Forum Topic

I agree with you entirely, Michael.  Honesty and openness, under the circumstances, would go a very long way to help gain trust in politicians.   Craig, I agree with you on some things and certainly not on others.  That there is unacceptable vitriol going on, it is absolutely unquestionable, I agree.  In my view, politicians have not helped themselves much because they have shown no true conviction (backbone if you prefer) but are very aware of political opportunity and gain.  Hence, policies or statements have changed directions faster than weather vanes, sometimes at  marked angles and sometimes, with no wind blowing.  It is for this reason, and I put my hand up, I have called BoJo a buffoon and Trump and opportunist.  But there are other similar reasons and I know, people will groan, but the 2016 Referendum was of no help to unify the country.  BoJo headed the Leave campaign because he saw it as a political opportunity — he had been a remainer till the referendum was called.  We all know the vitriol commenced then in earnest and has not much improved since then. As for politicians being human and making mistakes, no question about it. Of course they do, they are human after all!  But humility is not an alien concept in a human being and recognizing our own mistakes is very important too! With COVID-19, I think that Hancock and Sunak are the ones that come across as men with conviction, Raab not so much and I reserve judgement on Gove and Patel.  My main question in all of this is the government's response based on previous experiences such as foot and mouth, avian flue, MERS, Zika virus, Ebola, SARS, etc.  I am sure that there must be recorded "lessons learnt and precautionary measures" and hopefully kept at the Department of Health.  Were all decisions taken in December 2019 and January, perhaps February 2020, all of political nature or were scientists involved too?  PPE must be one if the items flagged as most important?   

Ivonne Holliday ● 1884d

Ms HammondI agree with you that simply calling Johnson a buffoon and Farage a racist are in themselves pointless.But it is surely valid to label their actions or comments as baffoonish or racist ?Boris shaking hands with people when he was probably aware that this was not good practice as the world was about to be hit by a pandemic was perhaps baffoonish.And Farage's Brexit poster implying we could soon be overwhelmed by unrestricted immigration from Turkey could be considered racist in intent.As to Trump, there is no need to attempt to politically wound him by using simple personal epithets.His own spoken words and tweets are self-incriminating enough and many of his policies more than capable of  being critically dismissed.People are not dumb.They know what he is like by watching and listening to him !As for Khan, I defended him at the Mayoral election because Goldsmith attempted to paint him, a Muslim, as a supporter of terrorism.Many serious political commentators also thought this beyond the pale.But I am certainly willing to criticise some of his recent political comments.In his calling for an enquiry into the relative effects of the virus on BAME groups and others (at the right time, certainly worth investigating 'for future reference') I thought he was playing to the large crowd of of BAME voters there are in London.But I think he shot himself in the foot.He pointed out the number of deaths of BAME TfL bus drivers, when he of course runs TfL and could much earlier have brought in protective measures for all of them.And then he said more BAME people were susceptible because they live in crowded housing conditions.Probably true but he is way behind on his own target for building new homes after the latest figures show he has built fewer than 5,000, with six months left to hit a 17,000 target.Yes, lets play the ball not the man !

John Hawkes ● 1884d

Michael. it's unbelievable how muddle minded he is and that he's allowed to actually speak off the cuff in public. One can only assume his ego won't allow him to be advised. The man can't string a coherent sentence of any kind together unless he's reading something plainly prepared by someone else. The Economist interviewed him a few years ago and being possibly slightly mischievous, they printed the responses of Trump verbatim. They called it 'lightly edited'. It was not the most readable bit of text. I cant find a free to read link but The Wall St Journal appears to have done a similar job: https://www.wsj.com/articles/transcript-of-donald-trump-interview-with-the-wall-street-journal-1515715481Here's a sample: "Many are announcing today—and the ones that aren’t announcing you know what’s happening? The employees are going, what about us? Did you forget us—to the ones that—that was never anticipated. That was just one of the many benefits. You know this bill—and I said from the beginning this bill will be so good—and the Democrats are very concerned. They’re very concerned. This bill has turned out to be even better than we thought. It’s really having a big—and I’m also hearing a lot of people are bringing money back in. You know, the $4 trillion that we’re talking about or whatever it may be. Nobody even knows what it is, but it’s a big number."How anyone, especially anyone with more than half a brain, can support this man is beyond belief.

Freddie Francis ● 1888d