Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

Does the uk have impeachment or anything similar?

We don’t need it... ministers have no special immunity, and a vote of no confidence is a lower bar to clear than impeachment. We could probably do with a procedure for removing MPs, but that’s kind of separate.

Problem is that mismanagement isn’t a crime as such. Elements of it can be of course, but it isn’t in and of itself. And this is an elected parliament whose behaviour honestly isn’t really inconsistent with the basis they were elected on - free markets etc. I dunno, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in an inquiry... but I doubt we’ll see much justice.
 
Cynical me has massive fucking klaxons blaring right now.

It's been rumoured for some time now that Johnson planned to quit in January (for "health reasons").

Is the groundwork being laid for him to turn this craven act into one of noble self-sacrifice?

Would fit the narrative of individual responsibility that has surrounded the Covid response here perfectly.
I can well imagine Johnson is sick of the job by now but I'm thinking the rest of the Tory party will want to keep him in a few months longer until some of the other bad effects of Brexit have kicked in. Then they can ritually sacrifice him for botching the pandemic and Brexit and tell the public they've turned over a new leaf. We'll see I guess.
 
Just watched a clip of Johnson's performative grief yesterday and found new reserves of disgust for the man. With a thin gloss of attempted gravitas all he had to offer was an attempt to deny of any kind of responsibility or failure at all. "We have done everything we could to keep deaths to minimum" is an obvious lie and an insult to everyones intelligence. More of the same we have come to expect from him but in this context just painful.

Most of the newspaper front pages went right along with Johnsons performance, amplifying the disgusting spectacle that was yesterdays press conference.

The change of tone from the BBC this morning was quite dramatic - lots of interviews with people saying how much was avoidable and due to poor decisions by the government, which is not something they've ever really countenanced as a narrative before.


I think we've been here before, at some stage of the first wave. I forget exactly which moments, perhaps once we'd gone past 20,000 deaths (due to Vallances stupid comments about 20,000 deaths being a good result), and then again when the Cummings thing exploded.

Whether it persists is key. If it doesnt then its probably just a part of managing things in a 'democracy', a pressure relief valve, a safe and controlled release of anger. Likewise I see the archbishop of Canterbury is asking us to reflect and pray, so that we may answer the prayers of those who hope the status quo isnt rocked too much, and that we may all come to terms with things in a pious and thoroughly non-transformative manner.
 
fuck me.

Rather than ask people to reflect, how about strongly suggesting that they follow - very strictly, or even exceed - all the guidance and rules meant to stop the spread of this plague. Including lining up for your jab.

They make all those noises too, I was just picking on the bits I considered worth picking on given the context of my post.

Likewise they as usual make noises about inequality, but they do not have a straightforward relationship with such matters and the concepts and forces that enable such inequalities to persist and grow.


During this pandemic, we encourage everyone to do all they can to live within the guidelines and constraints given by government following the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser. We show our commitment, care and love for one another by ensuring we do everything we can to stop the virus spreading.
 
I enjoyed this sort article, thought it made some interesting points but what do others think? (its in two parts)


Why has Britain fared so poorly with Covid-19? Although blaming this or that minister or official offers an easy answer, the deeper causes lie in the transformation of the British state.
Britain inherited from World War II a “command and control” state; a state that could govern. Whitehall was well-practised in strategic planning, good at the rapid and efficient mobilisation of resources and people, and it regularly took authoritative, direct action to meet society’s needs.
Back then, the state could deliver what democratically elected politicians asked of it – to build the NHS, for instance – because it retained the powers, people and resources to do so.
Today, after 40 years of reform, the “command and control” state has been replaced by a “regulatory state”. Decision-making has shifted from parliament to an archipelago of some 400 “arms-length” quangos, employing more than 278,000 people and costing £205 billion per year. Moreover, the state’s assets – its capacity to execute policy on its own accord – have been outsourced or rationalised.
As the regulatory state has grown, its ambition has shrunk. Politicians no longer offer grand visions of the future, just technocratic tweaks. Having dismantled or sold off the levers of power, they downplay public expectations, insisting there is no alternative.
The outsourcing of responsibility and decision-making is clear with respect to the NHS. After successive reforms under governments of all stripes, the Department for Health and Social Care no longer has operational control. Responsibility has been outsourced to dozens of quangos and local commissioners, operating within a fragmented internal market, with scant strategic oversight.


Britain’s pandemic preparations followed the same approach. The government’s latest strategy, issued in 2011, created no additional capacity to deal with an outbreak: no extra laboratories, no spare hospital beds, no new manufacturing centres to supply medical equipment, no new stockpiles of PPE. In true regulatory state style, it merely established bureaucratic guidelines that outsourced all the real work to local government, healthcare providers and others, gathered in “local resilience fora”.
Indeed, key capacities were actually undermined. While public health laboratories were first centralised and downsized under New Labour, the Conservative-LibDem government devolved public health responsibilities to local government, whose funding was then cut by £700 million from 2015 to 2019.
Years before Covid-19, the UK government tested the regulatory state to see if it could withstand a pandemic. It could not. In 2016, Exercise Cygnus “war gamed” a pandemic, finding that local agencies had not or could not develop the capacities and strategies needed.
Some organisations named in the 2011 pandemic strategy document no longer existed, while others had yet to develop any plans. Capacity in health and social care was rapidly overwhelmed in the simulation, with participants forced to ration treatment, discharge patients into care homes, dig mass graves, and turn desperately to the voluntary sector and armed forces.
The official report from the exercise concluded that Britain’s “plans, policies and capability” were “not sufficient to cope” with “a severe pandemic”. However, the report was stamped “official – sensitive” and put on a shelf to rot. It was only officially published in October 2020.

When Covid-19 finally hit, many were baffled by the government’s initially low-key, “business-as-usual” response, blaming Boris Johnson’s indecisiveness or the idiosyncratic views of advisors like Dominic Cummings. In fact, ministers were just following the agreed playbook and the diminished ambitions of Britain’s regulatory state.
The 2011 pandemic strategy stipulated it would “not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic… and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so”. Instead, the strategy prioritised “business as usual”, anticipating healthcare rationing and 210,000 to 315,000 excess deaths over a fifteen-week period. This plan, hatched by technocrats without democratic debate, could not survive contact with public opinion. No wonder the Cygnus report was buried.

Political failure was compounded by institutional failure, as the hollowed-out regulatory state all but collapsed. Test-and-tracing was abandoned on March 12, as the system could only conduct five tests per week. NHS surge planning, on which the 2011 strategy relied so heavily, led to the discharging of over 25,000 elderly patients into care homes by mid-April, seeding the virus directly into the most vulnerable part of the population. By May, more than half of England’s excess deaths had occurred
Meanwhile, the outsourced NHS procurement system failed miserably, as private firms relying on “just-in-time” delivery faced surging demands and collapsing global supply chains. Even the pandemic PPE stockpile had been outsourced to a private company. Their warehouses lacked key equipment like gowns, and 45 per cent of their supplies had expired on the shelf. Resultant shortages were linked to over 8,000 cases and 126 deaths among health and social care workers.
The government’s panicked retreat into lockdown symbolises the failure of Britain’s regulatory state. In a desperate attempt to devise new policies and institutions, the government has had to rely on the very same management consultants and outsourcing firms that have eroded the state’s command and control capacities.
McKinsey was brought in to define the “vision, purpose and narrative” of a new NHS Test and Trace service, which was then staffed by over 2,300 consultants – outnumbering the civil servants at the Treasury and Department for Trade. Companies were given contracts to supply food to shielding households and school children, delivering small and sometimes barely edible portions. PA Consulting led the ill-fated “ventilator challenge”, delivering just four per cent of its target before the first wave peaked.
Deloitte, architects of the disastrous outsourcing of NHS procurement, were tasked with establishing new supply chains. As the National Audit Office found, the firm largely pushed aside domestic offers of help, instead spending hundreds of millions of pounds on overseas procurement. By July 2020, Britain had spent £12.5 billion on items that would have cost £2.5 billion in 2019, and may now be saddled with five years of surplus supplies.
 
Criticism of contracts awarded to “cronies” and itinerant middlemen, while justified, is a distraction from the bigger picture. The more disturbing conclusion is that the British state is so lacking in basic vision and leadership, its bureaucratic institutions are so divorced from meaningful delivery capacities that it cannot even provide security to its own citizens.
This is not a product of one government’s incompetence. It reflects deep-seated changes in the way state power is conceived and organised – by political parties of left and right, not just in Britain but in many other “advanced” economies. A system built around dispersing responsibility, accountability and control is, unsurprisingly, irresponsible, unaccountable, and not in control of its fate.
While Britain’s experience has been mirrored across the West, it stands in stark contrast to countries that have retained aspects of the post-war “command and control” state, including Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and even developing countries like Vietnam. These states have not simply outsourced decision-making and delivery to quangos and private firms. They have retained and built their own public health capacity, centrally and locally, while exerting power over vital businesses, instead of becoming dependent upon them.

South Korea’s experience is particularly instructive. After experimenting with pro-market healthcare reforms, it had the world’s second-worst experience of Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome in 2015. Subsequently, it reversed these reforms. The government established the Korean Centre for Disease Control, with the resources and staffing needed to contain pandemics. It created a dedicated infectious diseases hospital, and funded isolation wards, laboratories and quarantine facilities nationwide. As part of its wider economic planning, the state also invested billions of dollars into biotech and healthcare development, protecting strategically important manufacturing and R&D capacity.
When Covid-19 struck, the state’s surveillance and containment institutions functioned well, limiting the number of cases to 75,000, with only 1,349 deaths so far. The state-backed biotech sector has also provided plentiful supplies of medical equipment and even new innovations in rapid testing and therapies, which are now being exported worldwide.
The experience of South Korea – a developing country as recently as the 1990s – should be deeply chastening. When Britain finally escapes this nightmare of rolling lockdowns, we must completely rethink how we organise the state. We need a democratic state that is prepared to exercise authority, mobilise resources, and be accountable for its decisions – not a failed array of quangos, management consultancies and outsourcing firms.
  • Lee Jones is Reader in International Politics at Queen Mary University of London. His research paper, ‘Covid-19 and the Failure of the Neoliberal Regulatory State’, is forthcoming in the Review of International Political Economy.
 
I enjoyed this sort article, thought it made some interesting points but what do others think? (its in two parts)

I enjoyed Rafael Bears article on why the Tories are flumoxed.


There is an ancient Indian parable about a group of blind men encountering a huge animal for the first time. Each man grasps a different part of the creature. One thinks he is dealing with something hard and pointed, like a spear. Another thinks it is a vast leathery wall. A third presumes it is a serpentine coil. They each get part of the picture, but none can conceive of the whole elephant.

Thus does the Conservative party prod and grope at the problem of inequality.



The pandemic has made it harder to ignore this beast marauding across the social and economic landscape. Britain has some of the widest disparities of income and wealth in Europe, and the most extreme regional imbalances. Uneven distribution of money, qualifications and job opportunities feeds bitter cultural resentments on matters of identity and respect. Inequality over such a broad spectrum depletes the belief in common national endeavour that is required for stable democracy.

The Brexit referendum gave vent to decades of accrued frustration. The Tories correctly identified that as a political opportunity, but have not pursued the diagnosis much further. They have crawled over parts of the problem, grabbing at component grievances – immigration, dilapidated high streets, financial insecurity – without getting a picture of the whole elephant
 
I enjoyed this sort article, thought it made some interesting points but what do others think? (its in two parts)

It makes a lot of valid points but its not the whole story in regards government failings. There were plenty of things that could have been done with better timing by the government and the neoliberal structures as they existed at the time. This is easy to prove because a whole bunch of those things were done, just late. eg some key ones in March were 1-2 weeks late, but they did happen. You dont need to reform the whole system in order to impose a lockdown with better timing.

The thing about how they could only do 5 tests a week is misleading too and the lack of attention to detail on that point makes me wonder where else the article has been sloppy. It was not that PHE could only do five tests a week, it was that they only had the contact tracing capacity to trace the contacts of five positive cases per week (using the assumption that those 5 cases would require 800 contacts to be reached and made to isolate). At the time they spoke about how they could maybe increase that capacity to handle 50 cases per week (with 8000 contacts being isolated as a result).

It is certainly true that many different aspects of the establishment set us up for the initial fails over many preceding years. The general pandemic plans were indeed a disgrace, and are one of the reasons I was able to predict a lot of the crap positions the government took in the first months. And all sorts of aspects of orthodox establishment thinking, eg medical & NHS, were in tune with the same very limited ambitions of pandemic management.

There is also quite a list of excuses which I consider invalid and relatively easy to disprove. These include 'how much we have learnt about the virus with the benefit of hindsight', plenty of which can be demolished by looking at what experts and interested laypeople could figure out in the first weeks and months compared to what dull and doomed stances officialdom took at the time. Another frequent claim is that the existing pandemic plan was only inadequate because it was designed for influenza and this virus is so different. In fact I dont think its very hard to demonstrate that the pandemic plan would also have been deeply inappropriate if it was used to deal with a really bad flu pandemic.
 
