Mr Johnson has already expressed how very sorry he is for all the deaths, The Generals would be entitled to blame the enemy for the deaths
"It's all the enemy's fault - if they hadn't been shooting at our troops, then nobody would have died?"
That's absurd. Shooting at our troops is what enemies do. It could, in fact, be said to be the defining act of a wartime enemy.
Similarly, the virus is going to reproduce. It's what they do. Blaming the virus is an entirely pointless exercise. It's like going for a walk in the middle of winter with no coat, and then blaming the weather for the fact that you're cold. Sure, it's true, at a very superficial level: if the weather had been warm, you wouldn't have got cold. But cold, wet weather is well-known to happen quite often in winter, so if you choose to go out without appropriate clothing, and you get cold and wet, you really only have yourself to blame. You should have worn a coat.
Similarly for the virus. Although this particular strain of coronavirus is "novel", there's nothing terribly unusual about it. It behaves in entirely predictable ways. What you can control (and thus deserve credit or blame for) is how you respond to it. Were the choices you made good, creditable ones, or poor, blameworthy ones?
Mr Johnson has already expressed how very sorry he is for all the deaths, The Generals would be entitled to blame the enemy for the deaths
"It's all the enemy's fault - if they hadn't been shooting at our troops, then nobody would have died?"
That's absurd. Shooting at our troops is what enemies do. It could, in fact, be said to be the defining act of a wartime enemy.
In a war generals have to make decisions. They cannot do this from the front line.
The Prime Mionoister also has to make decisions and they are often wrong. However, he does not have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer screen and just criticising
Mr Johnson has already expressed how very sorry he is for all the deaths, The Generals would be entitled to blame the enemy for the deaths
"It's all the enemy's fault - if they hadn't been shooting at our troops, then nobody would have died?"
That's absurd. Shooting at our troops is what enemies do. It could, in fact, be said to be the defining act of a wartime enemy.
In a war generals have to make decisions. They cannot do this from the front line.
The Prime Mionoister also has to make decisions and they are often wrong. However, he does not have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer screen and just criticising
He had the luxury of scientific advisers telling him what he must do. He had the luxury of academics who made pandemics their area of study. He had the luxury of the outcomes of years of planning for pandemics with death rates up to 50%. He didn't do what they advised. He got it wrong because he confused hesitancy with reluctance.
Instead, he tells us to clap for a man who was far greater than he. Maybe we should respond with a weekly *Boo for Bozzie*? Even Carrie might join in...
Instead, he tells us to clap for a man who was far greater than he. Maybe we should respond with a weekly *Boo for Bozzie*? Even Carrie might join in...
When there is a full enquiry, I feel sure that he will admit all mistakes.
Here's a possibly interesting question: If in, the say three years-ish ABdePJ may have left in his job, what could possibly make his premiership NOT look like a massive, cock-up on a monumental scale, full to the brim with slow-witted, bad decisions that most of us are assuming will be the case?
Really, I'd like someone to imagine some plausible events which would make even his political detractors admit he wasn't that bad in retrospect?
Is it possible that the pandemic will be past with fewer than double the current death toll ? Will the economy resulting from the double whammy of Brexit+pandemic be recovering (to which Johnson visibly contributed by good choices, not just good luck plus suffering and hard work from everyone else) ? Will Britain still be one United Kingdom on good terms and still able to trade with its neighbours and those far away? Will we be respected or left behind while our current equals look at us with compassion for our poorest of political choices?
Mr Johnson has already expressed how very sorry he is for all the deaths, The Generals would be entitled to blame the enemy for the deaths
"It's all the enemy's fault - if they hadn't been shooting at our troops, then nobody would have died?"
That's absurd. Shooting at our troops is what enemies do. It could, in fact, be said to be the defining act of a wartime enemy.
In a war generals have to make decisions. They cannot do this from the front line.
The Prime Mionoister also has to make decisions and they are often wrong. However, he does not have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer screen and just criticising
Even if you take the most generous view possible of Johnson's management of Covid, you're still stuck with a death rate that is TWICE what it could have been.
