Is it time for a change of government and change of strategy?

[trebor79]

I watched Boris' performance yesterday afternoon. It's clear that strategy goes no further than "do what Chris [Whitty] says and add in a bit of made up stuff about mass testing technology that doesn't exist yet to give people a bit of hope for the next few months".
I respect Chris Whitty, he talks a lot of sense but is of course completely focussed upon the immediate public health issue. There just doesn't seem to be any balance and moulding a strategy based upon the range of advisors with different specialisms.
Although I don't particularly mind the latest restrictions, but they are basically pointless because as soon as they are relaxed we will be back in the same position. The same point was made about lockdowns at the start of all this.
Government should be taking all of the information and expert advice available to it to select the best strategy going forward. It then needs to focus upon delivering that strategy, admitting when things aren't going to plan and fixing them, and managing the public's expectations. And they must flip flop when things get a bit difficult, or pander to certain parts of public opinion.
Trotting out nonsense like "moonshots" is the mark of desperation and a government that has completely lost touch and lost control.
I don't see how we end with a recognisable economy and quality of life on the current trajectory.

Is it time for a change? Do we need a modern day Churchill - someone who is prepared to stand up and say "This will not work, we need to do something radically different. We cannot and will not save every life, but we can and will ensure that there is a life worth living beyond the pandemic"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, very much so - and that person is Keir Starmer, I'd say, even though he has followed Boris on restrictions so far. Whatever his views he's just more competent.

Trouble is it's 4 years until a GE.

 

[HSTEd]

Trouble is it's 4 years until a GE.

Well only 3.5 now. But there we are.

 

[4141]

If the current government is making such a pig's ear of it as some people keep insisting loudly, then why do we hear nothing of note coming from the opposition? Probably there's a large dose of "There for the grace of God go I", but their tacit acceptance surely shows that they have nothing better to offer?

 

[trebor79]

My view on that is that there are very few politicians willing to tell it as it is, for fear they will be branded as "granny killers" or shouted down.
I don't think our political classes have come to terms with the fact that this isn't just another trade dispute, or industrial relations problem or something like a flood that can be largely fixed with soothing words and a bit of disaster relief cash.

They haven't faced up to the two fundamental choices:

1. Largely restrict people's freedoms to live as they want to. This needs to be done for an indeterminate period of time, until there is a vaccine or effective treatment. At that point, either the country will be bankrupt, or there will be very few theatres, museums, cafes, restaurants, heritage railways etc left to enjoy. Probably both. Mass unemployment, and the devil's own job to kick start some kind of economy. Probably more death through a huge contraction of the NHS and social care.
What if there is no vaccine or effective treatment found? What if the country goes broke before that point or soon after? What then?

2. Properly protect the vulnerable, accepting some will catch covid and some of them will die from it. Allow normal activity to resume. It'll be ugly for a few months but 99.5% of us come through the other side and still have something recognisable in terms of society, economy and leisure activities.

At the moment we're flipping between some weird pretend everything is fine (eat out to help out, get back in the office) and behaving as though it's as deadly as Ebola, but just putting in place random control measures rather than things that will make a material long term difference. We are achieving nothing other than the permanent destruction of our way of life.

 

[yorkie]

I can't imagine Labour would want to get in power right now; if they put us on a sensible course of not imposing draconian restrictions, many of their core voters would be outraged. A monster has been created and it's not going to be easy to get rid of it, at least not yet.

 

[4141]

My view on that is that there are very few politicians willing to tell it as it is, for fear they will be branded as "granny killers" or shouted down.

That really is quite a frightening thought - whatever happened to "conviction politicians"?

Good post, BTW...

 

[talldave]

I suggest we subcontract government out to Sweden. It's pointless having any MPs here because they're not having any involvement in our descent into a police state.

 

[Huntergreed]

I can't imagine Labour would want to get in power right now; if they put us on a sensible course of not imposing draconian restrictions, many of their core voters would be outraged. A monster has been created and it's not going to be easy to get rid of it, at least not yet.

Thing is, Labour (at least, Starmer) also seems pro-restriction and to value the suppression of the virus as a priority. There’s no solid political opposition to these restrictions, and that’s a dangerous situation to be in indeed.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thing is, Labour (at least, Starmer) also seems pro-restriction and to value the suppression of the virus as a priority. There’s no solid political opposition to these restrictions, and that’s a dangerous situation to be in indeed.

Agreed, we have no-one who is prepared to stand up and discuss an exit strategy. All we're getting is more of the same about suppressing the virus.

 

[Western Lord]

Well only 3.5 now. But there we are.

December 2024, so four years and three months.

 

[Yew]

Agreed, we have no-one who is prepared to stand up and discuss an exit strategy. All we're getting is more of the same about suppressing the virus.

Exactly, when back at the start Kier was pushing Boris for an exit strategy, the left-wing commentariat were livid at him (Don't you know people are dying?). It seems that he's been reluctant to push for that ever since!

 

[Smidster]

If you think it is bad now just wait for January when we have a No-Deal (Or skinny to the point of being No-Deal) Brexit on top of Covid - Hammering sectors that have been relatively immune to this point and massively increasing the cost of living for us all at a time we can least afford it.

December 2024, so four years and three months.

Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act elections are scheduled for the "First May in the Fifth Year after the Previous Election" - Which would be May 2024

Even if they abolished the FTPA, which they should as it is a terrible piece of legislation, no party wants another December election.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, we have no-one who is prepared to stand up and discuss an exit strategy. All we're getting is more of the same about suppressing the virus.

To be honest I wouldn't mind any strategy - even if it was "full lockdown until cases reach N per day, then release, and reimpose if it goes above M" or something.

There presently is no strategy, and that annoys me greatly.

 

[HSTEd]

December 2024, so four years and three months.

No, because the elections are now always held in May unless they are snap eletions

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, when back at the start Kier was pushing Boris for an exit strategy, the left-wing commentariat were livid at him (Don't you know people are dying?). It seems that he's been reluctant to push for that ever since!

Which is funny, as the exit strategy could be NZ style, which I guess they would support.

I absolutely agree we need one, and that needs to include one that takes account of the possibility of neither a vaccine nor a treatment.

 

[Reliablebeam]

I suspect Starmer is staying mum because our esteemed government are making a pig's ear of this all on their own. A glance at the Telegraph reveals Boris is losing the room quite fast with people who were his biggest cheerleaders at the start of the year.

I feel my rage levels increasing quite fast. I am getting very, very worried for the future of this country - BoJo and Hancock are clueless, and it's clear that our European 'peers' (rivals?) are becoming keener on protecting what's left of their economy as we retreat into this health dictatorship. Whitty I do not have much time for - I have spent my working life in public sector science and he has a 'look' about him of someone who thought the CMO position would be a nice little sinecure to count down the retirement clock in before it's off to a consultancy job. I've worked for directors who remind me of him - journeymen who tend to get caught out by some crisis they are ill-equipped to manage.

 

[Yew]

Indeed, it must be made clear what our strategy is, so that it can be discussed an evaluated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Whitty is competent, but the point about him is that he is a medical advisor and that is his only job. The lack of political leadership is meaning what he says is going with little opposition, and that is wrong.

He should advise the politicians, alongside economic advisors, advisors on education and young peoples' mental health etc, and then the politicians make the decisions and explain them. To be fair Bozza has done that over the "rule of 6", it is indeed dead simple (and probably done knowing it'll be pushed a bit, e.g. to 8, but it does preclude large house parties).

 

[MikeWM]

I guess the question is:

- Do we want the current incompetent Government, utterly shambolic and with no clear plan, but with at least a small (and growing) amount of pressure from its backbenchers to move back to normal ASAP.

or

- Do we want an alternative that is certainly more competent (Starmer) but who agrees with pretty much every restriction the government has done so far, and would be under pressure from his backbenchers to do even more restrictive stuff?


It is not a good choice! Starmer would be rather like Sturgeon in my opinion - he'd probably have something of a strategy, but it probably wouldn't be the right one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not a good choice! Starmer would be rather like Sturgeon in my opinion - he'd probably have something of a strategy, but it probably wouldn't be the right one.

I don't agree with everything Sturgeon has done by any stretch of the imagination but I'd now rather her than Bozza, as at least she has a strategy.

 

[4141]

I suspect Starmer is staying mum because our esteemed government are making a pig's ear of this all on their own.

Hardly the way to win any new support!

 

[Steveoh]

I don't agree with everything Sturgeon has done by any stretch of the imagination but I'd now rather her than Bozza, as at least she has a strategy.

Is it realistic one though?

Anyway there's no point debating this as there is no way we'd be allowed to vote at the moment as it would be considered too dangerous. NB too dangerous isn't my view but it would be used as the reason to suspend elections.

 

[Yew]

Is it realistic one though?

Anyway there's no point debating this as there is no way we'd be allowed to vote at the moment as it would be considered too dangerous. NB too dangerous isn't my view but it would be used as the reason to suspend elections.

You can argue against a clear strategy, it's harder to critique the policy tombola that we're seeing currently from Boris.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it realistic one though?

It might or it might not be. But at least it's up-front so you can have the proper debate on it.

Anyway there's no point debating this as there is no way we'd be allowed to vote at the moment as it would be considered too dangerous. NB too dangerous isn't my view but it would be used as the reason to suspend elections.

Voting is near by definition socially distanced (all you'd need is a queue marshall to keep people 2m apart), but I wouldn't put it past chief dictator Cummings to want to do that.

 

[greyman42]

To be honest I wouldn't mind any strategy - even if it was "full lockdown until cases reach N per day, then release, and reimpose if it goes above M" or something.

That's not going to do much for the economic recovery and people's jobs is it?

 

[brad465]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Government do have economic concerns heavily in mind and would rather have lighter restrictions for that reason as part of a better balance (especially given the herd immunity talk early on), but the problem is they clearly don't have good communication skills and cannot convey them in a way that will win people over, hence why they seem to be stuck with what they're doing right now.

 

[Huntergreed]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Government do have economic concerns heavily in mind and would rather have lighter restrictions for that reason as part of a better balance (especially given the herd immunity talk early on), but the problem is they clearly don't have good communication skills and cannot convey them in a way that will win people over, hence why they seem to be stuck with what they're doing right now.

If the government were that worried about the economy, they would put measures in place and policy would reflect this.

The problem is, they're taking Whitty (who is an epidemiologist and a medical scientist) and basing policy around his views, without consulting experts on the economy, meaning we have a very one-sided approach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Government do have economic concerns heavily in mind and would rather have lighter restrictions for that reason as part of a better balance (especially given the herd immunity talk early on), but the problem is they clearly don't have good communication skills and cannot convey them in a way that will win people over, hence why they seem to be stuck with what they're doing right now.

The "rule of 6" will have very limited economic consequences, so that's probably why they've chosen it instead of closing hospitality or education. House parties don't make money for anyone to any considerable extent (they do mean people buy alcohol and food from supermarkets, I suppose, but that is fairly negligible in its effect). And house parties/family gatherings are near enough all it actually affects, other than the likes of group meet-ups in this Forum which can still happen limited to 6 people.

The problem is, they're taking Whitty (who is an epidemiologist and a medical scientist) and basing policy around his views, without consulting experts on the economy, meaning we have a very one-sided approach.

I'd be surprised if they weren't talking to Sunak.

 

[Camden]

That really is quite a frightening thought - whatever happened to "conviction politicians"?

I think most of them have now been released. The others have yet to be caught.