It makes a lot of valid points but its not the whole story in regards government failings. There were plenty of things that could have been done with better timing by the government and the neoliberal structures as they existed at the time. This is easy to prove because a whole bunch of those things were done, just late. eg some key ones in March were 1-2 weeks late, but they did happen. You dont need to reform the whole system in order to impose a lockdown with better timing.

The thing about how they could only do 5 tests a week is misleading too and the lack of attention to detail on that point makes me wonder where else the article has been sloppy. It was not that PHE could only do five tests a week, it was that they only had the contact tracing capacity to trace the contacts of five positive cases per week (using the assumption that those 5 cases would require 800 contacts to be reached and made to isolate). At the time they spoke about how they could maybe increase that capacity to handle 50 cases per week (with 8000 contacts being isolated as a result).

It is certainly true that many different aspects of the establishment set us up for the initial fails over many preceding years. The general pandemic plans were indeed a disgrace, and are one of the reasons I was able to predict a lot of the crap positions the government took in the first months. And all sorts of aspects of orthodox establishment thinking, eg medical & NHS, were in tune with the same very limited ambitions of pandemic management.

There is also quite a list of excuses which I consider invalid and relatively easy to disprove. These include 'how much we have learnt about the virus with the benefit of hindsight', plenty of which can be demolished by looking at what experts and interested laypeople could figure out in the first weeks and months compared to what dull and doomed stances officialdom took at the time. Another frequent claim is that the existing pandemic plan was only inadequate because it was designed for influenza and this virus is so different. In fact I dont think its very hard to demonstrate that the pandemic plan would also have been deeply inappropriate if it was used to deal with a really bad flu pandemic.

Obviously the author is making a point about the impact of how the state has evolved on its handling of Covid rather than focussing on what decisions the government could have made, his background is politics rather than epidemiology. Can you say a little more about the the existing pandemic plan and Cygnus? Found it amusing that the Global Health Security Index ( god knows who or what they are ) published this table in November 2019

1611754086590.png
 



This:
aaa.JPG


Is fairly disingenuous, We have the 2nd busiest international airport in the world and of the only busier one, Dubai, the vast majority of passengers are in transit rather than that city being the final destination. China (if you exclude Hong Kong) doesn't have a single airport in the top 20 of international airports. And Gatwick is the 13th busiest.
 
That's a worrying development. [ Covid: Wrexham vaccine plant evacuated over suspicious package - BBC News ]

Personally, I don't like the idea of having all our vaccine doses in one basket.
Maybe - as it is going to be a loooong battle to control Cv-19 - the UK should consider building another couple of plants for processing & *bottling.
and not on a bliddy floodplain, either !
[*what do you call putting the stuff in the vials, is it still bottling ? ]
 
Sturgeon suggests Johnson's planned visit to Scotland could undermine support for travel restrictions
Nicola Sturgeon also queried whether Boris Johnson’s planned visit from London to Scotland tomorrow was genuinely “essential”, suggesting his trip makes it harder to convince other people to stick to travel restrictions.

She said at her daily briefing that she was “not ecstatic” about Boris Johnson visiting. She explained:

(From the Guardian)

Can it be arranged so that the Police in Scotland publicly shame him with an on the spot fine and send him back
 
Has any PM ever been sent to prison? We don't really have 'impeachment' or similar here do we.

spencer-perceval-assassin-008.jpg
 
We don’t need it... ministers have no special immunity, and a vote of no confidence is a lower bar to clear than impeachment. We could probably do with a procedure for removing MPs, but that’s kind of separate.

Problem is that mismanagement isn’t a crime as such. Elements of it can be of course, but it isn’t in and of itself. And this is an elected parliament whose behaviour honestly isn’t really inconsistent with the basis they were elected on - free markets etc. I dunno, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in an inquiry... but I doubt we’ll see much justice.
TBF to our politicians, a lot of the decisions they make do fall into a very grey area between the politics and the practicalities, and maybe the last thing we would want was a government that was so petrified of being held to account with hindsight that they never made any decisions at all. OTOH, a lot of what this government has done wrong was obviously wrong within a short period of it being done (eg Eat Out To Infect Everybody). Listening to that Led By Donkeys clip, there were a lot of people saying "NO, DO IT NOW" even at the time, who were ignored. There's something about where the balance between political and practical is struck, and it seems to me that the practical has been all but discounted, and only then reluctantly taken into account under pressure, and after the fact. Which, somehow, ought to be able to be held up to account, and isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom