neilj
Member
Posts: 5,913
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 6, 2023 20:42:24 GMT
Sums it up Peter Foster-
"That winning formula:
- take complex issue (Brexit, Northern Ireland, Asylum)
- tell everyone it’s simple, if England was sovereign 🏴
- demonise those raising rational objections
- resign when you get close to having to implement what you said was ‘easy’.
Rinse. Repeat"
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 20:42:47 GMT
What has stuck me most from what I have heard so far, is not only the scale of unpreparedness, but the absolute dysfunction at the heart of Government during the first few months of the pandemic and then the subsequent complacency as it worked it's way through the UK over the next 2 years. A Government performance which for us sadly mirrors the Personality of the Prime Minister himself. This outcome was no surprise to many of us, who find it hard to understand how so many of our fellow citizens thought he was Prime Minister material. People will be aware I see plenty of evidence that covid has NEVER in the world been as dangerous as the SAGE advisors worst credible case. Doesnt matter what people did or didnt do, it has never reached such a level of harm. Evidence today said Johnson was sceptical it could be, then was advised in feb/march 2020 that it was now expected to reach that level peaking may/june 2020. It did not. Those same advisors still believe it had that potential, but was stopped by interventions. Those same advisors were wrong in their predictions of timescale, because they then advised immediate action despite in their predictions having a month to spare, because of rising case reports. However, the rising reports were because of expanding testing, not expanding cases. Covid arrived well before they believed, and that is my point in going on about why there is pretty much irrefutable evidence Hastings at least had covid winter 19/20. There is certainly so very much the advisors got wrong. However, there is plenty of evidence first that lockdown was not responsible for ending the April peak. If it had been, then covid should have disappeared in the extended lockdown in May and june. It HAD to if the modellers were right. It didnt. They were wrong. They were right it would resume if all measures were ended, and Johnson pointed out how he was warned of this. But they were wrong to assume it would go back into full epidemic mode. IT DID NOT. If the kent strain had not come along then covid would have ended winter 20/21 because we had achieved herd immunity to the first strain. Again there is plenty of evidence of this if you care to look at data for local areas, where you can see how it was already fading before the new round of interventions late 2020 began. Protection was greatest in areas closest to Hastings, and it looks like around Torridge in Devon, which probably also had an early case. All well and good, the wuhan strain ended up with a death potential about 0.1% of the population confined to the oldest half of the population, 3/4 of it amongst pensioners. Bluntly, this age group affected means the least loss of life years. It was a total pussy compared to either 1918 flu, or HIV. But it also contained the seed of how this group could have been protected, by isolating them while the younger half which also had far more cases per 100,000, achieved herd immunity. The pattern of this disease has always been the young propagating it, and the old catching it incidentally. What we did meant that before herd immunity was achieved, more of the older group would be exposed. Absolutely not a guarantee of severe illness, even amongst the old it was hugely biased towards harm to those already most ill for their age group. 50% of early deaths from care homes. But the way we managed this actually increased the chance of this group getting exposed. And that is likely why the UK did worse using lockdown, than Sweden did never using it, not using community testing, only asking people who thought they had it to avoid contact with others. That was so much less disruptive, and actually achieved a better outcome. Prof Mclean said she believed had covid been allowed to run at the maximum capacity of the NHS for a year, we would still not have achieved significant herd immunity. She was so very and dangerously wrong, the exact opposite was true. Covid shared not only cross immunity with sars and mers, but like them would have faded naturally at a far lower severity than anyone predicted. Johnson was right to be sceptical of the claimed death rate, and right to worry the economic harm would far outweigh the benefits of that policy. But worse there was health damage from that policy, not benefit. The fly in this rather self congratulatory ointment is that covid did come back in the form of new strains. So we could argue Sage were right for the wrong reasons. However, the same applies about the second strain also being self limiting without interventions and most probably before vaccinations could have had much effect. There was never any way of avoiding both outbreaks ending as they did essentially naturally, just delayed and at enormously greater expense because of lockdown. This all is consistent with the idea that various pacific rim countries started the epidemic already with significant immunity because of past corona virus infections. The whole shift which Sage did not get was the possibility covid was milder than it seemed, and the world already had some exposure. The incompetence in managing of the epidemic lay in the lack of this knowledge, and basing everything on assuming the worst. Truly an object lesson on why that is a bad policy.
