Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 3 released May 19th)
Polls: South Asia (Results), Doubling the Canon (Results), 1950s (May 24th), 1966 awards (May 28th), 1935 (May 29th)
Challenges: Comedy, Western, Iberian Peninsula
Film of the Week: Unter den Brücken, June nominations (May 29th)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2A (Jun 4th)

British Politics Lounge

Post Reply

May should ...

Poll ended at June 7th, 2019, 6:31 pm

remain
0
No votes
leave
10
45%
seek psychiatric help
12
55%
 
Total votes: 22


matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2722

Post by matthewscott8 » May 6th, 2020, 6:38 pm

It has been amusing me no end people making jokes about how Ferguson can't keep his *ahem* in his pants, and when Boris leaves his cancer stricken wife and kids to get a much younger woman pregnant everyone says coo aren't they lovely. Nothing means anything anymore.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2723

Post by brokenface » May 11th, 2020, 9:47 am

Now Johnson is back, the blustering incompetence is really coming back to the fore. Complete, abject failure to give any clarity on the one thing people want to know most: when will they be allowed to see their families/friends outside their household again?

Seemingly in the new rules, you are now allowed to drive from one end of England to the other to go and lie on a beach, but you are not allowed to sit socially distanced in your parent's garden around the corner. You might be able to meet one of your parents in the park, or possibly both, but possibly not, it's evolving with each interview. You can go to work on crowded public transport and you should stay 2m apart 'where possible'. If it's not possible, then, um, well you're still supposed to go if your employer says. Sorry about that. It's common sense, except that it isn't because none of this is common sense in any common sense understanding of common sense.

But don't worry, the PM is going to do a Q&A of pre-selected questions from the public today, which I'm sure will clear everything up. He's not quite up to facing the press, poor thing.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12301
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#2724

Post by AdamH » May 11th, 2020, 9:56 am

Well, said brokenface. I've tried to be positive about Boris (despite hating the Tories) as we're in such an unprecedented situation but last week was a disaster culminating in his announcement last night which, frankly, was as clear as mud.

Now, we have Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with one very clear message and England with a very unclear message. "Stay alert" is not good and his message yesterday even wasn't either. I came away from it with no clarity. If you can't work from home, you should go to work? That'll cover millions of people not just construction and manufacturing. You can meet people but stay 2m apart? That isn't going work. It's just a total mess.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2725

Post by brokenface » May 11th, 2020, 11:52 am

AdamH wrote:
May 11th, 2020, 9:56 am
Well, said brokenface. I've tried to be positive about Boris (despite hating the Tories) as we're in such an unprecedented situation but last week was a disaster culminating in his announcement last night which, frankly, was as clear as mud.
Indeed, I have also tried to be a bit more understanding/accepting. It's definitely not the government I wanted or voted for, but I do accept that no government could be fully prepared for this situation or make all the right choices at the right times. It's something that hasn't happened for generations and the exact nature of the virus is still not known, so there has to be flexibility and allowance for advice to change as knowledge grows.

But it's pretty clear at this point that bad choices have cost people's lives and allowed the virus to spread much worse here than it has in other, comparable, countries. Government don't seem to be capable of acknowledging any mis-steps and instead just keep repeating the errors. This is like we're back to the situation in early March where the mixed messages meant for example, pubs were open but people were encouraged not to go. It's incoherent policy. And it's so infuriating to hear people like Raab spout lines about 'common sense' to try to brush over inconsistencies & lack of clarity. People simply do not have 'common sense' for how to behave in pandemics. People have very different personal responses to risk and that is reflected in behaviour.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12301
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#2726

Post by AdamH » May 11th, 2020, 12:04 pm

Yes, exactly. There were so many problems back in March. I remember walking past pubs which had tonnes of people in them after the government "advised" people not to go (lots of people ignore advice!). Also, they took at least a week too long to announce lockdown. Spain had a far stricter lockdown and look at the figure there. I'm really concerned about how people will react to the unclear message from yesterday and, sadly, there are a lot of people who will happily go back to doing whatever they want until the death figures get worse again. The government needs to be very clear and strong and yesterday (and early on before lockdown) they weren't.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2727

Post by brokenface » May 12th, 2020, 12:02 pm

Quotes from Matt Hancock today:
SpoilerShow
In a round of broadcast interviews, he said the government had to draw a line somewhere when limiting social contact, and one-to-one meetings outdoors was a reasonable way to “protect everybody against that burgeoning into large groups of people”.

