Matt Hancock not only a donkey but sexist and deeply unpleasant

[Theduchessstill]

So following on from the thread last week about his ''donkiness/ineptitude' he gives us this appalling response to Dr Rosena Allin-Kahn today:

twitter.com/DrRosena/status/1257644583158251522

What a disgusting way to speak to someone who is actually working as a Dr in A & E during this crisis. Nasty, lacking in empathy, just wrong.Just when you think these people can't sink any lower they do just that.

Curious She 'opposed' or criticised the ineffective testing 'strategy' - namely that community testing was scrapped, they were slow to roll out mass testing and the figures are being manipulated (to create the impression targets have been met when they haven't been - she didn't spell that out but interested people will know what she's referring to). She then asks if he can commit to the 100 000 tests per day being done from now on. She then linked that to the death rate and invited him to make the link too. I' m not sure why you needed me to type that out for you .

No I don't agree with the person being expelled/suspended for delivering food parcels with a Tory, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this post. I don't agree with point scoring for the sake of it, but it's not what Kahn was doing and I certainly believe that it is absolutely imperative that this awful shambolic government is held to accout at this time. They must be pissing themselves laughing (not Hancock - much as I dislike him I do agree that he seems close to the edge, which doesn't excuse his behaviour) that they can show day after day that they just don't care about the majority of people in the country and many will lap it up or say it's not the time to criticise!

1forsorrow
that is a cheap shot and you should be ashamed

To be fair - the first posting of your anecdote might be the 'cheap shot' and not based on fact at all.

Nope! I can't work out how to reply to that as a whole. I doubt anyone is "pissing themselves laughing" and, to be frank, can't really empathise with that level of anger.

There will be very real errors found, real actions that caused increased deaths. But it won't benefit anyone if they come wrapped up in point scoring. It should come wrapped up in a more cooperative manner, as no party stands outside this.

We deserve better politicians on all sides (as in seem to have been saying here for about a decade). This pandemic should have been the impetus for that. But not has not been, as per my example... which is why I included it!

Oh yes Clavinova I might have made it up just for the fun of it, you on the other hand tried to blame some very conscientious hard working carers for the mistakes of our govt. I know you are prepared to tie yourself in knots to excuse them anything and everything.

You might not know anything about the home I am referring to but you know perfectly well that the homes for the elderly have been badly let down, as have the staff who work in them.

Must admit, having read the outrage before seeing the footage I assumed it was a case of her stepping over boundaries in an emotional display in the HoC (she is a doctor so I assume she will have had some fairly close ties to lots of cases / hospitals) and that he was being a bit of a prick but that she did basically deserve it.

As it was, she was being perfectly reasonable and he came out with...That. I sat watching the video waiting for an "outburst" for him to justify the response but nothing.

I'm guessing he is probably exhausted and completely done in from having to manage the Covid response and the flak he has (justifiably) been getting for doing such a god-awful job, and that is what led to a very ill-judged comment.

Hope he gives a fulsome and humble apology to her, but won't hold my breath.

Nope! I can't work out how to reply to that as a whole.

Er...ok?

But presumably you can see that she did have a point to make and wasn't just making an 'emotive' comment apropos of nothing?

I don't know what you mean really by 'better politicians'. Dr Kahn, for example, has gone back to front line medicine to support the NHS, which shows her commitment. Or has she just done that to 'score points'? Then we have Johnson et al who...well, I can't be bothered, but surely the most committed Tory must have some reservations about the way they've been handling it and I think you said you resigned your membership (of Labour?) a few years ago? And yet now you're doing the 'just as bad as each other' thing? In these circumstances? Odd.

Out of interest, what kind of comments and questions would you find it acceptable for opposition MPs to raise at this time?

To me it sounded like Hancock was taking a leaf out of Trump's book for dealing with challenge, especially from a woman

I do think that her tone was a bit off. What if he'd replied 'When a patient dies at the Honourable Member's hands, does she go home and wonder if there is something she could have done better? Is she not constantly struck with worry about whether there was something she missed? Or does she grab a beer and not think twice about it?'.

Because that's basically the tone of her original question. Of course he's tormented. Of course he can't acknowledge it, because the politics demand it. She struck a low blow there IMHO.

1forsorrow
I know you are prepared to tie yourself in knots to excuse them anything and everything.

In your first post you say;
"Yes you're right he spread the infection through the home"

Your follow up post says;
"They managed to keep the infection to a handful of residents"

the staff moved in 2 months ago to protect the residents, all visits stopped, even the GP does his appointments by internet/ One resident was in hospital for something unconnected to Covid, he contracted Covid in hospital and was discharged after a test but before they got the result saying he had covid.

I'm not sure the care home should be discussing the health of one of its residents unrelated to you, coronavirus or not.

Did your elderly relative catch the virus? No mention of that on this thread...

It wasn't that she was a woman it was the emotionally volatile language she used.