|
|
|
Post by richardstamper on Dec 6, 2023 20:48:38 GMT
The private school system spews out socially ignorant, opinionated, arrogant, self-important sociopaths like the crew that have been running the country the last 13 years. Assisted by those who suck up to and seek to emulate the aforementioned socially ignorant, opinionated, arrogant, self-import sociopaths. Private schooling is profoundly harmful to the overall wellbeing of the nation and is a key underlying cause of our decline relative to other nations; it turns out people who are spectacularly bad at managing organisations, privileges them in acquiring jobs managing organisations and the country, and as a side-benefit ensures that the talents and abilities of the other 93% of the population are underused. Delivering a "good education" to a small elite was tolerably effective for running Empire and the labour-intensive industries of the 19th century but is no good for the 21st. Following your apparently serious suggestion that we should concentrate state education spending on those attending a few grammar schools and let the rest rot would be a guarantee of national collapse. Our best chance of reversing the trajectory we are on would be to abolish the private/state divide so the wealthy and powerful can't run off and hide in an education system separate from everyone else. Levers to effect this could be: - The Finnish approach of prohibiting charging fees for all "basic education" that leads to a qualification.
- Assigning places at schools in an area by lot.
- Offering places at elite universities (Oxbridge, Russell Group) pro rata to schools by size.
- Requiring universities to take 93% of entrants from the state sector.
You seem to me missing my point entirely. You rather agree with me that those educated in private schools out perform in later life those from state schools. They get a better education. Parents would not pay the fees if they werent, to get a result which is no better than the state. My point is what they really do is show up how bad is the state education sytem. I have no problem at all with a campaign to level up the state system so it out performs the private one, and therefore private education dies out. I have every objection to destroying the private education system BECAUSE it does a better job of educating people. Thats insane. Why dont we apply the same reasoning to bring back publicly owned british leyland and throw out BMW from the Uk car industry?
Oh, and I think if oxbridge were required to assign places simply per capita of number of children in a school, then our university education system would collapse. By and large they really do give places to the best performing kids, and they need to do that to maintain their reputation for quality graduates. Its very likely kids from private schools are way over represented, because at the point of entering univerity they out perform state rivals because they have been better educated. In many respects, not just their paper qualifications.
If you want to democratise government, then its isnt schools you need to look at but inherited patronage. Think of Heath and Thtcher, both grammar school kids at a point in time state education could rival the private sector with it own elite schools. The grand scheme to improve education by abolishing grammars merely served to dumb down the entire state system and see a renewal of politicians coming from private schools.
Do you recall the fuss Diane Abbot got into for sending her own kids to elite schools, despite her very left wing stance? Parents should have a right to assist their own kids all they can. Its the states job to provide education to match the private sector, or not if chooses not to. Well, it has chosen not to match what could be done.
I don't think I am missing your point, but you are definitely missing several of mine. I don't wish to destroy private education because it gets better exam results than the state system (although that's a doddle once you've excluded all the children with the most challenges) but because I believe it has an overall net negative effect on the ability of the UK to succeed as a nation. A self-interestedly rational decision by wealthy parents to send their children private can lead to a negative effect overall if the downside for everyone else of their decisions are sufficiently severe, which I believe they are. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the overall interest of the nation, and that can be achieved by making it less likely for parents to make those individual decisions to go private that harm the nation as a whole. You are right that one way the government could attempt this is the relatively laissez faire approach of making state education so good that it is indistinguishable from private - improve the offer to the market then let the market decide - although I can't believe that was a serious suggestion on your part because you must know how staggeringly expensive that would be. The much cheaper options I suggest are both more likely to succeed and to be enacted, with the side benefit of explicitly repudiating a laissez affaire view of what constitutes appropriate government action. Oxbridge would be fine assigning places per capita to state schools. Between them, Oxford and Cambridge take about 5000 UK undergraduates each year, out of about 280000 taking A-levels, so that is less than 2% of the cohort. I attended a state comprehensive and have been Chair of Governors at a state comprehensive, and I'm confident there are very few state sixth forms that won't turn out at least 2% of their number each year who would comfortably hold their own at Oxford or Cambridge. For my part, I went to Oxford so got to see a good selection of public school duffers up close - those who couldn't think very well but had been well polished or were very well connected, those who could think but lacked the necessary self-discipline, and those who didn't care because what was important to them was making the right social connections. It was always irritating seeing the opportunities offered by Oxford being squandered by the undeserving rich when I knew there were others from my school alone who would have made better use of what was offered.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 20:50:07 GMT
