I think it’s a form of self defence. If they use the pretext ‘I’m no fan of……’ they probably feel it might reduce the anger and criticism they’ll get for daring to agree with anything a Conservative politician might say. I’ll probably get it in the neck now, for using ‘Conservative’ instead of ‘Tory’. Just saying.
3 Likes
I have never voted left in my life and I never will, if people don’t like it or think you can not be a Liverpool supporter, so be it, I don’t care. 
You forgot to start that post with ‘I’m no fan of……’ 
I would guess that the right side of politics for you looks like a very different landscape to the one we are now seeing in the UK.
Conservatism in its very simplest form - small government, free enterprise etc. is a perfectly valid idea to follow. It’s just when you start to erode some fundamental things that every government should provide then I personally start to take issue with that.
The big stand out in the UK is that, to me, it’s pretty clear that many aspects of Conservatism really struggles during a crisis such as Covid. The Motivation to push towards the private sector to sort all the issues while ignoring existing expertise has been costly in my opinion.
Or…has been our salvation.
It’s the libertarian side of conservatism that has probably been the most damaging part of the UK covid response.
Yeah ok but that is why I was being specific to the UK side of it.
I suppose there’s two clear opposites here in the UK - Track and trace which was / is a royal moon cake of a mess while the vaccination programme was successful until it hit the road block of Anti Vax. Difference between the two? Competence.
It’s not just about competence but you’re right that’s often at the heart of all success or failure.
The track and trace was definitely sub-optimal, I agree. But testing was also part of that ‘bundle’ and that has been very good, certainly from late last year onwards. The vaccination program was world-leading and something that everyone in the UK ought to feel rightly proud of, regardless of political affiliation. Of course it relied upon political impetus but the majority of the credit rests with our fantastic bio-sciences expertise, not just in developing vaccines but also in genomic sequencing.
For me the biggest issue was the reluctance to impinge civil liberties by entering into early lockdown, closing borders, telling people to stay in, wear masks, don’t travel, don’t meet/mix with others, close schools etc. That’s the traditional libertarian part of conservatism (small government) that really was counterproductive in tackling a pandemic on global proportions. They can argue that the behavioural science advice was that the public wouldn’t accept prolonged lock downs, but it’s clear that has turned out to be nonsense and the government should have just ignored that advice, particularly when they had a few other countries who were showing where we’d be in 2 or 3 weeks time if we didn’t do anything.
The failure to ring-fence care homes was also a huge error.
But the furlough scheme, not joining the EU procurement scheme, getting ahead of the vaccination drive, genomic sequencing, testing, fast-tracking the VMIC…these are definite pluses.
2 Likes
I think this is where we diverge a little but not too far.
Impinging civil liberties was certainly part of it but equally for me there was the urge to do as little as possible. Basically I believe our current government are lazy and basically happy to “let someone else sort it”. They are not proactive, they are reactive. The vaccine was ultimately their only way out. Their general ethos in life is for someone else to do the work while they are happy to pay for the service - to a point.
I’ll reserve my comments on the care home situation given that my thoughts on it are probably not recorded on a public forum.
For the record I do not for one minute think that the NHS would have been able to sort this on its own - vaccines, track and trace, etc etc. They couldn’t and that is where the private sector would have been called on but the first port of call should have been a frank and open discussion with the NHS and science etc. on what resources were available, needed and who was going to do what and where. Basic project management to be honest.
I think this apprehension is simply a reflection of when things ‘appear’ to be happening. The government were very early in identifying the need to fund vaccine research and development. It is why the vaccine taskforce was able to get to the head of the queue. They were also very early in setting up the bodies necessary to provide for a global response by way of vaccine development, production and supply. The UK was at the forefront of COVAX being its first funder and commitment to supply.
The funding of vaccine research and development, across multiple potential vectors, began in March 2020. Way before the UK found itself in an ever worsening situation. It appears that this was only pushed because it was the UK government’s “only way out” because of the time it was ultimately distributed in late December 2020/early January 2021 at the height of the pandemic but in truth they had already been making significant strides a long time before then.
That still fits with my thinking though.
“What is the easiest path with the least resistance for us to sort this?”
Answer - “vaccine”
Remember herd immunity was the chosen path (still might be). Throw a vaccine on the end and it’s nice and easy, someone else sorts the problem.
I mean, tbf, it is the right answer.
Depends on the road traveled. Ours was a very bumpy one
France’s minister for Europe, Clément Beaune, accused the UK of making a “political choice” by barring “more than 40%” of French boats from UK and Channel Island waters.
But Ms Truss told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that fishing licences had been awarded to French boats “entirely in accordance” with the post-Brexit deal between the EU and UK.
She warned that unless France withdrew its threats, the UK was prepared to “use the dispute resolution mechanism in the trade deal we signed with the EU to take action against the French”.
“We’re simply not going to roll over in the face of these threats,” she added.
Is the bolded bit also a misstranslation?
Because the UK has granted 763 licences to French vessels. Of the 120 licences the UK has granted to the EU to fish in a zone 6-12 nautical miles from shore, 103 of them have been granted to French vessels.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/post-brexit-fishing-rules-heart-new-uk-france-clash-2021-10-28/
Licences have only been refused to vessels that cannot demonstrate that they have fished, on one day, in any 4 of the 5 years between 2012 and 2016. All they have to do to prove this activity is provide the same information that they are required to provide to the EU in any event (catch size and location). The UK is even prepared to consider other forms of evidence but it’s not exactly a high bar asking the owners of French vessels to provide the same information they are legally obliged to maintain under EU law.
Not really mate. The whole world is in a drive to get vaccinated.
Er yeah, there are 140k dead. Most of those deaths happened between the time of starting the vaccine research and actually starting administering it. There were paths available that would have resulted in less people dying i.e. less bumpy.
Of course, but ultimately the only way out was always going to be through vaccination.
1 Like
I tend to believe if someone can say they dislike someone, but agree on this issue, that’s a good thing. You can look for hidden and psychological reasons why. But perhaps the simplest answer is that they are just being intellectually honest.
Let’s take the premise that it’s true. Those to the right, don’t tend to do the same.
Is that a good thing ?
It would be foolish of me to imply it’s because those to the right are more closed minded. Or a scared of being associated with labels like socialist. It’s a massive stretch.
Taking a debatable premising of something being true, overlaying a debatable premise it’s a bad thing, then overlaying a debatable rationale why they do it……is well all a bit silly.
yes but that doesn’t excuse what happened before it was available. Deciding to do as little as possible was obviously not a great strategy.
Tbf, they did do other things too and to a greater extent than other comparable countries too in some cases. But as I’ve said earlier, I agree that they were too hesitant in constraining individual freedoms that were necessary to suppress the infection (and therefore mortality) rate within the UK.
That’s the beauty of this forum, inclusivity 
2 Likes