Interesting point about how long the government could enforce lock down-style restrictions.
I do think there could be a risk from delinquency.
My hesitation with softly softly is that it concedes lives in the hope of saving lives later on.
I'd prefer sustained stringent methods here and now, with community onside to enforce it as well as police.
The reason to include other parties in a 'unity' approach is it widens the mainstream support and reduces law-breakers to a small number on the margin.
I couldn't care less about the political differences between Conservative and Labour at the moment. This crisis is beyond politics.
The important thing to my mind is 'working together' against a common enemy.
The enemy isn't socialism because the measures the present government brought in last week are the most socialist measures ever taken in this country.
With regard to enforcement, it is a very sad indictment of our society if people just don't care if they spread death to others, and at that point I'm afraid enforcement should be as relentless as it has to be. Policy shouldn't be governed by a fear of delinquents running amok, as if our country is like a weak school teacher who can't keep control of the classroom.
Policy needs to be driven by actual death statistics if we do or don't lock down, and then a clarity that it WILL be enforced, whatever it takes.
You say people couldn't be forced to limit their actions for more than 3 or 4 weeks.
Why not? Are we really that pathetic? Why not 3 months, and another 3 months later in the year if the disease kicks back a second time?
In wartime, you need to think Machiavelli. You wage war to win, no matter how ruthless you have to be. But not ruthless about letting people die. Ruthless against little shits if they think they can just do what they want, because they lack any care for others.
These people out there right now, ignoring the "advice": they are laughing in the face of health workers, and the community at large. It's like a few kids setting fire to a classroom, and putting other people in danger, and the teacher says I "advise" you not to do that.
If we factor in other people's unreality, then I think we may be surrendering the fight for a significant number of people's lives. It's as obvious as can be, that the more people stay in doors, the fewer people will spread it to first 2 others, then to a further 2 others, and then the 4 spreading it to 8 others etc.
So I'm afraid I think the measures taken so far are too soft... and I'm a social liberal in my views... that includes the socially liberal idea of protecting people's lives.
This situation is an exceptional emergency, and ruthlessness is essential. It always is in war. Not, in this case ruthlessness for its own sake: ruthlessness out of compassion.
I don't care if the Conservative Party has a large majority. It's simply stupid politics to isolate all your decisions, so you end up taking all the inevitable blame yourself further down the line. If I was Boris, I would get as many political rivals on board as possible, so that THEY all get indicted too, where failures occur. And from the point of view of the Nation itself, it is far better if we see unity in the political class over this shared crisis. You need statesmanship.
All politicians are servants of the Crown, and in the end, the Crown is guardian of ONE nation. This is a time where we need to be one nation.
Just my views, and your own views are interesting - thanks for the discourse.
I do think there could be a risk from delinquency.
My hesitation with softly softly is that it concedes lives in the hope of saving lives later on.
I'd prefer sustained stringent methods here and now, with community onside to enforce it as well as police.
The reason to include other parties in a 'unity' approach is it widens the mainstream support and reduces law-breakers to a small number on the margin.
I couldn't care less about the political differences between Conservative and Labour at the moment. This crisis is beyond politics.
The important thing to my mind is 'working together' against a common enemy.
The enemy isn't socialism because the measures the present government brought in last week are the most socialist measures ever taken in this country.
With regard to enforcement, it is a very sad indictment of our society if people just don't care if they spread death to others, and at that point I'm afraid enforcement should be as relentless as it has to be. Policy shouldn't be governed by a fear of delinquents running amok, as if our country is like a weak school teacher who can't keep control of the classroom.
Policy needs to be driven by actual death statistics if we do or don't lock down, and then a clarity that it WILL be enforced, whatever it takes.
You say people couldn't be forced to limit their actions for more than 3 or 4 weeks.
Why not? Are we really that pathetic? Why not 3 months, and another 3 months later in the year if the disease kicks back a second time?
In wartime, you need to think Machiavelli. You wage war to win, no matter how ruthless you have to be. But not ruthless about letting people die. Ruthless against little shits if they think they can just do what they want, because they lack any care for others.
These people out there right now, ignoring the "advice": they are laughing in the face of health workers, and the community at large. It's like a few kids setting fire to a classroom, and putting other people in danger, and the teacher says I "advise" you not to do that.
If we factor in other people's unreality, then I think we may be surrendering the fight for a significant number of people's lives. It's as obvious as can be, that the more people stay in doors, the fewer people will spread it to first 2 others, then to a further 2 others, and then the 4 spreading it to 8 others etc.
So I'm afraid I think the measures taken so far are too soft... and I'm a social liberal in my views... that includes the socially liberal idea of protecting people's lives.
This situation is an exceptional emergency, and ruthlessness is essential. It always is in war. Not, in this case ruthlessness for its own sake: ruthlessness out of compassion.
I don't care if the Conservative Party has a large majority. It's simply stupid politics to isolate all your decisions, so you end up taking all the inevitable blame yourself further down the line. If I was Boris, I would get as many political rivals on board as possible, so that THEY all get indicted too, where failures occur. And from the point of view of the Nation itself, it is far better if we see unity in the political class over this shared crisis. You need statesmanship.
All politicians are servants of the Crown, and in the end, the Crown is guardian of ONE nation. This is a time where we need to be one nation.
Just my views, and your own views are interesting - thanks for the discourse.