He said it was sensible to limit such meetings to public places rather than private gardens, because the latter could require people to walk through one another’s houses, which was less safe.

-

Hancock also defended the policy of allowing people to drive to beauty spots, despite concerns about the potential for crowds to gather. He said there should not be a problem if “people socially distance when they get there, and hence we’ve kept the socially distancing rules very clearly in place”, adding: “This isn’t for people to move house or to go on holiday or to be able to stay.”

Does this private gardens thing make any sense? Surely going to meet a member of your family in public park means you are more likely to come close to multiple other people en route to, and in, the park. Yes you can try to keep 2 metres and you would be outside all the time, but if everyone is encouraged to go to parks as the only place where they can meet with family/friends, parks will get busy and that means distancing gets harder. Walking through someone's house to get to a garden could be is a narrowly increased risk, but that could be mitigated (avoid touching anything/wipe down doorhandles if unavoidable) and spread is increased more by staying together in an enclosed space; passing through is different.

Take example of someone who lives alone and their parents live fairly nearby and have a decent sized garden. If they want to meet them by current guidelines, they should be making two separate trips to public parks to meet each parent individually, effectively 4 people making journeys if they actually took two separate trips. Whereas if they go by themselves to the parent's garden to meet both together, that would be just 1 person making a journey. They keep bandying 'common sense', common sense to me would be meet socially distanced in parent's garden, rather than all making trips into a public space and meeting there.

I can see that they are trying to put people off from having house parties/barbecues etc. but still I think they're tying themselves in knots with some of these guidelines. Should be more of a push to keep social contacts as limited as possible in terms of numbers of different people.

-

At the same time I find it completely baffling that they're now saying people can drive as far as they want (in England) to visit beauty spots. Why would you want to encourage people to travel further outside local area? Again social distancing should mitigate risk, but if you're getting a new local outbreak pop up you want to try as much as possible to at least contain it locally. Someone goes and drives to Devon or the Lake District for a day out, they can spread to a whole new region. And you are putting more cars on the roads. This is surely an area where they should say people stay within local region, i.e. you can go to nearby countryside but not cross country, unless essential.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2728

Post by matthewscott8 » May 12th, 2020, 1:37 pm

brokenface wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 12:02 pm
Quotes from Matt Hancock today:
SpoilerShow
In a round of broadcast interviews, he said the government had to draw a line somewhere when limiting social contact, and one-to-one meetings outdoors was a reasonable way to “protect everybody against that burgeoning into large groups of people”.

He said it was sensible to limit such meetings to public places rather than private gardens, because the latter could require people to walk through one another’s houses, which was less safe.

-

Hancock also defended the policy of allowing people to drive to beauty spots, despite concerns about the potential for crowds to gather. He said there should not be a problem if “people socially distance when they get there, and hence we’ve kept the socially distancing rules very clearly in place”, adding: “This isn’t for people to move house or to go on holiday or to be able to stay.”

Does this private gardens thing make any sense? Surely going to meet a member of your family in public park means you are more likely to come close to multiple other people en route to, and in, the park. Yes you can try to keep 2 metres and you would be outside all the time, but if everyone is encouraged to go to parks as the only place where they can meet with family/friends, parks will get busy and that means distancing gets harder. Walking through someone's house to get to a garden could be is a narrowly increased risk, but that could be mitigated (avoid touching anything/wipe down doorhandles if unavoidable) and spread is increased more by staying together in an enclosed space; passing through is different.