That makes women seem irrational and unreasonable.. It's not an American courtroom drama and her question should have been professional and factual

Personal attacks aren't helpful
But he personally attacked her by telling her to watch her tone. Which was patronising to say the least.
I don't deny he is under a lot of pressure but so is she. She is working on the front line. She was relying the concerns of her colleagues. There was nothing wrong with her tone. The opposition has a right to ask questions and hold the Government to account. In fact that is their job.
And she has more right than many others to say what it is like working in A&E because she is doing it.

Mmm!

To go to the end of that in an attempt to move on...

Specifically... that would be the key.

Specific questions about specific things.

Things that could be improved NOW rather than requiring a TARDIS. Too often opposition speakers have started with "back in February" or similar

Anything and everything that has been raised in a positive manner, look for solutions rather than 'invite apologies', to lay blame. That can come later, once the threat has lessened. We need action now, debate if action, any and all actions. Not rehashing what was.

As I said, I had imagined we might see something like an informal coalition, more so at grassroots (again that's why the example I gave annoyed me so much).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this has been handled well. But threads that are uncritical or one party whilst ignoring the behaviour of another really annoy me. As here I end up defending a position I don't wholly hold just because I attempted to give "the other side".

Specific questions about specific things. Things that could be improved NOW rather than requiring a TARDIS

Oh, so like her asking if he will guarantee that 100 000 tests a day will be done from now on?

1forsorrow
I suggest you keep your judgments to things you know something about.

I could ask an expert -

Dr Allin-Khan on care homes;

"I know from my family’s personal experience that just because care homes have a CQC rating of good does not mean that there are not dangerous and serious issues lurking beneath the surface that impact patient safety and care."

No, not like that. It is effectively quibbling. They have that number if daily tests available. They are still working on uptake. It's too much of a blunt instrument and adds bugger all on the topic. There are better questions to ask.on that topic

Like lab capacity for each type of test.

Availability of each kind of test.

Further ways to get tests where they are needed.

Which type of tests are being made available to the NHS as a priority. Has that changed, will it change so that they can know more about the status of NHS staff?

Which areas are still not well covered? Is there a time scale for more test centres?

Have they managed to source more of the needed re agents, to speed up results?

And on and on...

he use of words that as another poster has said, lacked gravitas.

How the hell can talking about breaking the news of deaths "lack gravitas"?

Some people here seem to have the most extraordinary interpretation of the normal meaning of the English language.

Too often opposition speakers have started with "back in February" or similar

That's quite ironic in the context of the opposition to a government that spent at least a decade blaming its economic failures on the Labour government.

??????

I'm sorry. Are you still continuing under the misapprehension that I am a Tory voter?

That and the side stepping of the whole content of a post makes any discussion really difficult.

To me that is highly emotive language ("torn apart in grief" - why not just "cost lives"?)

Are you suggesting that it is factually untrue that that is what has happened to far too many families? Or are you saying that an MP should seek to whitewash or downgrade uncomfortable facts like that?

If that is the appropriate approach to speaking in Parliament, I hate to think what you contend Churchill's speeches should have been like. None of this emotive "We will fight them on the beaches" or "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" rubbish: the appropriate tone should obviously have been "We will continue to oppose the enemy" and "The RAF did really quite well."

*If that is the appropriate approach to speaking in Parliament, I hate to think what you contend Churchill's speeches should have been like. None of this emotive "We will fight them on the beaches"...

Who is the enemy though? Matt Hancock finished with;

"I pay tribute, too, to the work of NHS and social care staff on the frontline; nothing should take away from the team spirit with which we approach this."

nothing should take away from the team spirit with which we approach this.

Yes, those are good questions Curious. What would be really good would be if the government volunteered some of that information themselves at the daily briefings instead of just using them to parrot slogans. And to be fair, you mention harking back to February but it is decisions taken then that we are seeing a consequence of now and, crucially, the government has not admitted to any mistakes or been straight about what actually happened when, for instance, ventilator schemes were not joined, PPE was not ordered, testing capacity ran out. They have obfuscated instead and that makes it hard to move on and trust that lessons have been learnt and we are now in good hands. If they did a Macron and apologised for initial mistakes that would be great and would perhaps raise confidence in them.

How the hell can talking about breaking the news of deaths "lack gravitas"? Some people here seem to have the most extraordinary interpretation of the normal meaning of the English language.

Agreed, and when Johnson's level of gravitas is at 'err, err, bluster, fantastic tests, fabulous this blah blah,' it absolutely takes the piss.

Matt Hancock finished with;"I pay tribute, too, to the work of NHS and social care staff on the frontline; nothing should take away from the team spirit with which we approach this."*

Weasel words par excellence. What a sly, manipulative specimen he is.

That still require a TARDIS though. We know now the consequences of the actions taken in February... we can't change them, only learn from them.

And I don't want or need an apology to make any of this better. I want a cadre of politicians who can appropriately set aside party politics in times of crisis to ensure our best survival. They can go back to nit picking and back stabbing later.

As in

Given we can now see that X led to Y what changes to policy have been made

Rather than

Wouldn't you like to apologise for the unecessary deaths that have arisen due to X and are doing X++