Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 8:44 am  

Given recent events and the rise of woke on the left of politics do we think we have a bad case of safeism in this country

By that I mean that we expect the state to ensure that they cover every inconvenience that we might suffer they have a ready made solution for an unpredictability/Black Swan that might happen. I listen to the chancellor and he expected to cover every person with the furlough scheme either employed or self employed, every company should be able to get a CBIL loan regardless of status etc.

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:36 am  

What would be the alternative/better option?
Surely, for 'safeism' to be an issue it would mean we favoured government intervention during this crisis over a more beneficial option?

I suppose when people have been living in an age where money was printed to bailout the financial industry, and governments have taken corporate institutions into public ownership to stop them from failing, they're probably thinking they're long overdue some of the help they should've been given over a decade ago instead of the banks.

[DaveO]

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:01 pm  

"It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. That is where the public interest lies. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and it is the duty of the court to do all it can to respect and uphold that principle." From here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm So the simple answer to your question is "no". Given the current situation then obviously it's not "safeism" to have a contingency plan for a pandemic. Especially when you consider a pandemic is identified on the governments own National Risk Register https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf as highly likely to occur (and they were right weren't they) and is the threat that will have the greatest impact on society. Higher even then terrorist attacks. Add in the fact the government ran pandemic "war game" exercises informed them of the consequences of an event they already deemed highly likely, a pandemic is not something that just occurred out of the blue no one could plan for as I think you wish to imply. In fact not following any recommended steps due to these "war games" is a dereliction of the governments duty to its citizens. I think we will find in the eventual public inquiry the government of the last 10 years is guilty of numerous dogma inspired failings in this regard such as J Hunt not being prepared to fund a stockpile of PPE in 2017 due to the obsession with Austerity. As to how far or what the chancellor does in response to the financial impacts of a pandemic, well if they had bothered to plan for it then maybe the actions taken would not appear so haphazard and full of loopholes offering help to some who don't need it and no help to some of those who do.

"It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. That is where the public interest lies. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and it is the duty of the court to do all it can to respect and uphold that principle." From here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm So the simple answer to your question is "no". Given the current situation then obviously it's not "safeism" to have a contingency plan for a pandemic. Especially when you consider a pandemic is identified on the governments own National Risk Register https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf as highly likely to occur (and they were right weren't they) and is the threat that will have the greatest impact on society. Higher even then terrorist attacks. Add in the fact the government ran pandemic "war game" exercises informed them of the consequences of an event they already deemed highly likely, a pandemic is not something that just occurred out of the blue no one could plan for as I think you wish to imply. In fact not following any recommended steps due to these "war games" is a dereliction of the governments duty to its citizens. I think we will find in the eventual public inquiry the government of the last 10 years is guilty of numerous dogma inspired failings in this regard such as J Hunt not being prepared to fund a stockpile of PPE in 2017 due to the obsession with Austerity. As to how far or what the chancellor does in response to the financial impacts of a pandemic, well if they had bothered to plan for it then maybe the actions taken would not appear so haphazard and full of loopholes offering help to some who don't need it and no help to some of those who do.

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:29 pm  

DaveO wrote: "It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. That is where the public interest lies. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and it is the duty of the court to do all it can to respect and uphold that principle." From here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm So the simple answer to your question is "no". Given the current situation then obviously it's not "safeism" to have a contingency plan for a pandemic. Especially when you consider a pandemic is identified on the governments own National Risk Register https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf as highly likely to occur (and they were right weren't they) and is the threat that will have the greatest impact on society. Higher even then terrorist attacks. Add in the fact the government ran pandemic "war game" exercises informed them of the consequences of an event they already deemed highly likely, a pandemic is not something that just occurred out of the blue no one could plan for as I think you wish to imply. In fact not following any recommended steps due to these "war games" is a dereliction of the governments duty to its citizens. I think we will find in the eventual public inquiry the government of the last 10 years is guilty of numerous dogma inspired failings in this regard such as J Hunt not being prepared to fund a stockpile of PPE in 2017 due to the obsession with Austerity. As to how far or what the chancellor does in response to the financial impacts of a pandemic, well if they had bothered to plan for it then maybe the actions taken would not appear so haphazard and full of loopholes offering help to some who don't need it and no help to some of those who do. This was not meant to be a government bashing exercise - but there you go I think you on Hunt he didn't want to make the same mistake Brown did when he ordered all that vaccine that simply got binned because things didn't quite turn out as the experts predicted. Hunt had a limited budget, does he spend it on what could be a pandemic or what is genuine clinical need? Taxes are not a bottomless pit? I only gave the recent Covid 19 responses as examples of where citizens expect total support - others could be bullying at school - this has gone on since Adam but we now seem to expect the state to stop it, mental issues many of which are quite normal neurological responses to life itself - should the state shield every citizen from every kind of adversity?