Take example of someone who lives alone and their parents live fairly nearby and have a decent sized garden. If they want to meet them by current guidelines, they should be making two separate trips to public parks to meet each parent individually, effectively 4 people making journeys if they actually took two separate trips. Whereas if they go by themselves to the parent's garden to meet both together, that would be just 1 person making a journey. They keep bandying 'common sense', common sense to me would be meet socially distanced in parent's garden, rather than all making trips into a public space and meeting there.

I can see that they are trying to put people off from having house parties/barbecues etc. but still I think they're tying themselves in knots with some of these guidelines. Should be more of a push to keep social contacts as limited as possible in terms of numbers of different people.

-

At the same time I find it completely baffling that they're now saying people can drive as far as they want (in England) to visit beauty spots. Why would you want to encourage people to travel further outside local area? Again social distancing should mitigate risk, but if you're getting a new local outbreak pop up you want to try as much as possible to at least contain it locally. Someone goes and drives to Devon or the Lake District for a day out, they can spread to a whole new region. And you are putting more cars on the roads. This is surely an area where they should say people stay within local region, i.e. you can go to nearby countryside but not cross country, unless essential.
There's still the question of votes, and how do they ensure they get re-elected. A lot of these measures assuage their base of older more family oriented people who own cars.

In South Korea they've had a reoutbreak because one 29 year old went clubbing with coronavirus, and that caused over 100 cases. Jumping around in an enclosed space, sweat and mucus going everywhere, bodies hitting, it's a disaster. We know that a lot of spread has come from mass sporting and music events, pubbing and clubbing. Is it really the case that all those people driving up to the Cotswolds were causing outbreaks, I just don't think it is. Sun, fresh air and happiness are good for you.

For me the major problem is that people will be looking for "what rule can we bend now that we're allowed to go sunbathing". In Greater Manchester in one weekend in April police were called to 1,000 separate house parties. Now a house party is an actual severe risk incident. My brother's entire friendship group got it from a house party. Luckily he didn't attend. Obviously people want a snog at a house party too usually. BBQ is completely different, you're outside and not all over one another.

There was a meme early on about how the coronavirus benefitted people with a conservative social outlook, in that, Tinder is shutdown, late night drinking is shut down, ASBOs are at home, promiscuity is unsafe. That's the thing that is quite awkward about it, and a lot of the party people are jelly when they see people out playing frisbee. They want their kicks too. Problem is their kicks involve entering states of lowered responsibility, which isn't compatible with coronavirus.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2729

Post by brokenface » May 23rd, 2020, 7:27 am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-lockdown

Hard to see how Johnson could justify not firing him, there is simply no way that did not explicitly break the rules on multiple counts. And I'm sure the Sunday papers will have more to add.

Otherwise every rule the government tries to implement for the remainder of pandemic will be met with, 'why should the public follow the rules when your chief adviser doesn't?'

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2730

Post by brokenface » May 23rd, 2020, 3:39 pm

Oh it's fun watching slimeball Grant Shapps trying and miserably failing to argue the unarguable. They are desperately trying to protect Cummings, it ain't sustainable. They just digging themselves a deeper hole.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2731

Post by brokenface » May 23rd, 2020, 6:56 pm

Haha and sure enough, some more info drops from Sunday papers:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... own-claims

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2732

Post by matthewscott8 » May 23rd, 2020, 9:45 pm

Cummings is a nauseating prick who has been a wrecking ball on this country. Might he hard to sack him if he knows where all the bodies are buried. They certainly did a full court press today defending him. All the top ministers were told to put out statements. I thought Gove's was particularly dissembling, a highlight of the cabinet diarrhoea on the subject. The point is that he was out and about potentially spreading the disease. If everyone did that we would be buggered. He is acting as if he and his wife were incapacitated but from his movements that was clearly not the case. This is deffo one rule for VIPs and another for us plebs. I suspect he will hold on or do a Mandelson and have 9 lives.

