Just out of interest, why do Tony Abbot's views on unrelated matters affect whether he's a good choice as trade negotiator or not? Surely the only thing that should affect that decision is whether he's actually any good at conducting trade negotiations?
He is a Prime Minister who had the ignominy of being sacked by his own party after only two years in office, so clearly someone not capable of negotiating with his own colleagues
I’m disappointed that someone who has openly expressed the kind of views Tony Abbot has is regarded as a suitable person to represent Britain.
To me, this is the problem.
OK, I wouldn't want to employ him in any role with his expressed views. But to employ someone with those views in a negotiation role - not if anyone actually wants to negotiate. Which this government doesn't.
And to employ someone with his views in a role that represents this nation - yes, character matters, because he will be being the presence of Britain in other places.
Let's face it, the supposed government of the UK doesn't care at all if the people they choose to do things represent in any way the people of the UK, or would represent them is offered for election. They probably do care that there is nothing the people of the UK can do about it.
Well at least we are not paying him any actual money.
I suspect 'expenses' will cover any financial inconveniences very nicely.
Just wondering aloud. In the post-Brexit haven of freedom from foreign interference why are there no British politicians, advisors, business moguls etc, filling this post? When did the Brexiteers wind back on the 'Take Back Control' clause of their manifesto, only to hand it over to non-British advisors? It's almost as if the campaign leaders didn't actually believe their own promises.
It's ironic. The Tories do everything they can to keep 'foreign' help out of the country - like NHS staff, carers, fruit-pickers etc. Useful people who work hard. But when it comes to seeking advice in how to shape British policy, apparently need to travel to the other side of the literal planet to pick up the doubtful cast-offs of another nation. Or because we share a monarch, do the Tories believe Australia is just another part of the Kingdom, which is near enough as makes no difference?
I'm perturbed that everyone believes the rumours about Tony Abbott. I know him and he is certainly not a misogynist and he is very caring and compassionate to the needs of others. Just because he does not believe in same sex marriage (which is his right), that issue should not affect his ability to do the job he has been selected to accomplish. He is certainly the victim of very nasty attacks which have no credence.
@rhubarb - when you say you 'know' Mr Abbott, do you mean 'personally' (as a friend, or relative)?
This isn't a snarky question - you may well be right about his character - but we in England can only go by news reports etc. (which, of course, may or may not be true).
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly. But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
I'm perturbed that everyone believes the rumours about Tony Abbott. I know him and he is certainly not a misogynist and he is very caring and compassionate to the needs of others. Just because he does not believe in same sex marriage (which is his right), that issue should not affect his ability to do the job he has been selected to accomplish. He is certainly the victim of very nasty attacks which have no credence.
My sister-in-law in Brisbane has sent me a bunch of links to Australian websites which are all very negative about Tony Abbott, but one thing I thought was quite surprising - despite his opposition to same-sex marriage he went to his sister's wedding
I'm perturbed that everyone believes the rumours about Tony Abbott. I know him and he is certainly not a misogynist and he is very caring and compassionate to the needs of others. Just because he does not believe in same sex marriage (which is his right), that issue should not affect his ability to do the job he has been selected to accomplish. He is certainly the victim of very nasty attacks which have no credence.
It is, indeed, his right to be a homophobe. It is the right of everyone else to treat him accordingly.
I'm perturbed that everyone believes the rumours about Tony Abbott. I know him and he is certainly not a misogynist and he is very caring and compassionate to the needs of others. Just because he does not believe in same sex marriage (which is his right), that issue should not affect his ability to do the job he has been selected to accomplish. He is certainly the victim of very nasty attacks which have no credence.
It's always important to hear other views, especially if they do have personal knowledge behind them. Is it misogyny to assert that women are less suited to exercise authority than men? Or is it merely sexist? Or did he not say that? He is certainly entitled to his own conscientious views on same-sex marriage, and abortion, and stem-cell research (other areas of opposition during his time as politician). I'd be more concerned about his description of climate change as a 'cult', though he doesn't deny it as such, just suggests it's been going on hundreds of years, and that off-setting carbon footprints is not economically viable.
To be fair to him, his views aren't outrageously off the spectrum; any more than many people we know, work with, have in our own families etc. Whether it's needful for the Westminster Government to travel the world to find someone with these views to give 'advice' about how to do our trade deals, when surely the UK is already bristling with such folk, is the more interesting question, in my opinion!
