Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
SpeckledJim said:
IforB said:
Sage, as well as the public health agencies in each county I saw were arguing for much stronger action long before this. They knew his tiered strategy was rubbish and said so.
The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
France in lockdown and Germany joining them in a couple of days.The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
Is that because they're doing it right, or because they've been doing it wrong?
Is it evidence of a strong hand in controlling the virus, or evidence of insufficient action? They can't win.
Other governments are, like the UK, still engaged - obviously it's not over yet; however premature adjudication continues to afflict detractors and for obvious reasons.
The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally s
t on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.markyb_lcy said:
Ah yes. 8 months in and nobody should be passing comment on the performance of the govt in this crisis because it’s still “half time”
The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally st on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.
He actually criticised Boris the other day and said he’d done it before. You know it’s going REALLY badly when even TB criticises Boris.The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally s
t on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.He seems intent on stopping those “detractors” from doing it though.
markyb_lcy said:
Ah yes. 8 months in and nobody should be passing comment on the performance of the govt in this crisis because it’s still “half time”
The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally st on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally s
t on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
turbobloke said:
Our government can't win mainly because their detractors will never allow it.
Other governments are, like the UK, still engaged - obviously it's not over yet; however premature adjudication continues to afflict detractors and for obvious reasons.
What government ? There is no "government" as such.Other governments are, like the UK, still engaged - obviously it's not over yet; however premature adjudication continues to afflict detractors and for obvious reasons.
What you have currently is Boris and his band of incompetent sycophants calling the shots.
National Emergency, blah blah ...
Boris insulated himself with yes men and women because it makes him feel like King.
He's a bit like Trump in that respect - my way or the highway.
Government are supposed to govern. They really can't cope because they are, possibly, the biggest band of nincompoops we've ever seen.
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 30th October 10:46
SpeckledJim said:
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.
If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
There might be a reason for that.If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
They're doing this "new for the first time" too.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:SpeckledJim said:
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.
If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
There might be a reason for that.If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
They're doing this "new for the first time" too.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:markyb_lcy said:
Perhaps members of sage should know their place and resist the temptation to brief the media directly. They should know that their advice is meant to be considered, on balance, with other considerations such as the economy and personal freedoms. That’s how it all started out. Nowadays they undermine the govt by going straight to the media with “must lockdown now” etc.
IMO Boris should strike a few of them off it and remind them of their place (as advisors to the govt, not some independent lobby group).
If you're not allowed to pass comment independently I'm not sure you're independent are you?IMO Boris should strike a few of them off it and remind them of their place (as advisors to the govt, not some independent lobby group).
I do take the point and I agree it contributes to the mixed messaging but I don't know if I'd support that sort of restriction.
But professionals have to be careful with what they're saying (and that's the biggest critique I'd have about this govt tbh).
Not enough is made of the need to balance the various levers. Everyone just seems to want to have a pop from their own particular vantage point and the govt (any govt) that tries to navigate a path will please nobody ultimately, at least not those on the extremes.
Edited to add...as noted above, there seem to be way too many people specifically setting out to find fault. You cannot tell me that you and IForB would not be straight on here moaning about something else if they either fully locked down or simply said fq it, crack on.
SpeckledJim said:
Sorry, I can't work out if you're agreeing or not?
Probably a bit of both.The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature.
I've said before I think the words "a protective ring" will come back to haunt Matt Hancock.
As of now the rest (excluding Belgium) of Western Europe has done a lot better.
The leaders you mentioned aren't the Prime Minister of the UK.
That might be why we don't hold them to account in the same way we do our own Government.
SpeckledJim said:
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.
If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
That isn't strictly true though, is it ?If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
When you have something to look at (the unfolding crisis in Europe in Feb/ March) but you choose to do nothing and say this is all a load of tosh, lock yourself away at Chequers with instructions that you do not want to disturbed, go on national TV and proclaim that you are visiting coronavirus patients in hospital and shaking their hands (much to the embarrassment of your Chief Scientific Advisor who is stood next to you), lock down the entire country based on how things are in London - not elsewhere - and have no discernable strategy for how you are going to cope - that's bad. Really bad.
We had an opportunity to deal with this better than everyone else in Europe.
We're the worst.
This is a catastrophic failure. End. Of. Story.
SpeckledJim said:
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.
If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/06/03/approval-government-handling-coronavirus-sinks-low If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
Some other European countries are unhappy with their leaders too, some aren’t. In Germany Sweden etc the public definitely look happier with their governments.
U.K. France and Spain all look unimpressed with their government handling of the pandemic.
