Sunday Times - 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[tim_noone]

This prof.chris whitty changes his mind more than his underwear.... hes known what many have been thinking for weeks...were up Sh!t creek with out a paddle.the government saw it coming and did nothing. Shameful....while hancock keeps saying things are improving.ffs!

[evensteadiereddie]

Did anybody see Raab giving this evening's briefing ?
A complete lack of conviction, charisma or belief. You could see him thinking, "Does Cummings actually get paid for writing this guff ?" as he droned his way through his introduction.

[dsr]

With all due respect I do not know one nurse or doctor who would agree with you.
And I know plenty of both since my wife has been a nurse for more than 30 years and has never seen the NHS in as much chaos and lack of resources as in the last few years.

You need to factor in the increase in demand in hospitals, people living longer etc (all very accurately predicted many years ago). Waiting times never been longer, nowhere near enough beds, and a significant reduction in doctors and nurses....and all the support services like mental health, social services etc etc too.

All the professional bodies - BMA, RCN etc are unanimous that the last decade has seen a significant deterioration in the NHS.

It may well be that throwing money at it is not the right solution and the NHS as a whole needs throrough reform. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, frankly, because looking from outside, the management seems to be abysmal. And that's not just in Conservative times either - Gordon Brown's disgraceful PPI schemes are as flagrant a waste of money as you can get.

But every time the government even hints at reforming the NHS, up step the usual suspects to complain about "selling off the NHS" and similar slogans, and it becomes a political impossibility. The current NHS has (in 2018) 423,411 medical staff out of total full time equivalent workforce of 1.1m. That's less than 40% medical. What are the other 60+% doing? There are 34,556 "managers" - that's about 1 for every 3 doctors. What are they doing? What we need is a proper root-and-branch look at the management system of the NHS to find out how it could and should be run better. Because quite obviously, throwing money at it doesn't work.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-vide ... igures-nhs

[TVC15]

It may well be that throwing money at it is not the right solution and the NHS as a whole needs throrough reform. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, frankly, because looking from outside, the management seems to be abysmal. And that's not just in Conservative times either - Gordon Brown's disgraceful PPI schemes are as flagrant a waste of money as you can get.

But every time the government even hints at reforming the NHS, up step the usual suspects to complain about "selling off the NHS" and similar slogans, and it becomes a political impossibility. The current NHS has (in 2018) 423,411 medical staff out of total full time equivalent workforce of 1.1m. That's less than 40% medical. What are the other 60+% doing? There are 34,556 "managers" - that's about 1 for every 3 doctors. What are they doing? What we need is a proper root-and-branch look at the management system of the NHS to find out how it could and should be run better. Because quite obviously, throwing money at it doesn't work.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-vide ... igures-nhs

I don’t disagree with a lot of that.
But one thing I know for sure that cutting the numbers of nurses and doctors is never going to help a population where the fastest growing demographic is (and will be for the next 30 years) the over 85s.
Neither will it help reducing the support services like the Conservative Party did in areas such as mental health and many other support areas. Because more people end up in hospital for the wrong reasons because they simply cannot get the correct care they need.
This is what I meant in terms of the NHS being run down and there is nothing that would me change my opinion that it’s deteriorated during the last decade.

[Burnley Ace]

Is there any evidence that joining in with the EU procurement would have goy us more PPE and quicker than we have done?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Knocking NHS managers is always fun, but the NHS produces half a billion “products” every year (i.e. patients seen) and unlike in any other industry every single one of those is unique, requiring a unique service. Even two seemingly identical patients going into a diabetes clinic may end up with different drugs or tests due to something about them, e.g. a second chronic condition. Similarly, patient A may be in clinic for 12 minutes, patient B for 19 minutes. And that is just relatively simple outpatients.

So, as a manager, imagine dealing with that. How to set a budget, set a nursing rota, decide how many patients to book in, decide how much demand to stop at the front door by asking GPs to do something differently.

It’s the most difficult industry on earth to manage, due to that variation and unpredictable demand. They do it for tiny wages (compared to the private sector). They do it despite knowing that everyone hates them (but loves doctors and nurses). Now, to top it all off, 7 of them have died (Health Service Journal today, brilliant analysis of NHS staff deaths due to Covid).

Hats off to them. Also, some of them are VERY good.

p.s. I’m all for reforming the NHS, but that won’t change the above.

[arise_sir_charge]

The thing with austerity is that people seem to forget that it was needed.

It’s ok saying “but they did this” and they “did that” but a lot of those very difficult decisions were needed and any government would have had to make some very difficult calls. Sadly services were always likely to suffer.

The other thing is, people forget that everyone moaned about the NHS pre austerity so it’s not as though austerity and the last ten years is a unique factor in the issues we see today.

I agree the NHS needs review from top to bottom. I wouldn’t necessarily highlight the managers as the issue as I don’t have any specific knowledge of that, but with my wife who is a type one diabetic, I see enormous waste in things like multiple prescriptions, duplication of things etc.

I also believe that this current crisis has highlighted that a lot of the time A&E departments are dealing with folk who are simply time wasters and malingerers. Those same people aren’t attending now for fear of actually getting ill!

Two years ago I had the misfortune to spend a Bank Holiday Monday night in Blackpool Royal Infirmary and it was a real eye opener to the absolute nonsense they are constantly having to manage.

The NHS isn’t perfect but nor are the people that use it!

[Devils_Advocate]

Is there any evidence that joining in with the EU procurement would have goy us more PPE and quicker than we have done?

No but that is no longer the point. The EU Procurement process is in the news because of the following

• The govt made the decision not to join because of political ideology rather than looking whether it had the potential to benefit us and save peoples lives

• The govt then lied about this and doubled down on their lies. We need to be able to trust that the govt are transparent, truthful and always asking in the interest of the country

• When a senior civil servant made a statement to a select committee that contradicted what the govt told us meaning they lied it looks like the said civil servant was pressured into sending a retraction

Now you can dispute the above and put forward you own argument if you don't believe it to be true but anyone bringing up the performance so far of the EU Procurement process is deflecting from the real issue

They are either deliberately deflecting or are just someone who doesn't really understand the issue, has read or been told something and is happy to bring it up as a defense which is just what the people sharing this angle want

[IanMcL]

Jeremy Hunt MP culpable according to John Pilger.

https://m.facebook.com/home.php#!/hudde ... tn__=EHH-R

[Devils_Advocate]

Can you expand on this Ian or is the extent of your research a facebook screenshot?