He is a consummate liar and charlatan, and with these skills the government will be keen to keep him for as long as possible.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2733

Post by brokenface » May 23rd, 2020, 10:46 pm

matthewscott8 wrote:
May 23rd, 2020, 9:45 pm
Cummings is a nauseating prick who has been a wrecking ball on this country. Might he hard to sack him if he knows where all the bodies are buried. They certainly did a full court press today defending him. All the top ministers were told to put out statements. I thought Gove's was particularly dissembling, a highlight of the cabinet diarrhoea on the subject. The point is that he was out and about potentially spreading the disease. If everyone did that we would be buggered. He is acting as if he and his wife were incapacitated but from his movements that was clearly not the case. This is deffo one rule for VIPs and another for us plebs. I suspect he will hold on or do a Mandelson and have 9 lives.

He is a consummate liar and charlatan, and with these skills the government will be keen to keep him for as long as possible.
There is sadly a good chance this government of scumbags will keep him. Though I can't imagine many in cabinet are all that keen to have to keep going out to bat for him in briefings like Shapps did today and they will not like that they put out those snivelling statements and got their credibility burned straight away by the next stories contradicting the agreed defence. For this supposed genius strategist, I really don't see how Cummings didn't anticipate there'd be a follow-up story.

Media should be able to keep the pressure on for some time yet. May be more elements still being held back. And it does seem like a story that will cut through and enrage people who are normally much more inclined to support Tories. Anyone who's been sticking to the rules is going to be pissed off at someone in power blatantly not following them, and it's a really emotive point for people who might not have been able to see relatives at all or not attend funerals, etc. In that sense, it goes beyond your standard tale of government hypocrisy.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2734

Post by brokenface » Yesterday, 9:36 am

Watched Grant Shapps on Andrew Marr. It's beyond car crash. Shapps just keeps driving his car into a wall, reversing, driving back into wall and insisting everything is perfectly fine with his driving.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2735

Post by matthewscott8 » Yesterday, 1:56 pm

brokenface wrote:
Yesterday, 9:36 am
Watched Grant Shapps on Andrew Marr. It's beyond car crash. Shapps just keeps driving his car into a wall, reversing, driving back into wall and insisting everything is perfectly fine with his driving.
He must feel terribe about himself. Basically the PM has weighed up his worth, and decided to use him as a human shield for a spad. Now his career and his pride must be in ribbons. Stakes on this keep on getting upped. There is no way press are letting this go, and nor should they.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12301
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#2736

Post by AdamH » Yesterday, 4:11 pm

brokenface wrote:
Yesterday, 9:36 am
Watched Grant Shapps on Andrew Marr. It's beyond car crash. Shapps just keeps driving his car into a wall, reversing, driving back into wall and insisting everything is perfectly fine with his driving.
That was embarrassing. In fact, the whole situation is embarrassing. I can't believe they're actually defending it and completely undermining all the lockdown rules in the process. Lost for words although it is entertaining to see them try to defend it. At the same time, genuinely feel quite annoyed about what has happened and that it's being defended.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13415
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2737

Post by brokenface » Yesterday, 5:35 pm

Shapps was embarrassing, but Boris Johnson just made him look a lot better because his press conference was the most pathetic I've ever seen. This ain't going away now, he just made it 10* worse.

Wonder if Tories will be starting to think of ditching both Johnson and Cummings. Some are definitely pissed off.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2738

Post by matthewscott8 » Yesterday, 11:17 pm

The chemistry teacher dude at Castle Barnard has filed a complaint with police. Important that it's investigated. Numberplate turns out to be car the Cummings used. We now need to know what he was doing there. It looks like he was having a day out with the fam. Wasn't allowed to be doing so.

Post Reply