ION, it seems as though the little Door Matt (thank you, John Crace of the Grauniad, IIRC) has taken over as PM, as it appears to be he who is telling us all what a *tipping point* we've arrived at.
It's such a privilege to have someone as obviously bright as the Door Matt to tell us something we otherwise wouldn't have a clue about...
At least he isn’t quite as tearful as he has been in recent months.
I wonder what he will think of these day in ten years time? Will he still think the govt did their best to keep people safe and steer through these times wisely? Does he have any good character or integrity?
The news yesterday included repeated clips from the Marr interview, with him repeating the importance of following the rules and that lack of obedience with the current rules has been part of the problem (and, that the UK is worse than many nations in terms of level of obedience to rules). Has anyone told Dom Cummings this? Just in case he fancies another visit to his mummy in Durham.
The news yesterday included repeated clips from the Marr interview, with him repeating the importance of following the rules and that lack of obedience with the current rules has been part of the problem (and, that the UK is worse than many nations in terms of level of obedience to rules). Has anyone told Dom Cummings this? Just in case he fancies another visit to his mummy in Durham.
Dom Cummings and the PM’s lack of action after his breaking the rules has been a huge factor in the loss of trust, country-wide. I hear sensible, fair minded people saying “oh blow it, I think I’ll just do a Cummings.”
This govt have taken trust for granted. They are losing it fast, even amongst their own, previously loyal, MPs.
While agreeing with the above, I think the Government's overblown cod-Churchillian language, over-confidence and ridiculous promises (not to mention cronyism in appointing people to key roles) haven't helped one bit. Who knows how things might have turned out if they'd said, "This is a new virus which we are struggling to understand, we're making the best decisions we can but may have to change them, please work with us as we're doing our best". The closing of Parliament over the summer also put out a very wrong message - not that this Government seems to care much about Parliament anyway!
To be fair, in some circumstances it is possible to forget.
Was staying with my elderly parents this week and ended up having to take one of them to hospital after an accident not getting home finally till 5am. The next day the neighbour kindly helped us clear up, I didn’t socially distance from him outside because I was stressed and exhausted and completely forgot (though was religiously masking and hand sanitising after leaving the house going to hospital etc).
Perfect compliance is probably impossible - however, hard you try you will lapse occasionally.
True - and, as our schoolteacher churchwarden said (in exasperated tones) yesterday, apropos latest *rules*, 'No-one knows whether they're coming or going!', so yes, unintentional lapses and mistakes are bound to occur.
True - and, as our schoolteacher churchwarden said (in exasperated tones) yesterday, apropos latest *rules*, 'No-one knows whether they're coming or going!', so yes, unintentional lapses and mistakes are bound to occur.
I watched Matt on the Marr show yesterday and I thought he did very well.
A world-beating performance, no doubt?
Lapses will happen. Also the number of dots and stickers on the floor around a checkout can be confusing. I have fallen fowl of that before now.
That is not an a excuse to let people like Cummings off.
Woman in train today doing her make up and not putting on a mask after is the same no excuse.
(and, that the UK is worse than many nations in terms of level of obedience to rules).
Would be interesting to know how he knows that. Was it plucked from the same Magical Statistics Tree as the claim that 25% of people booking tests aren't eligible?
(Both of those things may be true, but as they've repeatedly refused to explain the basis of the 25%, I'm inclined to treat both as falling into the 73.4% of statistics that are made up on the spot.)
(and, that the UK is worse than many nations in terms of level of obedience to rules).
Would be interesting to know how he knows that. Was it plucked from the same Magical Statistics Tree as the claim that 25% of people booking tests aren't eligible?
(Both of those things may be true, but as they've repeatedly refused to explain the basis of the 25%, I'm inclined to treat both as falling into the 73.4% of statistics that are made up on the spot.)
We seem to be living with a government who knows that no pronouncement will be effectively challenged or even checked properly; thus they know they can get away with just making stuff up. There is so much precedence of them doing this with Covid-19 that I basically do not believe anything they state without seeing proper verification. I haven't got the time now but comparing their repeated promises about testing capacity vs actual tests delivered shows continuous lying. The same of PPE delivery etc. etc.
I would put a lot of money on there being no basis for this 25% claim.
Available for reference only to *world-beating* governments...
(I think it might be related to the Magical Money Tree which so many families have actually Not Got, much to the discomfiture of their children. But I digress.)
The news yesterday included repeated clips from the Marr interview, with him repeating the importance of following the rules and that lack of obedience with the current rules has been part of the problem (and, that the UK is worse than many nations in terms of level of obedience to rules). Has anyone told Dom Cummings this? Just in case he fancies another visit to his mummy in Durham.
Dom Cummings and the PM’s lack of action after his breaking the rules has been a huge factor in the loss of trust, country-wide. I hear sensible, fair minded people saying “oh blow it, I think I’ll just do a Cummings.”
If they do that they would certainly not be sensible.
In April, Dom Cummings quite deliberately, and for no good reason, broke at least three of the rules that had been established for everyone else:
1. Work from home where possible (so, he went into the office repeatedly to talk to people when the rest of us were using Zoom, the phone or email to do the same)
2. Stay home, don't travel to visit friends or relatives or a second home (and, he went to Durham)
3. If you get covid symptoms self isolate at home and only leave if a clear emergency (he and his wife had symptoms, and he went to Durham)
I'm not sure where the eye-test fitted in (it would have been clearly against the rules in Scotland, but I think in England a drive of that distance for exercise would have been OK ... assuming he should have been in Durham in the first place).
Then, rather than say "I was wrong" he fabricated a totally incredible set of excuses as to why what he'd done was OK and within the rules, a unique reading of the rules to benefit himself. And, his cronies that are the government rallied around and supported his unsupportable position. The end result, large numbers of people pissed off because of all the sacrifices they'd made not seeing family and struggling through illness in isolation when he was able to drive his Chelsea Tractor through all of them without so much as a telling off, and even more people wondering if they could get away with the same sort of rule breaking now (the majority probably still keeping to the rules anyway). Months later as we see a new set of rules being introduced with threats of significant fines for non-obedience and we're still wondering if they apply to Cummings and his pals or whether we'll see one of them break these rules in such a blatant manner.
In April, Dom Cummings quite deliberately, and for no good reason, broke at least three of the rules that had been established for everyone else:
1. Work from home where possible (so, he went into the office repeatedly to talk to people when the rest of us were using Zoom, the phone or email to do the same)
2. Stay home, don't travel to visit friends or relatives or a second home (and, he went to Durham)
3. If you get covid symptoms self isolate at home and only leave if a clear emergency (he and his wife had symptoms, and he went to Durham)
I'm not sure where the eye-test fitted in (it would have been clearly against the rules in Scotland, but I think in England a drive of that distance for exercise would have been OK ... assuming he should have been in Durham in the first place).
Then, rather than say "I was wrong" he fabricated a totally incredible set of excuses as to why what he'd done was OK and within the rules, a unique reading of the rules to benefit himself. And, his cronies that are the government rallied around and supported his unsupportable position. The end result, large numbers of people pissed off because of all the sacrifices they'd made not seeing family and struggling through illness in isolation when he was able to drive his Chelsea Tractor through all of them without so much as a telling off, and even more people wondering if they could get away with the same sort of rule breaking now (the majority probably still keeping to the rules anyway). Months later as we see a new set of rules being introduced with threats of significant fines for non-obedience and we're still wondering if they apply to Cummings and his pals or whether we'll see one of them break these rules in such a blatant manner.
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked...
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
Oh Ffs, 2 days ago you were the one arguing that the government had little choice on when to lock down because the rebellious British public wouldn't comply. Now you're telling us that the undermining of the rules - and more importantly trust in government - by a senior advisor showing flagrant disregard for the rules and being defended disingenuously by a string of government ministers, is irrelevant!!
I don't think time is a big factor but even if it is, we are taking about only 6 months ago!
Moreover, at this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. The idea that the craven defence of all the indefensible by a string of ministers, is not extremely pertinent at this moment is just silly.
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
Oh Ffs, 2 days ago you were the one arguing that the government had little choice on when to lock down because the rebellious British public wouldn't comply. Now you're telling us that the undermining of the rules - and more importantly trust in government - by a senior advisor showing flagrant disregard for the rules and being defended disingenuously by a string of government ministers, is irrelevant!!
I don't think time is a big factor but even if it is, we are taking about only 6 months ago!
Moreover, at this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. The idea that the craven defence of all the indefensible by a string of ministers, is not extremely pertinent at this moment is just silly.
AFZ
Cummings broke the rules but it would be illogical to copy him. Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
Oh Ffs, 2 days ago you were the one arguing that the government had little choice on when to lock down because the rebellious British public wouldn't comply. Now you're telling us that the undermining of the rules - and more importantly trust in government - by a senior advisor showing flagrant disregard for the rules and being defended disingenuously by a string of government ministers, is irrelevant!!
I don't think time is a big factor but even if it is, we are taking about only 6 months ago!
Moreover, at this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. The idea that the craven defence of all the indefensible by a string of ministers, is not extremely pertinent at this moment is just silly.
AFZ
Cummings broke the rules but it would be illogical to copy him. Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
Are you deliberately missing the point? It is the official position of Her Majesty's Government that Mr Cummings didn't break the rules at all.
Public Health messages need to be simple and clear. Not because people are stupid but because you are asking them to take on board and act on a whole body of new knowledge. We do this is surgery all the time, with one-to-one conversations. It is endlessly fascinating what people take from a consultation. Partly that's about how effectively doctors communicate but it's also human nature because it takes time to absorb new knowledge. That's even before you factor in the effects of various emotional factors. Worried people don't assimilate knowledge well.
It is monstrously difficult with one-to-one conversations therefore to get messages across. Multiply the difficulty several times when you're talking mass communication. Public Health messages need to be simple, clear and consistent.
At this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. And they threw away what little credibility they had left to protect Cummings. At what cost?
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
Oh Ffs, 2 days ago you were the one arguing that the government had little choice on when to lock down because the rebellious British public wouldn't comply. Now you're telling us that the undermining of the rules - and more importantly trust in government - by a senior advisor showing flagrant disregard for the rules and being defended disingenuously by a string of government ministers, is irrelevant!!
I don't think time is a big factor but even if it is, we are taking about only 6 months ago!
Moreover, at this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. The idea that the craven defence of all the indefensible by a string of ministers, is not extremely pertinent at this moment is just silly.
AFZ
Cummings broke the rules but it would be illogical to copy him. Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
Are you deliberately missing the point? It is the official position of Her Majesty's Government that Mr Cummings didn't break the rules at all.
Public Health messages need to be simple and clear. Not because people are stupid but because you are asking them to take on board and act on a whole body of new knowledge. We do this is surgery all the time, with one-to-one conversations. It is endlessly fascinating what people take from a consultation. Partly that's about how effectively doctors communicate but it's also human nature because it takes time to absorb new knowledge. That's even before you factor in the effects of various emotional factors. Worried people don't assimilate knowledge well.
It is monstrously difficult with one-to-one conversations therefore to get messages across. Multiply the difficulty several times when you're talking mass communication. Public Health messages need to be simple, clear and consistent.
At this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. And they threw away what little credibility they had left to protect Cummings. At what cost?
AFZ
Well I am supposed to be a bit thick but I have been understanding things from the word go. You need to stop blaming Mr Cummings and concentrate on the here and now.
Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
On September 17 you posted that the Government was unable to lock down earlier because people did not have sufficient common sense to obey the restrictions sensibly until the virus had actually killed people.
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
On September 17 you posted that the Government was unable to lock down earlier because people did not have sufficient common sense to obey the restrictions sensibly until the virus had actually killed people.
That was more than 2 days ago. I am not a government spokesperson. I merely gave my opinion as to their lack of action.
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
It's not the government they need to trust. It's their own instincts.
Is it sensible to agnore good advice just because of something that happened 6 months ago ?
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
It's not the government they need to trust. It's their own instincts.
Is it sensible to agnore good advice just because of something that happened 6 months ago ?
It is not necessarily about trust. The regulations change fairly frequently, and changes are briefed out often after hours. In that situation the folk memory of what Cummings did (which is all it amounts to for many of the people who aren't glued to the news like most here) becomes part of the background against which they interpret their understanding of the regulations.
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
It's not the government they need to trust. It's their own instincts.
Is it sensible to agnore good advice just because of something that happened 6 months ago ?
It is not necessarily about trust. The regulations change fairly frequently, and changes are briefed out often after hours. In that situation the folk memory of what Cummings did (which is all it amounts to for many of the people who aren't glued to the news like most here) becomes part of the background against which they interpret their understanding of the regulations.
If they forget they will still have Labour politicians to remind them and Labour claim to be supporting the government on Covid
Well, I don't live in the UK, so I'm not subject to the UK government's diktats, but yes, "Ignore it all" pretty much sums up my opinion of the government's Covid response, and that of my family who are in the UK. Nobody was interested in going back to work in order to keep the branch of Pret by their office in business, or support rental values for city centre office buildings.
Basically, nothing the government says is credible. The way the "rule of six" conflates indoor and outdoor gatherings is a case in point. The government might occasionally be correct, but that's more by luck than by judgement. Anybody can read the statistics, and see that the incidence of Covid is rising fairly quickly, and draw the conclusion that "have less contact with other people" is the right move.
Of course, the vast majority of people do not read Covid statistics, or research papers on how the virus spreads. The vast majority of people might be willing to follow instructions, if they think the instructions are reasonable and/or they know they'll get significantly punished for not doing so. But again, we're back to policing by consent, and governance by consent. If the police, or the government, throw away the trust of the people, the people are going to ignore them.
Of course, the vast majority of people do not read Covid statistics, or research papers on how the virus spreads. The vast majority of people might be willing to follow instructions, if they think the instructions are reasonable and/or they know they'll get significantly punished for not doing so. But again, we're back to policing by consent, and governance by consent. If the police, or the government, throw away the trust of the people, the people are going to ignore them.
Also the comprehension of most people is average or below. This is not a moral failing, and the government has a duty to all those it governs - not just those with the skills to critical appraise scientific research.
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
Oh Ffs, 2 days ago you were the one arguing that the government had little choice on when to lock down because the rebellious British public wouldn't comply. Now you're telling us that the undermining of the rules - and more importantly trust in government - by a senior advisor showing flagrant disregard for the rules and being defended disingenuously by a string of government ministers, is irrelevant!!
I don't think time is a big factor but even if it is, we are taking about only 6 months ago!
Moreover, at this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. The idea that the craven defence of all the indefensible by a string of ministers, is not extremely pertinent at this moment is just silly.
AFZ
Cummings broke the rules but it would be illogical to copy him. Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
Are you deliberately missing the point? It is the official position of Her Majesty's Government that Mr Cummings didn't break the rules at all.
Public Health messages need to be simple and clear. Not because people are stupid but because you are asking them to take on board and act on a whole body of new knowledge. We do this is surgery all the time, with one-to-one conversations. It is endlessly fascinating what people take from a consultation. Partly that's about how effectively doctors communicate but it's also human nature because it takes time to absorb new knowledge. That's even before you factor in the effects of various emotional factors. Worried people don't assimilate knowledge well.
It is monstrously difficult with one-to-one conversations therefore to get messages across. Multiply the difficulty several times when you're talking mass communication. Public Health messages need to be simple, clear and consistent.
At this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. And they threw away what little credibility they had left to protect Cummings. At what cost?
AFZ
Well I am supposed to be a bit thick but I have been understanding things from the word go. You need to stop blaming Mr Cummings and concentrate on the here and now.
When do we stop blaming the captain on the Titanic for not keeping an adequate watch?
Mixed messages have - and continue to - cost lives.
The government in the U.K. have completely cocked up. More to come (see Brexshit in three short months).
We will learn from these times.
We will learn the fact that right wing governments care only about their pockets and the ‘market’ (aka fear and greed). But it won’t be immediate and there will be more pain along the way.
There are things that stay in the public conscience. Knowingly breaking the law over Brexit has died down. What Cummings did will not. He deliberately went against the rules. He put other people at risk not only of COVID-19 but from driving when his eye site was not up to it. People sacrificed a lot to steady the ship. He acted as though the rules don’t apply to him. If you have followed the rules and not seen your family or not held your kids or have lost a job because of COVID you are not going to forget that. It is a slap in the face. Political machinations are one thing what he did is quite another.
