Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The UK response - Part II - read OP
Comments
-
Joe_ Public wrote: »The facts are Public First is a dyed in the wool tory vehicle driven by dyed in the wool tory lifers who have been trading on their connections ever since the tories returned to power. James Frayne has been a close pal of Dom Cummings for nigh on 20 years. One of Rachel Wolfs first jobs in politics was working for Boris Johnson. They co-wrote the tory 2019 election manifesto for pitys sake.
that can't be a fact, you didn't write it in capitals :rolleyes:
Public First are a policy research company that do work for wide range of organisations, hence the diverse range of backgrounds and experience among their leadership team.
but but but DOMINIC CUMMINGS0 -
theological wrote: »Admittedly I don't care hugely about this stuff. I care about the virus and how the UK is doing. KCL figures (the largest study we have on this) is showing an R of 0.9 and under 20,000 cases of symptomatic coronavirus for the first time. It is doing much better than many other countries in Europe on that level.
it would be a lot better if Simon Coveney's brother hadn't let 300 people get infected in one of his factories.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/20/firm-linked-to-gove-and-cummings-hired-to-work-with-ofqual-on-a-levels
Quote: "It is the third batch of work Public First is known to have secured from the government in recent months without having to bid for a public tender."
But, of course, we are told all that is perfectly all fine and dandy because we are in the midst of an unprecedented crisis and that is just what you have to do. Would never ever have happened otherwise.
Quote:
"In 2011 Frayne was appointed the Department for Education’s director of communications when Gove was education secretary and Cummings was his chief political adviser.
"At that time Wolf was running the New Schools Network (NSN), which promoted Gove’s flagship policy of establishing “free schools,” and was awarded a £500,000 contract by the Department for Education without a tender. That contract was justified on the basis that the NSN was the only organisation able to provide expert support quickly enough."
Question for Aegir:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you wrote a couple of pages back that the current contract in question wasnt related to Covid. So on what basis then, should it not have gone out to tender?0 -
theological wrote: »Admittedly I don't care hugely about this stuff. I care about the virus and how the UK is doing. KCL figures (the largest study we have on this) is showing an R of 0.9 and under 20,000 cases of symptomatic coronavirus for the first time. It is doing much better than many other countries in Europe on that level.
You should care. This is bigger than their handling of the pandemic, because it has now been shown there is no consequences for incompetence. The same incompetent government that is spaffing millions away on contracts that doesn't go to tender is now using the pandemic as an excuse to award contracts without tenders in areas not directly related to the pandemic.
They are also trying to limit the judicial review because why do you want the courts ruling that you illegally prorogued parliament or that your awarding of contracts without tender was illegal?
And for Aegir who likes to bring up comparisons with Ireland whenever there is something happening in the UK we comment on, this is how those in positions of power act when they have been found to have acted against their own guidance they expect the public to follow,
Buttimer, Calleary resign over attending Clifden eventMinister for Agriculture Dara Calleary and Seanad Leas-Cathaoirleach Jerry Buttimer have both resigned from their positions after they attended an event in Clifden, Co Galway, on Wednesday where 81 people were present.
They were both guests at an Oireachtas Golf Society event, which was held in a hotel.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has accepted Mr Calleary's resignation from Cabinet.
Mr Calleary said the Taoiseach is "both angry and disappointed" in him and he had let him and his colleagues in Government down, "so he is entitled to be angry and disappointed and they are all entitled to that anger and disappointment".
Speaking on Midwest Radio, the former Agriculture Minister acknowledged that he had caused unintentional damage to the work done by frontline and public health workers and their families.
It is a privilege to be elected and to work in government, not a right. When you screw up or someone in your department screws up you are responsible. That is how things normally works, but not in the UK right now.
I will save Aegir the time to reply...something something Labour, something Guardian outrage, something DOMINIC CUMMINGS!0 -
You should care. This is bigger than their handling of the pandemic, because it has now been shown there is no consequences for incompetence. The same incompetent government that is spaffing millions away on contracts that doesn't go to tender is now using the pandemic as an excuse to award contracts without tenders in areas not directly related to the pandemic.
They are also trying to limit the judicial review because why do you want the courts ruling that you illegally prorogued parliament or that your awarding of contracts without tender was illegal?
And for Aegir who likes to bring up comparisons with Ireland whenever there is something happening in the UK we comment on, this is how those in positions of power act when they have been found to have acted against their own guidance they expect the public to follow,
Buttimer, Calleary resign over attending Clifden event
It is a privilege to be elected and to work in government, not a right. When you screw up or someone in your department screws up you are responsible. That is how things normally works, but not in the UK right now.
