OV9

V8Granite wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:26 pm You’d have “50,000 Tory deaths” etc etc even if the numbers of affected were no different to if they had put measures in place.

Do you think?

I suspect the post-mortem strategy would be the same whether it was 42,000, 50,000 or 200,000 excess deaths - claim that whatever result you get is "world beating", refuse to allow anyone in responsibility to be interviewed, dismiss any criticism as hindsight and hail any action, however minor, as a masterstroke of strategic genius.

Nefarious wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:57 pm

V8Granite wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:26 pm You’d have “50,000 Tory deaths” etc etc even if the numbers of affected were no different to if they had put measures in place.

Do you think?

I suspect the post-mortem strategy would be the same whether it was 42,000, 50,000 or 200,000 excess deaths - claim that whatever result you get is "world beating", refuse to allow anyone in responsibility to be interviewed, dismiss any criticism as hindsight and hail any action, however minor, as a masterstroke of strategic genius.

the same except for 8k or 160k more dead people?

Nefarious wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:56 pm It simply isn't the case. Literally zero fucks are given about the welfare of 99.9% the electorate. The exclusive objective of every action of the current government is the furtherment of the financial interests of a handful of individuals to the greatest extent they can get away with - which, given a concerted effort to dismantle any checks and balances from the civil service, judiciary, press or general public and a willingness to flout legal constraints, ignore public opinion, and just outright lie, is a very considerable extent.

Oh dear, and you were doing so well...

The obvious flaw in your argument is that 0.1% of the electorate can't win you a general election, not matter how rich they are if you fuck over the other 99.9%

I get that the fundamental approach of any right of centre conservative party (Tories, Fianna Gael et. al.) are odds with some peoples core values (in just the same way that, in many aspects, the fundamental approach of the Labour Party is at odds with mine) but to think that the current government doesn't care about 99.9'% of the population... well, I think you're better than that.

It’s been proven a few times recently that you can make people vote against their own self interest if you get them scared enough though. Boris and Cummings have had their hand in most of them.

Saying that I personally don’t think that the current government cares about anyone outside their own group of friends and donors.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:29 pm

Nefarious wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:56 pm It simply isn't the case. Literally zero fucks are given about the welfare of 99.9% the electorate. The exclusive objective of every action of the current government is the furtherment of the financial interests of a handful of individuals to the greatest extent they can get away with - which, given a concerted effort to dismantle any checks and balances from the civil service, judiciary, press or general public and a willingness to flout legal constraints, ignore public opinion, and just outright lie, is a very considerable extent.

Oh dear, and you were doing so well...

The obvious flaw in your argument is that 0.1% of the electorate can't win you a general election, not matter how rich they are if you fuck over the other 99.9%

I get that the fundamental approach of any right of centre conservative party (Tories, Fianna Gael et. al.) are odds with some peoples core values (in just the same way that, in many aspects, the fundamental approach of the Labour Party is at odds with mine) but to think that the current government doesn't care about 99.9'% of the population... well, I think you're better than that.

I'd argue they don't particularly care about most of the population. They do, however, care about their votes, and little else, as Zed describes.

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:38 pm

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:29 pm

Nefarious wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:56 pm It simply isn't the case. Literally zero fucks are given about the welfare of 99.9% the electorate. The exclusive objective of every action of the current government is the furtherment of the financial interests of a handful of individuals to the greatest extent they can get away with - which, given a concerted effort to dismantle any checks and balances from the civil service, judiciary, press or general public and a willingness to flout legal constraints, ignore public opinion, and just outright lie, is a very considerable extent.

Oh dear, and you were doing so well...

The obvious flaw in your argument is that 0.1% of the electorate can't win you a general election, not matter how rich they are if you fuck over the other 99.9%

I get that the fundamental approach of any right of centre conservative party (Tories, Fianna Gael et. al.) are odds with some peoples core values (in just the same way that, in many aspects, the fundamental approach of the Labour Party is at odds with mine) but to think that the current government doesn't care about 99.9'% of the population... well, I think you're better than that.

I'd argue they don't particularly care about most of the population. They do, however, care about their votes, and little else, as Zed describes.

That's what politics is these days, regardless of which of the big ones you vote for.

True, let’s not lie to ourselves that politicians are selfless public servants

3.5k new cases today.

Obviously something has to be done about this so other than this rule of 6 thing, What else will bring the infection rates down??

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:54 pm 3.5k new cases today.

Obviously something has to be done about this so other than this rule of 6 thing, What else will bring the infection rates down??

The infection rate in Oldham has halved since they were put under tighter restrictions. The Rule of 6 may yet work to some degree. However, that halving might have happened regardless - who knows, and that's the trouble.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:54 pm 3.5k new cases today.

Obviously something has to be done about this so other than this rule of 6 thing, What else will bring the infection rates down??

If you look at the stats the answer is clear. Put all those under 40 ona strict lockdown.

So what does everyone suggest we should be doing / Should have done and How much better the results would be than we have at the moment?

integrale_evo wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:09 pm So what does everyone suggest we should be doing / Should have done and How much better the results would be than we have at the moment?

Oh Harry.

Clearly we should have done <insert political allegience here> and ignored <political allegience here>.

I mean otherwise, what are you, some kind of <insert sub-optimal IQ opinions here because you're obviously retarded>?

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:29 pm

Nefarious wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:56 pm It simply isn't the case. Literally zero fucks are given about the welfare of 99.9% the electorate. The exclusive objective of every action of the current government is the furtherment of the financial interests of a handful of individuals to the greatest extent they can get away with - which, given a concerted effort to dismantle any checks and balances from the civil service, judiciary, press or general public and a willingness to flout legal constraints, ignore public opinion, and just outright lie, is a very considerable extent.

Oh dear, and you were doing so well...

The obvious flaw in your argument is that 0.1% of the electorate can't win you a general election, not matter how rich they are if you fuck over the other 99.9%

I get that the fundamental approach of any right of centre conservative party (Tories, Fianna Gael et. al.) are odds with some peoples core values (in just the same way that, in many aspects, the fundamental approach of the Labour Party is at odds with mine) but to think that the current government doesn't care about 99.9'% of the population... well, I think you're better than that.

I genuinely believe this lot are different. Of course Tories are, generally, a bit selfish and heartless, that's what they stand for, to prioritise national wealth creation over national wealth distribution. I would not say the same of Cameron, Major, or even Thatcher - they may have been ideologically motivated, but they were at least trying to do a good job, leave some kind of positive legacy that they'd be remembered for etc etc.

But this lot. It was a opportunity that rose out of the Brexit vote. Labour were weak to useless, the Tory party was divided, and along came a divisive issue that people would vote on regardless of all other policies. Look at the last election. Atilla-the-fucking-hun would've won a landslide over Mother Theresa if he promised to "Get Brexit Done".

A small handful have cynically, and successfully, snatched a moment, and then leveraged the opportunity to cut the rope behind them by populating the cabinet with no-mark yes-men, removing anyone of power in the civil service and sidelining parliament. They literally have no care whether the nation is richer or poorer, sicker or weller, they only can how quickly they can empty the piggy bank. And if they're not done by the time the next election comes round, they'll dogwhistle some other divisive emotive shit and refu8se to discuss anything else.

Ok, but agree to disagree...

Which bit do you disagree with, Dinny? Nef is mostly stating facts.

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:59 pm

integrale_evo wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:09 pm So what does everyone suggest we should be doing / Should have done and How much better the results would be than we have at the moment?

Oh Harry.

Clearly we should have done <insert political allegience here> and ignored <political allegience here>.

I mean otherwise, what are you, some kind of <insert sub-optimal IQ opinions here because you're obviously retarded>?

Soooo this.

TBH I think unlike some of the others BoJo does care about his legacy more than money, I think he genuinely believes he's a modern day Churchill and is going to go down in history as the greatest PM in history.

Jobbo wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:35 am Which bit do you disagree with, Dinny? Nef is mostly stating facts.

Yes but if you believe that the civil service was doing a good job, was not a blatant Marxist (or incompetent, you choose they still shouldn’t be employed in the running of this country) organisation that has undermined successive governments and needed sorting out you live in different fucking universe. Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs and all that.

Jobbo wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:35 am Which bit do you disagree with, Dinny? Nef is mostly stating facts.

That when it comes to the current government, “Literally zero fucks are given about the welfare of 99.9% the electorate”

Of any politician since I was aware of them, so say 20 years Boris is the most likely I think to easily make money away from being the Prime Minister.

He is also the most “we shall fight them on the beaches” in the way he carries himself. I think he is highly motivated to creating a legacy for himself which you can’t do by making the rich elite even richer. It has to be the people.

I’m not saying he is doing particularly well of late but I certainly don’t think he is out to fill the wallets of the few.

Dave!