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.

Typical government response. Shortage of PPE? Not our fault it's those foolish NHS staff and carers overusing it.

Some interesting selective quoting there - and putting his words out of context from what he actually said which was -

10:48
Do not overuse PPE, says UK health secretary

There have been cases where medical workers have used more personal protective equipment (PPE) than necessary, the UK health secretary has said, after a doctor's union warned that many doctors were not getting the equipment they need.
The British Medical Association said doctors faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
Matt Hancock told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that there was enough personal protective equipment to go around if it was used in line with guidance.
"I don't want to impugn blame on people who have used more PPE than the guidelines suggest because I understand the difficulties in the circumstances," he said.
"What I would say it is very important to use the right PPE and not overuse it."
The health secretary confirmed that 19 NHS workers had died since the start of the outbreak.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: "It is quite frankly insulting to imply front line staff are wasting PPE."
Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, told Today that no piece of PPE could ever be "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52252981

Seems fair comment to me.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about in respect of point scoring at this time.

Hancock DIDN'T imply front line staff were deliberately wasting PPE and we all know, Hancock too, that no PPE is more precious than a healthcare workers life.

In fact even her quote must have been taken out of context somewhat because it's meaningless just taken as it is.  I didn't hear the discussion but what it seems to me is that Hancock was saying some frontline staff may have at times gone beyond what the (presumably?) NHS guidelines suggest, and thus consequently leaving them that much shorter until the next scheduled delivery.

No-one can blame anyone for wanting to over protect themselves but at the same time the consequences may well be they leave others short later on.

As there are only finite PPE at anyone time it is obviously extremely difficult to strike the right balance.

Just seems to me that some just want to bash the government no matter what - presumably because once we get over this the country will be against them and vote them out ASAP.

Seems to be the same Labour Party thinking under Corbyn about letting the country fall into Brexit under the Conservatives, for it to become a disaster and everybody vote Labour back into power ASAP thereafter.

Too much game playing for me.

Let's stick together, get things sorted, and play the silly point scoring games afterwards.

As for Jenrick it seems on the face of it that he did break his own rules he was giving to us and should suffer the consequences.

I don't doubt all of us would want (and I'm sure some/many do) to go and see our love ones at this time even if it means bending the rules somewhat but in his case (and Calderwood's) the Creaser's wife analogy holds true (that's of course if we discount Messalina).

Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

Seemed to me that Labour should have been at the forefront of the Remain campaign and was conspicuous by there absence and particularly that of their leader Corbyn - who was clearly not a pro-European.

Although most didn't believe 'Leave' would win it did lead to all sorts of political games thereafter certainly didn't contribute to Labour working towards a unified and orderly process for Brexit - presumably hoping for May/the Conservatives to not achieve the most optimum deal possible.

I could only conclude from that, that Corbyn/Momentum's strategy was for a 'bad' deal to be struck and consequently lead to voters turning to Labour at the next GE on the basis that the Conservatives had handled the situation 'badly'.

Hence the parallel I was alluding to in respect of dealing with the current situation.

All water under the bridge now though.

@Sluffy wrote:

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

Seemed to me that Labour should have been at the forefront of the Remain campaign and was conspicuous by there absence and particularly that of their leader Corbyn - who was clearly not a pro-European.

Although most didn't believe 'Leave' would win it did lead to all sorts of political games thereafter certainly didn't contribute to Labour working towards a unified and orderly process for Brexit - presumably hoping for May/the Conservatives to not achieve the most optimum deal possible.

I could only conclude from that, that Corbyn/Momentum's strategy was for a 'bad' deal to be struck and consequently lead to voters turning to Labour at the next GE on the basis that the Conservatives had handled the situation 'badly'.

Hence the parallel I was alluding to in respect of dealing with the current situation.

All water under the bridge now though.

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

@okocha wrote: NHS staff still do not have the protective equipment they need to treat coronavirus patients, medics have said.


The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors were putting their lives at risk by working without adequate protection.


Personal protective equipment (PPE) in London and Yorkshire are at "dangerously low levels", according to the BMA.


Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said doctors were being forced into a corner and faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
He said: "This is an immensely difficult position to be in, but is ultimately down to the government's chronic failure to supply us with the proper equipment."


The row over PPE has been growing ever more intense in recent days, as doctors become increasingly frustrated that they are not getting the supplies they feel they need.


Doctors working in close contact with Covid-19 patients should have at the very least a surgical face mask, disposable apron, disposable gloves and eye protection.


The BMA issued a snapshot survey of almost 2,000 responses on Tuesday. It said it showed more than half of doctors working in high-risk environments reporting either shortages, or no supply at all of adequate face masks, while 65% said they did not have access to eye protection. The figures were even higher among GPs in contact with Covid-19 patients.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dismissed any suggestion that healthcare staff have been overusing PPE.


RCN chief executive Dame Donna Kinnair told the BBC no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".


"I take offence actually that we are saying that healthcare workers are abusing or overusing PPE," she told BBC Breakfast, adding that nurses were still telling her they did not have adequate supply of protective equipment.

Thanks for posting this, the lack of preparation/impact of a decade cuts to the NHS for this will surely be investigated at some point once this is over.

Can only hope a complete change in approach to public services comes about.

Just seen this and thought it would go some way to refute the suggestion that the government had been deliberately under funding the NHS for the last ten years -


More significant may be higher health spending:
Germany spent €4,271 (£3,744) per person on healthcare (11.1% of gross domestic product - the value of goods and services produced in the country) in 2016
The UK spent €3,566 per person on healthcare (9.7% of GDP) in 2016
The EU average is 9.9% of GDP






https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52234061

Obviously they could have done more but then again something would have to be cut in order to do that within the budget they were working to.

Sorry if I’m missing something, but doesn’t your post suggest we’re spending less than the EU average on healthcare?

@okocha wrote: NHS staff still do not have the protective equipment they need to treat coronavirus patients, medics have said.


The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors were putting their lives at risk by working without adequate protection.


Personal protective equipment (PPE) in London and Yorkshire are at "dangerously low levels", according to the BMA.


Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said doctors were being forced into a corner and faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
He said: "This is an immensely difficult position to be in, but is ultimately down to the government's chronic failure to supply us with the proper equipment."


The row over PPE has been growing ever more intense in recent days, as doctors become increasingly frustrated that they are not getting the supplies they feel they need.


Doctors working in close contact with Covid-19 patients should have at the very least a surgical face mask, disposable apron, disposable gloves and eye protection.


The BMA issued a snapshot survey of almost 2,000 responses on Tuesday. It said it showed more than half of doctors working in high-risk environments reporting either shortages, or no supply at all of adequate face masks, while 65% said they did not have access to eye protection. The figures were even higher among GPs in contact with Covid-19 patients.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dismissed any suggestion that healthcare staff have been overusing PPE.


RCN chief executive Dame Donna Kinnair told the BBC no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".


"I take offence actually that we are saying that healthcare workers are abusing or overusing PPE," she told BBC Breakfast, adding that nurses were still telling her they did not have adequate supply of protective equipment.

Okocha, this is a forum where people give their opinions. If I wanted to read the news I'd visit the BBC website.