Coronavirus - the political argument

Select committees are cross party, so I don’t understand your point to be honest. They aren’t there to play party politics - I think this is where you keep heading on this, it’s just about facts. I haven’t seen much (if any) political game playing from the media or rival MPs during the crisis - it’s just not the time.

You even say yourself what value SC’s add - but I’m not sure from your comment whether you’re also saying they shouldn’t be taking place during the event and only after?

SC's aren't there to be part of/create policy, nor even challenge it, - that's a matter for all political parties at Parliament to vote on - they are there to oversea that the government departments have done things properly in the determination of policy that has been enacted, or has fallen short of what the policy had intended to achieve.

Sluffy, would you say this statement is political point scoring:

‘The government were too slow to prepare and react to Coronavirus’. 

Think this simple difference may be where our disagreement stems from.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Yes makes sense on the scammer point Sluffy. Thanks for digging out that link.

Select committees are an important part of the democratic process in this country, it’s all part of policy. The problem with bypassing these until it’s all over is that by then it’s too late and given the importance of the current issue that’s a risk not worth taking.

It's this bit from your earlier quote I was responding to.

SC's DON'T get involved at all in policy formulation.

Tbh I don't really understand what you were even attempting to say in that sentence but I just wanted to make clear that SC's aren't policy forming vehicles.

They can scrutinise proposed legislation and make recommendations which the government has to respond to/even accept and incorporate it in the bills - but the timescales for doing so are such as to be completely impractical in fast moving events such as what we are currently in.

For instance no SC's have been set up to scrutinise the issue of PPE - no doubt once all this has finished there WILL be an inquiry into such things and I would imagine it would be at a higher level than just the relevant select committee.

As for SC's they are designed as such to prevent political game playing as they are comprised based on political party numbers at Parliament, so that any SC will be weighted in favour of the government of the day and if need be the majority view of the SC could be voted upon along party lines with the 'government's' own MP's on the committee always holding a majority and winning the vote.   To be fair I don't believe even that takes place and SC's are well intentioned irrespective of what members of the SC's individual politics are.

To be honest it is a long time ago that I was required to study the workings of democracy at Parliament but I believe what I'm saying above is all still current.

As for point scoring, there were clearly plenty comments raised by the media initially over the move from 'herd immunity' to 'containment' and also PPE issues but it seems to me that they've now understood that that continually banging on about it can't actually change anything and that no doubt these things will be looked into once all this is over.

I don't doubt SC's are still convened at working currently but I'd be very surprised if any SC is looking into the issues around coronavirus right now, which is being led by Medical Advise and not a political agenda anyway.

As I keep saying the time for scrutinising how all this has been handled will no doubt be dealt with by a public inquiry once the virus is beaten.

Then it will be swept under the carpet.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, would you say this statement is political point scoring:

‘The government were too slow to prepare and react to Coronavirus’. 

Think this simple difference may be where our disagreement stems from.

Well clearly they were completely under prepared for tsunami of the virus - every country was - and it also seems the initial herd immunity strategy was wrong too - but it seems to have been modelled on inaccurate and under reporting data from China.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/28/shipments-of-urns-in-wuhan-raise-questions-about-chinas-coronavirus-reporting/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-52194356

To 'blame' the government because of it though was political point scoring though as no government in the world had sufficiently prepared for such an event or had the ideal policy to deal with it - even Singapore who had been widely praised for how they initially tackled the virus has recently had to go into lockdown too.

The best thing we can hope that comes out of all this is that the world is better able in future to deal with such a pandemic again.

Cajunboy wrote:Then it will be swept under the carpet.

How very true.

Whatever happened to that report into Russian interference in our elections?

Buried of course, it can’t have reflected well on the government.

Im sure any future inquiry will point to austerity as leaving us woefully under prepared for a crisis like this one. However it’s not the time to look at causes, let’s keep scrutinising the governments response to get through this.

We can't heve people undermining the PM with this in the government so time for a sacking?

karlypants wrote:We can't heve people undermining the PM with this in the government so time for a sacking?

He has got to go. What a hypocrite.

To be fair to Priti Patel she is actually doing something sensible. Some of these police chiefs seem to have lost their minds.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwidmYHqtdzoAhUiD2MBHR-mB8cQFjAEegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicshome.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fpriti-patel-blasts-police-chiefs-inappropriate-threat-to-check-trolleys-for-legitimate-necessary-shopping&usg=AOvVaw1cGkUe4HYTop0-cZI1NwG6

Nice to see Sluffy and T.R.O.Y having a reasoned debate and no rucks, keep it up 

Another Labour Party member posting pathetic shite...

Well at least he wasn't driving over 40 miles to visit his parents.

And before anybody suggests otherwise I don't doubt that Boris has been ill.

If my parents genuinely needed medication, (what did he have for them that only he, from 40 miles away, could take?), I would also take it to them. However you interpret it, he was within the rules.
I also found it odd that he had to drive all the way to Hereford 130/140 miles? to where his family was. Having said that, I would also want to be with my family, (does this mean that he's been in London since the lockdown)?

gloswhite wrote:If my parents genuinely needed medication, (what did he have for them that only he, from 40 miles away, could take?), I would also take it to them. However you interpret it, he was within the rules.
I also found it odd that he had to drive all the way to Hereford 130/140 miles? to where his family was. Having said that, I would also want to be with my family, (does this mean that he's been in London since the lockdown)?

I doubt he was within the rules (whatever they actually are) as his parents neighbours were already supporting his parents. How likely is it that he and only he would have their medication? Still the BBC is too scared of the Tories to do anything but bury this story and he won't resign.

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:If my parents genuinely needed medication, (what did he have for them that only he, from 40 miles away, could take?), I would also take it to them. However you interpret it, he was within the rules.
I also found it odd that he had to drive all the way to Hereford 130/140 miles? to where his family was. Having said that, I would also want to be with my family, (does this mean that he's been in London since the lockdown)?

I doubt he was within the rules (whatever they actually are) as his parents neighbours were already supporting his parents. How likely is it that he and only he would have their medication? Still the BBC is too scared of the Tories to do anything but bury this story and he won't resign.

Wasn't aware of the neighbours input. Although I think he comes across as a reasonable man, I still think he should have his nuts kicked for taking the piss.

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:If my parents genuinely needed medication, (what did he have for them that only he, from 40 miles away, could take?), I would also take it to them. However you interpret it, he was within the rules.
I also found it odd that he had to drive all the way to Hereford 130/140 miles? to where his family was. Having said that, I would also want to be with my family, (does this mean that he's been in London since the lockdown)?

I doubt he was within the rules (whatever they actually are) as his parents neighbours were already supporting his parents. How likely is it that he and only he would have their medication? Still the BBC is too scared of the Tories to do anything but bury this story and he won't resign.

Wasn't aware of the neighbours input. Although I think he comes across as a reasonable man, I still think he should have his nuts kicked for taking the piss.

Well that would be a good start.

Jenrick must be in trouble if the Mail are on his case, I have no time for this government, but you wont find me being critical during the crisis, time for that later, i despair at some of the posts re Boris but he does invite it usually but not over this, Jenrick may not have broken any rules? but in the spirit of his own request to the public, he has been a bloody idiot at the very least.

As regards Jenrick it is the Caesar's wife situation. If you are going to lecture people about correct behaviour you have to be seen as following those rules.

The way that Jenrick's case is being handled contrasts with that of Dr Calderwood. You have to wonder why.