I will save Aegir the time to reply...something something Labour, something Guardian outrage, something DOMINIC CUMMINGS!
you are getting very animated over something that doesn't affect you Enzo. you need to calm down a bit.
Things are really bad when were holding the Irish government up as a way to do things :rolleyes: I have already said Cummings should have resigned and that questions need to be asked over previous contracts. In this instance, I don't believe there is any worng doing. The cabinet do not have a say over who Ofqual engage to do research for them.
What these shock and outrage attacks do though, is damage otherwise good work. What next, we start demanding New Schools Network be closed because it is linked to Michael Gove who is linked to Dominc Cummings?
Is this just the toxic left trying to burn everything down still, because they lost the last election in spectacular fashion? Are they still smarting because Jeremy Corbyn was rejected by his own party I wonder?0 -
Advertisement
-
you are getting very animated over something that doesn't affect you Enzo. you need to calm down a bit.
Been there, usually when there isn't something good to say you tell a poster how to calm down.Things are really bad when were holding the Irish government up as a way to do things :rolleyes: I have already said Cummings should have resigned and that questions need to be asked over previous contracts. In this instance, I don't believe there is any worng doing. The cabinet do not have a say over who Ofqual engage to do research for them.
Compared to the UK the Irish Government has excelled the past 5 years. We haven't left the most integrated trading block and will be imposing trade barriers on ourselves during the worst pandemic in more than 100 years and the worst recession that will follow it.
So not sure why you are trying to imply that the UK government has been better than ours here if a comparison is something to roll your eyes over.
As for wrongdoing, we will not know if there was any if there isn't an investigation. Not just questions asked, which we are highlighting but you are dismissing based on your belief, but proper scrutiny. But the government is trying to weaken these oversights by limiting judicial reviews. That is definitely something one does when you have nothing to hide.;)What these shock and outrage attacks do though, is damage otherwise good work. What next, we start demanding New Schools Network be closed because it is linked to Michael Gove who is linked to Dominc Cummings?
Well if they are receiving contracts because of contacts without tender, then yes. I mean they were quick to close PHE when a scapegoat was needed other than the Health Minister or PM. If New Schools Network has to be axed to ensure the survival of Gavin Williamson then it is a sacrifice he will surely be willing to make.Is this just the toxic left trying to burn everything down still, because they lost the last election in spectacular fashion? Are they still smarting because Jeremy Corbyn was rejected by his own party I wonder?
Always bringing it back to Labour and the left. You really try to make this a partisan issue when it shouldn't be. If all else fails try to make it about Conservative vs Labour, very transparent.0 -
One thing I'm genuinely rather critical of is the UK policy on holidays. Today's race country is Croatia. They should have just continued saying no non-essential travel. Holiday in the UK. I'll be going to Gloucestershire in September. Perhaps that's overly strong but surely it is better than this weekly farce of leg it to the airport.
Edit:Compared to the UK the Irish Government has excelled the past 5 years. We haven't left the most integrated trading block and will be imposing trade barriers on ourselves during the worst pandemic in more than 100 years and the worst recession that will follow it.
So not sure why you are trying to imply that the UK government has been better than ours here if a comparison is something to roll your eyes over.
We've got a thread on Brexit. I disagree with you on it but this thread is about the pandemic and not the last five years.
The shenanigans in Clifden however were many times worse than Cummings' jaunt to his family in April. 80 people indoors in one place is perfect grounds for the virus to spread.0 -
theological wrote: »One thing I'm genuinely rather critical of is the UK policy on holidays. Today's race country is Croatia. They should have just continued saying no non-essential travel. Holiday in the UK. I'll be going to Gloucestershire in September. Perhaps that's overly strong but surely it is better than this weekly farce of leg it to the airport.
There's nothing inherently safe about having a holiday in the UK, in the same way as there's nothing inherently dangerous about spending the same length of time in France. The farce, as you rightly point out, is this nonsensical race to the airport to beat an arbitrary cut-off time, coupled with the idea that people engaged in "non-essential" travel are somehow more likely to bring the virus home than those who have successfully argued that their trip was "essential". In this respect, the British government is no different to most others: too many decisions being made with more of any eye on the politics of the situation than effective disease control.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »There's nothing inherently safe about having a holiday in the UK, in the same way as there's nothing inherently dangerous about spending the same length of time in France. The farce, as you rightly point out, is this nonsensical race to the airport to beat an arbitrary cut-off time, coupled with the idea that people engaged in "non-essential" travel are somehow more likely to bring the virus home than those who have successfully argued that their trip was "essential". In this respect, the British government is no different to most others: too many decisions being made with more of any eye on the politics of the situation than effective disease control.
