How is the Tory government doing?

Hahaha!

You simply don't understand anything much about politics do you!

You really believe most people vote for who they think is best equipped to lead the country???

Of course they don't!

They vote for the party they always have.

They only change their vote if there is some local or national issue they feel more strongly about and their 'party' is doing nothing much about it in their opinion - such as Brexit or the hatred of their own political party leader - which were the two reasons why Labour got crushed at the 2019 general election.

Conservatives didn't 'win' that election in so much as Labour voters 'gave' it to them because they thought Labour under Corbyn was a disaster.  

They certainly didn't cast their votes because they thought Johnson and the Conservatives were the 'best thing' for the country and that although 'their' local MP 'was a good 'un' they'd still vote 'Conservative' instead!

And before you use your stock phrase of telling me 'I miss the point' (when we both know I haven't) if you think I'm talking bollocks, then why are something like 90% of constituencies return the same political party in every General Elections and thus why huge effort are put into winning the 'swing' seats?  I'll even answer the point for you, because people vote for what they believe is best for themselves and NOT who they think is best for the rest of the country.

And if I may throw your phrase back at you, you miss the point about the lockdowns which I clearly made because it doesn't fit your mantra, namely the decisions were done at the time, based on the best information they had up to that point, to balance the NHS needs with the opposing needs of the economy and were done with the best of intentions.  They were not done to kill people or ruin the economy and some of the information on which the decisions were made have been found after the events not to have been factual and/or accurate.

It was inevitable that in retrospect some of the decision taken were wrong - nobody is denying that - but they were made with the best intentions at the point they were made.

How hard is it for you to grasp that?

Or rather you have grasped that but you find it more enjoyable to continue arguing and putting the boot into the 'Tory' government?

The point of my post was to highlight why you're wrong to focus on whether the government deliberately made things worse. The point is to scrutinise the government's performance and inform future voting intention.

Example - red wall voters believed Johnson was more capable of delivering on the key issue of the time - Brexit (vast over simplification given the number of factors at play but you take my point).

On your point that decisions were taken using the information at hand, what is your point here? You've already been shown that the scientists had recommended much earlier action, the criticism is not what decision taken but when - specifically the delay between that advice coming and the action being taken.

You've already conceded there was too much of a delay, so not sure why you're continuing to drag this out? Other than a long standing affliction you have to try and argue with everything i post.

You're the one who argues for the fun of it mate, not me!

Are you for real asking about why correct information is essential to make the best decisions???

The scientists had modelled what they believed to be the effect the virus spread and death rates on the information they had from China. There was also a belief at that time about Behavioural fatigue. Both were part of the decision making in delaying the initial lockdown and both latterly were seen to be false or incorrect. Clearly the decision resulting from this false/incorrect 'knowledge' at the time impacted on why the lockdown wasn't made sooner which would have been the case if 'true' and non misleading information had been available at the time.

As for further lockdowns since, I have no knowledge of what information and what constraints the government had at the time to base their decisions upon. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that some of the information/advise they had at the time now in retrospect is seen not to have been the best.

And I never said the government deliberately made things worse???

My point was that at no time did they make a decision with the intent to make things worse - so by definition if things did get worse - and they did - then what was the reasoning as to why the decision was made needs to be looked at - and as I've kept saying - wrong and/or misleading information given to them at the time to base their decision on, WAS the problem - otherwise they wouldn't have taken the decision they did!

It's simple stuff this - 'garbage in, garbage out' as the old saying used to be.

As I've said before, I now realise that you can't see further than the surface of issues and can't grasp what lies beneath and the cause/effect of what really happens.

Clearly one who follows the headlines rather than looks at what is behind them.

Sluffy wrote:
Are you for real asking about why correct information is essential to make the best decisions???

No, I've never said anything close to that, I don't think I can simplify my point any more for you Sluffy so i won't try.

If you want to have an argument over the importance of correct data you're in the wrong place, it's wildly off-topic and I'm not sure what's made you think otherwise.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Are you for real asking about why correct information is essential to make the best decisions???

No, I've never said anything close to that, I don't think I can simplify my point any more for you Sluffy so i won't try.

If you want to have an argument over the importance of correct data you're in the wrong place, it's wildly off-topic and I'm not sure what's made you think otherwise.