But the U.K. seems to have seen the biggest drop in government approval over their handling of the pandemic.
Those countries (France Spain and Italy) were a couple of weeks ahead of the U.K. - a heads up which we seem to be constantly squandering
Public support does look to be linked to how well some countries are handling it. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that those with the highest death tolls by most metrics have the least happy populations?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: There might be a reason for that.
They're doing this "new for the first time" too....
I've never held with international comparisons for anything other than curve shapes and relative hits in certain demographics because there are simply way too many sociodemographic factors that will influence something like this pandemic to be absolute about anything (there I go again on absolutes BS They're doing this "new for the first time" too....
).Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes
).There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
Murph7355 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: There might be a reason for that.
They're doing this "new for the first time" too....
I've never held with international comparisons for anything other than curve shapes and relative hits in certain demographics because there are simply way too many sociodemographic factors that will influence something like this pandemic to be absolute about anything (there I go again on absolutes BS They're doing this "new for the first time" too....
).Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes
).There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
Murph7355 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: There might be a reason for that.
They're doing this "new for the first time" too....
I've never held with international comparisons for anything other than curve shapes and relative hits in certain demographics because there are simply way too many sociodemographic factors that will influence something like this pandemic to be absolute about anything (there I go again on absolutes BS They're doing this "new for the first time" too....
).Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes
).There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
Also, the rest Western Europe has dramatically fewer Scousers and Leeds United fans than we do.
The Germans (for example) are much more obedient of authority than are British people. That's sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. But it's not something that either government can directly control, nor something that gets reflected on a COVID graph.
SpeckledJim said:
markyb_lcy said:
Ah yes. 8 months in and nobody should be passing comment on the performance of the govt in this crisis because it’s still “half time”
The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally st on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally s
t on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
I can’t understand the logic of giving the govt a “free ride” on the basis that this stuff has never been tried before. Indeed, my position is that having embarked upon this unprecedented path of trying to micromanage a virus for the first time, they should be under advanced scrutiny for their step into the unknown. Their moves should be evidenced, justified to us like adults, and honestly assessed for their effectiveness.
This government has rode roughshod over the normal processes for debating and introducing new laws which curtail personal freedoms in a way that was frankly unimaginable only 10 months ago. They should be held to, and stand up to the absolute highest levels of scrutiny.
So far, from where I am sitting, they do not. That’s not “political” or “Brexit grief” (as some here would assert - not aimed at you). I am sure that my favoured party, the Labour Party, would be doing much the same. That doesn’t make it right, and I wouldn’t be here defending them over it if the boot were on the other foot.
Murph7355 said:
I've never held with international comparisons for anything other than curve shapes and relative hits in certain demographics because there are simply way too many sociodemographic factors that will influence something like this pandemic to be absolute about anything (there I go again on absolutes BS ).
Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes).
There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
Those aren't my number Murph they are the ones that various Governments publish and which I believe are internationally recognised.).Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes
).There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
You've said before you're cynical and so am I.
And sorry but I think if we were much further down those rankings (in a good way) we'd see a lot more made of our performance and much less of the "ah but what standards are they using?" commentary as if we've actually played a blinder here.
A bit like how the Government used to show the charts at their Press Conferences until the numbers looked f
king awful.As it is you have Turbobloke forming his own "protective ring" and reduced to genuinely believing that everything is "well yes, but Boris" or "brexit grief" because the thought simply cannot enter his brain that actually we've just done really s
t with Johnson in charge and the public broadly think the same from the polls.Murph7355 said:
I've never held with international comparisons for anything other than curve shapes and relative hits in certain demographics because there are simply way too many sociodemographic factors that will influence something like this pandemic to be absolute about anything (there I go again on absolutes BS ).
Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes).
There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that ‘a rather a lot of these countries in terms of death per million are in essence in the same boat?” ).Not just sociodemographic either - how does each of those countries do their counts, and how accurate do we believe them all to be? As an example, I believe Belgium still use a particularly aggressive count, so their numbers are likely overplayed. And whilst China aren't on the list, their 4.6k deaths seems at best fishy to me and more likely absolute rubbish (to cite both extremes
).There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.
As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.
You’re saying it’s hard to make comparisons and everyone’s got different factors etc but if you take all these things into account we get that we’re “in essence in the same boat”
It’s like saying it’s impossible to tell from that posted data and facts and death tolls etc because there’s loads of other factors which are impossible to quantify but if we did consider those factors the results would definitely suit my argument,
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Those aren't my number Murph they are the ones that various Governments publish and which I believe are internationally recognised.
