Skip to main content

Strategy? What strategy?

Following the PMs address this Sunday.  I have found no need to alter my earlier assumption that "the government strategy is to not have a strategy."

I have come to the conclusion that the government doesn't have a strategy for easing lockdown and we, the public, are going to make it up as we go along.

So, I hope you all have the appropriate skills to consider the risks.

Why did the Prime Minister not make a statement earlier? He has added only confusion, where once we had clarity. 

They are attempting to come out of lockdown by stealth, without testing, so we have no idea where the virus is. We have, instead, a vague ambition to increase testing. Meanwhile we will all be at risk if people are going out more and going back to work.

The message was that we should stay at home and socially distance to 'save the NHS'. The truth of that is that it wasn't about saving lives, which is why initially the figures we were given didn't include deaths in care homes or at home. The government knows that there will be a bounce back in the number of deaths as a result of easing lockdown. They know that because that is what the advisors on SAGE are telling them.

The Communities Secretary said this morning

"Stay alert will mean stay alert by staying home as much as possible, but stay alert when you do go out by maintaining social distancing, washing your hands, respecting others in the workplace and the other settings that you'll go to."

I can shorten that to "staying alert means staying alert."

Isn't that, sort of, the existing strategy, but with people deciding themselves what it means?

What happens if people refuse to go back to work even where their company insists. Who decides how safe it is?

What does he think has changed since we went into lockdown to make it safer?

No 10 says

"Everyone has a role to play in keeping the rate of infection (R) down by staying alert and following the rules."

In other words...it is up to you....we give up. Whatever the 'rules' were, they are vaguer now than they were.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As