Parting gift of some polling just FWIW and worth a read IMO, noting how highly CON'19 voters place it as an issue that needs to be sorted (see "Among those who voted Conservative in 2019, immigration is clearly the top issue. Two thirds (66%) chose it as one of their top issues, with 38% saying it was THE most important issue") To what extent is immigration a top issue for Britons?yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48056-to-what-extent-is-immigration-a-top-issue-for-britons#If the information from this polling is as good as whatever made Sunak choose his new-me approach at the party conference, then con are truly doomed. The logic here seems remorseless. Rwanda refuses to be party to breech of international law. So presumably if ECR rules deportation is illegal, Rwanda will refuse to take them. Con must evade the ECHR rules, but they cannot if they are to send people to Rwanda. The obvious way out of this mess is an early election before it reaches a legal conclusion, using it as a campaigning issue. I do wonder given the speed at which this is coming to a head, whether an early election means the start of next year, not even after a budget. Con have used the trick of being their own opposition ever since Cameron first won. keeps labour out of the publicity.
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Dec 6, 2023 21:13:02 GMT
Danny, i'm not sure I understand your post, but I note you have posted 23 times in 24 hours, do yourself a favour and switch your lap top off for a bit! Upstart Crow is on BBC2 in a bit, always worth a watch!
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Dec 6, 2023 21:17:46 GMT
Sam Coates on Sky News just now - "Is this salvageable for Sunak"? He thinks the regime could be on the verge of "dramatic" events. Has the tipping point been reached? Betteridge's Law of headlines states that "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." very interesting that, this time, the question has been worded so that a "no" is not good news for the recipient en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 6, 2023 21:18:19 GMT
It is truly remarkable to watch a government rip itself apart over what has only ever been a chimera, a fantasy policy designed to generate favorable coverage in the Tory press rather than do anything real. Weird. The Tory psycho-drama rolls on toward its glorious 14th year and the rest of us just have to watch. …. and suffer
|
|
|
Post by pete on Dec 6, 2023 21:22:41 GMT
Can we have a GE and get these a'holes out?
|
|
|
Post by pete on Dec 6, 2023 21:27:12 GMT
This time of year however I am always drawn back to my seasonal favourite films, A Wonderful Life never ages for me and Alistair Sim will always be my favourite portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge. Agree with both your choices. Around Christmas I always try and watch them along with Gremlins and Die Hard. Cracking Christmas entertainment. Must add I do Like The Wizard of Oz at Christmas time. That and the Great Escape always take me back to my childhood (both being on every fecking Christmas).
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,034
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 6, 2023 21:30:52 GMT
I've updated my series of YG aggregated Scots crossbreaks on the Polling Archive thread.
Numbers at end of November (change from 2019 in brackets)-
SNP 36% (-9) : SGP 6% (+5) Lab 32% (+14) : LD 7% (-3) Con 14% (-11) : REFUK 4% (+3)
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,074
|
Post by domjg on Dec 6, 2023 21:40:13 GMT
I've just watched some edited "highlights" of Johnson's evidence and questioning at today's COVID Inquiry hearings. He is an utter embarrassment, not just in terms of his personal appearance, but also in terms of his pathetic non-answers and shifty evasions. The joke died long ago. We're talking about thousands of people's lives here. The fact that this apology of a statesman and politician ever got anywhere near the role of Prime Minister should shame the party that enabled him and sycophantically prolonged his disastrous time in office. And maybe shame the dysfunctional political system and culture that begot him too. I couldn't decide, having watched his performance today, whether I should have felt sadness, anger or humiliation. He was my Prime Minister for three and a half years. Humiliation is probably what we should all feel, on reflection. It shames this country and especially the far too large cohort of voters who fall for this kind of shit.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 6, 2023 21:59:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 6, 2023 22:07:25 GMT
mark61 - "Danny, i'm not sure I understand your post,..." I'm not sure Danny does either. Briefly skimming parts of it, I thought for a moment he still believes in herd immunity. I mean - this is 2023! No one believes that guff anymore.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 6, 2023 22:18:27 GMT
You can sense Trevor's desperation, posting polling numbers about what Con 2019 voters think about immigration, as some kind of mental sop against the undeniable gravity that sees his former saviour brought crashing down through the unrelenting mediocrity and incompetence of the government he leads. Ready for Rishi? I think the electorate certainly is. They can't wait to get this shitshow over with.
The fact is that the polling Trevor refers to is valid, as all polling is, but it takes a Herculean effort to translate the implications of those poll numbers into the construction of such a pathetic policy as the Rwanda deportations. At best the plan seems to be to send 25,000 or so to Africa, which is around 3% of the net migration figure this year. Yet right wing Tories have become utterly fixated on a daft plan that leaves untouched the other 97% of migration, thinking that getting planes over to Rwanda is essential to restore their electoral chance? We're used to bewildering stupidity from the Tory right, but this takes the biscuit.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 6, 2023 22:39:21 GMT
Pep, Liam Gallagher, Syd Little, Eddie Large, various Sheikhs, Jack Grealish ......
Your boys took hell of a beating tonight.
😋🤣🏆🏆
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,034
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 6, 2023 22:49:36 GMT
alec
"The fact is that the polling Trevor refers to is valid, as all polling is".
The first Scots poll specifically on immigration, since 2014, suggests a rather different set of attitudes, however.
www.heraldscotland.com/politics/westminster/23787966.poll-two-fifths-scots-want-see-increase-immigration/
"59% describe immigration as positive, 18% feel it has had a negative effect, while 23% are unsure. Almost two-fifths (38%) of Scots want to see immigration increased, with 12% saying it should be increased a lot, while 26% say it should increase by a little. Just over a third (34%) of those questioned said immigration levels should stay the same, while 28% want to see them reduce – 12% by a little and 16% by a lot. More than a third (35%) of Scots over the age of 55 want to see immigration reduced. Nearly half (47%) of those living in the Glasgow Scottish Parliament region want to see immigration increased, with 23% of people in the area supporting an increase by a lot. Overall, a majority of those questioned agree migrants have a positive impact on the economy (56%), help to fill jobs for which it is hard to find workers (76%), bring new ideas and/or boost innovation (52%), bring new people to areas which need them (58%), and enrich Scottish cultural life (60%). Nearly two-thirds of Scots (65%) disagreed with the sentiment that immigrants take jobs away from Scottish workers, with only 15% agreeing with this. Meanwhile, only 30% said they feel immigrants are a burden on welfare services, with 47% disagreeing with this, while less than a quarter (23%) agree that immigrants worsen crime, with 41% disagreeing."
Whether that affects Westminster VI is another matter, as the dominant mood seems to centre around a desire to send the Tories to perdition - though the reality of FPTP may mean that Con hold on to a few Scots seats.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 6, 2023 22:55:18 GMT
Pep, Liam Gallagher, Syd Little, Eddie Large, various Sheikhs, Jack Grealish ...... Your boys took shell of a beating tonight. 😋🤣🏆🏆 So you've edited the post and it still says "shell of a beating"?
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 6, 2023 23:01:22 GMT
Sam Freedman on 13 years of Tory failure:
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 23:02:09 GMT
I don't think I am missing your point, but you are definitely missing several of mine. I don't wish to destroy private education because it gets better exam results than the state system (although that's a doddle once you've excluded all the children with the most challenges) Only you do not say why you object. Many kids in private schools are there because they are misfits in mainstream schooling, some as i mentioned paid for by local authorities because they have been thrown out of the state schools. And rich people have the same range of calm or rebellious, clever or stupid, kids as anyone else. Private classes I have seen are a lot more 'comprehensive' than state ones. Then you need to explain what you see as the problem. You havn't. Still not saying what the problem is? What harm to the nation? Honestly, I am gobsmacked your main motivation seems to be you think its unfair some kids should get a better chance in life because they have rich parents. Or in fact, a damn sight less rich parents after they have scraped together the fees. Private education is not about very rich people so much as those who can just afford to pay the fees, and its likely one parent is working to pay the family costs while the other is working just to pay the fees. Thats slogging damn hard because you believe it gives your kids a better chance. And thats something every parent in the country is likely to aspire to. But you dont? Perhaps its significant how many labour politicians make sure their kids go to good schools? You seem to agree however that the standard of private education is much higher, confers a real advantage, but then consider its just not worth it for normal people's children. Maybe thats one reason why the UK is lagging in international performance? Blair and indeed Cameron seemed to think education is very important, and lumping half the population with debts for university on a similar scale to school fees was well worth it. Whereas I think its better just some people get a top quality education rather than none. Better for the Uk too. I find it interesting that some have criticised private education for instilling an air of confidence and expectation in their kids. Whereas it was suggested to me this is exactly what industry wants. It is indeed exactly what kept the british empire running, self belief. Its what made Johnson prime minister. Its what made Britain the leader of the EU with most success at getting its own way. I seem to recall a lot of universities have run remedial classes because their intake is lacking in one way or another. I take your point, that logically the raw talent should be distributed everywhere, but raw talent needs training. The strongest area for private schools seems to be the GCSE years, where kids are naturally the most rebellious and before many have dropped out of A levels. Its a viable option to choose private just for those years, because thats where the state system is most obviously failing. And its not failing everywhere. But parents have no choice to be able to boycot the awful state school next to their home, except to pay. Whereas for A levels there is some real competition in the state system, which seems to force them to improve their offer. Plus as I said, the more motivated older kids. (at least so long as government isnt forcing them to be there, when its all bets off again). Far too many people are going to university. Its pointless knowledge for most. Are universities there to make up the deficiencies of secondary schools, which if true would suggest better to have spent that money on really good secondary schools, skip the university and get straight into work. We do have a shortage of workers, and spending three years in university is one reason why.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 23:18:28 GMT
Ah, I see there is some logic in this peculiar immigration story. It would seem some of those upset are staunch brexiteers. They may see this whole episode as a means to further ensure the Uk stays out of the EU, if they can get the UK either to leave the EHCR or get thrown out of the ECHR. Thereby making it harder for a future labour government, or indeed a conservative one, to rejoin or realign with the EU.
So this is still all stealth hard brexit, just as the nation wants to rejoin.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 23:36:23 GMT
Campbell Bannerman former conservative MEP appearing on newsnight first to talk about immigration, but now about the covid enquiry, noted he knows people who had covid December 2019...though in Italy. It was spreading in Europe in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 6, 2023 23:37:13 GMT
I've just watched some edited "highlights" of Johnson's evidence and questioning at today's COVID Inquiry hearings. He is an utter embarrassment, not just in terms of his personal appearance, but also in terms of his pathetic non-answers and shifty evasions. The joke died long ago. We're talking about thousands of people's lives here. The fact that this apology of a statesman and politician ever got anywhere near the role of Prime Minister should shame the party that enabled him and sycophantically prolonged his disastrous time in office. And maybe shame the dysfunctional political system and culture that begot him too. I couldn't decide, having watched his performance today, whether I should have felt sadness, anger or humiliation. He was my Prime Minister for three and a half years. Humiliation is probably what we should all feel, on reflection. If you watched edited "highlights" I wonder who selected them? I listened to most of it on the radio, and though he did have convenient lapses of memory at times he did take full responsibility and admit that he had made mistakes. He also seemed to go out of his way not to throw anyone under the bus, even Cummings. He emphasised that it was a situation unknown in living memory and in the early days they all thought (hoped?) that it would not be a major threat in this country, as SARS and MERS for instance. There was a lack of data in the early days to aid decision-making. I suppose it's all to do with one's preconceptions and prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Dec 6, 2023 23:39:09 GMT
Pep, Liam Gallagher, Syd Little, Eddie Large, various Sheikhs, Jack Grealish ...... Your boys took shell of a beating tonight. 😋🤣🏆🏆 So you've edited the post and it still says "shell of a beating"? Don't egg him on
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 23:42:10 GMT
Republicans blocking aid to Ukraine unless they can get various concessions in congress.
Who said Russia was relying on the US being an unreliable ally?
Talking of that war, it seems Russia has been expanding naval facilities in Abkhasia, in occupied Georgia further away from the hostilities than Crimea but still on the black sea. Which is rather interesting and somewhat confirms that Russia considers its curent naval bases now unsafe. Optimistically, it might suggest they are preparing for the possibility of entirely losing the crimea facilities.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 6, 2023 23:42:36 GMT
Wow. So the govt really is going to try to legislate to say that black is white. Extraordinary. I listened to a rather good discussion programme with Jonathan Sumption and Helena Kennedy about all of this in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement on the original scheme. Both of them made the point that the Supreme Court's decision that Rwanda was unsafe was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and took a fairly dim view of the government turning round and telling a group of the UK's best legal minds that they'd got the conclusion wrong. Sumption was contemptuous of the idea that the government would try to legislate a fact, but that seems to be what they intend to try to do. He also said that a new treaty with Rwanda wouldn't help because Rwanda wasn't institutionally strong enough to be regarded as trustworthy when it came to promises about what would and would not happen to asylum seekers sent there for processing. Both also argued that provisions for the safety of asylum seekers were written into several laws and included in international treaties that we've ratified (I forget the exact details), such that leaving the ECHR would not be sufficient to rid us of our obligations. Surely they're trying to legislate a matter of opinion, not a fact? I'm not particularly in favour of the deal they've got with Rwanda by the way.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 6, 2023 23:49:27 GMT
It's just so depressing to see a system of governance that is so poor at representing the best interests of the people who they are meant to represent. That Hillsborough report could have been read in a week and responded to in a month. The contaminated blood victims are dying on a weekly basis before compensation arrives, which is morally reprehensible. No one seems to be able to get a grip and make things happen. Not only that but it wasn't even done for more than twenty years after the event. Duckworth must have had some powerful friends. Having said that, if the late-arriving Liverpool fans had entered the stadium in an orderly manner the disaster wouldn't have happened at all.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Dec 6, 2023 23:51:35 GMT
mark61 - "Danny, i'm not sure I understand your post,..." I'm not sure Danny does either. Briefly skimming parts of it, I thought for a moment he still believes in herd immunity. I mean - this is 2023! No one believes that guff anymore. Really, alec!?? "No-one believes in herd immunity"!? It appears the WHO do! Try www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19" 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. "
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 6, 2023 23:54:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 7, 2023 0:01:29 GMT
"Mr Shapps rejected calls for Western allies to quietly persuade Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy to consider a peace agreement with Russia.
"It can only be for Ukraine to decide how and at what point they want to talk about those kinds of things," he said."That's not a decision that others can make for them. So we will stand with Ukraine for as long as they need to continue fighting this war." www.itv.com/news/2023-12-05/grant-shapps-the-world-cannot-give-up-and-get-bored-of-ukraine-war
However the british government has not proposed a solution to the huge funding deficit of UK armed forces, with obvious impact on supplying arms to Ukraine which we do not possess. Another problem for the next government to solve. Yes, defence spending must be ramped up, even if it's just to produce more ammo for the kit we've supplied to Ukraine. Ideally we should be producing lots more armaments for ourselves and have a big recruiting drive too. We could be fighting Russia soon, though hopefully in Poland or Finland.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,608
|
Post by Danny on Dec 7, 2023 0:08:34 GMT
If you watched edited "highlights" I wonder who selected them? I listened to most of it on the radio, and though he did have convenient lapses of memory at times he did take full responsibility and admit that he had made mistakes. He also seemed to go out of his way not to throw anyone under the bus, even Cummings. He emphasised that it was a situation unknown in living memory and in the early days they all thought (hoped?) that it would not be a major threat in this country, as SARS and MERS for instance. There was a lack of data in the early days to aid decision-making. I suppose it's all to do with one's preconceptions and prejudices. I was tempted just to give your post a 'like', but hey, whats one more post. I felt Johnson did start off seeming somewhat bumbling, but improved as he went along. Perhaps because they started with some very difficult questions where as I posted above, the politically correct answer is unfortunately a false answer. Obviously no state should value life above all else. Much more typically over history life is cheap, land is dear. And that really is still true now. However, I though his vagueness was much more credible than a civil servant I saw a couple of weeks ago who very shortly responded to loads of questions, 'I dont remember'. On the whole his defence made sense, he did what the advisors recommended, even where he challenged it. Everyone seems to agree his was exactly the spot the buck stops in balancing different harms, such as to the economy. And everyone seems to agree there was a huge lack of definite information about the real risks of covid. I dont find it strange he was isolated from direct contact with most people contributing to advice, thats kinda obvious when you are the top of a large organisation.
|
|