You've said before you're cynical and so am I.
And sorry but I think if we were much further down those rankings (in a good way) we'd see a lot more made of our performance and much less of the "ah but what standards are they using?" commentary as if we've actually played a blinder here.
A bit like how the Government used to show the charts at their Press Conferences until the numbers looked fking awful.
As it is you have Turbobloke forming his own "protective ring" and reduced to genuinely believing that everything is "well yes, but Boris" or "brexit grief" because the thought simply cannot enter his brain that actually we've just done really st with Johnson in charge and the public broadly think the same from the polls.
You do the same thing every time.You've said before you're cynical and so am I.
And sorry but I think if we were much further down those rankings (in a good way) we'd see a lot more made of our performance and much less of the "ah but what standards are they using?" commentary as if we've actually played a blinder here.
A bit like how the Government used to show the charts at their Press Conferences until the numbers looked f
king awful.As it is you have Turbobloke forming his own "protective ring" and reduced to genuinely believing that everything is "well yes, but Boris" or "brexit grief" because the thought simply cannot enter his brain that actually we've just done really s
t with Johnson in charge and the public broadly think the same from the polls.- here are some numbers. The sky's falling in. It's awful. Boris is the worst leader since PolPot
- the numbers might not be as clear cut as is made out. Here are some things to consider for those with a basic grasp of maths and data collection
- well, they're not MY numbers. They're from different governments. And anyway I'm no good at maths
Start to apply some critical thinking to what you are seeing. You say you are cynical, well start to apply it to more than just Boris' hair do, children or his perceived general ability. Or you just come across as whining "because Boris".
That in itself is fair enough if that's what you want to do I suppose. But you seem (most of the time) like an intelligent chap and for a period earlier in the year you were actually very balanced. It's gone down hill faster than Boris' YouGov ratings that El Stovey posts. And I don't think that helps have reasoned debate.
To be fair, IForB slid faster still, ultimately descending into his absolutely ludicrous view that government are deliberately keeping kids hungry and uneducated. He's obviously been reading too much Dickens or someone killed his dog recently...but you then jumped on that one too.
Govt stopping showing the numbers? Maybe someone told them that the comparisons weren't actually meaningful. A mistake showing them at all if they were trying to paint a picture of how "well" we're doing...but as I keep reiterating, the biggest thing this pandemic has shone a light on is how very, very poor this government is at communicating.
And that is a serious worry on more than just the pandemic.
As a slight bit of balance on this, however, communication throughout this country is dogs
t and has been getting worse for ages. There is little quality journalism, everything is sensationalist and nothing gives any critical thinking. If something looks like the world will end, get it published far and wide then move on before anyone really challenges it. Divisiveness is the name of the game for everyone it seems, and I pity any govt that has to try and work within that envelope. El stovey said:
It’s like saying it’s impossible to tell from that posted data and facts and death tolls etc because there’s loads of other factors which are impossible to quantify but if we did consider those factors the results would definitely suit my argument,
Exactly.We can't be sure enough of the numbers to say we've done badly but we're sure enough to be able to be sure we've done pretty much the same
El stovey said:
How do you arrive at the conclusion that ‘a rather a lot of these countries in terms of death per million are in essence in the same boat?”
You’re saying it’s hard to make comparisons and everyone’s got different factors etc but if you take all these things into account we get that we’re “in essence in the same boat”
It’s like saying it’s impossible to tell from that posted data and facts and death tolls etc because there’s loads of other factors which are impossible to quantify but if we did consider those factors the results would definitely suit my argument,
I'm not stating anything categorically.You’re saying it’s hard to make comparisons and everyone’s got different factors etc but if you take all these things into account we get that we’re “in essence in the same boat”
It’s like saying it’s impossible to tell from that posted data and facts and death tolls etc because there’s loads of other factors which are impossible to quantify but if we did consider those factors the results would definitely suit my argument,
I'm putting an alternative spin on what we are likely to be looking at - there are no such things as "facts" on this one and until there is an international standard for data collection on the topic, and it's independently verified, we are pissing in the wind for anything other than the shape of the curves.
So spin1 is "look how bad we're doing. It's awful. Boris is a dick".
Spin2 could be "allow 20% tolerance in data collection and all of a sudden you have roughly three bands".
I'm not suggesting either are anything more than spin.
What we do know is that everyone had a big hit in Mar/Apr (other than China of course). Lockdowns happened which brought them down. Lockdowns were eased. And now we are seeing rises again. So lockdowns are happening to varying degrees.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff