How is the Tory government doing?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:If that’s what you really meant (I don’t for a second think it is), then you need to re write what you’ve posted. It makes zero sense bringing up Corbyn in the way you claim to have.

Hahaha!

Thought not.

Yet another one who can't admit he got it wrong on the internet!

You jumped to your own interpretation as to what I wrote rather than weigh up what I actual posted and went off on one believing you caught me out, instead you've ended up with egg on your face.

I have to re-write what I wrote because you misunderstood it...yeah right!

I was clear in what I posted and could (and did) back it up when challenged.

I've spent a lifetime in and around politics, seems you clearly haven't!

It's all a big game, I keep telling you but you don't seem to get it.

That's why for me, politics should have been taken out of the Covid crisis as soon as possible but because Corbyn was playing his game in delaying standing down with the intention that Corbynista, Long-Bailey would hopefully replace him, if he left enough time between his disastrous General Election results and the new leadership elections and somehow, hopefully people might think it was just one of those things or something - which clearly was never going to happen.

Because of his game playing - and when it mattered the most - Labour was simply not in a position to contribute to a coalition - none of Corbyn's inner cabinet would be significant players in the incoming Starmer's shadow cabinet - and Starmer couldn't be asked to be part of (and nominate others in the Labour Party he would wish to join) a coalition cabinet because he was still in a contest to be elected leader and would have split the Labour Party if he had.

All this is spurious anyway because Johnson/Cummings would never offer the option of a coalition government because they (Cummings) were to cocksure of themselves and their abilities - but my point still stands that even if they did want one, then at that time Labour under Corbyn wasn't in a position to form one with them.

And the offer was still not made when they finally were - which if the Conservatives had stopped playing their 'power' games - Johnson had caught Covid, Cummings had gone to Barnard Castle to 'test his eyesight' (although that story had yet to break at that time) and the country was already a month into lockdown - would have been better late than never imo, for what that is worth.

All water under the bridge now though.

I won't hold my breath for your internet apology either.

If that genuinely was the point you were making Sluffy then of course I apologise. But I think even you can re-read that statement and see how it can be interpreted both ways.

I don’t agree with your analysis of Corbyn staying on to get RLB into power. It was in the hope Labour still offered some scrutiny and kept relevance while they went into an internal leadership contest - which takes time for Labour as it’s a democratic process, not just decided by MPs.

Again, categorising every action as selfish game playing is too simplistic.

Apology accepted, thank you.

You DON'T believe Corbyn (and his mates/Momentum/the unions) didn't stretch out the process in an attempt to give time for 'their' runner Long-Bailey time to build up her image and support and for arch rival Starmer's campaign to hopefully run out of steam or derail, just goes to show me that yet again you can't grasp what goes on in politics under the surface.

Politics is about 'self' the world over.

Self can be both the individual and the party for example Trump was about himself and the Republican Party that backed him to the last was about itself clinging on to power.  Now that he's no longer POTUS Trump is still powerful and dangerous in politics as he can use his powerbase to keep himself a big player in politics still and attack any of his Republican rivals if he wants to if he stood again for 2024.

The Chinese party officials in Wuhan looked to protect themselves when Covid broke out there by trying to hide the fact from the national party.  In turn the National Party once in found out have continued to protect itself from the rest of the world by at first trying to keep a lid on things (remember that doctor who tried to tell his colleagues and the party ordered him to recant and who sadly went on to die from it) and have done ever since including strictly controlling the current WHO fact finding investigation team in Wuhan.

The EU have only just shown that they think of 'self' first and foremost with their ill judged and quickly rescinded overriding of the Brexit deal over their handling of their poor vaccine procurement and roll out.  All that outcry from them when Johnson 'threatened' to do the same during negotiations yet they actually 'did it' just weeks later!

The game is played at every level and is always about 'self'/self interest.

If you haven't grasped that by now then you are ideal party fodder to be used and manipulated by those who do know and understand what the game of politics is really all about.

There are none so blind as those that will not see... as they say.