Entitled to private views. Of course. But the private views matter when he's a public representative. Read it as anti black and about a black person marrying a white person. Would that be okay?
On Matt Hancock: I think that had I been Health Secretary in January and read news stories about a possible pandemic in China I might have thought to ensure the NHS was prepared to cope. Of course I might not have followed up properly - but then I haven't been appointed Health Secretary.
There are a lot of good chaps in the country if that's your criterion for Health Secretary. If you want the job you need to be a bit better at it than just a good chap.
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly.
How many then ?
But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
Which of his decisions were ideologically driven. ?
Wider still, and wider
Shall thy bounds be set!
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet...
He's from a part of the Empire, so he's OK.
He was born at the General Lying-In Hospital in Lambeth: within projectile vomiting distance of the Palace of Westminster. I have no idea who General Lying-In was, probably an crazed imperialist exponent of Muscular Christianity, from the same mould as the incompetent and murderous General Orde-Wingate
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly.
How many then ?
But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
Which of his decisions were ideologically driven. ?
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly.
How many then ?
But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
Which of his decisions were ideologically driven. ?
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
We did not have sufficient PPE so he had to get it from whatever source he could.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
We did not have sufficient PPE so he had to get it from whatever source he could.
And whose fault is that?
The NHS knew it did not have enough PPE well before the pandemic. Matt Hancock been in office over a year before the pandemic hit: he had ample time to try to do something about that.
In any case, he didn't get hold of PPE from whatever source he could. He neglected the NHS procurement process and paid private companies with no expertise in procuring medical equipment and those companies came up with PPE that wasn't good enough for medical use.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on.
If Hancock is doing his best already how are things going to go better? If he's doing his best then the only way for things to go better is for him to resign in favour of someone whose best is actually good enough.
I hope you can agree with my last statement.
You are implying that JonahMan may not hope things go better. That is a good deal more insulting and bullying that anything anyone has said to you on these boards.
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly.
How many then ?
But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
Which of his decisions were ideologically driven. ?
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
We did not have sufficient PPE so he had to get it from whatever source he could.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on
I hope you can agree with my last statement
What the NHS got was unsuitable. They could not use the masks for a start. It was a waste of money at. Time when money is needed
He has had to cope with the situation with a very underfunded NHS. However he is health minister. In this situation the only person higher than him is Boris. He has not a great job with the little he has.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on
I hope you can agree with my last statement
If this is his best then you agree that he is incompetent and therefore should go. Are you saying you are satisifed with his performance?
Of course I want things to go better from now on. But I can't see Matt Hancock, or any of the rest of the current government, managing to achieve that. And if you think Hancock should remain as Minister for Health then the only conclusions that can be drawn are either that you are optimistic beyond the bounds of delusion or that you don't want things to get better. Because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this government has the capacity to do so.
You are implying that JonahMan may not hope things go better. That is a good deal more insulting and bullying that anything anyone has said to you on these boards.
Bullying ? Don't be so daft. If people cannot hope that things get better, it's a very sad state of affairs
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly.
How many then ?
But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
Which of his decisions were ideologically driven. ?
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
We did not have sufficient PPE so he had to get it from whatever source he could.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on
I hope you can agree with my last statement
What the NHS got was unsuitable. They could not use the masks for a start. It was a waste of money at. Time when money is needed
He has had to cope with the situation with a very underfunded NHS. However he is health minister. In this situation the only person higher than him is Boris. He has not a great job with the little he has.
He is ultimately responsible but lets not forget that there are staff in the NHS who are specifically paid to insure that the NHS has the equipment it needs.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on
I hope you can agree with my last statement
If this is his best then you agree that he is incompetent and therefore should go. Are you saying you are satisifed with his performance?
Of course I want things to go better from now on. But I can't see Matt Hancock, or any of the rest of the current government, managing to achieve that. And if you think Hancock should remain as Minister for Health then the only conclusions that can be drawn are either that you are optimistic beyond the bounds of delusion or that you don't want things to get better. Because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this government has the capacity to do so.
How can I have a serious conversation with someone who insists that I am either delusional or that I don't want things to get better.
He is ultimately responsible but lets not forget that there are staff in the NHS who are specifically paid to insure that the NHS has the equipment it needs.
Yes, they've spent years saying "we need more PPE, it'll cost us £1m and the government is allowing to only spend £10k" (numbers not accurate, I don't know what sort of budgets individual NHS trusts have for buying PPE nor what they'd have needed to have had what was needed in January - except that it's clear that the ideology of austerity would certainly mean that what's available is less than what's needed). As the crisis unfolded at the start of the year the government really had only two options: 1) pass a load more money to individual NHS trusts for them to spend getting the PPE they needed from their regular suppliers, or 2) contact suppliers and manufacturers directly and purchase large quantities of PPE that could then be passed to individual NHS trusts to meet their needs. Do you see a third option that would have got the PPE needed to the NHS trusts? The only other option I see is a hybrid option of centrally procured PPE and increased budgets to individual trusts. On a variation of option 2, the EU coordinated a programme of central procurement using the economic clout of the whole EU to get access to PPE where individual nations without such clout would struggle to get enough or be prone to the Arthur Daley characters setting themselves up to sell substandard equipment to the desperate. If we're talking ideologically driven decisions, the decision of the government to ignore invitations from the EU to join in that scheme only makes sense within the context of the idiocy of Brexit ideology ... which was good news for businesses in the model of Trotters Independent Traders.
40,000+ deaths from COVID19 might disagree with that
How many of these deaths do you hold him personally responsible for ?
Not all of them, certainly.
How many then ?
But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
Which of his decisions were ideologically driven. ?
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
We did not have sufficient PPE so he had to get it from whatever source he could.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
He's not evil and he's doing his best. Let's hope that things go better from now on
I hope you can agree with my last statement
What the NHS got was unsuitable. They could not use the masks for a start. It was a waste of money at. Time when money is needed
He has had to cope with the situation with a very underfunded NHS. However he is health minister. In this situation the only person higher than him is Boris. He has not a great job with the little he has.
He is ultimately responsible but lets not forget that there are staff in the NHS who are specifically paid to insure that the NHS has the equipment it needs.
This is a very fair point. There are people who are paid big, big money to run the NHS. However, they have to run it according to Tory principles and Tory funding allowances. This is typical of NHS vs. Tory blinkers-on politics.
Some of these folk are well worth a second look. In fact, Dido Harding, who introduced the current Track and Trace system, has been Chair of the NHS Improvement Committee since 2017, and is the recently appointed Chair to the organisation (National Institute for Health Protection) replacing Public Health England. She also 'happens' to be the wife of the Tory MP who lobbies for the replacement of the NHS with an insurance scheme and until recently called for the closure of the very same PHE, the replacement of which his wife now chairs. Bet that came as a surprise to absolutely nobody at all.
As for Matt Hancock. He is in a hugely responsible role. But within the context of so many machinations, he's probably just another dispensable minnow, come the time when he's fulfilled his usefulness, in the broader oceans of Tory leadership ambition.
She also 'happens' to be the wife of the Tory MP who lobbies for the replacement of the NHS with an insurance scheme and until recently called for the closure of the very same PHE, the replacement of which his wife now chairs. Bet that came as a surprise to absolutely nobody at all.
Additionally when she was at Talktalk, she presided over a massive loss of customer data, and was criticised for her incompetence over her response.
She also 'happens' to be the wife of the Tory MP who lobbies for the replacement of the NHS with an insurance scheme and until recently called for the closure of the very same PHE, the replacement of which his wife now chairs. Bet that came as a surprise to absolutely nobody at all.
Additionally when she was at Talktalk, she presided over a massive loss of customer data, and was criticised for her incompetence over her response.
The Conservatives take someone who failed to competently run a mobile phone company, and appointed her to run vital NHS services at the time of a pandemic, which has struggled to even be adequate, and then promote her to head up a new public body.
They appoint a party leader and PM who failed to do anything as Mayor of London, who has shown no ability to tell the truth or take responsibility, who has shown no competence at anything except raise a few laughs on a TV game show.
They appoint a trade adviser who failed to hold onto his position as PM of Australia for more than a couple of years and has never done more than put his signature to trade deals others negotiated (even if he was actively involved in negotiating trade deals, he wasn't PM for long enough to be involved from start to finish). Someone who if he doesn't hold the views attributed to him has totally failed to defend himself from those accusations.
Is anyone seeing a pattern in the competence of Conservative Party appointees? We haven't even mentioned the current Cabinet ...
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
I'm perturbed that everyone believes the rumours about Tony Abbott. I know him and he is certainly not a misogynist and he is very caring and compassionate to the needs of others. Just because he does not believe in same sex marriage (which is his right), that issue should not affect his ability to do the job he has been selected to accomplish. He is certainly the victim of very nasty attacks which have no credence.
OMG - Tony, is that you? Welcome to the ship! I never thought I would see you here. Interesting choice posting in Hell, but oddly appropriate.
More seriously, Tony Abbott was the most effective opposition leader in living memory, mainly because the job has basically become being negative and tearing things down. He is great at that. When it came to implementing his fanatically neoliberal agenda as PM, he was (thankfully) so breathtakingly incompetent that he got almost nothing done.
Whatever you may think about his morals (I abhor his position on asylum seekers, absolutely repugnant), or his extraordinary talent for saying the worst thing at the wrong time, I would not trust him to run a bath. So, good luck with that, I guess?
I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
Comments
Or Cummings knows where Abbot buried his bodies
He is a Prime Minister who had the ignominy of being sacked by his own party after only two years in office, so clearly someone not capable of negotiating with his own colleagues
In Australian political terms he is one of the bodies.
To me, this is the problem.
OK, I wouldn't want to employ him in any role with his expressed views. But to employ someone with those views in a negotiation role - not if anyone actually wants to negotiate. Which this government doesn't.
And to employ someone with his views in a role that represents this nation - yes, character matters, because he will be being the presence of Britain in other places.
I suspect 'expenses' will cover any financial inconveniences very nicely.
Just wondering aloud. In the post-Brexit haven of freedom from foreign interference why are there no British politicians, advisors, business moguls etc, filling this post? When did the Brexiteers wind back on the 'Take Back Control' clause of their manifesto, only to hand it over to non-British advisors? It's almost as if the campaign leaders didn't actually believe their own promises.
It's ironic. The Tories do everything they can to keep 'foreign' help out of the country - like NHS staff, carers, fruit-pickers etc. Useful people who work hard. But when it comes to seeking advice in how to shape British policy, apparently need to travel to the other side of the literal planet to pick up the doubtful cast-offs of another nation. Or because we share a monarch, do the Tories believe Australia is just another part of the Kingdom, which is near enough as makes no difference?
Shall thy bounds be set!
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet...
He's from a part of the Empire, so he's OK.
This isn't a snarky question - you may well be right about his character - but we in England can only go by news reports etc. (which, of course, may or may not be true).
Not all of them, certainly. But, for example, he was in charge of the NHS when the decision was made to move people from hospitals to care homes without testing them, resulting in a large number of deaths of vulnerable people. This, together with other poor decisions, many ideologically or economically driven rather than with public health in mind, make him culpable. The blame should obviously be shared with other members of the cabinet (present and past, as AFZ says), as the Tories have systemically been eroding the NHS. But he bears a lot of the responsibility as he was the one in charge when the UK had far more pandemic deaths than other similar countries. So he could have done things differently, and not just with hindsight, plenty of health experts were saying so at the time.
My sister-in-law in Brisbane has sent me a bunch of links to Australian websites which are all very negative about Tony Abbott, but one thing I thought was quite surprising - despite his opposition to same-sex marriage he went to his sister's wedding
It is, indeed, his right to be a homophobe. It is the right of everyone else to treat him accordingly.
It's always important to hear other views, especially if they do have personal knowledge behind them. Is it misogyny to assert that women are less suited to exercise authority than men? Or is it merely sexist? Or did he not say that? He is certainly entitled to his own conscientious views on same-sex marriage, and abortion, and stem-cell research (other areas of opposition during his time as politician). I'd be more concerned about his description of climate change as a 'cult', though he doesn't deny it as such, just suggests it's been going on hundreds of years, and that off-setting carbon footprints is not economically viable.
To be fair to him, his views aren't outrageously off the spectrum; any more than many people we know, work with, have in our own families etc. Whether it's needful for the Westminster Government to travel the world to find someone with these views to give 'advice' about how to do our trade deals, when surely the UK is already bristling with such folk, is the more interesting question, in my opinion!
There are a lot of good chaps in the country if that's your criterion for Health Secretary. If you want the job you need to be a bit better at it than just a good chap.
And has a New Town to support him.
He was born at the General Lying-In Hospital in Lambeth: within projectile vomiting distance of the Palace of Westminster. I have no idea who General Lying-In was, probably an crazed imperialist exponent of Muscular Christianity, from the same mould as the incompetent and murderous General Orde-Wingate
I'm thinking chiefly of the privatisation of parts of the response to the pandemic, for example supplying PPE.
But let's say I am wrong and his motives were entirely pure, with public health his only concern. The rest of my point stands - and I note you don't answer this, you merely pick on one word. He was the one in charge. The decisions he made resulted in far more people dying than was necessary. He is either evil or incompetent - your choice. Either way, he is to blame.
I hope you can agree with my last statement
The NHS knew it did not have enough PPE well before the pandemic. Matt Hancock been in office over a year before the pandemic hit: he had ample time to try to do something about that.
In any case, he didn't get hold of PPE from whatever source he could. He neglected the NHS procurement process and paid private companies with no expertise in procuring medical equipment and those companies came up with PPE that wasn't good enough for medical use.
If Hancock is doing his best already how are things going to go better? If he's doing his best then the only way for things to go better is for him to resign in favour of someone whose best is actually good enough.
You are implying that JonahMan may not hope things go better. That is a good deal more insulting and bullying that anything anyone has said to you on these boards.
What the NHS got was unsuitable. They could not use the masks for a start. It was a waste of money at. Time when money is needed
He has had to cope with the situation with a very underfunded NHS. However he is health minister. In this situation the only person higher than him is Boris. He has not a great job with the little he has.
If this is his best then you agree that he is incompetent and therefore should go. Are you saying you are satisifed with his performance?
Of course I want things to go better from now on. But I can't see Matt Hancock, or any of the rest of the current government, managing to achieve that. And if you think Hancock should remain as Minister for Health then the only conclusions that can be drawn are either that you are optimistic beyond the bounds of delusion or that you don't want things to get better. Because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this government has the capacity to do so.
He is ultimately responsible but lets not forget that there are staff in the NHS who are specifically paid to insure that the NHS has the equipment it needs.
How can I have a serious conversation with someone who insists that I am either delusional or that I don't want things to get better.
This is a very fair point. There are people who are paid big, big money to run the NHS. However, they have to run it according to Tory principles and Tory funding allowances. This is typical of NHS vs. Tory blinkers-on politics.
Some of these folk are well worth a second look. In fact, Dido Harding, who introduced the current Track and Trace system, has been Chair of the NHS Improvement Committee since 2017, and is the recently appointed Chair to the organisation (National Institute for Health Protection) replacing Public Health England. She also 'happens' to be the wife of the Tory MP who lobbies for the replacement of the NHS with an insurance scheme and until recently called for the closure of the very same PHE, the replacement of which his wife now chairs. Bet that came as a surprise to absolutely nobody at all.
As for Matt Hancock. He is in a hugely responsible role. But within the context of so many machinations, he's probably just another dispensable minnow, come the time when he's fulfilled his usefulness, in the broader oceans of Tory leadership ambition.
Additionally when she was at Talktalk, she presided over a massive loss of customer data, and was criticised for her incompetence over her response.
They appoint a party leader and PM who failed to do anything as Mayor of London, who has shown no ability to tell the truth or take responsibility, who has shown no competence at anything except raise a few laughs on a TV game show.
They appoint a trade adviser who failed to hold onto his position as PM of Australia for more than a couple of years and has never done more than put his signature to trade deals others negotiated (even if he was actively involved in negotiating trade deals, he wasn't PM for long enough to be involved from start to finish). Someone who if he doesn't hold the views attributed to him has totally failed to defend himself from those accusations.
Is anyone seeing a pattern in the competence of Conservative Party appointees? We haven't even mentioned the current Cabinet ...
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
Was my heavy irony not obvious enough or are reasserted the point for the benefit of others?
Somewhere to the west of Brum, I think...
Poor little Mattie, though. He'll probably soon be thinking 'What am I doing under this bus?'
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
OMG - Tony, is that you? Welcome to the ship! I never thought I would see you here. Interesting choice posting in Hell, but oddly appropriate.
Whatever you may think about his morals (I abhor his position on asylum seekers, absolutely repugnant), or his extraordinary talent for saying the worst thing at the wrong time, I would not trust him to run a bath. So, good luck with that, I guess?
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
As for New Town's childish ripostes, well, the less said, the better.