And the key point here is that lessons were not learnt from the spring. His arrogant refusal to allow any reflection (presumably to protect his ego?) Doomed us to repeating the mistakes of the past at a cost of tens of thousands of lives.
Possibly, or perhaps used as landfill for the mass graves?
If someone tries to fill my grave with copies of a book by that person I promise I will haunt them to their dying days and harangue them throughout the afterlife.
Well, it would be good to think that things might generally get better, in the ways @Furtive Gander describes, but somehow I fear (alas) that the reverse is more likely.
It makes you wonder whether they had to pass exams to graduate (and how low the pass mark was) and what the entry requirements were apart from parents' ability to pay the school fees.
I've taken quite a lot of exams in my time, as have a large number of other shipmates, and the thing that most of them had in common was their susceptibility to bullshit. It's relatively hard to bullshit your way though a maths or physics exam, but a very basic level of knowledge plus good exam technique will help you bullshit your way to a low B or so on a lot of exams.
That same ability to bullshit leads to the production of superficially plausible reports that, at first glance, might resemble the product of actual competence, but on closer inspection turn out to be unmitigated bollocks.
Damn right and that's probably it. Have any of them passed an actual exam in science (esp physics) or is it all bullshitting in vivas (?) literature essays, vague intro to economics, plus some latin and ancient greek history?
Although like other languages, actual latin and greek have to be accurate, and you'll flunk an exam for translating into waffle. (I got an A level in Latin with a lot of hard work, a decent memory for texts and some good luck.)
They could always donate the unsold copies of any double checks that this is hell memoir produced by the walking disaster for fuel to the people he has landed in deeper poverty.
They could always donate the unsold copies of any double checks that this is hell memoir produced by the walking disaster for fuel to the people he has landed in deeper poverty.
Except that no doubt that would fall foul of the proposed outlawing of sold fuel burning on the grounds of the resultant pollution. Though describing any such memoir as a pollutant might be a true word spoken in jest...
Here's a possibly interesting question: If in, the say three years-ish ABdePJ may have left in his job, what could possibly make his premiership NOT look like a massive, cock-up on a monumental scale, full to the brim with slow-witted, bad decisions that most of us are assuming will be the case?
Really, I'd like someone to imagine some plausible events which would make even his political detractors admit he wasn't that bad in retrospect?
His major choices to date (Brexit and Covid) have indeed been that bad. We've talked about both quite a lot, and in particular, our shipmate @alienfromzog makes a detailed case for his poor choices with regard to lockdowns etc.
Set against that, vaccine distribution is going OK. I'm not sure how much credit really accrues to the PM for that, but perhaps he gets some points for it.
On Brexit, if the Johnson government was able to negotiate a useful set of trade deals, both with the EU and with other countries, and as a result, the UK saw significant economic growth, then it's possible that Brexit could be viewed as a success, and some of the things we've seen already overlooked as teething problems.
There are any number of good things that a UK government could theoretically do in the next few years. Benefit reform that actually worked, for example (there's nothing wrong with universal credit as a concept, but what we actually have sucks.) Action on housing that resulted in a functional elimination of the homeless and vulnerably housed (by moving them in to homes, not by killing them). Economic actions that caused economic growth and increased employment, that included the poorer sectors of the economy. Not having people needing to use food banks.
It's just that most of us think the chances of a Johnson government doing any of those things are rather slim.
Set against that, vaccine distribution is going OK. I'm not sure how much credit really accrues to the PM for that, but perhaps he gets some points for it.
I believe the vaccine rollout is entirely through preexisting NHS structures and no ministers have touched it with a barge pole.
The success of the vaccine project is pretty much down to Matt Hancock and Kate Bingham, according to this Guardian article (link), Matt Hancock bore in mind the lessons of the film Contagion when planning for the pandemic and insisting that the UK bought in stocks of vaccine early.
The success of the vaccine project is pretty much down to Matt Hancock and Kate Bingham, according to this Guardian article (link), Matt Hancock bore in mind the lessons of the film Contagion when planning for the pandemic and insisting that the UK bought in stocks of vaccine early.
Set against that, vaccine distribution is going OK. I'm not sure how much credit really accrues to the PM for that, but perhaps he gets some points for it.
I believe the vaccine rollout is entirely through preexisting NHS structures and no ministers have touched it with a barge pole.
That's almost true. The government had the foresight to place very early orders for vaccines. But yeah, otherwise (unlike "NHS Track and Trace") it has been an entirely Non-governmental, NHS-run enterprise.
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I am appalled that any child could be denied the opportunity of doing CS at GCSE in this day and age.
I don't know how much the qualifications have changed but it was no big deal for me to pick it up at AS Level having not done GCSE (not even GCSE IT). The problem a lot of schools have is that they've got IT departments partially inherited from old secretarial courses and the skills required for Computing Science are really vastly different.
That'll explain why there was so much pressure to teach the primary children how to use Word and touch type. And saying that teaching an eight year old the version of Word then in use wasn't going to be any use to them when they went into an office to use the version of Office when they were 18 did not register.
Sitting safe and very comfortable, far from the front lines, caring less than nothing for the deaths his actions and inactions cause. Enjoying his position and the briefings, decision making, high profile (etc). Applauding those on the front line while putting them directly at risk of injury and death.
Mr Johnson has already expressed how very sorry he is for all the deaths, The Generals would be entitled to blame the enemy for the deaths
The war analogy is tricky. It's a debateable point, but arguably the Generals were culpably careless in their deployment of forces, and resources, which meant more people died than needed to. However, it's a very limited analogy anyway and sometimes not helpful at all; because a virus isn't an enemy regime against whom we can target our righteous moral anger. It's a neutral life-form which just so happens to be threatening some other life-forms, who have enough self-awareness to realise the danger of this. It's just nature reminding us that humanity is basically a blob of matter on a spinning drop of water, that is always a variant away from annihilation. Fighting an 'enemy' like that is a whole other matter and casualties in the 'war' a very different consideration.
We have to direct our accountability towards those areas over which we have control; or rather over which our elected leaders have assumed control, having assured us of their commitment to our welfare, in order to gain their power. I will never get over Boris Johnson failing to attend FIVE (5) Cobra meetings on the pandemic in the months leading up to Lockdown in March. I'll bet that even the First World War generals attended war-office meetings as did their Prime Minister. Ours didn't. At precisely the time when the country needed their leader to put the head down, get stuck in, and stave off the incoming missiles, he deliberately absented himself - FIVE TIMES! - rather than attend the emergency meetings specifically set up to prepare for the Coronavirus crisis. Candid reports from government officials at the time commented on his 'style' of leadership as 'not engaging with emergency planning', 'not chairing meetings', 'not reading briefs', 'not working weekends'. It was observed that he behaved rather like the CEO of an old fashioned council authority. And as for those who attended Cobra, as another person observed 'There's no way you're at war if your Prime Minister isn't there'. Just another thing to bear in mind every time those Churchillian similes come out.
Of course it's not all his fault. Of course there's a lot he couldn't have changed or done differently, perhaps. But his personal responsibility for his own leadership throughout the crisis has got to have played a role in the outcome of the crisis. Otherwise, what is the point of leadership at all?
Such is the general incompetence of Johnson and Johnson's administration it is possible, of course, that even had he been there, it would have made no difference, and all the same mistakes would still have been made - avoidable or otherwise. In fact, it's a real Catch-22 in a way. If Johnson had attended his Government's crisis meetings as he should, would we be better off, in terms of fatalities etc? This concedes he would've made a difference for the better, and was therefore not as useless as his critics say. At least, however, he would've been there to hear what was happening, discuss it, listen to advisors and begin to realise the preparation required for fighting the virus nation-wide.
