When the phrasing for that particular part is specifically qualified in the way it was, it behoves you to clarify whether an individual signatory did support that particular bit before you claim that they did. Particularly if you’re making a show of how your counterpart isn’t abreast of the details!
Still, it’s a trivial moment in the grand scheme of things but a surprising error for Starmer to make.
Uncharacteristic most certainly. He loses 5 lawyer points there I think.
Key thing I think is that you now have the opposition backing the governments science, while the government itself doesn’t.
Yeh, I can’t say whether Labour have taken this position opportunistically or not. I believe Starmer when he says he’s taken the position in sincerity. But one of the privileges of being in opposition is that you don’t have to live with the consequences of your choices. You can take positions on public health without needing to account for any consequential damage to the economy. You don’t need to perform the same balancing exercises.
And whatever happens, whatever happens, you’re always able to claim that everything will have worked out better your way (without anyone really being able to know).
True.
Are we honestly in that kind of state that the Chancellor believes that killing people is of greater benefit than a 3 week shut down?
That’s cold…
Those are the calculations (acceptable risks) that politicians all over the world have been having to deal with from time immemorial.
It’s certainly stark. Brutal even. But that’s the reality.
It is, but this lot are happy to spunk millions on contracts to companies based in the Cayman Islands etc. That defense doesn’t wash with me at this stage, especially when borrowing is where its at.
This decision is a conscious one, and a heartless one. I’ll concede it’s possibly been forced by the utter incompetence and scandalous response of our government. I hope they are held accountable for what they have done. One day, I hope someone is able to physically calculate the cost in lives of our governments behavior.
I’m definitely not defending that or the other scandalous decisions taken by the government. It makes me angry too, of course. Hopefully when this has settled down there will be public enquiries and people will be held to account.
Perhaps it’s worth discussing that area? I don’t know exactly how it works to be honest.
I know there’s currently some legal action taking place over the publication of these contract details. Other than that where and how can it all take place.
No thankyou
Judicial review (through the administrative courts) is one mechanism (it won’t surprise you to learn that the government are trying to restrict this). It’s available to pretty much anyone to challenge a decision made by a public body.
There were loads during the Brexit process (think Miller, Webster, Cherry etc, as well as some less well-known ones like Watt, Truss and Hardy). I commented upon a number of them at the time - more on twitter than on TIA.
I got loads of abuse from radical remainers including from people threatening to injure me professionally, tracking down where I worked etc. I eventually took my account private for my own well-being such was the extent of the ad hominem attacks from people claiming all sorts of nonsense. Including one or two “legal academics” who were at the forefront of some of these court actions.
I probably don’t need to tell you whose views on the merits of these various claims the courts agreed with.
Other than JR though, the other methods are public inquiries or inquests. These are different:
Ta. That pretty much sums up why I wont go on Twitter. Too easy to dragged into discussions that quickly escalate to something pretty vicious. Not for me.
Inquests, inquiries etc. This government seems incredibly resistant to having them take place. How do force them to start one? It feels like you’re asking a criminal to take themselves to court.
I’ve been tangentially involved in a few judicial reviews, and they are a mammoth undertaking for ordinary people, but very effective at holding the government to account through rule of law. Little wonder that the Government are trying to restrict access to them.
I just want the lid opened to be honest.
You’d think that once stuff starts pouring out the true dirty extent of what will be revealed would be really disturbing.
Yes, probably plenty of corruption but equally probably not as imagined by the likes of Cadwalladr 
It’s one thing shining a light on this stuff but unfortunately another thing entirely to properly hold individuals to account.
Yeah, I have my own personal theory that the conspiracies are often far simpler than people often think. For example, things tend to be simply about money and not a lot else.
I guess that is my question - how do you hold these people to account. Clearly things are being revealed at an ever increasing rate these days, but still no one is actually nailed for it.
It is unfortunate that the UK is waiting that long. The Ontario enquiry into the failure this Spring to control coronavirus in long-term care homes has already yielded some important insights. Despite scary looking infection numbers, the preliminary conclusions that were implemented seem already to be having an effect. Still proceeding, but I think it has already demonstrated its worth.
Comparing Johnson’s suggestions that he wants work on specific draft language to begin next week or he will walk away, and the EU’s draft directive, it would appear that negotiations on an agreement are about to collapse.
I think you misunderstand me. The UK are reviewing what lessons can be learned from what has or has not been effective.
What I’m referring to are the inquiries needed to determine whether the actions of various departments or individuals, the decisions taken, whether these display culpable levels of wrong-doing or incompetence. No doubt some conclusions can already be drawn on an individual level for certain parts of the UK’s response but many of the more long-term aspects will need to wait for the dust to settle before meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
No, that was clear. There is an ongoing commission of inquiry on the failure of the long-term care homes in Ontario this Spring, hearings began in June. Given the inheritance of the institution, they are unlikely to be very different from public inquiries in the UK. Witnesses, etc. While it is ongoing, some preliminary recommendations based on findings were rushed out in August. Normally, these things take at least a year and usually two, but the commission observed some obvious changes that required immediate implementation to be worth anything.
I’m sure you can argue about the wording, context and details, but it’s hardly q anon type level shit.