Again you try to look at things as either black or white. I’m not saying selfish acts of game playing don’t happen, quite the opposite - they’re rife. Im saying not every single act can be categorised in that way, and specifically I don’t believe this one was. Corbyn was toxic post election, his presence won’t have helped RLB, I believe the intention was to maintain a presence in opposition during a crucial period while the elections took place. Where’s your evidence to suggest otherwise?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Again you try to look at things as either black or white. I’m not saying selfish acts of game playing don’t happen, quite the opposite - they’re rife. Im saying not every single act can be categorised in that way, and specifically I don’t believe this one was. Corbyn was toxic post election, his presence won’t have helped RLB, I believe the intention was to maintain a presence in opposition during a crucial period while the elections took place. Where’s your evidence to suggest otherwise?

My evidence?

I don't have any, I wasn't involved in the process.

My judgement though is based on the break in accepted protocol following elections where a badly rejected party leader stands down within days of the defeat and doesn't get involved trying to influence/manipulate who their successor would be when it is quite obvious that Starmer was going to be all along.

In fact events have shown that all involved with the process of attempting to pass on the crown to Long-Bailey have since been removed from power - Corbyn no longer under the whip, Long-Bailey demoted from her position in the shadow cabinet, Corbyn's mates in the PLP in exile, Momentum shown the door and even election wins on the NEC.

All that simply isn't a 'coincidence'.

Do you think all of those would still have been in power still if Long-Bailey had won?

I do!

You're free to believe whatever you want, I'm just trying to give you a deeper understanding of the 'game', entirely up to you if you want to reject it out of hand.

Doesn't mean that you are right and I am wrong though!

Well I think all of those people would be replaced with Starmer allies because that’s what happens when there’s a change in leadership - don’t think that amounts to evidence.

Always interesting to read the other sides interpretation of events though. Seems to be increasingly polarised these days.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Well I think all of those people would be replaced with Starmer allies because that’s what happens when there’s a change in leadership - don’t think that amounts to evidence.

Always interesting to read the other sides interpretation of events though. Seems to be increasingly polarised these days.

Usually a change of leadership (in democratic country's) will always retain some key members from the former leadership group for many reasons not least the old saying 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'.  It also keeps the party that bit more united than risk a civil war breaking out between the factions.

Also if you read my post above I didn't claim any evidence whatsoever about this, I told you it was simply my judgement based on my experiences over the years.

Polarisation usually means that hard and opposite stances are being taken.

Do you really need me to explain why such things happen, surely you know that is because both sides are seeking power for themselves (see once again 'self' crops up).

See for instance Militant Tendency and Kinnock and the Eurosceptics and Cameron.

The game is played over and over and over again, over the generations, right back to when Machiavelli wrote his book.

People and causes come and go but the game is still the same.

And I am not 'the other side' if you are classing me as such, I rather not play myself and that's why I stay out of politics.

No need to explain anything to me Sluffy, I get it - I just don’t agree with you.

Paul Dacre to be appointed head of Ofcom - just what the regulator of national comms needs, a highly partisan individual to help quiet dissent.

All part of the plan to stifle any criticism of the Tory government by the BBC.

How long before we get Fox News over here spreading lies?

Could be worse than that with GB News nearing launch X.

Turns out the choice isn't quite as binary as China or Tory fumbling. Australia showing that if you act quickly and decisively the impact on life and the economy can be managed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55877150

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Turns out the choice isn't quite as binary as China or Tory fumbling. Australia showing that if you act quickly and decisively the impact on life and the economy can be managed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55877150

You're comparing apples with oranges.

We are a year into Covid and we know what to expect now.

ONE regularly checked security guard, at a quarantined travellers hotel, who worked on a floor with a known positive Covid arrival, triggered, quite rightly, an immediate response to stop the virus spreading any further. A bit different from an already out of control virus in the community and with no means of checking at that time who was infected and who wasn't, as China or your hated Tory government were facing at the start of the pandemic.

But you knew that before you even posted.

Yet you still went ahead anyway didn't you...

Very strange reaction, I think you must have missed the point.

The comparison highlights what should have been done from the start, be strict, decisive and proactive. Whereas we've been late to lockdown on more than one occasion.

It's blatantly obvious it's too late to do it when there are thousands of infections, I don't think you really thought i was suggesting that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Very strange reaction, I think you must have missed the point.

The comparison highlights what should have been done from the start, be strict, decisive and proactive. Whereas we've been late to lockdown on more than one occasion.

It's blatantly obvious it's too late to do it when there are thousands of infections, I don't think you really thought i was suggesting that.

Absolutely!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Very strange reaction, I think you must have missed the point.

The comparison highlights what should have been done from the start, be strict, decisive and proactive. Whereas we've been late to lockdown on more than one occasion.

It's blatantly obvious it's too late to do it when there are thousands of infections, I don't think you really thought i was suggesting that.

In China there was a cover up by the local officials in Wuhan, so it was impossible to do a lockdown at the time to stop the spread getting into their community - I guess they thought like Sars it wouldn't spread quickly.

Then once the Chinese government became aware they locked down Wuhan but didn't tell the world that the virus spreads from human to human easily, even though they knew that.

You need to read this if you think I'm talking out my arse. -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55756452

The Chinese didn't stop travel from China to the world, or even from Wuhan to the world.

By the time the UK got to know the truth (following what happened in Italy) it was too late, the virus was in the community from China (and from other country's where it had gotten a hold of from China) and even from people returning from holidays in Italy.

It simply was far to late for any lockdown to stop the spread in the community, even if we had done so a week or three earlier.

And to be fair, keeping the economy as much as normal as possible was one thing that all governments in the world have tried to do whilst tackling Covid at the same time, so lockdowns were (and still aren't) highly desirable things to do from any government's perspective.

The example you've shown is of a community with NO existing community infection and an immediate response to a regularly 'monitored' part of a quarantined area where Covid is ALREADY known to be, in order to prevent community contamination becoming established.

Two vastly and completely different scenarios.

And you know it.

Again, you only seem capable of taking the most basic point so end up ranting on a loosely related tangent.

I'll simplify what i'm saying for you:

The government have been too slow to lockdown twice.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Again, you only seem capable of taking the most basic point so end up ranting on a loosely related tangent.

I'll simplify what i'm saying for you:

The government have been too slow to lockdown twice.

And I'll simplify for you:

The example you give above is NOT comparable because the circumstances surrounding it and the lockdowns (or delays of them) you relate it to were completely and utterly different.

So it's not a fair comment to say Australia have acted more decisively in locking down than we have?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So it's not a fair comment to say Australia have acted more decisively in locking down than we have?

Australia isn't a world transport hub like London is and never got the almost instantaneous community infection like we did, thus have been able to basically shut it's boarders to everyone who won't have an 'enforced' 14 day quarantine period - and who goes all that way to Australia just for a few days anyway?

Look as a comparison if you will as to how bad New York got hit with Covid, whilst many parts of the States were hardly effected at all at the start.

Anyway your comment wasn't about Australia's initial control of the virus but comparing the recent Perth lockdown with China and the 'Tory' government's.

And that is like putting an umbrella up in the wind and rain and putting one up on a sunny day - you are still putting an umbrella up but in the first instance you are trying to stop getting wet (to save the health service being swamped and falling over) and in the second, to stop yourself from getting burned by the Sun (to prevent Covid getting into a Covid free community).

Lockdown just the same but in two different circumstances and having two completely separate aims.

Do you know I've always though that a lot of the time you only post to argue, which you do, but in the last several months it has become to dawn on me that you seem to be incapable of seeing anything but the surface of events, you can't grasp or bother yourself with what lies beneath.  You seem to belief things that justify your views at face value.

For instance you are clearly politically motivated (your post above is basically just another pop at the Tory party) but you have little to no knowledge of how things work - take for example the relationship between elected politicians and permanent public officials - you showed jaw dropping ignorance about that when debating government PPE procurement with myself.  This relationship being something that is documented and factual, not an opinion or belief as to what you think the do/don't do.

You're not on your own on seeing no further than the surface, I would suggest the bulk of people who spend time on social media are, people seem to believe any old rubbish these days - QAnon for example.

Just because you like what you read from others on Twitter etc, doesn't mean that it is true/or putting a spin on things that they want you to believe.

But then again why believe me, as I'm just someone on social media as well!