How irrelevant must Johnson have considered his own presence to be in such meetings as those for him to have felt free to absent himself in such a way? That alone makes it clear that either he knew he would be of no use in attending the meetings, or else he simply didn't care enough for the job in hand to be there. There are no other options.
This tells me everything I need to know about the man. And this easily co-relates to the disgracefully high infection and death rates of this nation. I'd like to think he was sorry because he knows he has so much to be sorry about from the point of view of his choosing to be lazy, neglectful and ignorant when his country was depending on him to be swift, up to the mark and deeply concerned. But I doubt it.
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I am appalled that any child could be denied the opportunity of doing CS at GCSE in this day and age.
Yes, the 80% of normal comprehensive school students who get the opportunity to take CS GCSE is too low - and yet better resourced schools in the private sector clearly don't see this as a priority as only 39% of their kids can take CS. Why so low?
Is it that many of those kids won't have to compete for a normal job and start at the bottom, rising on merit but get an easy ride on the appearance that they're better? How many Tory MPs were selected based on education, self-confidence and looking and sounding the part? That's the way to becoming PM while still being mediocre.
Yes, the 80% of normal comprehensive school students who get the opportunity to take CS GCSE is too low - and yet better resourced schools in the private sector clearly don't see this as a priority as only 39% of their kids can take CS. Why so low?
I know that when I was in school (back when GCSEs were all shiny and new), it was firmly of the opinion that GCSE pupils were better served by getting a strong foundation in maths, three sciences, languages etc., and that some of the less traditional subjects weren't of as much long-term educational value.
I remember being offered the opportunity to take GCSE Computer <something> by a Maths teacher - he told me "you could take the exam now and get an A", but I'd also have had to complete and write up a project, and that seemed like actual work.
<something> may have been studies, rather than science.
That'll explain why there was so much pressure to teach the primary children how to use Word and touch type. And saying that teaching an eight year old the version of Word then in use wasn't going to be any use to them when they went into an office to use the version of Office when they were 18 did not register.
Because it's nonsense. The point isn't (shouldn't be) to "learn Word" because "Word is used in offices", but to have some exposure to word processing skills. Word versions come and go, and functions move to different places, interfaces change etc., but the general set of "things you can do with a word processing program" hasn't changed a great deal, and the keyboard layout hasn't changed at all. Learning to type aged 8 is actually useful, just like learning to write is useful.
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I am appalled that any child could be denied the opportunity of doing CS at GCSE in this day and age.
I don't know how much the qualifications have changed but it was no big deal for me to pick it up at AS Level having not done GCSE (not even GCSE IT). The problem a lot of schools have is that they've got IT departments partially inherited from old secretarial courses and the skills required for Computing Science are really vastly different.
Just asked Karltlet#1 as he's half a year into A level CS. He reckons you could manage it without GCSE CS, but it'd be a real mountain to climb.
I commented earlier: "Some of these people went to expensive private schools and then on to top universities and yet seem to know nothing useful."
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
I am appalled that any child could be denied the opportunity of doing CS at GCSE in this day and age.
I don't know how much the qualifications have changed but it was no big deal for me to pick it up at AS Level having not done GCSE (not even GCSE IT). The problem a lot of schools have is that they've got IT departments partially inherited from old secretarial courses and the skills required for Computing Science are really vastly different.
Just asked Karltlet#1 as he's half a year into A level CS. He reckons you could manage it without GCSE CS, but it'd be a real mountain to climb.
LC, I know what the local academy demanded of me, and it was Word for the reason that it is used in offices. It wasn't what was required in the national curriculum though, which was much more general computer skills and understanding. They were introduced to word processing, DTP, Powerpoint and spreadsheets. Just not all Microsoft. And some programming with Logo and other programs - which they were back then. Not this app business.
Given the size of the hands involved, touch typing was beyond capabilities at the age, but what could be taught was using both hands equally, and the shift key at the opposite end of the keyboard from the letter being shifted. A position from which touch typing could be moved to as they grew.
OK, so per that article, the asylum seekers are in normal conditions permitted to leave the barracks (as long as they continue to reside there), but are having their movements restricted because of Covid. (ie. Covid being rife is precisely the reason not to allow people to leave.)
In a rational world, with Covid rife in the barracks, all its inhabitants would be under strict quarantine orders and not be permitted to spread the virus around. We all know that the British government's handling of Covid and quarantine has been far from rational.
In a rational world, people living in cramped quarters such as these asylum seekers would also be a priority group for the vaccine.
And, a further bit more on Napier Barracks. The decision to reopen buildings that have been unused for five years was because it was perceived that accommodating refugees in hotels (which in the meantime were empty) was perceived as being too soft on people fleeing war and persecution. The "hostile environment" strikes again.
OK, so per that article, the asylum seekers are in normal conditions permitted to leave the barracks (as long as they continue to reside there), but are having their movements restricted because of Covid. (ie. Covid being rife is precisely the reason not to allow people to leave.)
In a rational world, with Covid rife in the barracks, all its inhabitants would be under strict quarantine orders and not be permitted to spread the virus around. We all know that the British government's handling of Covid and quarantine has been far from rational.
In a rational world, people living in cramped quarters such as these asylum seekers would also be a priority group for the vaccine.
And, a further bit more on Napier Barracks. The decision to reopen buildings that have been unused for five years was because it was perceived that accommodating refugees in hotels (which in the meantime were empty) was perceived as being too soft on people fleeing war and persecution. The "hostile environment" strikes again.
Which puts into context the fulminating about 'if it's good enough for our troops'.
Comments
"It's all the enemy's fault - if they hadn't been shooting at our troops, then nobody would have died?"
That's absurd. Shooting at our troops is what enemies do. It could, in fact, be said to be the defining act of a wartime enemy.
Similarly, the virus is going to reproduce. It's what they do. Blaming the virus is an entirely pointless exercise. It's like going for a walk in the middle of winter with no coat, and then blaming the weather for the fact that you're cold. Sure, it's true, at a very superficial level: if the weather had been warm, you wouldn't have got cold. But cold, wet weather is well-known to happen quite often in winter, so if you choose to go out without appropriate clothing, and you get cold and wet, you really only have yourself to blame. You should have worn a coat.
Similarly for the virus. Although this particular strain of coronavirus is "novel", there's nothing terribly unusual about it. It behaves in entirely predictable ways. What you can control (and thus deserve credit or blame for) is how you respond to it. Were the choices you made good, creditable ones, or poor, blameworthy ones?
In a war generals have to make decisions. They cannot do this from the front line.
The Prime Mionoister also has to make decisions and they are often wrong. However, he does not have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer screen and just criticising
He had the luxury of scientific advisers telling him what he must do. He had the luxury of academics who made pandemics their area of study. He had the luxury of the outcomes of years of planning for pandemics with death rates up to 50%. He didn't do what they advised. He got it wrong because he confused hesitancy with reluctance.
Instead, he tells us to clap for a man who was far greater than he. Maybe we should respond with a weekly *Boo for Bozzie*? Even Carrie might join in...
When there is a full enquiry, I feel sure that he will admit all mistakes.
There will be no Comfy Chair.
What Exactly do you base these feelings on @Telford ?
Intuition and book sales
I m not comforted
" How I saved the UK" by Boris Johnson
Ah yes - that magnificent work of fantasy and fiction, still waiting to be written.
What mass graves ?
Really, I'd like someone to imagine some plausible events which would make even his political detractors admit he wasn't that bad in retrospect?
Is it possible that the pandemic will be past with fewer than double the current death toll ? Will the economy resulting from the double whammy of Brexit+pandemic be recovering (to which Johnson visibly contributed by good choices, not just good luck plus suffering and hard work from everyone else) ? Will Britain still be one United Kingdom on good terms and still able to trade with its neighbours and those far away? Will we be respected or left behind while our current equals look at us with compassion for our poorest of political choices?
