any way? That what went wrong was being attributed to you not “following procedures in the way that you could have”
If you’d followed procedures it wouldn’t have happened. It happened because YOU didn’t follow procedures in the way that you could have.
If the management had not explained to an employee the specific procedures to follow for a specific role, or any procedures attributable to the employment in general, then the fault lies with management and it’s agents that are employed to inform all employees. Guess who were mostly at fault with most work related injuries in my specific industry?
markyb_lcy said:
It’s going to be funny watching the usual Boris boot-licker, self-contortionists defend these comments from Boris blaming care homes that the govt are already trying to row back on.
But what was Corbyn doing to protect care homes? Boris is doing his best, he was sick and has a child, you know - it's offensive to hold him to account at work on top of that.El stovey said:
Finding out what’s going wrong years after it’s finished is too late. There’s still loads of pandemic management to go, and the economic recovery.
The root causes are group think and poor decision making processes and the government having a bunker mentality led by Cummings plus having a cabinet of yes men not scrutinising the PM or Cummings.
It’s not some investigation into what went wrong months ago, it’s still happening now.
I would agree that there should be an inquiry that is rapid, because clearly many aspects of our pandemic response fell short and will require changes to address. I would fully expect some criticism to head toward the top. That wouldn't satisfy many here though. Because whenever people point out failings in bodies that Boris has little involvement with, such as PHE where the only power Boris has is to replace the head, there is a bleating that we are trying to deflect blame from their chosen scapegoat. The root causes are group think and poor decision making processes and the government having a bunker mentality led by Cummings plus having a cabinet of yes men not scrutinising the PM or Cummings.
It’s not some investigation into what went wrong months ago, it’s still happening now.
When we scrutinise claims of "cabinet of yes men" its seems to lead back to "not having Remainers in positions where the can sabotage the government in the final EU negotiations". I also dont see some vast untapped pool of talent on the back benches who are being cruelly denied because they are not "yes" men. At some stage Boris might bring Hunt and Javvid back but that is about it in terms of old cabinet ministers.
Therefore "Yes men" as it seems to be applied seems to mean "doesn't run a briefing campaign against the government as if opposed to them while still being part of the cabinet".
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 7th July 11:22
gooner1 said:
IforB said:
There are always lessons to be learned from any situation. Nothing is ever 100% perfect and anyone who is expecting any Government response to this crisis to not have mistakes in it, is an idiot.
However, This Government have made some spectacularly bad decisions and have been behind the curve all the way through.
Pulling apart poor Governmental decision making is absolutely part of the lessons learned process. All of us have to do our own simplified version of it too. In the future, when a ballot paper is in front of you, have a look at those on it and decide how they may respond in a similar crisis.
If they appear to be populist blowhards who talk a good game, but fall apart like a cheap suit at the first sign of trouble, then maybe, don't put a cross next to that person or party.
When you elect idiots, it is unreasonable to expect them not to be idiots.So it is contingent on all of us to make sure we do our best in the future to elect people who aren't useless.
From a lessons learned perspective, that is the big one I take away from it.
I take it you won’t be exercising your right to vote at the next GE.However, This Government have made some spectacularly bad decisions and have been behind the curve all the way through.
Pulling apart poor Governmental decision making is absolutely part of the lessons learned process. All of us have to do our own simplified version of it too. In the future, when a ballot paper is in front of you, have a look at those on it and decide how they may respond in a similar crisis.
If they appear to be populist blowhards who talk a good game, but fall apart like a cheap suit at the first sign of trouble, then maybe, don't put a cross next to that person or party.
When you elect idiots, it is unreasonable to expect them not to be idiots.So it is contingent on all of us to make sure we do our best in the future to elect people who aren't useless.
From a lessons learned perspective, that is the big one I take away from it.
If Johnson and his cohort are still leading the Tory party at the next GE, then I sure as hell wouldn't put a cross next to a Tory candidate. That would be daft. However, if someone else who isn't an incompetent muppet is in the chair, then it is worth consideration.
The key is to not fall into the trap of assuming "all politicians are idiots" but to actually spend some time looking at candidates on a national and local level and seeing where your vote is best placed.
If there is no-one you trust, then get up there and represent yourself, don't just disenfranchise yourself.
Sway said:
We're not alone in this. The vast majority of developed world nations utterly fked up in a systemic way when it came to protecting care home residents - something that should have been absolutely avoidable considering the residents are by definition an increased risk for any virus.
There appear to be fairly clear examples to understand differences in approach - prevention of movement from clinical to residential care (or strict isolation of those moved under presumption of infection). Isolation around care homes. Isolation within care homes.
The question is how can this best be ensured moving forwards?
We are not alone in this, but as a wealthy, resource rich nation with the benefit of time how do you think we have performed? Germany stands out, but there are others. If you choose not to interpret Boris's remarks as apportioning blame, or at the very least setting the scene, then more fool you. ked up in a systemic way when it came to protecting care home residents - something that should have been absolutely avoidable considering the residents are by definition an increased risk for any virus.There appear to be fairly clear examples to understand differences in approach - prevention of movement from clinical to residential care (or strict isolation of those moved under presumption of infection). Isolation around care homes. Isolation within care homes.
The question is how can this best be ensured moving forwards?
Sway said:
Agreed the "ring" was anything but.
However, Johnson's proposals yesterday were all about improvements at government not care home level.
Yet instead of just saying that, he attempted to pass the blame and brought the cares homes into it himself. There was no need to slag off care homes if all he was saying "we in Government need to do better on this." Take it on the chin, accept it and say what they are doing. Even I would have said "fair play" to that.However, Johnson's proposals yesterday were all about improvements at government not care home level.
However, he attempted to be slippery and divert attention from the appalling mess that he presided over and it has very rightly backfired.
mx5nut said:
markyb_lcy said:
It’s going to be funny watching the usual Boris boot-licker, self-contortionists defend these comments from Boris blaming care homes that the govt are already trying to row back on.
But what was Corbyn doing to protect care homes? Boris is doing his best, he was sick and has a child, you know - it's offensive to hold him to account at work on top of that.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff