Mass Gatherings

Jun 15, 2020 -- 2:24PM, Baphornet wrote:

i'm no fan of Bozo, Lapsy but considering we have never been through anything like this before, there is no basis or proof that any other Party would have behaved or governed differently. We can all stand our corner but that's the way it is. I could sit here & say Labour would have governed far worse than the Tories have, but i can't because they have no record of doing so. As for unity, let's not forget the behaviour in the House during Brexit, that left a very bad taste in the mouth & has no doubt festered. All Parties should have come together, & all are to blame that they haven't

Constantly bamboozled by this line of argument. Firstly, there's plenty of evidence that if another tory - Stewart - had been elected leader then we'd have a different outcome. But it's just beyond specious. There'll never be any way of proving therefore please stop trying to do him down.

Sorry but no. The tories won, and with a huge majority. They're in complete control and frankly there's no point in opposition parties even turning up to vote for the next few years. The only thing we can do is review what actually happened, what decisions were actually made by the actual government.

And as my opening post shows they are now simply changing policy to suit. When most people in the country - at the time - were saying it was foolish to have Cheltenham open or allow plane-fulls of potentially infected fans from a virus hotspot to hop over, visit our bars and hotels and spread it far and wide before a CL game, the answer by the government was that the science said it was fine.
Now that there are people protesting police brutality and racial bias they're saying that that same science was wrong and apparently crowds are great for spreading the disease.

We need a full inquiry to get to the bottom of what data they used and how it informed government decisions given how we've ended up with the most deaths, one of the longest lockdowns and the projected worst financial hit out of every country in Europe. I mean, if we took the finanical knock to save lives, that's one thing. Or if we said the economy must survive and people need to fend for themselves then that's another. But to somehow manage to both kill people and trash the economy at the same time, then that's frankly negligence and we need to explore it and learn all the necessary lessons.

Jun 15, 2020 -- 4:45PM, saddo wrote:

Where is your 'actual evidence' that anyone else would have done better? You have none.

Granted there's no "actual" evidence. It was meant to be a throwaway line before the main thrust about how that bit is immaterial as it's impossible to prove. Needless to say, certain posters latch on to that rather than focus on the main point of the actual performance by the actual government.


Bap - it's not for me to refute, it's for you to prove. That's how arguments work. The idea that anyone else would have done anything better or not is moot. It's unproveable. As you're so ably pointing out there'll always be some sealionning whopper along to say something. This is all about what did happen, not what might have happened if my auntie had balls.

You mention hypothetical, yet you're the one wallowing in it, desperately trying to deflect from your demi-god's utter failure in a crisis.


So if you do think Labour would have done different, either provide the proof or run away. Your choice.