DaveO wrote: "It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. That is where the public interest lies. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and it is the duty of the court to do all it can to respect and uphold that principle." From here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm So the simple answer to your question is "no". Given the current situation then obviously it's not "safeism" to have a contingency plan for a pandemic. Especially when you consider a pandemic is identified on the governments own National Risk Register https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf as highly likely to occur (and they were right weren't they) and is the threat that will have the greatest impact on society. Higher even then terrorist attacks. Add in the fact the government ran pandemic "war game" exercises informed them of the consequences of an event they already deemed highly likely, a pandemic is not something that just occurred out of the blue no one could plan for as I think you wish to imply. In fact not following any recommended steps due to these "war games" is a dereliction of the governments duty to its citizens. I think we will find in the eventual public inquiry the government of the last 10 years is guilty of numerous dogma inspired failings in this regard such as J Hunt not being prepared to fund a stockpile of PPE in 2017 due to the obsession with Austerity. As to how far or what the chancellor does in response to the financial impacts of a pandemic, well if they had bothered to plan for it then maybe the actions taken would not appear so haphazard and full of loopholes offering help to some who don't need it and no help to some of those who do. This was not meant to be a government bashing exercise - but there you go I think you on Hunt he didn't want to make the same mistake Brown did when he ordered all that vaccine that simply got binned because things didn't quite turn out as the experts predicted. Hunt had a limited budget, does he spend it on what could be a pandemic or what is genuine clinical need? Taxes are not a bottomless pit? I only gave the recent Covid 19 responses as examples of where citizens expect total support - others could be bullying at school - this has gone on since Adam but we now seem to expect the state to stop it, mental issues many of which are quite normal neurological responses to life itself - should the state shield every citizen from every kind of adversity?

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:04 pm  

Nah.The lefties don't want to live in a nanny state,nor a police state.They want their freedoms and their liberties and not have to be subjected to remaining indoors and saving the lives of others.
They know best.Been to university and have Lords and rich people on their side.
They are free and reckless.
They can do what they want.

[DaveO]

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:17 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: This was not meant to be a government bashing exercise - but there you go I think you on Hunt he didn't want to make the same mistake Brown did when he ordered all that vaccine that simply got binned because things didn't quite turn out as the experts predicted. Hunt had a limited budget, does he spend it on what could be a pandemic or what is genuine clinical need? Taxes are not a bottomless pit? I only gave the recent Covid 19 responses as examples of where citizens expect total support - others could be bullying at school - this has gone on since Adam but we now seem to expect the state to stop it, mental issues many of which are quite normal neurological responses to life itself - should the state shield every citizen from every kind of adversity? If you want to use other examples as people wanting total support you need to cite what they are because each case is obviously different. It won't be possible or practical for some to be anticipated to catered for and others it will be (with a pandemic falling into the latter category). There is no generalised answer to the question unless you are some libertarian loon who thinks as a matter of dogma it's every man for himself on everything and the government has next to no role to play (which hopefully the point I made about its duty above deals with). As to Hunt there is no need to speculate what the motives were to excuse him, it was just to save cash, and he wasn't blocking the purchase of perishable vaccines but PPE (specifically eye protection): Documents show that officials working under former health secretary Jeremy Hunt told medical advisers three years ago to “reconsider” a formal recommendation that eye protection should be provided to all healthcare professionals who have close contact with pandemic influenza patients. The expert advice was watered down after an “economic assessment” found a medical recommendation about providing visors or safety glasses to all hospital, ambulance and social care staff who have close contact with pandemic influenza patients would “substantially increase” the costs of stockpiling. Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost He's now got the brass neck as chairmen of the health select committee to complain about the pack of PPE for NHS staff.

Sal Paradise wrote: This was not meant to be a government bashing exercise - but there you go I think you on Hunt he didn't want to make the same mistake Brown did when he ordered all that vaccine that simply got binned because things didn't quite turn out as the experts predicted. Hunt had a limited budget, does he spend it on what could be a pandemic or what is genuine clinical need? Taxes are not a bottomless pit? I only gave the recent Covid 19 responses as examples of where citizens expect total support - others could be bullying at school - this has gone on since Adam but we now seem to expect the state to stop it, mental issues many of which are quite normal neurological responses to life itself - should the state shield every citizen from every kind of adversity? If you want to use other examples as people wanting total support you need to cite what they are because each case is obviously different. It won't be possible or practical for some to be anticipated to catered for and others it will be (with a pandemic falling into the latter category). There is no generalised answer to the question unless you are some libertarian loon who thinks as a matter of dogma it's every man for himself on everything and the government has next to no role to play (which hopefully the point I made about its duty above deals with). As to Hunt there is no need to speculate what the motives were to excuse him, it was just to save cash, and he wasn't blocking the purchase of perishable vaccines but PPE (specifically eye protection): Documents show that officials working under former health secretary Jeremy Hunt told medical advisers three years ago to “reconsider” a formal recommendation that eye protection should be provided to all healthcare professionals who have close contact with pandemic influenza patients. The expert advice was watered down after an “economic assessment” found a medical recommendation about providing visors or safety glasses to all hospital, ambulance and social care staff who have close contact with pandemic influenza patients would “substantially increase” the costs of stockpiling. Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost He's now got the brass neck as chairmen of the health select committee to complain about the pack of PPE for NHS staff.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:29 pm  

I went to the toilet yesterday morning and the council still haven’t been round to flush it.

(‘Credit’ to Alexei Sayle for that one)

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:33 pm  

Ornery Optimist wrote:

Nah.The lefties don't want to live in a nanny state,nor a police state.They want their freedoms and their liberties and not have to be subjected to remaining indoors and saving the lives of others.
They know best.Been to university and have Lords and rich people on their side.
They are free and reckless.
They can do what they want.

It's generally better to write about your beliefs and thoughts rather than to second guess those of others.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Safeism : Thu Apr 23, 2020 8:22 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Given recent events and the rise of woke on the left of politics do we think we have a bad case of safeism in this country

By that I mean that we expect the state to ensure that they cover every inconvenience that we might suffer they have a ready made solution for an unpredictability/Black Swan that might happen. I listen to the chancellor and he expected to cover every person with the furlough scheme either employed or self employed, every company should be able to get a CBIL loan regardless of status etc.

While, predictably, I don’t think it is about being woke or on the left, I do think there’s a bit too much ‘somebody should do something about that’... yeah that’s that solved then.

As Lily Tomlin said, ‘I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.’

Although I feel duty bound to take some satisfaction in Johnson, Raab et al. getting a small portion of the flak a Corbyn-led government would have for the same ‘failings’ around the pandemic, I know (not even very deep down) that this isn’t normal and it’d be a massive struggle whoever was in charge, even if they weren’t a shambling gormclops.

Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:58 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Given recent events and the rise of woke on the left of politics do we think we have a bad case of safeism in this country

By that I mean that we expect the state to ensure that they cover every inconvenience that we might suffer they have a ready made solution for an unpredictability/Black Swan that might happen. I listen to the chancellor and he expected to cover every person with the furlough scheme either employed or self employed, every company should be able to get a CBIL loan regardless of status etc.

Government has chosen to prevent these businesses from trading so government is responsible for taking care of the economic impacts.