I think the point behind distinguishing reasons for travel would mean that fewer people would travel and therefore there would be less opportunity for the virus to be imported further from elsewhere.
It isn't perfect but it is better than what is happening at the moment.0 -
theological wrote: »One thing I'm genuinely rather critical of is the UK policy on holidays. Today's race country is Croatia. They should have just continued saying no non-essential travel. Holiday in the UK. I'll be going to Gloucestershire in September. Perhaps that's overly strong but surely it is better than this weekly farce of leg it to the airport.
Edit:
We've got a thread on Brexit. I disagree with you on it but this thread is about the pandemic and not the last five years.
The shenanigans in Clifden however were many times worse than Cummings' jaunt to his family in April. 80 people indoors in one place is perfect grounds for the virus to spread.
Cummings was actively infectious, and knew it.0 -
Advertisement
-
theological wrote: »I think the point behind distinguishing reasons for travel would mean that fewer people would travel and therefore there would be less opportunity for the virus to be imported further from elsewhere.
That was a logical argument back in November and December and January and February, but there was no move (by any Western European government) at that time to curb those virus-importing movements.
Now that the virus is endemic in the UK (and other countries), the risk of contracting/spreading the disease is determined by what people do, not where they go. Policies based on colour-coded countries with no regard for regional differences are not helpful in changing the attitude of those who engage in super-spreading behaviour.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »That was a logical argument back in November and December and January and February, but there was no move (by any Western European government) at that time to curb those virus-importing movements.
Now that the virus is endemic in the UK (and other countries), the risk of contracting/spreading the disease is determined by what people do, not where they go. Policies based on colour-coded countries with no regard for regional differences are not helpful in changing the attitude of those who engage in super-spreading behaviour.
Different countries have different levels of incidence of the virus and the UK is on the bottom half of the ECDR table in terms of new cases per 100,000. It it is more likely if you go to certain places that you will catch the virus. Similarly that is also true within the UK and the areas are pretty clearly marked out if you use tools like the COVID tracker.
It is for example more likely that you could catch the virus in Greater Manchester than if you go to Gloucestershire or Norfolk for example.
Where obviously does matter.
It could be more sensible to say no non-essential travel outside (quarantine still required for this) and to hotspot areas internally. Then it would be at least about controlling the spread within the UK without having to determine things about other countries.0 -
theological wrote: »One thing I'm genuinely rather critical of is the UK policy on holidays. Today's race country is Croatia. They should have just continued saying no non-essential travel. Holiday in the UK. I'll be going to Gloucestershire in September. Perhaps that's overly strong but surely it is better than this weekly farce of leg it to the airport.
Edit:
We've got a thread on Brexit. I disagree with you on it but this thread is about the pandemic and not the last five years.
The shenanigans in Clifden however were many times worse than Cummings' jaunt to his family in April. 80 people indoors in one place is perfect grounds for the virus to spread.
It is an absolute farce, indeed.
What's the point in having a green list if the government can decide to give a few hours' notice that a country is withdrawn? That leads to people panicking and making bad decisions, like trying to hitchhike with strangers or booking onto packed flights and trains, making it even MORE likely that they'll get covid compared to just having continued their holiday normally. What real extra risk is there from giving a week's notice?
It just smacks of chaotic leadership and incompetence. The situation clearly is not under control if they need to take countries off the green list with hours' notice, so simply don't let people book holidays. Essential travel only, with enforced quarantine. At least then it's clear and people know what they're signing up for.0 -
theological wrote: »Different countries have different levels of incidence of the virus and the UK is on the bottom half of the ECDR table in terms of new cases per 100,000. It it is more likely if you go to certain places that you will catch the virus. Similarly that is also true within the UK and the areas are pretty clearly marked out if you use tools like the COVID tracker.
It is for example more likely that you could catch the virus in Greater Manchester than if you go to Gloucestershire or Norfolk for example.
Where obviously does matter.
It could be more sensible to say no non-essential travel outside (quarantine still required for this) and to hotspot areas internally. Then it would be at least about controlling the spread within the UK without having to determine things about other countries.
Where only matters if you are prepared to precisely define where "where" is. The ECDR table gives the UK as a whole a figure of 12.5 cases/100k today; for France, the overall figure is 54.4/100k ... but where I live (in France) the figure is 2 cases/100k, for an area about half the size of Wales.
Why, then, should the Welsh lass who's just spent two weeks here with me be subject to quarantine when any of her neighbours can spend the weekend pubcrawling around Manchester and not be subject to any restrictions? That makes no biological sense whatsoever.
Or to look at it another way: out of the eight people who were here and have now gone back to their six different countries, only one is currently subject to quarantine. What makes the Welsh woman more infectious than the others?
The fact is she's not, but a politician has decided that the whole of France is suddenly a risky place to be, and her travel doesn't warrant the "essential" tag, regardless of the benefit to her or the Welsh taxpayer, so into quarantine she goes. Again - seeing as her time here was effectively two weeks in a quarantine-like bubble anyway.
If only the government had an army of people with time on their hands who could talk to travellers like my guest and determine whether or not they were a risk to the public ...0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Where only matters if you are prepared to precisely define where "where" is. The ECDR table gives the UK as a whole a figure of 12.5 cases/100k today; for France, the overall figure is 54.4/100k ... but where I live (in France) the figure is 2 cases/100k, for an area about half the size of Wales.
Why, then, should the Welsh lass who's just spent two weeks here with me be subject to quarantine when any of her neighbours can spend the weekend pubcrawling around Manchester and not be subject to any restrictions? That makes no biological sense whatsoever.
Or to look at it another way: out of the eight people who were here and have now gone back to their six different countries, only one is currently subject to quarantine. What makes the Welsh woman more infectious than the others?
The fact is she's not, but a politician has decided that the whole of France is suddenly a risky place to be, and her travel doesn't warrant the "essential" tag, regardless of the benefit to her or the Welsh taxpayer, so into quarantine she goes. Again - seeing as her time here was effectively two weeks in a quarantine-like bubble anyway.
If only the government had an army of people with time on their hands who could talk to travellers like my guest and determine whether or not they were a risk to the public ...
I guess because it would take too much administrative effort to distinguish regions in lots of other countries. It isn't too much to tell people simply don't travel. Also in your example the woman from Wales would likely have to pass through busy transport hubs such as airports that are not in your area.
Also, if Manchester is subject to additional measures I think the advice is you should only travel there for essential reasons.
Edit: I don't know why you are asking me about the 6 others when I'm clear that none should be travelling. I am critical of the government policy on holidays outside the UK. People should holiday in the UK outside of lockdown areas and not reimport the virus from elsewhere.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Where only matters if you are prepared to precisely define where "where" is. The ECDR table gives the UK as a whole a figure of 12.5 cases/100k today; for France, the overall figure is 54.4/100k ... but where I live (in France) the figure is 2 cases/100k, for an area about half the size of Wales.
Why, then, should the Welsh lass who's just spent two weeks here with me be subject to quarantine when any of her neighbours can spend the weekend pubcrawling around Manchester and not be subject to any restrictions? That makes no biological sense whatsoever.
Or to look at it another way: out of the eight people who were here and have now gone back to their six different countries, only one is currently subject to quarantine. What makes the Welsh woman more infectious than the others?
The fact is she's not, but a politician has decided that the whole of France is suddenly a risky place to be, and her travel doesn't warrant the "essential" tag, regardless of the benefit to her or the Welsh taxpayer, so into quarantine she goes. Again - seeing as her time here was effectively two weeks in a quarantine-like bubble anyway.
If only the government had an army of people with time on their hands who could talk to travellers like my guest and determine whether or not they were a risk to the public ...
The UK government has used this formula from the start. Spain were asking why the Balaeric and Canary islands were included in the ban when they were apparently lower than the UK.Announcing at short notice is stressful although it had been predicted.0 -
I've not been keeping abreast of much Covid related stuff of late just out of sheer boredom.
What's the story with today's announcement? Have those been keeping an eye on it seen it coming?0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »I've not been keeping abreast of much Covid related stuff of late just out of sheer boredom.
What's the story with today's announcement? Have those been keeping an eye on it seen it coming?
Infection rates are going up, so measures being put in place to try and bring them back down.0 -
Apparently planning to spend £100b on a new testing plan to avoid a second lockdown. Hancock is making a statement now, he was rebuked yesterday for announcing new measures in a press briefing and not in parliament. Some things never change I suppose.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1303798694232424448?s=200 -
To paraphrase an old cliché - £100 billion here, £100 billion there (HS2), and pretty soon you're talking serious money.Apparently planning to spend £100b on a new testing plan to avoid a second lockdown.
Double the defence budget? I don't believe a word of it. Another of Johnson's dead cats.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apparently planning to spend £100b on a new testing plan to avoid a second lockdown. Hancock is making a statement now, he was rebuked yesterday for announcing new measures in a press briefing and not in parliament. Some things never change I suppose.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1303798694232424448?s=20
Johnson has been a disaster when it comes to Covid and this is just more of it.
Already the UK testing system is strained to breaking point with people travelling for hours to get a test.
What happens when you flood the system with multiples of that? Even self testing kits have to be handed out and the results processed. It just isn't targeted enough. Currently positivity rates are at about 1% in most countries. When you get a positivity rate of 0.1% or less, the vast majority of your efforts are wasted and you also risk delaying turnaround for those who are likely to be infected.
No surprise the UK media have swallowed this. The same media hailed the herd immunity strategy as being clever.0 -
Apparently planning to spend £100b on a new testing plan to avoid a second lockdown. Hancock is making a statement now, he was rebuked yesterday for announcing new measures in a press briefing and not in parliament. Some things never change I suppose.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1303798694232424448?s=20
So it shouldn’t be done, is that what you’re saying?0 -
based on UK govt performance, absolutely it should not be done0
-
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »based on UK govt performance, absolutely it should not be done
So do nothing then?
Great idea.0 -
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Can you say "false dichotomy"?
can you say "hurler from the ditch"?
very easy for people to say what shouldn't be done, much much harder to say what should.0 -
-
Oh, indeed.can you say "hurler from the ditch"?
very easy for people to say what shouldn't be done, much much harder to say what should.
But that doesn't detract from the force of the observation that spending 100bn on a testing system looks like, um, suboptimal use of resources in a situation where efficient use of resources is really quite important. Other countries manage to get functional and efficient testing systems for a fraction of the cost; why cannot the UK? If they could do that, they would then have a large chunk of that 100bn available to do other things either to curb the spread of the infection to to alleviate its consequences.
If the UK has to spend 100bn to roll out an adequate testing system something is seriously, seriously wrong in the state of Borisland; this is state failure on a pretty grand scale.
Perhaps it's the legacy of years of austerity hollowing out the capacity of the UK state to respond effectively and efficiently in a time of crisis; perhaps it's the monstrous incompetence of the present government; perhaps i's an indication that the UK public procurement system has been captured by rent-seeking oligarchs who vastly inflate what the UK has to pay to buy the goods and services it needs; perhaps it's something else entirely. But it's something, and it's something very worrying because, whatever it is, it is probably having effects that go well beyond forcing the UK to spend absurd amounts of money in an attempt to get a functional testing system up and running.
And its simply not the case that that the only possible response to that is to abandon the testing project and do nothing instead.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Oh, indeed.
But that doesn't detract from the force of the observation that spending 100bn on a testing system looks like, um, suboptimal use of resources in a situation where efficient use of resources is really quite important. Other countries manage to get functional and efficient testing systems for a fraction of the cost; why cannot the UK? If they could do that, they would then have a large chunk of that 100bn available to do other things either to curb the spread of the infection to to alleviate its consequences.
If the UK has to spend 100bn to roll out an adequate testing system something is seriously, seriously wrong in the state of Borisland; this is state failure on a pretty grand scale.
Perhaps its the legacy of years of austerity hollowing out the capacity of the UK state to respond effectively and efficiently in a time of crisis; perhaps it's the monstrous incompetence of the present government; perhaps its an indication that the UK public procurement system has been captured by rent-seeking oligarchs who vastly inflate what the UK has to pay to buy the goods and services it needs; perhaps its something else entirely. But it's something, and it's something very worrying.
And its simply not the case that that the only possible response to that is to abandon the project and do nothing.
having an aspiration to achieve something beyond mediocrity is a good thing, is it not? Well, most countries would think that anyway.
everything has a cost/benefit balance. If this gets the economy back on to almost a normal standing then £100bn (which lets face it, we all know is hugely exaggerated for headline reasons) may be money well spent.
If you work on the basis that everything is exaggerated for political reasons, either by Boris or by those detracting from his statement, you realise that somewhere in among this, there is actually a reasonable position to go for and this is what the people tasked with delivering this will strive for. Quietly, diligently and in the back ground away from the political point scoring.0 -
Advertisement
-
This article had me laughing heartily this morning.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8720329/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Heir-Churchill-No-Boris-Johnson-Second-Coming-Warden-Hodges.html0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement