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

[EFLImpudence]

If it is thought that "doing one's best"; either with the available information or indeed supplying that information; is the best that can be hoped for, is it not reasonable that when that best turns out to be not good enough or completely wrong that the person, at the very least, be fired or resign if not prosecuted?

I am tempted to ask if Hitler did his best.

 

[JohnW2]

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 ....

Even by the standards of this forum (and myself !), this 'thread' seems to have been fairly unique. Having started as a discussion about 'smart'; meter communications, it jumped to one about the Covid-19 Inquiry (which I have 'split off' here) and that, in turn. has now spun off discussions both about theology and the concepts of government in the UK.

If/when i have some moments, I will start some new threads relating to to two latest 'spin-offs' (referring back to relevant material slipped into this thread) but, in the meantime, will try to focus any replying to issues as least vaguely related to the Covid Inquiry!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Notch7]

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 disagree

Labour are battling against the lies of right wing populism, there is no space for actual politics just emotive slogans.

Keir Starmer has shown strong leadership by avoiding Tory traps and attack lines which have left Tories no space to deflect onto Labour

If you think he is weak, I would be interested if you could provide examples.

You say Starmer is "too scared to tell the truth" -what do you mean by that: what truth are you talking about?

 

[Notch7]

And as for ideologies - it's funny, but when I look at countries with better run health services, better run railways, water bodies who don't pump s**t into the rivers, roads that get repaired, an education system which works and doesn't have buildings that fall on pupils' heads, a justice system which works, local government which actually works, etc, etc, etc, I don't see any "extreme Socialist" ones, I see capitalist ones.

You don't have to be anti-capitalist to want better run health services, better run railways, water bodies who don't pump s**t into the rivers, roads that get repaired, an education system which works and doesn't have buildings that fall on pupils' heads, a justice system which works, local government which actually works, etc, etc, etc.

the reality is that pretty much all Western economies are mixed economies all based on capitalism with varying levels of state control...which includes the Nordic models

the UK has extreme levels of inequality, which I would argue is driven by our weak political system which allows the wealthy to influence policy for competitive gain

we have public services which are almost entirely privatised, even significantly the NHS. MPs adn their mates make loads of money from private contracts.......its all a clever way of syphoning tax revenue into the pockets of the few.

here is an example: the asylum seeker crisis: managing the hotels, the deportation centres, the security, the barge, even the Rwanda scheme: its all run by Tory donating businesses like Group4S, Serco, Deloitte.

 

[JohnW2]

If it is thought that "doing one's best"; either with the available information or indeed supplying that information; is the best that can be hoped for, is it not reasonable that when that best turns out to be not good enough or completely wrong that the person, at the very least, be fired or resign if not prosecuted?

Not really - if they were genuinely 'doing their best' (which may well mean 'as good as anyone else would have done'). Anyway, as I keep saying, I don't really think that any major decisions were made by single individuals - so, if anyone is going to be "fired or resign", it probably ought to be the entire Cabinet, probably together with a good few junior ministers, civil servants and advisors.

In any event, this is all history. None of the major individuals concerned are still in their same posts, and most are not even still 'in government', so they have effectively all "been fired or resigned". What more than that could an Inquiry achieve. Of what you suggest, 'prosecution' is about all that's left, and I really think that would only be appropriate if they had deliberately made decisions which were 'bad' for the country for other ('personal') reasons - i.e. criminal and/or in contravention of parliamentary rulees.

I am tempted to ask if Hitler did his best.

That's a difficult one. Many would probably say that he was simply 'mad' (or, at least, suffering from a serious 'personality disorder'), in which case most bets are probably off.

However, if one is to assume that he was 'sane', then I think we probably need to expand that "doing one's best" - to something like "doing one's best to achieve something which was in the best interests of the population and of humanity as a whole". Hence, even if he was "doing his best" in terms of achieving some goal which he personally thought was desirable, I think he would have failed miserably in relation to that more 'reasonable' definition of "doing his best".

In other words, the important question is "doing their best to achieve what". If any members of government had "done their best" to maximise their personal gain (financially, career-wise or whatever) by making decisions about Covid which were less-than-ideal for the population, then they certainly would deserve to be dealt with severely.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Notch7]

I personally believe the govt made covid decisions based on maximising opportunities for favoured businesses.

PPE: there were plenty of experienced, NHS approved suppliers who were able to supply stuff very quickly…but they were ignored and contracts were awarded to mates going through the VIP lane. Result = nurses having to work with lack of or inadequate PPE

TESTING: the govt ignored the well established local bio labs which were linked into the NHS system in favour of large national privatised labs: Result = massive delay in testing resulting in infectious people being returned to care homes.


It was all able to happen because emergency legislation meant contracts could be awarded without oversight.


yeah lots of MPs and their mates got very rich whilst people died from covid.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Of what you suggest, 'prosecution' is about all that's left, and I really think that would only be appropriate if they had deliberately made decisions which were 'bad' for the country for other ('personal') reasons - i.e. criminal and/or in contravention of parliamentary rules.

That is exactly the point - did they?

If any members of government had "done their best" to maximise their personal gain (financially, career-wise or whatever) by making decisions about Covid which were less-than-ideal for the population, then they certainly would deserve to be dealt with severely.

There you go. Is the inquiry looking into that?

 

[JohnW2]

That is exactly the point - did they? ... There you go. Is the inquiry looking into that?

As I've said, if any individual members of government may have been guilty of any of those things, then that is a matter for the police/CPS and/or parliamentary authorities to investigate ('and deal with'), not the Covid Inquiry.

The Coviid Inquiry should, in my opinion, be looking only at what was done, and whether hindsight tells us that it could have been 'done better' (and hence could bee done better next time), regardless of which individual(s were responsible for what was done, and why.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I personally believe the govt made covid decisions based on maximising opportunities for favoured businesses. .... yeah lots of MPs and their mates got very rich whilst people died from covid.

As I've just written if members of government deliberately did things for personal gain (financial or otherwise) whilst knowing that different courses would have been more in the best interests of the country/people/NHS etc, then those suggestions should be investigated by (and 'dealt with', if necessary) the police/CPS and/or parliamentary authorities

It was all able to happen because emergency legislation meant contracts could be awarded without oversight.

The Inquiry can, and should, look into the way in which provision of PPE and testing facilities etc. was arranged (very rapidly) and hence to decide whether there would be better ways of doing such things in the future - but such planning inevitably must take on board the fact that such things may have to be done very rapidly (i.e. without all the usual protracted bureaucracy - aka 'oversight') in thee face of an immediate crisis.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As I indicated, in post #1 in this thread (which I split off from another), would be the case, now that it has been moved to this different forum, I will no longer be contributing.