Forum Topic

Positive moves

We now have a Minister of Science - Patrick Vallance - who is ... a scientist! And a Minister of Prisons - John Simpson - a long-term campaigner fr prison reform and a business person helping ex offenders. Non professional politicians who know their subjects, sounds a good move to me?

Michael Ixer ● 353d26 Comments

Yeah, fair comment,  I should have said the monarchy has no defined power, but obviously has considerable influence. Of course, there's also the privy council that usually gets forgotten but has to be put into the "powe/influence" equation. The big issue, as you say, is that the UK doesn't have a defined constitution - although I think Russia has one but that hasn't kept Putin in check. If people elect ex-KGB state officials is there any way of stopping that with a constitution? Yes, Putin was misjudged by many western politicians; hindsight is great!

Michael Ixer ● 348d

"The UK's Head of State, the monarchy, has no real power."That is simply not correct as even Guardian readers must know:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consentWe do not have a written constitution so how do we know what power the monarchy has?But this is about state officials like Putin moving into politics.Of course Labour thought Putin was great at the beginning - how did that turn out?"National Archives: Tony Blair said Putin should be on 'top table'"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64116796

Ed Robinson ● 348d

I'm not clear how you're defining the executive and legislature in this context.  In the UK are you defining the cabinet as the executive and Parliament as the legislature? (The UK's Head of State, the monarchy, has no real power.) It breaks down elsewhere where the judiciary is appointed by the executive. Does France achieve this as it has an executive President and legislature headed by a Prime Minister but I'm not sure about the selection and powers of the judiciary?

Michael Ixer ● 348d

The separation of state from the executive is a vital requirement of democracy.State actors taking up political positions is a real danger to what little democracy this country has - especially if there are links to the intelligence services and such actors have been less than transparent."The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that the principal institutions of state— executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens' liberties and guard against tyranny."https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/separation-of-powers-worksheets-for-students.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 348d

This isn’t a plan to stop the boats it’s a wish.  However Starmer has more problems now as Unite trade union has slapped down Miiband’s decision to immediately stop new oil and gas licences when there is no clear plan for the jobs.It’s all sound bites not serious policy.

Robert Wheeler ● 348d

The new border commander post has just been advertised at a salary of up to £200k,  which is more than  Keir Starmer gets. The intention is to recruit up to 1000 extra staff, many of whom will be deployed across Europe to break up the smuggling gangs.What evidence is there that this will make any difference? Past experience shows that when there is a ready market for an illegal product or service, there will always be criminals willing to supply them, especially when huge profits can be made. For example, the combined efforts of the Border Force, the DEA, the FBI and the CIA have never managed to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the USA.And what about the current backlog of illegal migrants in the UK who number around 100 000? Those who can show they would face persecution if they were sent home, even if they passed through a number of safe countries on the way here, will presumably be granted asylum. And those whose claim for asylum is rejected will be allowed to stay as well, because there is no way of removing them now that the Rwanda scheme has been abandoned. The business model of the smugglers has received a boost. I expect to see one of their representatives on ‘Dragon’s Den’ very soon. They can reasonably tell their clients, ‘Pay us the money, we’ll get you on a boat, the French police won’t intervene as they don’t want you in France anyway, once you’re in the Channel you will be rescued by the Coastguard, you’ll be  brought to Britain and you’ll be allowed to stay’.

Steven Rose ● 348d

Some seem to think that although existing NHS finance was ring fenced the lack of investment for growing needs caused capacity and resource issues:https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/what-was-austeritys-toll-on-the-nhs-before-the-pandemicIt's difficult to tell but perhaps deaths from other causes increased because of NHS capacity and resources being diverted to Covid cases? Some people died because they caught Covid in hospital and their immune system couldn't cope with both a series illness and Covid. As I said the only thing we can gain now is knowledge for dealing with future pandemics. I'd also agree that finance isn't the only issue, efficiency is obviously key as well; let's hope we're investing sufficient in training of staff and paying them enough so they don't emigrate elsewhere to work ...

Michael Ixer ● 348d

The NHS was not 'run into the ground'. Even in 5he austerity years of the Coalition the NHS was protected from cuts And as John Hawkes has said, even Wes Streeting believes that the NHS is not in need of extra funding so much as fundamental reform. But will he be allowed to carry out this reform? Up to now both parties have shied away from this problem for fear of handing the other side an electoral weapon.Aa to the pandemic, the lockdown trashed the economy. We are still paying for the billions spent on paying people to stay at home. Hundreds of thousands of children, who were never in danger from the virus, had their education severely disrupted and in some cases terminally ruined by the school closures. Adnd the figures suggest that as many people died from untreated conditions as were saved by lockdown. As regards the timing of lockdown, the date of the first lockdown was decided on the basis of 'scientific' advice from Chris Whitty and others who believed it would be a mistake to lock down too soon. The notion that Boris overruled his scientific advisors is false, demonstrating the way in which the pandemic has been politicised from the outset.

Steven Rose ● 348d

"There seems to be collective amnesia about lockdown. It is clear in retrospect that it was a mistake. But the scientists who advised the government to shut down society and the politicians (like Keir Starmer) who called for the lockdown to be deeper and longer now prefer to blame everyone but themselves."No. It was the right thing to do and should have been done earlier by the Govt when advised to do so rather than leave it until after 'Big Social Calendar Dates' like Cheltenham.  We should also have been better prepared for it. Relying on JIT procurement is obviously ridiculous when there is a world-wide pandemic especially when there were no fall-backs in place. "The UK government failed to adequately take account of known threats and clear signals of systemic weaknesses in the event of a pandemic, uncovered by emergency exercises such as Operation Cygnus, the three-day simulation in 2016 which focused on the response and planning to a flu pandemic involving government and public health bodies."Some things will have been different between flu and coronavirus but by running the NHS into the ground with lack of funding beforehand was never going to be a good position to start in.It also meant that a lot of time and money was lost by inappropriate and panicked contracts being taken out - and right now there is plenty of apparently good PPE being burned.  There are other countries in the world that could have been helped with this even if we didn't need it.  After all if people in other countries don't become ill their populations are less likely to fly in unquestioned and uninformed and untested to our major international world airport!!!

