You’re forgetting that we held an exercise back in 2016 called Operation Cygnus, which was designed to find out what needed to be done in the case of a mass outbreak of a contagious disease. The exercise revealed that in things like personal protective equipment, ventilators, critical care beds and the logistics of a mass testing programme, the U.K. was sadly lacking. Whether it’s because of the distraction of Brexit, or because they are just plain idiots, none of the recommendations from Operation Cygnus were implemented. Here’s a link to a Telegraph article to confirm this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/ On Brexit, the end of the transition period is on December 31st, by which time we either have to have a trade deal with the EU, or leave with no deal. Every economic forecast has shown that the effect of a crash Brexit would knock at least 10% off our economy. That, in case you need a reminder, is ON TOP of the appalling consequences of the current lockdown, which has been estimated at around 14-15%. The obvious approach would be to buy a bit of time and postpone the end of the transition until we get back to something resembling normality, but no, pig-headedness prevails within our government. You can make excuses for this shambles of a government if you want to Beddy, but I will never forget the appalling mess they have made, and I will never forgive them.
I think the point I was trying to make was that they are not concentrating more on Brexit then on the health of the people. You are no different to me in a way regarding my Brexit decision. Strewth I’m not saying the government haven’t made mistakes. But surely the nhs itself has to take some blame. It’s too easy to cover up their mistakes and blame it on the government of the day. Surely you would agree with that Chilcs?
Having worked, as you know, in the NHS for nearly 40 years I know very well what an imperfect organisation it is, but in this case a government exercise which the government failed to act upon can hardly be blamed on the NHS, I’m sure you’ll agree. An NHS doctor is planning to sue the government about it so we’ll see what the outcome of that will be.
Not sure if this has been validated, but I read, yesterday, that the details of trade deals, between us and the USA, will be enshrouded in secrecy for 5 years. The only reason I can think, why either government would agree to such a contract, is because the public, on one side or the other of the water, wouldn’t be too impressed with what is being agreed to. We’ll be okay though, with Liz Truss looking out for us.
The problem is that term limits tend to also encourage stagnation: lame duck presidents accomplish very little in their final couple years, for the simple reason that they no longer have the political capital to pass major legislation. Even their own party rarely has much inclination to stick their necks out for someone who cannot be reelected. I also disagree that, in a functioning country, you'd see more erosion of democracy. Which of the UK, US and Canada has seen more anti-democratic actions taken by government? The one that has term limits at the state and federal levels.
I think the NHS is the one success story in this whole sorry mess. We’ve had more deaths than any other country in the world bar that failed experiment known as the USA, yet unlike France, Italy or Spain, our health service has somehow managed not to be overwhelmed. Of course that doesn’t excuse the scandal of NHS staff being forced to work without PPE, but I absolutely lay that one at the feet of HM Government.
Vladimir Putin? The longer you allow an elected leader to remain in power, the more opportunity he has to centralise power around himself. What are the odds that Donny has been taking coaching from Vlad? Fortunately the gulf in their respective IQs is a good deal wider than the Bering Strait
Think the cause-and-effect is backwards there. Russia did have term limits. Didn't matter in the slightest.
So the fact that Putin was able to subvert Russia's constitution, means there was no point having a constitution in the first place? Is there any point then to the rule of law, if tyrants are set on subverting it? I don't see your argument here at all I'm afraid.
It's that there's very little correlation between a lack of term limits and tyranny. Few developed nations have term limits for the seat of executive power, while they are fairly common in less-developed countries. And commonly subverted. If you're at the point where you are reliant on a term limit to prevent devolution into tyranny, you've already lost.
Here’s a double first from me: an article from the Daily Mail, which happens to be written by Piers Morgan. Surprisingly, it’s rather good! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...nsons-shameful-mixed-messages-cost-lives.html
Don't do that to often Chilcs, you risk contamination. The mail and telegraph have both been running articles slating Johnson and previous tory governments. The knives are out.
What are the odds on this government lasting the full 5 years? With lockdown dragging on long into next year, no prospect of a vaccine in sight, the death toll climbing into 6 figures, a no-deal Brexit, the economy in ruins, mass unemployment, Universal Credit paying millions £74 a week, prices of basic foodstuffs rocketing...
Have a look here Chilcs, https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics I can't be arsed on the sofa with a glass in hand
It isn't, that's the point. Virtually every constitutional arrangement, at the end of the day, is reliant on the public to enforce it. No matter how robust it might be on paper, if the public is apathetic or openly cheering for constitutional norms to be flouted, no piece of paper will stand in the way. In the US, there are two flaws that would allow that to play out. The first is that SCOTUS has no actual enforcement power: it is reliant on the belief that what SCOTUS says goes, and the assumption that there would be severe consequences for being openly contemptuous of a Supreme Court ruling. If that isn't the case, the Constitution largely ceases to exist overnight. There is also a more subtle way to approach it: rather than sideline the court, co-opt it. Ensure that it gives a rubber-stamp to all of your decisions, no matter how nakedly unconstitutional. This has long been a favourite of dictators who wanted the sheen of legitimacy, and in the US there is a loophole big enough to move a cruise ship through: the Constitution defines the role of the Supreme Court, but it doesn't define its size. Over the decades this has led to musing (much of it on the left, actually) about court-packing, whereby you would greatly increase the number of sitting justices in order to reshape its partisan lean. If a wannabe dictator had a bare majority in the House and Senate, in addition to the presidency, it's totally constitutional to pass a bill increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to 19, and then seating 10 lackeys. And because SCOTUS is the arbiter of constitutionality, it's totally cool when those 10 lackeys rule that the 22nd Amendment (or any other inconvenient part of the document) doesn't apply to you because reasons.