Probably because you said this!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:On your point that decisions were taken using the information at hand, what is your point here? You've already been shown that the scientists had recommended much earlier action, the criticism is not what decision taken but when - specifically the delay between that advice coming and the action being taken.

Yes, you keep bringing it up - but nobody’s questioning that. I even go on to explain it again for you in the post you quote:

You've already been shown that the scientists had recommended much earlier action, the criticism is not what decision taken but when - specifically the delay between that advice coming and the action being taken.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Yes, you keep bringing it up - but nobody’s questioning that. I even go on to explain it again for you in the post you quote:

You've already been shown that the scientists had recommended much earlier action, the criticism is not what decision taken but when - specifically the delay between that advice coming and the action being taken.

1 - It WAS scientists who modeled the incorrect data - firstly the rubbish given by China and latterly the 'then' unknown Kent mutation of the virus leading to quicker spread of infection.

2 - The decisions on lockdown was NOT made on health concerns alone - saving the ECONOMY from collapse was equally as important and which is greatly damaged under lockdowns.

As I say, I realise now that you seem incapable of seeing deeper into issues and what the cause and effects are and why the outcomes turned out as they did.

Sluffy wrote: latterly the 'then' unknown Kent mutation of the virus leading to quicker spread of infection.

So taking this point, when did the government learn about it and when did we go into full lockdown? This information is readily available online.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote: latterly the 'then' unknown Kent mutation of the virus leading to quicker spread of infection.

So taking this point, when did the government learn about it and when did we go into full lockdown? This information is readily available online.

What was the government advise they were receiving from SAGE at the time and how did they need to balance it with the need to keep the economy going?

You seem to keep perpetually missing the governments need to balance lockdowns with the requirement of the economy to remain as free from them as possible.

The decision making isn't as black and white as you wish to make it out to be.

I can only guess that you believe that it is, in which case I then refer you back to my comments of you apparently being unable to see further than your nose and certainly not deeply into what was the information available and the socioeconomic climate at that time was and how and why these affected the decisions that were taken.

It is very easy to be wise AFTER the event.

Sluffy, I'm well aware of the need to balance the economy, I've never said otherwise.

It's one of many factors in the decision making process, and taking all of those factors into account my belief is that they got the decision wrong.

If you agree with that, then why do you continue to labour the point? I'd suggest it's more to do with you wanting to disagree with everything i post on principle rather than any concrete arguments.

It always puzzles me when people presume to know the minds of others when it comes to voting or anything else.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, I'm well aware of the need to balance the economy, I've never said otherwise.

It's one of many factors in the decision making process, and taking all of those factors into account my belief is that they got the decision wrong.

If you agree with that, then why do you continue to labour the point? I'd suggest it's more to do with you wanting to disagree with everything i post on principle rather than any concrete arguments.

Hahaha, as if I would waste my life away disagreeing with everything you (or anyone else) posts!

 

You (and everyone else) are entitled to have your own opinions, I'm simply - on a public forum - wishing to give you a better insight on things from my own personal experience - as opposed to political bias and/or social media 'outrage'.

If you want to listen to me, fine, if you don't then that's fine too.

I've got time on my hands to do this and quite enjoy doing it to.

I don't think it is difficult to grasp that advise and information upon which decisions were made at the time turned out to be wrong - and consequently the decisions too turned out to be wrong because of it.

I don't believe it was done maliciously or deliberately and that ANY government that did what they understood to be right thing at the time can hardly be blamed for it in retrospect.  If they had the ability to know the future they would not have taken those decisions that turned out to be wrong in the first place would they?

You seem inflexible to accept anything other than your firmly established and presumably long standing negative view of the Conservative party.

Your choice but a small minded one obviously.

Think I’ve said three or four times that I don’t think it was deliberate or malicious Sluffy, so think you can drop that line?

I’d debate this part in bold though:

I don't believe it was done maliciously or deliberately and that ANY government that did what they understood to be right thing at the time can hardly be blamed for it in retrospect

If I make a mistake that costs my company millions, whether I had the best intentions or not is relatively immaterial - I’m getting my wrists slapped or worse.

Similarly if a government makes multiple mistakes - regardless of their intentions - and in this instance costing lives, they get blamed for it and could ultimately pay the price at the ballot box - that’s how democracies work.

I don’t know what your career background is but that’s how the real world works.

