Covid-19 Inquiry (was meant to be about 'smart' meters)

[JohnW2]

The "government" is not an independent sentient entity. It may be legally independent, separate, but it has no agency by which it can make its own decisions, issue its own directives, etc. .... Whatever "the government" does, it is actually people who did it, so of course we have to consider the people involved - there is no-one else.

I don't think this is going anywhere ("vive la difference"??), and I can but presume that we are thinking/talking about different 'agendas' (for an investigation/Inquiry). As I previously wrote, I can think of at least two such agendas:

1... "Accountability". This will very commonly relate to individual(s), although concepts such as 'corporate' or 'institutional' accountability may sometimes bee relevant.​

​

2... Learning lessons from what the way in which the Covid-19 pandemic was managed in the UK, in the hope that such an exercise would help us to "do better" if/when we face any similar situation in the future.​

My personal interest is primarily in the latter. In that context, all that matters is what was decided/done, how well that worked, and, with the benefit of hindsight, what could have been 'done better' (and hence could be 'done better' in similar situations in the future).

In that respect, all that matters is the "what", and its results/effects, regardless of any considerations of "why" or "by whom". It doesn't matter a jot as to whether the decisions that lead to the "what" were made by an individual, a small group of individuals (maybe the Cabinet, perhaps determined by secret ballot), a larger group of individuals (maybe a secret ballot of all MPS), a very large group of individuals (e.g. referenda of the entire electorate) or, these days, even 'by a computer' (or, in the case of finely-balanced decisions, even "by tossing a coin')

Some people (presumably including yourself) would like "accountability" to be investigated 'for it's own sake' - which I suppose would be fair enough (as a separate investigation).. However, I cannot see how such investigations would help us with future planning or future actions. For a start, non of the individuals, or groups of individuals, will be in government 'when it happens again'. Secondly, if one believes (as you appear to) that some of the ';wrongs' of management of the pandemic were the result of acts which were criminal and/or in violation of parliamentary rules, then, as far as I can see, the only lesson that could be learned would be that "in future, members of government should not commit acts which are criminal and/or in violation of parliamentary rules" - which I would suggest would not be a very useful (or 'new') "lesson learned" !!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

2... Learning lessons from what the way in which the Covid-19 pandemic was managed in the UK, in the hope that such an exercise would help us to "do better" if/when we face any similar situation in the future.​

Perhaps by, next time, following the already prepared pandemic plan rather than ditching it and half copying China for some inexplicable reason.

That reason leading to all sorts of worrying possibilities.

I think it is accepted that the government did not think the people would accept and follow these ridiculous measures but were themselves amazed how compliant and actually willing they were.

 

[morqthana]

Some people (presumably including yourself) would like "accountability" to be investigated 'for it's own sake' - which I suppose would be fair enough (as a separate investigation).. However, I cannot see how such investigations would help us with future planning or future actions. For a start, non of the individuals, or groups of individuals, will be in government 'when it happens again'. Secondly, if one believes (as you appear to) that some of the ';wrongs' of management of the pandemic were the result of acts which were criminal and/or in violation of parliamentary rules, then, as far as I can see, the only lesson that could be learned would be that "in future, members of government should not commit acts which are criminal and/or in violation of parliamentary rules" - which I would suggest would not be a very useful (or 'new') "lesson learned" !!

Kind Regards, John

No, not for it's own sake.

But what if the lesson there to be learned, were we to uncover it, that the single biggest mistake made was having the whole rotten system which led to a useless PM and a bunch of useless, warring, cabinet colleagues in the first place? How do we find that out unless we look at who decided what, when, whether at the time it was even vaguely reasonable, and why they decided it?

What if the most important findings of the inquiry are (or should be) that we absolutely MUST bring an end to the system of MPs, for selfish reasons, choosing PMs who they know, absolutely know, to be incompetent narcissistic liars? That we MUST bring an end to the presence of unelected, unaccountable, special advisers wielding covert power and influence in furtherance of their own personal ideologies?

If mistakes are identified, and they aren't of the "we genuinely did our absolute best to choose the least-worst option based on the knowledge we had at the time, but with hindsight we now know...." nature, then of course the inquiry should seek to find out why the individual(s) who made the mistake made it. Was it that their best just wasn't good enough? Was it that they had ulterior motives? Unless we're going to remove human beings from the planning and decision-making processes then of course a vitally important lesson to learn is how to best ensure that the humans put in charge of the planning and decision-making processes are good enough and don't have ulterior motives etc.

 

[morqthana]

Have you started the election campaign (on behalf of a party other than the one currently in power)?

I'm guessing that you're guessing the Labour Party.

Won't be voting for them, mainly because KS is a small, weak man, too scared to tell the truth, and I don't want someone like him as PM, and I don't want a lukewarm gruel of a party made in his image.

 

[JohnW2]

But what if the lesson there to be learned, were we to uncover it, that the single biggest mistake made was having the whole rotten system which led to a useless PM and a bunch of useless, warring, cabinet colleagues in the first place? How do we find that out unless we look at who decided what, when, whether at the time it was even vaguely reasonable, and why they decided it?

This seems to be becoming generalised to the point of being a little silly, because you could have written that in relation to the handling/management of anything by UK's system of government, not just Covid-19. Are you suggesting that we should abandon our Parliamentary Democracy and replace it by something else - and, if so, what?

What if the most important findings of the inquiry are (or should be) that we absolutely MUST bring an end to the system of MPs, for selfish reasons, choosing PMs who they know, absolutely know, to be incompetent narcissistic liars?

Both major parties have surely suffered substantial harm in recent times because that is NOT how their party leaders are selected/appointed, haven't they? In both cases, they have ended up with disastrous party leaders (in one case a PM, for the party in power) who the MPs would not have chosen (had the choice been theirs), but who were chosen by the 'party members' (who inevitably tend to be at the extreme wings of the party concerned)?

Again, what are you suggesting as an alternative? I certainly don't think that direct election of PM (and all members of Cabinet) by the entire electorate would be at all likely to produce 'better' government.

If mistakes are identified, and they aren't of the "we genuinely did our absolute best to choose the least-worst option based on the knowledge we had at the time, but with hindsight we now know...." nature, then of course ....

I've really covered this. IF it were thee case that individuals had deliberately done anything other than "their absolute best..." (given then current knowledge) then their motives for doing what they did would presumably have to be criminal and/or in contravention of parliamentary rules - and should be investigated and dealt with appropriately by the police/CPS and/or parliamentary authorities". However, if that were the case, it would not help us at all in terms of the future, since the only 'lesson that could be learned" is that "in future, members of government should not break laws or contravene parliamentary rules" - which would not really be a useful 'lesson' !!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm guessing that you're guessing the Labour Party.

That wasn't too hard

Won't be voting for them, mainly because KS is a small, weak man, too scared to tell the truth, and I don't want someone like him as PM, and I don't want a lukewarm gruel of a party made in his image.

I'm inclined to agree, but I personally think it's a bit of a pity, since he seems to be a very 'decent'. sensible and intelligent man, but someone who I don't think would really be 'right' as a PM -so, if I were a 'traditional Labour voter', I would probably be hesitant to vote for the party whilst he was leader.

The other thing about him is that, in the eyes of "staunch traditional Labour voters" he is probably the antithesis of what they would like to be voting for as PM - with "Sir" in front of hid name and having held one of the highest legal positions in the country (and never having 'been down a mine' or suchlike ).

It seems fairly likely that Labour will end up as 'the largest party', even if not with an overall majority, in the next election - but I suspect that if that happens, it will be because people have voted "against the Tories", rather than "for Labour".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps by, next time, following the already prepared pandemic plan rather than ditching it and half copying China for some inexplicable reason.

The only 'pandemic plan' we had was, inevitably, based on influenza, which has appreciably different epidemiology from Covid-19. Given that Covid became a big issue in other parts of the world (notably China and Italy) before it hit the uK in a big way, it was not unreasonable that we would have tried to learn (guess), very rapidly, from those other countries' experiences of Covid-19, what measures might be required to limit spread of Covid-19 (rather than influenza) to an 'acceptable' level (which, of course, requires consideration of "the acceptable number of deaths", something we very rarely heard being talked about).

I think it is accepted that the government did not think the people would accept and follow these ridiculous measures but were themselves amazed how compliant and actually willing they were.

Many people got frightened, hence more likely to be compliant, particularly when they saw deaths rise to in excess of 1,000 per day. More generally, I think that people in the UK are more inclined to 'do as they are told' than is the case in a good few other countries.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

I'm guessing that you're guessing the Labour Party.

Won't be voting for them, mainly because KS is a small, weak man, too scared to tell the truth, and I don't want someone like him as PM, and I don't want a lukewarm gruel of a party made in his image.

I don’t think many of the 650 are worthy of the position they are, least of all those in the cabinet or the shadow cabinet

None of the above should be on the ballet paper

 

[JohnW2]

I don’t think many of the 650 are worthy of the position they are, least of all those in the cabinet or the shadow cabinet None of the above should be on the ballet paper

Well, you're free to 'tick none of the boxes' on the ballot paper.

However, what you say might be true of some (but certainly not all of the 650), but what are you suggesting as an alternative - abandoning the election of MPs altogether, or what?

 

[Murdochcat]

Well, you're free to 'tick none of the boxes' on the ballot paper.

However, what you say might be true of some (but certainly not all of the 650), but what are you suggesting as an alternative - abandoning the election of MPs altogether, or what?

I would line them up before an election and on the basis that

They have lived in their constituency for 10 years
Have 20 years real work experience (political advisor doesn’t count)

If they can prove both of the above, they can stand for re-election- if they can’t, then replacements who do comply can have their names on the ballot paper

 

[JohnW2]

I would line them up before an election and on the basis that

They have lived in their constituency for 10 years​

Have 20 years real work experience (political advisor doesn’t count)​

If they can prove both of the above, they can stand for re-election- if they can’t, then replacements who do comply can have their names on the ballot paper

The former of those conditions may be reasonable in terms of activities as a 'constituency MP', but we have been talking about those 'in )national) government' and, in that respect, in makes no difference where they live, or have lived, or for how long.

However, more to the point, countless people would obviously satisfy your two criteria in every constituency, yet I feel sure that a high proportion of them would be totally unsuitable/inappropriate as MPs, let alone as members of government.

 

[ebee]

Well how about this one then?
Anyone becomming an MP can serve 2 terms max.
After that they will automatically be found guilty of high treason.
The will be hanged.
They are allowed one appeal before sentence is carried out.
This will allow them to show they made what was reasonably thought to be the best decision at the time.
The appeal shall be made no later than six months after leaving office.
It shall be tried within six months after that.
The jury will have 21 members .
11 shall be members be selected at random from the electoral roll.
10 shall be randomly selected from the houses of parliament.
Any majority verdict accepted shall be a minimum of 16.

That might wake the blighters up !

 

[morqthana]

This seems to be becoming generalised to the point of being a little silly, because you could have written that in relation to the handling/management of anything by UK's system of government, not just Covid-19. Are you suggesting that we should abandon our Parliamentary Democracy and replace it by something else - and, if so, what?

No - I'm suggesting not abandoning it, but keeping it, with a combination of changes, and a ruthless, relentless, drive to improve standards.

One change would be PR, so that we never, ever, again have the situation where more people said they didn't want the party which won to win than said they did. Did you know that since universal suffrage there has never been a single-party winner of a general election which was supported by more than 50% of the voters? Not once. The only times that any winning government got the support of the majority of voters were when coalitions were elected in times of emergency.

I'd also like to see mandatory voting, a written constitution, and major reform of the second chamber and how we appoint our head of state.

As for the drive to improve standards - we could start with making the current ones more robustly enforced. e.g. breach of ministerial code is not a possible resigning matter, or left to a decision by the PM - it's immediate dismissal, and not necessarily just from the ministerial position but as an MP as well, with bans from being a minister again, or standing as an MP again, possibly for life, and possibly extending to any elected office anywhere in the UK, and possibly extending to being disqualified from being a company director.

We could make lying in a public capacity a criminal offence, again with the penalties to include the immediate and permanent end to political careers, and since "public capacity" would include companies, emergency services, charities, political parties, civil servants, etc, to include the immediate and permanent end to all manner of careers.

 

[morqthana]

Both major parties have surely suffered substantial harm in recent times because that is NOT how their party leaders are selected/appointed, haven't they? In both cases, they have ended up with disastrous party leaders (in one case a PM, for the party in power) who the MPs would not have chosen (had the choice been theirs), but who were chosen by the 'party members' (who inevitably tend to be at the extreme wings of the party concerned)?

In the case of the PM, he could not have been chosen by the party members had MPs not voted for him in sufficient numbers for him to reach the final ballot.

As for the other one, you should perhaps look at how successful he was in terms of vote share, and reflect on the anti-democratic failings of a system where when x% of the voters choose the .... Party it doesn't translate to anywhere near x% of seats in the legislature. And look at how well the party's policies polled on the doorstep when not filtered through the malign lens of the Tory party's client media. And how many of them are mainstream, implemented policies in other democratic European countries.

Again, what are you suggesting as an alternative? I certainly don't think that direct election of PM (and all members of Cabinet) by the entire electorate would be at all likely to produce 'better' government.

But cleaning up the pool of candidates to choose from would be a good start.

 

[morqthana]

The former of those conditions may be reasonable in terms of activities as a 'constituency MP', but we have been talking about those 'in )national) government' and, in that respect, in makes no difference where they live, or have lived, or for how long.

Except unless you're proposing direct elections for ministerial positions, or a system where the head of state appoints all the members of their government, not just the First Lord of The Treasury, then generally speaking government members are chosen from a pool of constituency MPs.

However, more to the point, countless people would obviously satisfy your two criteria in every constituency, yet I feel sure that a high proportion of them would be totally unsuitable/inappropriate as MPs, let alone as members of government.

Whereas the current system hasn't produced any unsuitable/inappropriate MPs or ministers, has it.