It drives me mad when people on the right just share stuff like this without question or looking at sources and it is no better when people on the left do it

Please share if you have more background sourced info about this claim otherwise I'll just assume its a bit of left wing mud slinging

[keith1879]

The thing with austerity is that people seem to forget that it was needed.

It’s ok saying “but they did this” and they “did that” but a lot of those very difficult decisions were needed and any government would have had to make some very difficult calls. Sadly services were always likely to suffer.

The other thing is, people forget that everyone moaned about the NHS pre austerity so it’s not as though austerity and the last ten years is a unique factor in the issues we see today.

I agree the NHS needs review from top to bottom. I wouldn’t necessarily highlight the managers as the issue as I don’t have any specific knowledge of that, but with my wife who is a type one diabetic, I see enormous waste in things like multiple prescriptions, duplication of things etc.

I also believe that this current crisis has highlighted that a lot of the time A&E departments are dealing with folk who are simply time wasters and malingerers. Those same people aren’t attending now for fear of actually getting ill!

Two years ago I had the misfortune to spend a Bank Holiday Monday night in Blackpool Royal Infirmary and it was a real eye opener to the absolute nonsense they are constantly having to manage.

The NHS isn’t perfect but nor are the people that use it!

Two issues that I have here...the first (perhaps more contentious) is that it is not clear that "Austerity was needed" ....it was the path chosen by several countries and it may have been the wrong one.

Secondly ....why does the NHS need review from top to bottom?? This sounds to me like a highly politicised judgment. The key measure of the NHS must surely be to question whether it has kept us healthy. On a personal level I have had to deal with a number of medical conditions and one serious accident over my lifetime and the interventions of the NHS have been excellent and effective. Most notably I think has been their discovery of two significant hereditary conditions before they had caused me real harm. Teatment has been started for both of them. Not only has this kept me healthy but it has saved money for the NHS in the future by avoiding probable heart and liver issues.

The main question you should ask about your wife surely is .....has the NHS done a good job of controlling her problem?

[cblantfanclub]

Australia doing well, despite admitted mistakes, they have a dim view of us.

The PM may’ve been relatively slow to respond at first, but he still compares favourably to his UK counterpart, Boris Johnson, whose governance was woeful, Prof Mathers says. “The fact he missed emergency Covid meetings early on exemplifies the problem – the person ultimately responsible didn’t take it seriously enough early enough,” he says.

“The political advantage of shaking hands seemed more important than preventing infections, and he seemed to believe it wasn’t as risky as experts were trying to tell him. His actions spoke louder than words – but even his words were lacking early on.”

Based on Australia’s emerging progress, Dr Swan’s advice for Britain is to immediately close international borders, quarantine all new arrivals and all infected people for two weeks, do not reopen the economy prematurely and induce a Singaporean second wave of infections and have an incredibly extensive testing regime. “Test everyone in the country with a cough or cold – it’ll return very few positives – but it will save lives,” he says.

[arise_sir_charge]

To some extent you’ve misinterpreted what I mean and my intention.

On the whole my experience of the NHS has been positive. M very supportive of it.

I believe that like a lot of things, when it works it’s fantastic but when it goes wrong it appears to go very wrong. I’ve had good experiences but friends and family have had horrific experiences.

In respect of my wife there is both good and bad and some odd (not inconsequential financially) waste along the way.

She has only ever had two major issues as she controls it well herself. One was in the UK and the other whilst on holiday in Spain.

She had great emergency care on the one instance it was needed in the UK.

In Spain the care was faultless, she was in intensive care. As an upshot of what happened was that her insulin pump failed and we had to use hypodermic syringes to administer insulin every two hours.

However when I needed to arrange insulin for our return to the UK the doctors surgery refused to run a prescription for a family member to collect, refused to allow me to speak to a doctor and despite explaining the issue simply said “ring at 8am Monday and we will see if we can fit you in”. From Spain, I had to track down the diabetic nurse allocated to Burnley and arrange for her to meet my mother and provide appropriate supplies for our return. So the doctors surgery were awful, the nurse went out do her way.

Regarding that issue, the diabetes consultant for East Lancs wrote a letter of complaint to the doctors surgery.

She had terrible care when in labour when the issue of her diabetes was massively important and had it not been for me intervening they were intravenously pumping glucose into her with no insulin to balance it out.

So a mixture of good and bad.

That said, I am loathe to criticise and believe they get far more right that wrong but feel the biggest issue I see more than anything is waste.

[IanMcL]

Can you expand on this Ian or is the extent of your research a facebook screenshot?

It drives me mad when people on the right just share stuff like this without question or looking at sources and it is no better when people on the left do it

Please share if you have more background sourced info about this claim otherwise I'll just assume its a bit of left wing mud slinging

The reputation of John Pilger should be enough DA.
He has been the best investigative journalist in many a long year.

[keith1879]

That's a great answer Arise and I'm pleased that you have had some good experiences as well.

[Devils_Advocate]

The reputation of John Pilger should be enough DA.
He has been the best investigative journalist in many a long year.

He may well be but you haven't shared anything beyond a facebook screen grab of a pretty broad tweet

If you are gonna make an important point you should at least read and understand his research and investigation rather than sharing a 3rd party facebook screenshot

It sounds like you haven't looked into the detail of his article at all which if its as good as you make out is very strange

I probably agree with the sentiment of most of the stuff you believe but on here you seem to be just posting hyperbolic unfounded attacks which offers very little to any serious discussion

[Burnley Ace]

No but that is no longer the point. The EU Procurement process is in the news because of the following

• The govt made the decision not to join because of political ideology rather than looking whether it had the potential to benefit us and save peoples lives

• The govt then lied about this and doubled down on their lies. We need to be able to trust that the govt are transparent, truthful and always asking in the interest of the country

• When a senior civil servant made a statement to a select committee that contradicted what the govt told us meaning they lied it looks like the said civil servant was pressured into sending a retraction

Now you can dispute the above and put forward you own argument if you don't believe it to be true but anyone bringing up the performance so far of the EU Procurement process is deflecting from the real issue

They are either deliberately deflecting or are just someone who doesn't really understand the issue, has read or been told something and is happy to bring it up as a defense which is just what the people sharing this angle want

If the political reason was that they felt that we would be marginalised, not treated equitably, would get a better and faster response outside of the EU procurement then so be it. That’s why I’m asking how good this programme is.

Anyone who is complaining about our decision not to join, without knowing how well it is doing, is just pushing their political agenda and is following the Momentum strategy to keep these points (EU procurement, o testing at airports and Johnson wasn’t ill) at the top of the media agenda to copy the “get Brexit done” strategy.

Has the senior civil servant resigned?

[Devils_Advocate]

If the political reason was that they felt that we would be marginalised, not treated equitably, would get a better and faster response outside of the EU procurement then so be it. That’s why I’m asking how good this programme is.

Anyone who is complaining about our decision not to join, without knowing how well it is doing, is just pushing their political agenda and is following the Momentum strategy to keep these points (EU procurement, o testing at airports and Johnson wasn’t ill) at the top of the media agenda to copy the “get Brexit done” strategy.

Has the senior civil servant resigned?

No all the reasons you give are non political reasons why it mat not be in our best interest. The political reason would be that regardless of whether we think it is in our interest or not we are just going to reject it as we do not want to be seen as working with and collaborating with the EU

Just to add the reason the govt gave was that the email got sent to the wrong address and we was not aware of our invite to participate and this is what the story is now about i.e. was that a lie or the truth

Your next point about knowing how well it is doing is irrelevant as that is called hindsight. The better question is at the time we made the decision was they the potential to benefit us and this seems to be an obvious yes. We could have carried on doing other things with our own manufacturers so by being part f the group it is hard to see a disadvantage

The question of whether the EU Procurement process is a success is also a lot more complex than your simple understanding. It is a completely different conversation but it wasn't set up as a quick fix but a long term solution with potential lead times of up to 52 weeks. If you are genuinely interested in subject as opposed to tribal defence of the Tory's and banding about jingoism about Momentum (which is far more a political agenda than wanting proper accountability and transparency) than have read up on the subject look up a wide range of sources. You might actually learn something

On your final point please explain on what grounds the civil servant should have resigned. The govt spin is that he made a mistake and clarified it and the alternative takes are that he deliberately lied to a select committee or he told the truth and was pressured by govt to issue a retraction

If he lied then the select committee should prosecute him but don't hold your breath as it was a Tory leading the select committee so to do so would be exposing themselves. Unless he really did lie but lets see what the Tory's do

If he told the truth and was pressured into changing his statement then it could damage or end his career and reputation but it will be the resignation of the govt ministers who put pressure on him and who lied in the first place that will need to go

[IanMcL]

He may well be but you haven't shared anything beyond a facebook screen grab of a pretty broad tweet

If you are gonna make an important point you should at least read and understand his research and investigation rather than sharing a 3rd party facebook screenshot

It sounds like you haven't looked into the detail of his article at all which if its as good as you make out is very strange

I probably agree with the sentiment of most of the stuff you believe but on here you seem to be just posting hyperbolic unfounded attacks which offers very little to any serious discussion

The message was simple. The source unimpeachable.

[tiger76]

Australia doing well, despite admitted mistakes, they have a dim view of us.

The PM may’ve been relatively slow to respond at first, but he still compares favourably to his UK counterpart, Boris Johnson, whose governance was woeful, Prof Mathers says. “The fact he missed emergency Covid meetings early on exemplifies the problem – the person ultimately responsible didn’t take it seriously enough early enough,” he says.

“The political advantage of shaking hands seemed more important than preventing infections, and he seemed to believe it wasn’t as risky as experts were trying to tell him. His actions spoke louder than words – but even his words were lacking early on.”

Based on Australia’s emerging progress, Dr Swan’s advice for Britain is to immediately close international borders, quarantine all new arrivals and all infected people for two weeks, do not reopen the economy prematurely and induce a Singaporean second wave of infections and have an incredibly extensive testing regime. “Test everyone in the country with a cough or cold – it’ll return very few positives – but it will save lives,” he says.

Many people on this site have mentioned closing international borders,and quarantining any new arrivals,TBH i doubt it would have much impact now,and how we'd be able to quarantine the numbers we've now reached is a good question,given we have 140,000 confirmed cases,the point when to reopen the economy is a tough call,and will be influenced by the science mostly,but politics will play a part,as will public opinion,rightly or wrongly,however the info I've seen coming from the government and medical experts,is that they're well aware that lifting the lockdown too early increases the risk of a secondary wave,so they're not ignorant of this possibility,and it will be high in their factors in coming to any decisions.

Ah! testing well good luck with that idea,we can't even test all our frontline essential staff,let alone Jane & Joe bloggs who have a minor ailment.

[Burnley Ace]

No all the reasons you give are non political reasons why it mat not be in our best interest. The political reason would be that regardless of whether we think it is in our interest or not we are just going to reject it as we do not want to be seen as working with and collaborating with the EU

Just to add the reason the govt gave was that the email got sent to the wrong address and we was not aware of our invite to participate and this is what the story is now about i.e. was that a lie or the truth

Your next point about knowing how well it is doing is irrelevant as that is called hindsight. The better question is at the time we made the decision was they the potential to benefit us and this seems to be an obvious yes. We could have carried on doing other things with our own manufacturers so by being part f the group it is hard to see a disadvantage

The question of whether the EU Procurement process is a success is also a lot more complex than your simple understanding. It is a completely different conversation but it wasn't set up as a quick fix but a long term solution with potential lead times of up to 52 weeks. If you are genuinely interested in subject as opposed to tribal defence of the Tory's and banding about jingoism about Momentum (which is far more a political agenda than wanting proper accountability and transparency) than have read up on the subject look up a wide range of sources. You might actually learn something

On your final point please explain on what grounds the civil servant should have resigned. The govt spin is that he made a mistake and clarified it and the alternative takes are that he deliberately lied to a select committee or he told the truth and was pressured by govt to issue a retraction

If he lied then the select committee should prosecute him but don't hold your breath as it was a Tory leading the select committee so to do so would be exposing themselves. Unless he really did lie but lets see what the Tory's do

If he told the truth and was pressured into changing his statement then it could damage or end his career and reputation but it will be the resignation of the govt ministers who put pressure on him and who lied in the first place that will need to go

Don’t be such a condescending simpleton, you can do better than that. You are just waffling on. “Political decisions tend to be more complex than just a single issue and part of that decision may well have been that, at this time, we don’t want to work with the EU, but it’s moronic to think that’s the only reason. If it’s a long term project with a 62 week lead in time then it would have been pointless to get involved. Perhaps, as you are so well read on this subject you could put up a link so we can all read about this long term project.

If this senior civil servant is so spineless that he will change his story after “a bit of pressure” then he won’t have much of a career anyway. He should resign and come out and give a full and frank statement with evidence of the pressure he was put under to change his account, or it could be he made a mistake but this is another example of a story that the “Johnson wasn’t I’ll” activists will try to reinforce.

[Devils_Advocate]

Don’t be such a condescending simpleton, you can do better than that. You are just waffling on. “Political decisions tend to be more complex than just a single issue and part of that decision may well have been that, at this time, we don’t want to work with the EU, but it’s moronic to think that’s the only reason. If it’s a long term project with a 62 week lead in time then it would have been pointless to get involved. Perhaps, as you are so well read on this subject you could put up a link so we can all read about this long term project.

If this senior civil servant is so spineless that he will change his story after “a bit of pressure” then he won’t have much of a career anyway. He should resign and come out and give a full and frank statement with evidence of the pressure he was put under to change his account, or it could be he made a mistake but this is another example of a story that the “Johnson wasn’t I’ll” activists will try to reinforce.

Do your own research and back up your own foolish statements. Here is a summary I have already posted about the merits of the EU Procurement Process

1. Health is normally an MS competence, but in global (ie cross-border) health threats the EU can have an "assistance" role which MS's can voluntarily use.
The JPA is intended to protect small purchasers of vaccines, drugs, ppe from being disadvantaged during a shortage.

Overall, the UK and the NHS in theory have huge purchasing power; shouldn't need to buddy up with small countries to buy PPE.

Unfortunately, the Tories devolved purchasing to individual NHS trusts, who are now fighting for PPE supplies like rats in a sack.

So not only did the Tory NHS reforms fragment and diminish the purchasing power of the NHS, the ideological decision in 2020 to stay out of the EU JPA shut down a solution to the their reforms had caused.

2. Advantages / disadvantages.
Advantages: It lets a load of small purchasers club together to get the same purchasing power as one big buyer; lower cost, higher priority for suppliers, reduces need for hoarding.
Disadvantages: It has "European" in the title.

3. Why did UK not take part? See "disadvantages" in previous tweet.

4. Is it working?
The first invitation to tender 28th Feb, failed due to lack of supplier interest.
The 2nd one 15th March has secured £1.5Bn of PPE which will start delivery in the next few days.

And just to add participating is cost free, in the sense that it does not conflict with MS actions so we could have done everything we have been doing but had the added benefit of being part of the group

Now if there was a non political reason the govt decided not to join the EU Procurement process please enlighten me why they did not make it clear and instead made up a story about an email going missing?

As for the Civil Servant he has already had a brilliant career, has received a RVO knighthood and is considered one of if not the most senior and best civil servant we have

By a bit of pressure read he was ordered and forced to do it if he wanted to keep is job. Analysis of his letter suggests he has worded it very carefully so when the day of judgement comes for this crisis rather than having to play the patsy and fall guy for this govt he will be in a position to help the truth come out

Its great how you have no problem with Ministers lying and pressuring civil servants to lie but save all your condemnation for the civil servant being hung out to dry by the govt

So questions for you

• Based on my summary of the EU Procurement Process how could it have disadvantaged us in any way?

• If the decision not to join was not political why did the govt lie and blame a communication error?

• Why would a Senior Civil servant make such a basic error in a committee hearing to answer yes when he meant no?

• If he was lying why are the govt not asking for his resignation and prosecuting him?

• If he wasn't lying why did the govt make him retract his statement?

[ChorltonCharlie]

The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe. It’s the 5th biggest employer in the world. It is a behemoth of an organisation that suffers from an extreme lack of funding across the board that we get incredible value for money from. When people simplify it as management being a problem, they probably don’t understand in any way how complex the NHS is and what ‘management’ actually do.

In January 2020 there were 1.2 million people working in hospitals and CCGs in England. Senior Managers make up just 1% of that where as doctors make up 10%, and overall clinical staff make up 52%. In the grand scheme of things, do people really think once clinical people are left to do clinical work that for such a complex employer that 1% of people relatively well paid is high?

2% of staff are middle managers. Nothing fancy, they’re probably information analysts, accountants in training and that kind of thing. My wife is one of these and she’s part of a really important non-clinical team who make a huge difference on health outcomes by being there. Most of these middle managers start off by being paid below the national average, so whilst not a bad job we’re hardly talking about people who are rolling in it.

When people walk around a hospital and question what everyone does, do they stop to think about the size of that hospital and compare it to somewhere they’ve worked? Who are all these people? Who pays them, who does the accounts, who cleans up those vast buildings? Who’s auditing the clinicians (usually themselves but they need support on that), who’s analysing data to look for trends that will improve patient care? Who’s pushing the patients around on beds and in wheelchairs? Who does maintenance and who does security? Who makes sure your medical records move around the trust and are then when you turn up for your appointment? I could go on and on, but there’s so many things that happen behind the scenes that are essential cogs.

Anyone who’s worked in the NHS for any length of time will know the problems it faces. Of course money leaks out where it shouldn’t, but it’s an employer of around 1.5 million people. There’s bound to be things that aren’t seamless. We all know that poor performance in the public sector is so hard to manage and is a frustration for many of us. Believe me though when I say that the majority are doing all they can to improve the system and are committed to doing all they can to deliver quality patient care. Whether they’re a nurse, doctor, support staff or manager, the vast majority really do want that. When people single out management and administrative task like they’re a drain, it’s really unfair. They’re an emotive easy target, but the reality is completely different.

[IanMcL]

Just so you alm don't think I am perpetually criticising what's going on...

I very much approve of the way the vaccination is being tested.
Well done the scientists.

[Paul Waine]

He's an extremely well respected lawyer and journalist who writes for the FT and writes his own law and policy blog (a popular and widely read blog). He clearly gives a detailed analysis of the wording of McDonalds letter using his vast knowledge and experience around legal and political documents as produced by civil servants

You can disagree with the analysis but to actually claim the article does not contain any detailed analysis is just plain bizarre.

I have read a lot of opinions from both sides of the argument and not a single person has questioned the committee or its questions or have raised the notion of McDonald having fun as being remotely noteworthy.

Who are you and what do you do that makes your unique take on things credible and more insightful than the professional and expert people who work in and around this area?

At this stage no one can be 100% sure what happened so you are entitled to have your own opinion but out of the vast amount of opinions and supporting logic Ive read yours seems incredibly weak and one I'll choose to ignore.

Thanks for the input though cos all serious discussion is a good and positive thing

Hi DA, not forgotten you.

OK, I now know who David Allen Green is, his qualifications and the work he does. Good qualifications, Oxford and Birmingham academic background, and professionally qualified as both barrister and solicitor. Baker McKenzie and Herbert Smith are good law firms. I've not heard the name Preiskel & Co before. Given what he's done, the awards he's been given and writing columns for several major media outlets, plus his legal work, I get why he is blogging - and where he's coming from with the blog you linked.

My "quibble" would be that he didn't explore the issue that the MP asked "was it political?" and that's what led to McDonald's response "it was political." I'd contend - and I'd be happy to share a drink with Green to debate - that, given his "textual analysis" of McDonald's letter he was remiss in not exploring the origin of "it was political." I'd also suggest that, while considering that there was more than one hand in writing the letter, that given the subject of the letter, this would be perfectly normal. Given what McDonald had said at the select committee, we'd all be surprised if he'd not consulted with a number of people while drafting his "letter of clarification."

So, my comment re "detailed analysis" is that (a) I was expecting we would learn something new and (b) that Green's analysis missed out some key areas in his choice of examination. Given Green's background, it would be no surprise if he wrote his blog to argue a particular point, rather than to "shine a light" and discover the truth of the situation.

You ask "who are you and what do you do...?" Simple answer is I'm who I say I am - and a Burnley fan. I retired at the end of last month. I qualified as an accountant - more than 40 years ago - rather than a lawyer. I spent an important part of my career working with and frequently negotiating commercial contracts with people with similar qualifications to Green. I've mentioned a few times on this mb that most of my career was in oil/energy/commodities sector. Oh, and, yes, I've had some experience with civil servants during my career.

So, there you have it, DA. I claim "nothing special" for my views and opinions. How/why could I/should I? But, I do claim the right to read and consider what people have written, whether Green, or anyone else, and share my own observations.

[Paul Waine]

Do your own research and back up your own foolish statements. Here is a summary I have already posted about the merits of the EU Procurement Process

1. Health is normally an MS competence, but in global (ie cross-border) health threats the EU can have an "assistance" role which MS's can voluntarily use.
The JPA is intended to protect small purchasers of vaccines, drugs, ppe from being disadvantaged during a shortage.

Overall, the UK and the NHS in theory have huge purchasing power; shouldn't need to buddy up with small countries to buy PPE.

Unfortunately, the Tories devolved purchasing to individual NHS trusts, who are now fighting for PPE supplies like rats in a sack.

So not only did the Tory NHS reforms fragment and diminish the purchasing power of the NHS, the ideological decision in 2020 to stay out of the EU JPA shut down a solution to the their reforms had caused.

2. Advantages / disadvantages.
Advantages: It lets a load of small purchasers club together to get the same purchasing power as one big buyer; lower cost, higher priority for suppliers, reduces need for hoarding.
Disadvantages: It has "European" in the title.

3. Why did UK not take part? See "disadvantages" in previous tweet.

4. Is it working?
The first invitation to tender 28th Feb, failed due to lack of supplier interest.
The 2nd one 15th March has secured £1.5Bn of PPE which will start delivery in the next few days.

And just to add participating is cost free, in the sense that it does not conflict with MS actions so we could have done everything we have been doing but had the added benefit of being part of the group

Now if there was a non political reason the govt decided not to join the EU Procurement process please enlighten me why they did not make it clear and instead made up a story about an email going missing?

As for the Civil Servant he has already had a brilliant career, has received a RVO knighthood and is considered one of if not the most senior and best civil servant we have

By a bit of pressure read he was ordered and forced to do it if he wanted to keep is job. Analysis of his letter suggests he has worded it very carefully so when the day of judgement comes for this crisis rather than having to play the patsy and fall guy for this govt he will be in a position to help the truth come out

Its great how you have no problem with Ministers lying and pressuring civil servants to lie but save all your condemnation for the civil servant being hung out to dry by the govt

So questions for you

• Based on my summary of the EU Procurement Process how could it have disadvantaged us in any way?

• If the decision not to join was not political why did the govt lie and blame a communication error?

• Why would a Senior Civil servant make such a basic error in a committee hearing to answer yes when he meant no?

• If he was lying why are the govt not asking for his resignation and prosecuting him?

• If he wasn't lying why did the govt make him retract his statement?

Hi DA, where does NHS Procurement fit in?

Have you noticed that today the media are reporting that EU joint procurement of PPE has not yet delivered any PPE to the countries that chose to participate in joint procurement. I don't know if these reports are true, I'd hope that this isn't the case.

[Devils_Advocate]

Hi DA, not forgotten you.

OK, I now know who David Allen Green is, his qualifications and the work he does. Good qualifications, Oxford and Birmingham academic background, and professionally qualified as both barrister and solicitor. Baker McKenzie and Herbert Smith are good law firms. I've not heard the name Preiskel & Co before. Given what he's done, the awards he's been given and writing columns for several major media outlets, plus his legal work, I get why he is blogging - and where he's coming from with the blog you linked.

My "quibble" would be that he didn't explore the issue that the MP asked "was it political?" and that's what led to McDonald's response "it was political." I'd contend - and I'd be happy to share a drink with Green to debate - that, given his "textual analysis" of McDonald's letter he was remiss in not exploring the origin of "it was political." I'd also suggest that, while considering that there was more than one hand in writing the letter, that given the subject of the letter, this would be perfectly normal. Given what McDonald had said at the select committee, we'd all be surprised if he'd not consulted with a number of people while drafting his "letter of clarification."

So, my comment re "detailed analysis" is that (a) I was expecting we would learn something new and (b) that Green's analysis missed out some key areas in his choice of examination. Given Green's background, it would be no surprise if he wrote his blog to argue a particular point, rather than to "shine a light" and discover the truth of the situation.

You ask "who are you and what do you do...?" Simple answer is I'm who I say I am - and a Burnley fan. I retired at the end of last month. I qualified as an accountant - more than 40 years ago - rather than a lawyer. I spent an important part of my career working with and frequently negotiating commercial contracts with people with similar qualifications to Green. I've mentioned a few times on this mb that most of my career was in oil/energy/commodities sector. Oh, and, yes, I've had some experience with civil servants during my career.

So, there you have it, DA. I claim "nothing special" for my views and opinions. How/why could I/should I? But, I do claim the right to read and consider what people have written, whether Green, or anyone else, and share my own observations.

Like I said I appreciate your response and take it positively. I understand your position and still see it as pretty weak but then Im happy to amicably disagree with you here

Just one question when he was asked about what the policy was or whether it was a political decision why would such an experienced and talented Civil Servant say it was a political decision if it was not?

I am positive he absolutely understands what is meant by a political decision and quite clearly he stated thats what it was. Your argument that he was led to this answer just seems so weak and really grasping at straws

Out of interest why do you think we did not take up the invitation to join the EU Procurement schemes?

[Paul Waine]

Like I said I appreciate your response and take it positively. I understand your position and still see it as pretty weak but then Im happy to amicably disagree with you here

Just one question when he was asked about what the policy was or whether it was a political decision why would such an experienced and talented Civil Servant say it was a political decision if it was not?

I am positive he absolutely understands what is meant by a political decision and quite clearly he stated thats what it was. Your argument that he was led to this answer just seems so weak and really grasping at straws

Out of interest why do you think we did not take up the invitation to join the EU Procurement schemes?

No worries, DA.

So, if you are asked "was it A or was it B" you will provide either A or B as your answer. From what I've seen of McDonald's selected committee appearance, this is what happened. If he'd been asked the question in a different way, perhaps he'd have given a different answer.

Why did we not participate? I've no idea. Someone might have judged that it wasn't in either EU's or UK's interest that we participated. (I wonder how long the EU spent on agreeing a joint specification for the tender(s)? Do we know if there were existing EU standards for PPE, or was this in "national competency, just like the organisation of health services in each nation)? It may simply be that "someone dropped the ball." I don't think it matters a great deal. Whether the UK had gone with EU or gone separately, we'd still have a massive demand for PPE.

[Devils_Advocate]

No worries, DA.

So, if you are asked "was it A or was it B" you will provide either A or B as your answer. From what I've seen of McDonald's selected committee appearance, this is what happened. If he'd been asked the question in a different way, perhaps he'd have given a different answer.

Why did we not participate? I've no idea. Someone might have judged that it wasn't in either EU's or UK's interest that we participated. (I wonder how long the EU spent on agreeing a joint specification for the tender(s)? Do we know if there were existing EU standards for PPE, or was this in "national competency, just like the organisation of health services in each nation)? It may simply be that "someone dropped the ball." I don't think it matters a great deal. Whether the UK had gone with EU or gone separately, we'd still have a massive demand for PPE.

Hi Paul, I dont agree with your A and B analogy. The way I read the two bits you highlighted is that Simon McDonald was more smiling uneasily as he could see they were trying to pin him down to a definitive answer where he could either lie or completely drop his govt in it. He was trying to stick with a vague line of all I know is we have left the EU

They pinned him down to admit that the Ministers were informed by Brussels and knew about the invite to the EU Procurement process. Once that is established the ministers have two options. One is to make a policy decision on the schemes merits and for this Simon McDonald would be involved because that is his job. He is there like the science experts to know the detail and lay it out for the ministers and advise them on a decision

The other option was not to look at the policy or the advice but to take a simple political decision to just not join. For this option there was no need for Simon McDonald.

The questioner knew this, SM knew this and seemingly every other person who works and specialises in these areas knows this and thats why the A or B option is perfectly logical and no one but you have raised it as an issue

If there was an option C then SM is intelligent, skilled, experienced and competent enough to give that answer instead

The second part of the discussion which you say doesn't really matter absolutely does and is the real story (the SM retraction letter is just an interesting sub plot)

The whole issue is about the govt lying and the reason for those lies so lets have a quick look

When the story first broke and the govt were not thinking Covid was as serious as it turned out to be downing street sources were advising off the record they did not want to partner up with the EU because of its impact it might have on the Brexit transition and negotiations

Next there is a clip of Matt Hancock confirming the govt have been made aware of the scheme

Then as the situation around PPE goes off in the UK suddenly the govt starts getting difficult questions about putting ideology over peoples well being. At this stage they claim they never got the invite to the scheme because it was sent to a wrong email address (contradicting Matt Hancocks earlier admission)

I think there is another clip then of Gove who has a different version of events but cant remember so will park that

Then at about 4pm SM updates the committee that Ministers were aware of the scheme whilst an hour later unaware in his press briefing Hancock reiterates it was a communication issue. When told about SM statement he says he cant comment because he is unaware

Then a few hours scrambling in the background and a letter appears from SM not stating he lied or was misled by the A B question but that he got mixed up and it was just the Civil Servants got briefed by the EU and noone told the ministers. So not an email gone astray but yet a new excuse

The next day Brussels confirmed all the sessions where the scheme had been discussed and that the UK were present and involved in these sessions and Ministers were definitely aware

So how the hell do you marry up all those contradictions and excuses to provide a logical, coherent and non contradictory story that shows the govt did not lie

Had they decided politically not to join and been upfront about it or had they made a policy decision it was not in our interest and made clear the reasons then there was a genuine discussion to have. I dont think either of those positions hold water but the govt would not have lied and the lack of speed at which the procurement process is moving forward this would have disappeared from the news as quickly as it came

The fact the govt have lied on this issue casts doubt on all the other dodgy stuff they are being accused of and really reduces trust in our govt when it is needed the most

[TVC15]

When the government can’t even get its own made up version of events straight it’s blatantly obvious that they have found out.
It’s an absolute farce that SM has been asked to send this letter. Are they going to ask Brussels to send a letter too saying they were also mistaken ?
As for the email getting sent to the wrong address that’s an absolute joke too. It wasn’t an invite to a barbecue. Even in the highly unlikely event it went to the wrong address - is that really the only method of the government being informed on an issue like this ?
The letter in my view has probably been done to prevent some kind of future legal action.
The government knows it has lied but also knows it will be all blown over within hours in this current climate.

[IanMcL]

 'think there is another clip then of Gove who has a different version of events'

Nothing new there then.

Lying deceitful scrotes run the country!

[TVC15]

 'think there is another clip then of Gove who has a different version of events'

Nothing new there then.

Lying deceitful scrotes run the country!

Based on his track record it was probably Gove who broke the story in the first place. He then probably got his version of events wrong deliberately. The little rat never stops plotting.

[IanMcL]

Based on his track record it was probably Gove who broke the story in the first place. He then probably got his version of events wrong deliberately. The little rat never stops plotting.

That's why we call rats vermin.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul, I dont agree with your A and B analogy. The way I read the two bits you highlighted is that Simon McDonald was more smiling uneasily as he could see they were trying to pin him down to a definitive answer where he could either lie or completely drop his govt in it. He was trying to stick with a vague line of all I know is we have left the EU

The other option was not to look at the policy or the advice but to take a simple political decision to just not join. For this option there was no need for Simon McDonald.

The questioner knew this, SM knew this and seemingly every other person who works and specialises in these areas knows this and thats why the A or B option is perfectly logical and no one but you have raised it as an issue

If there was an option C then SM is intelligent, skilled, experienced and competent enough to give that answer instead

The second part of the discussion which you say doesn't really matter absolutely does and is the real story (the SM retraction letter is just an interesting sub plot)

The whole issue is about the govt lying and the reason for those lies so lets have a quick look

Hi DA, I've edited your quote, above, just to save a little space on the thread. I think you've written well. Thanks for presenting your arguments in sociable way that you have. It is making this board better and certainly encourages me to respond. (I hope we aren't boring too many other posters)!

Do you know Simon McDonald well? I don't. I couldn't make a judgement about the expressions on his face. You say he was "smiling uneasily..." I can't argue otherwise, I don't know him.

"The second part" is why the UK didn't participate. I'm not concerned, it's in the past. What we do know is that the UK didn't participate then - though is participating (or will in future) with later activities. As the latest news we've heard earlier this week is that EU joint procurement has yet to take delivery of any PPE, I can't see what the UK would have gained by participating. (France and Spain are among EU countries reporting shortage of PPE, it's not just the UK).

OK. I get it that you want proof that the UK gov't has lied. Why? I've always taken the view that there will be many occasions when governments, whether it is UK gov't or gov'ts in other countries, will present "the truth" to their electorate (if they have an electorate/are a democracy) that they choose to present. Similarly, opposition parties tend towards claiming the opposite, that they would be a better government and in doing this are presenting "their own truth." I'm more interested in actions and the results of those actions. That's what matters a lot more than the "spin" that different sides put on things.

Stay safe. Keep well.

[Devils_Advocate]

Hi DA, I've edited your quote, above, just to save a little space on the thread. I think you've written well. Thanks for presenting your arguments in sociable way that you have. It is making this board better and certainly encourages me to respond. (I hope we aren't boring too many other posters)!

Do you know Simon McDonald well? I don't. I couldn't make a judgement about the expressions on his face. You say he was "smiling uneasily..." I can't argue otherwise, I don't know him.

"The second part" is why the UK didn't participate. I'm not concerned, it's in the past. What we do know is that the UK didn't participate then - though is participating (or will in future) with later activities. As the latest news we've heard earlier this week is that EU joint procurement has yet to take delivery of any PPE, I can't see what the UK would have gained by participating. (France and Spain are among EU countries reporting shortage of PPE, it's not just the UK).

OK. I get it that you want proof that the UK gov't has lied. Why? I've always taken the view that there will be many occasions when governments, whether it is UK gov't or gov'ts in other countries, will present "the truth" to their electorate (if they have an electorate/are a democracy) that they choose to present. Similarly, opposition parties tend towards claiming the opposite, that they would be a better government and in doing this are presenting "their own truth." I'm more interested in actions and the results of those actions. That's what matters a lot more than the "spin" that different sides put on things.

Stay safe. Keep well.

I think we've just about run its coarse with this so I'll finish with a few brief (I hope) comments and leave it there and feel free to add any final comments as im not trying just to have the last word.

I dont know Simon but you brought up his demeanor as part of you initial argument and thats the only reason I gave my take on it. It wasn't really that important to me

The part about UK not participating is not really any part of my argument. That is a separate conversation about why or why not we should have joined and maybe down the line we can hammer out that one as well but ive made quite a few long posts about that already so happy to leave that one alone for now

The main bit was really about the honesty and integrity of the govt. If we take your view that govts choose at times how to present the truth (or not as the case may be) then in the crisis we are in why should we trust them when they tell us that they have followed Scientific advice or all the other rebuttals they have done recently? I get your wider point when in relation to normal everyday politics but this is a crisis and are issues where trust and honesty is essential

Anyway not as brief as I intended but my final thoughts. Im sure you'll disagree with some of my final thoughts and want to summarise a few bits of your own but thats me done.

[Paul Waine]

I think we've just about run its coarse with this so I'll finish with a few brief (I hope) comments and leave it there and feel free to add any final comments as im not trying just to have the last word.

I dont know Simon but you brought up his demeanor as part of you initial argument and thats the only reason I gave my take on it. It wasn't really that important to me

The part about UK not participating is not really any part of my argument. That is a separate conversation about why or why not we should have joined and maybe down the line we can hammer out that one as well but ive made quite a few long posts about that already so happy to leave that one alone for now

The main bit was really about the honesty and integrity of the govt. If we take your view that govts choose at times how to present the truth (or not as the case may be) then in the crisis we are in why should we trust them when they tell us that they have followed Scientific advice or all the other rebuttals they have done recently? I get your wider point when in relation to normal everyday politics but this is a crisis and are issues where trust and honesty is essential

Anyway not as brief as I intended but my final thoughts. Im sure you'll disagree with some of my final thoughts and want to summarise a few bits of your own but thats me done.

Thank you. I'm equally not aiming for the final word. I thought I'd share my views on the "honesty and integrity of the gov't" in the current pandemic - and what we are told and hear, including from elsewhere, on the scientific advice. We both know that "the first casualty of war is truth" and a lot of this is hiding the truth from your own side, particularly when the "facts" may be difficult and dishearten or dismay and work against achieving the ultimate outcome everyone desires.

So, I recognise that we are all human and all have our individual behaviours. Those include wanting the gov't to take a certain decision faster than it was taken, or modifying it a little, or not having to do it now, or wishing it was done 2 or 3 days/weeks even years earlier. But, amongst all our different behaviours, there are things that we all need to do now. So, simple messages work for me: Stay home, Protect NHS, Save lives, because everyone can understand a simple message and there is - and the country has demonstrated this - a high probability that the vast majority will comply. Yes, we can all consider the nuances and we can all cavil when we feel something has gone wrong, but we can't undo what has already been done. All we can do is work toward the goal we all desire... or we can create frictions and maybe, directly or indirectly, be one of the reasons why there are more casualties along the way.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yet another new news story questioning the govt's honesty and integrity. This one questions the independence from political bias of the SAGE group providing scientific advice to the govt.

Also raises questions on why the govt are so secretive about the group

Expect this to develop more over the next few days and will be interested to see the different positions we see taken on this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... r-covid-19

[Paul Waine]

Interesting Guardian link, DA.

This bit is particularly interesting to read:

Covid-19: help us investigate
The Guardian is investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic. We want to learn more about recent decisions taken at the heart of government. If you’re a whistleblower or source and with new information, you can email covid19.investigations@theguardian.com, or (using a non-work phone) use Signal or WhatsApp to message (UK) +44 7584 640566. (The number does not take calls.) For the most secure communications, use SecureDrop. For general advice on confidentially contacting the Guardian, see our guide.

[jrgbfc]

Yet another new news story questioning the govt's honesty and integrity. This one questions the independence from political bias of the SAGE group providing scientific advice to the govt.

Also raises questions on why the govt are so secretive about the group

Expect this to develop more over the next few days and will be interested to see the different positions we see taken on this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... r-covid-19

Labour and the non Tory press need to be all over this, it absolutely stinks.

[IanMcL]

Cum mings

Says it all. As a democracy, we should be fearful of this guy.

[Spijed]

Isn't Cummings keen on eugenics?

[Paul Waine]

Isn't Cummings keen on eugenics?

It's one of the "weird thinkers," sorry "super-forecasters" that he hired and then got fired that you are thinking of.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yet another new news story questioning the govt's honesty and integrity. This one questions the independence from political bias of the SAGE group providing scientific advice to the govt.

Also raises questions on why the govt are so secretive about the group

Expect this to develop more over the next few days and will be interested to see the different positions we see taken on this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... r-covid-19

Hasn't this been dismissed by Downing street?
Should be an official rebuttal tomorrow I'd expect, it's becoming a regular occurrence now.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Hasn't this been dismissed by Downing street?
Should be an official rebuttal tomorrow I'd expect, it's becoming a regular occurrence now.

Not sure about this.
The multiple twitter account story has been denied though.
For now.

[Devils_Advocate]

Hasn't this been dismissed by Downing street?
Should be an official rebuttal tomorrow I'd expect, it's becoming a regular occurrence now.

• I dont know, has it. If it has please provide a link

• What else do you expect this govt to do and if they have I assume they have provided some evidence to dismiss it like the details of the SAGE group and their meeting notes. Again please share as Im interested to see what rebuttal the govt give

• If you have no links or details of the above why don't you let me know what you think of the evidence put forward about Cummings and Warner attending the SAGE meetings and your thoughts on how it compromises the idea that scientific investigation should be free from political input

Just putting haven't they dismissed it if you dont have any more to give is a bit of a useless post

[Spijed]

It's one of the "weird thinkers," sorry "super-forecasters" that he hired and then got fired that you are thinking of.

Yes, I remember now

[taio]

Cummings appears to be a compete ****** and it seems he has far too much control and power.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

• I dont know, has it. If it has please provide a link

• What else do you expect this govt to do and if they have I assume they have provided some evidence to dismiss it like the details of the SAGE group and their meeting notes. Again please share as Im interested to see what rebuttal the govt give

• If you have no links or details of the above why don't you let me know what you think of the evidence put forward about Cummings and Warner attending the SAGE meetings and your thoughts on how it compromises the idea that scientific investigation should be free from political input

Just putting haven't they dismissed it if you dont have any more to give is a bit of a useless post

Found it for you.

IMG_20200424_230150.jpg (301.81 KiB) Viewed 2053 times

IMG_20200424_230153.jpg (271.91 KiB) Viewed 2053 times

[Devils_Advocate]

Found it for you.

IMG_20200424_230150.jpg

IMG_20200424_230153.jpg

Just seen that on Twitter. So just a bland statement with nothing to back it up yet and an (Trump like) attack on the media.

So they have admitted both of them joined SAGE meetings and were able to influence it which in itself sounds problematic. The fact the govt have not disclosed anything about these SAGE meetings discredits their basic rebuttal

Lets hope the govt are prepared to share the minutes to these meetings as it is only this transparency that can give credibility to the govt response

As it stands currently the Gaurdian story looks far more credible and accurate than the govts feeble defense but we will see what tomorrow brings

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Just seen that on Twitter. So just a bland statement with nothing to back it up yet and an (Trump like) attack on the media.

So they have admitted both of them joined SAGE meetings and were able to influence it which in itself sounds problematic. The fact the govt have not disclosed anything about these SAGE meetings discredits their basic rebuttal

Lets hope the govt are prepared to share the minutes to these meetings as it is only this transparency that can give credibility to the govt response

As it stands currently the Gaurdian story looks far more credible and accurate than the govts feeble defense but we will see what tomorrow brings

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 23776.html

At present I'd say that the guardian is far from credible, just like most of the news outlets during this pandemic.

None of them inspire much confidence at doing their job.
The daily briefings are cringeworthy when it comes to questions from the journalists and several have made themselves look really stupid.