So true, TROY

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Think I’ve said three or four times that I don’t think it was deliberate or malicious Sluffy, so think you can drop that line?

I’d debate this part in bold though:

I don't believe it was done maliciously or deliberately and that ANY government that did what they understood to be right thing at the time can hardly be blamed for it in retrospect

If I make a mistake that costs my company millions, whether I had the best intentions or not is relatively immaterial - I’m getting my wrists slapped or worse.

Similarly if a government makes multiple mistakes - regardless of their intentions - and in this instance costing lives, they get blamed for it and could ultimately pay the price at the ballot box - that’s how democracies work.

I don’t know what your career background is but that’s how the real world works.

Also it’s usual to appoint people based on their ability and experience rather than their political  leaning as seems to have been the case with this current cabinet and civil positions.

Again you apply your own experience which is clearly one outside of public service and accountability to how the public sector actually works.

In it inquiry/s are held to determine the actual circumstances of what had happened and why and make recommendations to ensure such a thing could never happen again.

If someone has done something illegal/criminal, they are prosecuted, if someone has not performed their jobs properly they will be disciplined/fired but if the decision/actions taken were genuinely based on misinformation or incorrect research by experts, then procedures and practises will be put in place to safeguard such things happening again.

There aren't any 'fall-guys' that are fingered to take the blame when all they have done is taken what was accepted at the time to be genuine information on which they acted.

I even suggest to you that if such a case happened in your field of work and the 'blame' was deliberately laid on someone who acted professionally and in good faith of the information given to them, that they would have a very strong claim for unfair dismissal.

Of course people/the electorate, perceive things as they wish and governments can and do change at general elections but the next GE scheduled is not to take place until 2024 and as Harold Wilson once said 'a week is a long time in politics', then I suggest the issues more prevalent in the news in three years time will be what many people casting their votes will be more likely to have on their minds.

That's how it works.

This is about being held to account by the electorate Sluffy, we're not talking about working at a local council here.

Do you think Tony Blair knew he was invading Iraq under false reports of weapons of mass destruction? or did he have the best intentions?

Doesn't matter, Labour still paid for it at the ballot box.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:This is about being held to account by the electorate Sluffy, we're not talking about working at a local council here.

Do you think Tony Blair knew he was invading Iraq under false reports of weapons of mass destruction? or did he have the best intentions?

Doesn't matter, Labour still paid for it at the ballot box.

Next time you post anything personal or private about me or my family again I'll ban you for good - understand.

As for Blair and Iraq there have been a number of inquiry's into this such as the Butler Review the Chilcot Inquiry and the Hutton Inquiry

The reports all found that the 'experts' information on which the decision to go to war was wrong and consequently non of those who were involved in making the decision from this information were held to be at fault.  Not one person involved in that decision based on the 'false' information at the time as ever been censured.

As for Blair he was PM from May 1997 to June 2007 and was succeeded by Brown until May 2010 - a span of 13 years.  The Iraq war (weapons of mass destruction) took place in March 2003 and lasted a month - no WMD were found.

Following that Blair WON the next general election in 2005 and Labour only lost power 5 years later in 2010.

I don't believe Blair's 'war' seven years previously and three years after he stepped down as PM played such a significant part in the 2010 General Election, Labour defeat as you claim.

Fwiw this YouGov survey analysing why the Labour vote fell from Blairs first GE win in 1997 to Browns defeat in 2010 doesn't mention WMD as even an issue!

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/10/22/labours-lost-votes

That’s a ridiculous reaction. I posted the name of the local council you worked for, the only reason I know that is from you openly posting about it on here, you can’t expect others to consider that sensitive information when you haven’t treated it as such.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:That’s a ridiculous reaction. I posted the name of the local council you worked for, the only reason I know that is from you openly posting about it on here, you can’t expect others to consider that sensitive information when you haven’t treated it as such.

I've NEVER stated where I've worked, EVER.

Some years ago I mentioned something - which I now regret - I was more naive as to what nutcases inhabit social media back then - and have since had one person from a BWFC site attempt to hack into my private affairs.

I'm all for having a bit of fun and banter on the forums but regrettably some mentalists don't know the difference between a petty internet squabble and real life and take things way too far.

I'm not messing about on this, any attempt to disclose anything about myself or my family by anyone will receive an instant life ban.

I trust that is crystal clear to everyone.