I think that also, and apart from that, a lot of folk have seen people disobeying the rules (illegal raves, crowds flocking to beaches, squashed-up queues outside pubs, even - dare I say - political demonstrations such as "Black Lives Matter") without much apparent police or other intervention and have said, "What's the point of me obeying the rules if so many others aren't bothering and aren't being made to?"
To parallel another crisis, it's a bit like the person who says, "Why should I stop using my polluting car when China keeps on building coal-fired power stations?"
Comments
At least he isn’t quite as tearful as he has been in recent months.
I wonder what he will think of these day in ten years time? Will he still think the govt did their best to keep people safe and steer through these times wisely? Does he have any good character or integrity?
And interesting article from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54228649
Dom Cummings and the PM’s lack of action after his breaking the rules has been a huge factor in the loss of trust, country-wide. I hear sensible, fair minded people saying “oh blow it, I think I’ll just do a Cummings.”
This govt have taken trust for granted. They are losing it fast, even amongst their own, previously loyal, MPs.
They’ll find it’s easier lost than gained.
And, trust once lost is almost impossible to regain.
Was staying with my elderly parents this week and ended up having to take one of them to hospital after an accident not getting home finally till 5am. The next day the neighbour kindly helped us clear up, I didn’t socially distance from him outside because I was stressed and exhausted and completely forgot (though was religiously masking and hand sanitising after leaving the house going to hospital etc).
Perfect compliance is probably impossible - however, hard you try you will lapse occasionally.
A world-beating performance, no doubt?
Lapses will happen. Also the number of dots and stickers on the floor around a checkout can be confusing. I have fallen fowl of that before now.
That is not an a excuse to let people like Cummings off.
Woman in train today doing her make up and not putting on a mask after is the same no excuse.
Would be interesting to know how he knows that. Was it plucked from the same Magical Statistics Tree as the claim that 25% of people booking tests aren't eligible?
(Both of those things may be true, but as they've repeatedly refused to explain the basis of the 25%, I'm inclined to treat both as falling into the 73.4% of statistics that are made up on the spot.)
We seem to be living with a government who knows that no pronouncement will be effectively challenged or even checked properly; thus they know they can get away with just making stuff up. There is so much precedence of them doing this with Covid-19 that I basically do not believe anything they state without seeing proper verification. I haven't got the time now but comparing their repeated promises about testing capacity vs actual tests delivered shows continuous lying. The same of PPE delivery etc. etc.
I would put a lot of money on there being no basis for this 25% claim.
AFZ
Available for reference only to *world-beating* governments...
(I think it might be related to the Magical Money Tree which so many families have actually Not Got, much to the discomfiture of their children. But I digress.)
If they do that they would certainly not be sensible.
I disagree that he is making the same point. He is merely harping on about a mistake made months ago.
1. Work from home where possible (so, he went into the office repeatedly to talk to people when the rest of us were using Zoom, the phone or email to do the same)
2. Stay home, don't travel to visit friends or relatives or a second home (and, he went to Durham)
3. If you get covid symptoms self isolate at home and only leave if a clear emergency (he and his wife had symptoms, and he went to Durham)
I'm not sure where the eye-test fitted in (it would have been clearly against the rules in Scotland, but I think in England a drive of that distance for exercise would have been OK ... assuming he should have been in Durham in the first place).
Then, rather than say "I was wrong" he fabricated a totally incredible set of excuses as to why what he'd done was OK and within the rules, a unique reading of the rules to benefit himself. And, his cronies that are the government rallied around and supported his unsupportable position. The end result, large numbers of people pissed off because of all the sacrifices they'd made not seeing family and struggling through illness in isolation when he was able to drive his Chelsea Tractor through all of them without so much as a telling off, and even more people wondering if they could get away with the same sort of rule breaking now (the majority probably still keeping to the rules anyway). Months later as we see a new set of rules being introduced with threats of significant fines for non-obedience and we're still wondering if they apply to Cummings and his pals or whether we'll see one of them break these rules in such a blatant manner.
The person you refered to in your post
The problems we have are here and now. Not last April.
We cannot continue to cite his bad bhaviour as an excuse.