Philippa Bond ● 348d

Mr Ixer''weren't the lockdowns to prevent collapse of the NHS after years of underfunding thanks to austerity' I forgot to add that even the new Health Minister Wes Streeting thinks the organisation is far from perfect and is about to review how it is funded and run.

John Hawkes ● 348d

Mr Ixer'weren't the lockdowns to prevent collapse of the NHS after years of underfunding thanks to austerity as much as to prevent direct deaths from Covid?'Who says the NHS is 'underfunded' ?Last year it received £155 BILLION from taxation.How much more money does it need ?

John Hawkes ● 348d

I guess Covid-19 lockdowns are history now, and the experience is of value only for "lessons learned" to improve responses in a future pandemic. Somehow, I suspect we won't learn though and come another pandemic there'll be a shortage of PPE, etc.I think the scientific advice was probably reasonable given the knowledge available at the time, and the experiences in Italy and those (of limited availability thanks to politics) at the Chinese source. The transmission modelling may also have been tainted by consideration of previous flu pandemics which affected younger people more than Covid-19 did?My perception is that a number of aspects of Covid-19 are still being investigated: why some are asymptomatic and other groups very vulnerable to it, and why some are stricken with long Covid? My understanding is also that latter Covid-19 variant were debilitating than the initial ones, although I'm not sure whether that wasn't, at least in part, mitigating effects of the vaccines which became available? And, remember, weren't the lockdowns to prevent collapse of the NHS after years of underfunding thanks to austerity as much as to prevent direct deaths from Covid? I must admit, although the lockdowns seemed scientifically sensible to me, as soon as we were allowed "out to play" my wife, friends and I were prepared to take our chances and "eat - and drink! - out to help out" and go to concerts, opera, theatre (lots of monologues), etc ... quality of life versus longevity?

Michael Ixer ● 348d

Where is the evidence that the government ignored the ‘scientific’ advice? The timing of the first lockdown was decided on the basis of advice from Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance et al. The fateful decision to release asymptomatic patients from hospitals into care homes was taken by doctors, not ministers.There seems to be collective amnesia about lockdown. It is clear in retrospect that it was a mistake. But the scientists who advised the government to shut down society and the politicians (like Keir Starmer) who called for the lockdown to be deeper and longer now prefer to blame everyone but themselves.

Steven Rose ● 349d

Just because people don’t complain doesn’t make it appropriate . Look at the sheer number never mind the House of Lords and Labour have already appointed yet more to the upper House (774 sitting).  As a country honestly do we really need over 1,300 representatives?  To say nothing about the cost of expenses and pensions and all this before devolution and yet another load of cost.

Robert Wheeler ● 349d

He and Dr Van-Tam provided guidance to the Government of the time. Much of that guidance was ignored and many disastrous decisions were enacted (Eat out to help out, releasing untested elderly patients back into care homes, delaying lockdowns, etc).The Covid Review Committee (that the detractors will unsurprisingly say is completely unnecessary) will get to the bottom of things eventually hopefully. I think Drs Vallance and Van-Tam will come out of it quite well compared to the rest of the ministers in question.

John Kettlekey ● 349d

But people don't complain about having a local representative with some power for every group of ~90,000 people.How would you reshape things to cover both a representative democracy AND having someone you can talk to who has the power (or contacts) to make things happen?

John Kettlekey ● 349d

We have far too many MPs in the first place.  We really don’t need 650 representatives.  Think of it like a company, if we accept 650 directors we certainly then don’t need another level of devolved managers.  The state seems to be getting bigger by the minute.

Robert Wheeler ● 349d

If we'd been more prepared for what was most definitely an-expected-sometime-pandemic and locked down quicker and better it wouldn't have been so difficult for many to deal with.  Instead the country froze in horror and watched it coming and the Govt panicked.

Philippa Bond ● 350d

What has Patrick Vallance done to merit a ministerial post? He provided the 'scientific' advice to justify a disastrous lockdown which trashed the economy, ruined the education of thousands of children and probably cost as many lives through untreated conditions as it saved.

Steven Rose ● 350d

Yes but state officials moving to political positions isn't generally a good idea.Putin fans may disagree.

Ed Robinson ● 350d

Wasn't unusual with what I first worked with: https://nationalmaglab.org/magnet-academy/history-of-electricity-magnetism/museum/magnetic-core-memory-1949/#:~:text=One%20such%20example%20is%20magnetic,referred%20to%20as%20%22core.%22

Steve Poole ● 350d

Ministers in place who actually have knowledge of their subject!  At last!  That shouldn't be unusual, but it is.

Judy Allen ● 352d

Oops! Yes, parity error in brain!

Michael Ixer ● 353d

Yes - that would make more sense - although listening to a John Simpson recollections could be deemed a form of punishment by some I guess.On the plus side the Tories freed up some spaces in prisons including one in Belmarsh - very timely!https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp08y5p52e2o

Ed Robinson ● 353d

Isn't that James Timpson?

David Ainsworth ● 353d

These appointments sound promising! Having experts in the respective fields is, well, common sense!But time will tell....

Ivonne Holliday ● 353d