Goldie, if it turns out that the Government didn’t just make ‘mistakes’ (which imho could be forgiven) but they were also complicit in downgrading COVID, so as to suit their needs due to lack of PPE......should they be held accountable ?
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Goldie, if it turns out that the Government didn’t just make ‘mistakes’ (which imho could be forgiven) but they were also complicit in downgrading COVID, so as to suit their needs due to lack of PPE......should they be held accountable ?
Absolutely, they should, Stainsey. If this is true, it should be exposed. There may be grey areas. ie Govt must have followed scientific advice (majority, since not all scientists agree). Critics may then say the scientists were tame or leaned on - then it will come down to the details, but whatever happens, the facts have to come out, not just for accountability but also lessons learned since, with globalisation, we will doubtless be facing similar viruses in the future.
As for trust, I wouldn't say too much at the moment mate as there is still the Jezza problem with Jews and Starmer/cover-up and leaked documents.
Funny I remember one poster on here that would never accept there being a problem? I believe those reports do show there was a problem at the top and a cover-up.
I think there’s a misguided belief that as we’re in a war of sorts it would be wrong to not get behind the government. I can understand it though I don’t agree with it. If people deep down read and see as much or as little as they do and conclude both now and in the cold light of a few months from now that the government has handled this well then I think all hope is lost and they can get away with absolutely anything.
Again another use of the word 'mistakes'
These are deliberate actions not mistakes ffs. Waiting to pick over deliberate actions is too late. Wake up fella
Thing is Watford you only ever knock the Tories/government. You never knock your own party. Let's say Labour were in would you be so vocal? Does it seem to be the most vocal on here are not government supporters?
That doesn't always work. It was a crisis when a Labour government went to war in Iraq but the public did not support the government then.
I think the public believe this government is doing its best at the current time - which is what is important. There will be time enough to have an inquest into what went on behind the scenes once we're through the worst of this.
What a stupid post even by your standard!
There is only one party in power.
I don't know what you mean by deliberate actions. There seems to have been general apathy re NHS viral protective clothing. It was not seen as a priority by government or from within the NHS because pandemic viruses were "only something that happened in the Far East."
It’s not my party at all. I’m not a member and have voted for them once. I do rate Starmer though as much as I don’t think he’ll be PM but he’ll do a better job than anyone else of holding the current shambles to account.
Difficult to knock a party for what they might or might not have done when they aren’t in power. I’ve praised the Tories on the rare occasions they’ve merited it and criticised Labour who have by no means been perfect and have been far too principled to do and say the things that win elections. You can’t win over enough floating voters by telling uncomfortable truths which is a failure of the lack of accountability of our system.
Last edited:
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzSo last week the Guardian said that Cummings was interfering in the Scientific meetings.
Non-story
and today
The Guardian is saying that the scientists in those meetings lack experience?
This government is corrupt and lies. It has helped increase our death rate by totally misleading people. If you support those kind of actions then so be it. Some people thrive on lies and corruption.
So last week the Guardian said that Cummings was interfering in the Scientific meetings.
Non-story
and today
The Guardian is saying that the scientists in those 'secret' meetings lack experience?
Would help if we knew who was in them other than those who have voluntarily said they are. I believe Beth said something similar so apologies to her if I’m wrong but Whitty is quite new to the role and less ballsy for want of a better word than his predecessor.
We don’t know what scientists were in the room or what their specialism is unless that’s recently been revealed. In a room of 23 you’d like to think the breadth and depth of experience is ideal but no guarantee of that. I’m sure we’ve all been in meetings where the loudest opinions trump the most intelligent too. We just don’t know what’s happened in those meetings.
All we know is the choices the government has made. Not much at the moment to suggest those were the right choices.
Agree, I worded the post wrong. I know you are not really a Labour voter.
I don't recall you ever saying a good thing about the Tories Watford! when was that?
I agree and my original point was that Starmer is not the man to win an election. It's about time they had a woman?
Agree, I worded the post wrong. I know you are not really a Labour voter.
I don't recall you ever saying a good thing about the Tories Watford! when was that?
I agree and my original point was that Starmer is not the man to win an election. It's about time they had a woman?
I complimented their ability to say the right things to get into power.
No. Sad reality is they’d have less chance with Nandy and zero chance at all with Long-Bailey. They need to win over working class white men more than anything (not unlike in the US) and it shouldn’t be that way but a bloke gives them more chance of doing that.
The best antidote to the Tory bluster and lies is picking the many gaping holes in their arguments and being composed. We know Boris is awful when it comes to detail and is lazy. Corbyn was generally not good at that at all. Starmer’s career and brief time as leader suggests he’s ideal for this.
A couple of points and no disrespect to Beth (and I remember the post) but we shouldn't say how good or bad someone is in a job or meeting when we are not present? I think most would agree with that.
Furthermore, I would say Sunak is also 'quite new at his job' has been brilliant. Sometimes people just step up to the plate.
For me, the comments on these meetings are just another example of political point-scoring. The Guardian is on a witch hunt and spends all its time moaning about comings. That reporter who I quoted on Sunday was spot on.
Once again your last paragraph questions the 'specialism' of the scientists and who is in there.
The government will have the best people in those meetings and we need to trust the scientific advice otherwise we only have the experts on here? Trust me that is not a good thing.