This is such bollocks. I refer you to my detailed answer here: http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2021/02/covid-19-and-how-johnsons-government.html
Even if you take the most generous view possible of Johnson's management of Covid, you're still stuck with a death rate that is TWICE what it could have been.
And the key point here is that lessons were not learnt from the spring. His arrogant refusal to allow any reflection (presumably to protect his ego?) Doomed us to repeating the mistakes of the past at a cost of tens of thousands of lives.
AFZ
They could always donate the unsold copies of any double checks that this is hell memoir produced by the walking disaster for fuel to the people he has landed in deeper poverty.
His major choices to date (Brexit and Covid) have indeed been that bad. We've talked about both quite a lot, and in particular, our shipmate @alienfromzog makes a detailed case for his poor choices with regard to lockdowns etc.
Set against that, vaccine distribution is going OK. I'm not sure how much credit really accrues to the PM for that, but perhaps he gets some points for it.
On Brexit, if the Johnson government was able to negotiate a useful set of trade deals, both with the EU and with other countries, and as a result, the UK saw significant economic growth, then it's possible that Brexit could be viewed as a success, and some of the things we've seen already overlooked as teething problems.
There are any number of good things that a UK government could theoretically do in the next few years. Benefit reform that actually worked, for example (there's nothing wrong with universal credit as a concept, but what we actually have sucks.) Action on housing that resulted in a functional elimination of the homeless and vulnerably housed (by moving them in to homes, not by killing them). Economic actions that caused economic growth and increased employment, that included the poorer sectors of the economy. Not having people needing to use food banks.
It's just that most of us think the chances of a Johnson government doing any of those things are rather slim.
Good luck."
Contraversial. Matt is very unpopular on here.
That's almost true. The government had the foresight to place very early orders for vaccines. But yeah, otherwise (unlike "NHS Track and Trace") it has been an entirely Non-governmental, NHS-run enterprise.
AFZ
Since then I was reading a Raspberry Pi blog page which says: "Only 64% of schools in England offer GCSE Computer Science, meaning that just 81% of students have the opportunity to take the subject (some schools also add selection criteria). A higher percentage (90%) of selective grammar schools offer GCSE CS than do comprehensive schools (80%) or independent schools (39%). "
I think it's appalling. These schools don't bother so much with useful stuff to help the kids get normal jobs - do they rely on dead languages and nepotism or the 'old boy network' ?
Oops forgot the source link https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/computing-education-underrepresentation-data-england-schools/
When you own the firm, you can pay people to install a system and sit in front of the computers. When it goes wrong you can pay someone to fix it
I'd say East Asia, rather than SE Asia. East Asia extends northwards to include Japan, Sth Korea and China, our major links.
... Or to put it another way: if you float towards the top of a company through nepotism, you can employ people to do the actual work.
I am appalled that any child could be denied the opportunity of doing CS at GCSE in this day and age.
I don't know how much the qualifications have changed but it was no big deal for me to pick it up at AS Level having not done GCSE (not even GCSE IT). The problem a lot of schools have is that they've got IT departments partially inherited from old secretarial courses and the skills required for Computing Science are really vastly different.
The war analogy is tricky. It's a debateable point, but arguably the Generals were culpably careless in their deployment of forces, and resources, which meant more people died than needed to. However, it's a very limited analogy anyway and sometimes not helpful at all; because a virus isn't an enemy regime against whom we can target our righteous moral anger. It's a neutral life-form which just so happens to be threatening some other life-forms, who have enough self-awareness to realise the danger of this. It's just nature reminding us that humanity is basically a blob of matter on a spinning drop of water, that is always a variant away from annihilation. Fighting an 'enemy' like that is a whole other matter and casualties in the 'war' a very different consideration.
We have to direct our accountability towards those areas over which we have control; or rather over which our elected leaders have assumed control, having assured us of their commitment to our welfare, in order to gain their power. I will never get over Boris Johnson failing to attend FIVE (5) Cobra meetings on the pandemic in the months leading up to Lockdown in March. I'll bet that even the First World War generals attended war-office meetings as did their Prime Minister. Ours didn't. At precisely the time when the country needed their leader to put the head down, get stuck in, and stave off the incoming missiles, he deliberately absented himself - FIVE TIMES! - rather than attend the emergency meetings specifically set up to prepare for the Coronavirus crisis. Candid reports from government officials at the time commented on his 'style' of leadership as 'not engaging with emergency planning', 'not chairing meetings', 'not reading briefs', 'not working weekends'. It was observed that he behaved rather like the CEO of an old fashioned council authority. And as for those who attended Cobra, as another person observed 'There's no way you're at war if your Prime Minister isn't there'. Just another thing to bear in mind every time those Churchillian similes come out.
Of course it's not all his fault. Of course there's a lot he couldn't have changed or done differently, perhaps. But his personal responsibility for his own leadership throughout the crisis has got to have played a role in the outcome of the crisis. Otherwise, what is the point of leadership at all?
Such is the general incompetence of Johnson and Johnson's administration it is possible, of course, that even had he been there, it would have made no difference, and all the same mistakes would still have been made - avoidable or otherwise. In fact, it's a real Catch-22 in a way. If Johnson had attended his Government's crisis meetings as he should, would we be better off, in terms of fatalities etc? This concedes he would've made a difference for the better, and was therefore not as useless as his critics say. At least, however, he would've been there to hear what was happening, discuss it, listen to advisors and begin to realise the preparation required for fighting the virus nation-wide.
How irrelevant must Johnson have considered his own presence to be in such meetings as those for him to have felt free to absent himself in such a way? That alone makes it clear that either he knew he would be of no use in attending the meetings, or else he simply didn't care enough for the job in hand to be there. There are no other options.
This tells me everything I need to know about the man. And this easily co-relates to the disgracefully high infection and death rates of this nation. I'd like to think he was sorry because he knows he has so much to be sorry about from the point of view of his choosing to be lazy, neglectful and ignorant when his country was depending on him to be swift, up to the mark and deeply concerned. But I doubt it.
Yes, the 80% of normal comprehensive school students who get the opportunity to take CS GCSE is too low - and yet better resourced schools in the private sector clearly don't see this as a priority as only 39% of their kids can take CS. Why so low?
Is it that many of those kids won't have to compete for a normal job and start at the bottom, rising on merit but get an easy ride on the appearance that they're better? How many Tory MPs were selected based on education, self-confidence and looking and sounding the part? That's the way to becoming PM while still being mediocre.
I know that when I was in school (back when GCSEs were all shiny and new), it was firmly of the opinion that GCSE pupils were better served by getting a strong foundation in maths, three sciences, languages etc., and that some of the less traditional subjects weren't of as much long-term educational value.
I remember being offered the opportunity to take GCSE Computer <something> by a Maths teacher - he told me "you could take the exam now and get an A", but I'd also have had to complete and write up a project, and that seemed like actual work.
<something> may have been studies, rather than science.
Because it's nonsense. The point isn't (shouldn't be) to "learn Word" because "Word is used in offices", but to have some exposure to word processing skills. Word versions come and go, and functions move to different places, interfaces change etc., but the general set of "things you can do with a word processing program" hasn't changed a great deal, and the keyboard layout hasn't changed at all. Learning to type aged 8 is actually useful, just like learning to write is useful.
Just asked Karltlet#1 as he's half a year into A level CS. He reckons you could manage it without GCSE CS, but it'd be a real mountain to climb.
Aye, it's probably changed a fair bit.
Given the size of the hands involved, touch typing was beyond capabilities at the age, but what could be taught was using both hands equally, and the shift key at the opposite end of the keyboard from the letter being shifted. A position from which touch typing could be moved to as they grew.
Which puts into context the fulminating about 'if it's good enough for our troops'.
O to what noisome depths this country has sunk. Shameful.