One of the politer descriptions of
yesterday’s ‘discussions’ between the UK Government and politicians in
Manchester was ‘absolute sh*tshow’, as various details emerged. It seems that
the government’s attempts to shift the blame for lockdown restrictions onto
local politicians bully local politicians into accepting new restrictions
failed mightily when those politicians – including all the city’s Tory MPs –
pushed back. It was a strange type of unity with Tories opposing any restrictions
on principle (apparently they’d prefer to allow more people to die of Covid
than infringe the freedom of others to infect them) and Labour demanding proper
financial support for businesses forced to close and their employees, but unity
was had nevertheless.
It finally provoked the English Health
Secretary into firm decisive action. But not to stop it being a sh*tshow, nor
to prevent future sh*tshows from happening. No, instead of either of those
things, he announced
that he was setting up a leak inquiry, to find out who told the world about
this particular sh*tshow. The problem, it seems, is not the government’s
numerous and repeated failings, it’s that people are revealing them. We see the
same regularly from his leader (a term which can only be applied very loosely
to Boris Johnson), when he berates the opposition for drawing attention to the
problems instead of wholeheartedly backing the government and taking their
share of the blame for government actions. To the world king, the job of the
opposition is not to scrutinise, let alone oppose, government actions and
policies but to support them enthusiastically and heap world-beating praise
upon him.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for
Wales has thrown his own twopenn’orth into
the debate about travel restrictions, claiming that it will cause confusion and
division. He seems to be one of those Tories who fully support devolution and the
right of the Welsh government to make its own decisions, subject only to the
proviso that it makes the same decisions as the English government. I find it
hard to see what can possibly be confusing or divisive about a simple
requirement that people living in an area of high Covid prevalence subject to
restrictions on what they can and can’t do should be temporarily prevented from
travelling into an area of low prevalence, potentially carrying the infection
with them. It’s what most of us would call ‘common sense’. Then I remembered
that we are dealing with a politician who is easily confused. I seem to recall
him having some difficulty understanding the difference
between Al Qaeda and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In fairness
to Mark Drakeford, drawing up regulations which will not confuse even the
wilfully obtuse is an impossible ask.
We do indeed have a world-class government
in London at the moment, but it’s in the remedial class. It’s unrealistic to
expect any government to be best at everything, so any government has to choose
its specialist subject. Incompetence is a very brave choice, but it may not be
as daft as it looks. It’s easier to come top if there's less competition.
3 comments:
Yet another accurate articulate description of the shambolic management "style" of the collection of lunatics and misfits in UK government. Shameful to watch last year's reject, Cairns, piping up in some pathetic childish attempt to please his master and maybe recover some sort of ministerial portfolio in due course.Being deliberately obtuse is part for the course for these cranks. For us nationalists it is somewhat uplifting to see Drakeford persist with his "steady Eddy" approach, generally carefully articulated and free of bombastic content unlike Boris & Co who look and sound more like Mussolini in his pomp rather than their alleged hero, Churchill.
It`s difficult to know if the politicians in Manchester are buying into The Great Barrington Declaration, or just pointing a gun to the Exchequers head to get some wonga.
It is easy to dispute te figures of this shambles as the way they are collect collected has changed several times , but what is missing in this system of government; is where it is easy for politicians at different levels to demand things when they have ‘no skin in the game’ from a funding point of view.
Teaching bodies are calling for an extended half- term, fine but if that meant a 30% reduction in pay, would the Unions off set that for the duration of the close down?
Spirit,
"It`s difficult to know if the politicians in Manchester are buying into The Great Barrington Declaration, or just pointing a gun to the Exchequers head to get some wonga." I rather suspect that the answer is 'both'. The Tory MPs are closer to the first of those, whilst the Labour mayor and MPs are after a proper financial arrangement.
"Teaching bodies are calling for an extended half- term, fine but if that meant a 30% reduction in pay, would the Unions off set that for the duration of the close down?" Ignoring the specific about teachers (of whom you don't seem to be an enormous fan), the question about financing is a very simple one: if some businesses or sectors are to be shut down by order of the state in order to protect the health of others, it is surely right that we should collectively bear the cost of that rather than see it fall only on those directly impacted. Whether shutdowns are justified or not, or to what extent they are justified is a separate question, and one on which I suspect I'd take a more cautious and health-conscious approach than you. But once it is 'decided' (by whoever takes the decision) that some must close in order to protect others, full compliance is more likely if there is no sense that those being closed must be sacrificed financially. Social solidarity isn't built and maintained by hitting some of the population directly in the pocket.
Post a Comment