In any case this is a thread about Matt Hancocks, not Cummings
Which person would that be?
At 2.18pm you refered to Boogie.
Indeed. A rambling, ridiculous hour which confirmed the ‘one rule for us’ Tory stance.
Interesting that the Tories are starting to discover and talk about collective responsibility. Many, many years too late.
Says the poster who has rarely referred to me by my username.
I think he’s unwell.
He’s just announced a better solution to childcare - months too late, but at least he (Max Handcock) has listened bowed to pressure eventually.
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked...
Oh Ffs, 2 days ago you were the one arguing that the government had little choice on when to lock down because the rebellious British public wouldn't comply. Now you're telling us that the undermining of the rules - and more importantly trust in government - by a senior advisor showing flagrant disregard for the rules and being defended disingenuously by a string of government ministers, is irrelevant!!
I don't think time is a big factor but even if it is, we are taking about only 6 months ago!
Moreover, at this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. The idea that the craven defence of all the indefensible by a string of ministers, is not extremely pertinent at this moment is just silly.
AFZ
Cummings broke the rules but it would be illogical to copy him. Are we a nanny state or do we have sufficient common sense to make sensible decisions?
Are you deliberately missing the point? It is the official position of Her Majesty's Government that Mr Cummings didn't break the rules at all.
Public Health messages need to be simple and clear. Not because people are stupid but because you are asking them to take on board and act on a whole body of new knowledge. We do this is surgery all the time, with one-to-one conversations. It is endlessly fascinating what people take from a consultation. Partly that's about how effectively doctors communicate but it's also human nature because it takes time to absorb new knowledge. That's even before you factor in the effects of various emotional factors. Worried people don't assimilate knowledge well.
It is monstrously difficult with one-to-one conversations therefore to get messages across. Multiply the difficulty several times when you're talking mass communication. Public Health messages need to be simple, clear and consistent.
At this point the public trusting the government and acting appropriately as a consequence is unbelievably important. And they threw away what little credibility they had left to protect Cummings. At what cost?
AFZ
Well I am supposed to be a bit thick but I have been understanding things from the word go. You need to stop blaming Mr Cummings and concentrate on the here and now.
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
It's not the government they need to trust. It's their own instincts.
Is it sensible to agnore good advice just because of something that happened 6 months ago ?
It is not necessarily about trust. The regulations change fairly frequently, and changes are briefed out often after hours. In that situation the folk memory of what Cummings did (which is all it amounts to for many of the people who aren't glued to the news like most here) becomes part of the background against which they interpret their understanding of the regulations.
If they forget they will still have Labour politicians to remind them and Labour claim to be supporting the government on Covid
My instincts tell me that the government speaks with a forked tongue, and that its "advice" is inconsistent and wrong.
So you intend to ignore it all ?
Well, I don't live in the UK, so I'm not subject to the UK government's diktats, but yes, "Ignore it all" pretty much sums up my opinion of the government's Covid response, and that of my family who are in the UK. Nobody was interested in going back to work in order to keep the branch of Pret by their office in business, or support rental values for city centre office buildings.
Basically, nothing the government says is credible. The way the "rule of six" conflates indoor and outdoor gatherings is a case in point. The government might occasionally be correct, but that's more by luck than by judgement. Anybody can read the statistics, and see that the incidence of Covid is rising fairly quickly, and draw the conclusion that "have less contact with other people" is the right move.
Of course, the vast majority of people do not read Covid statistics, or research papers on how the virus spreads. The vast majority of people might be willing to follow instructions, if they think the instructions are reasonable and/or they know they'll get significantly punished for not doing so. But again, we're back to policing by consent, and governance by consent. If the police, or the government, throw away the trust of the people, the people are going to ignore them.
When do we stop blaming the captain on the Titanic for not keeping an adequate watch?
Never.
The government in the U.K. have completely cocked up. More to come (see Brexshit in three short months).
We will learn from these times.
We will learn the fact that right wing governments care only about their pockets and the ‘market’ (aka fear and greed). But it won’t be immediate and there will be more pain along the way.
To parallel another crisis, it's a bit like the person who says, "Why should I stop using my polluting car when China keeps on building coal-fired power stations?"