Well, yes...the obvious and on-going work to present the debacle as a 'de-politicised' consequence of assiduous adherence to the scientific advice is clearly the Tories underpinning key to evade responsibility for the un-necessary death-toll. That, and getting Starmer to dip his hands in the blood, are the only political game in town.
No it points out that there was a intersection between the scientists and politicians
This is not the scientists having their advice ignored by Cummings/Johnson this is a ideological framework of neoliberalism resulting in a set of assumptions that guided the political actions taken
It is bonkers to suggest that the Johnson regime set out to kill people, but it does seem entirely reasonable to point out that its use of scientific advice to privilege capital over the populace did, inevitably, constitute a political call to see the resulting increased death-toll as collateral or a 'price worth paying'. Whether that's articulated by a liberal or a socialist matters little; the important point is that to argue otherwise gives credence to the vermin's excuses and blame sharing. Surprised you can't see that.
Of course that's true, but it has been true of capitalism forever, look at Davies Late Victorian Holocausts. It's the implicit logic of letting X number of people die of flu each year because extra funding to the NHS is not worth it. This is not Cummings/Johnson this is the logic of capital, every UK government of the last 40 years would have taken a similar view I'm surprised you cannot see that.
Of course it matters Jukes "analysis" is a dead end, daft anti-Johnsonism (not even anti-Toryism).
Within a set of parameters, sure. But if you think talking about laissez-faire herd immunity as viable after much of the world has already gone into lockdown is this sort of immutable on-rails plan of any government, I'm not sure what to say.
You won't find me arguing otherwise, but in the specific context of this exceptional pandemic and political response it is important not to let the Tories hide behind their 'only following [scientific] orders' excuse. In the really existing political context of Parliamentary rep. democracy to present the Johnson/Cummings behaviour as consistent with any other Government may be constitute good theory but sounds too close to excusing their fatal decision making. All opponents of the right party of capital should be exercised to ensure that they do not find it easy to escape their culpability.
& btw you're right to point to Davies' work, but we hardly need go further than Capital 1, Chap 15, Section 9:
Indeed.
Does it though?
As killer b said limiting this to Cummings/Johnson, as people like Jukes and his mates do, are leaves the real problems unchallenged. A class based attack on the ideology that has led to this situation needs to go much further than Cummings, Johnson or even the Tories. After all the SNP and Labour in Wales/Scotland have not significantly deviated from the overall UK line, Labour have backed the government are those parties/governments to be let off? Jukes would locate this issue on Johnson/Cummings, or at most the Tories, that's not a position that should be accepted
Exactly capitalism, this is far wider thean Johnson/Cummings.
Well, I'm sure he can speak for himself, but I think killer b was warning against an over-emphasis on Cummings as an unelected advisor and the risk of that being some sort of 'fire-wall' for Johnson & co.
Indeed, but it's still the case that the UK (& English) policy & response is, as we discuss this, still the responsibility of just one party, led by one leader with a very high-profile advisor.
Thats why I thought the Reuters article was a breath of fresh air tbh
Why are you posting up tittle tattle? Seriously. who cares?
No, he's toughing it out in private.
