[Politics] Dominic Cummings v H&SC and S&T select committees *Official Match Thread*

[Gwylan]

But yes, the Conservative party is in a very odd place. I often use the analogy of Jeffrey Archer who was also very popular with members. To Thatcher's credit she knew that but kept him close whilst making his actual power worthless.

Unfortunately Cameron and May weren't Thatcher who irrespective of your political views was a formidable politician.

One of the things that made Thatcher a formidable politician was that she picked her ministers on competence. Her cabinet always had a hard core of people who weren't hard core Thatcherites - early on it was Carrington, Heseltine, Pym, Prior and Walker; later it was Major, Hurd, Clarke and Chris Patten.

And if you were a Thatcherite, your views didn't matter if you were incompetent (Moore) or a transgressor (Parkinson), you were out the door. How very different from the current cabinet, where competence is almost seen as a disadvantage and where members walk a very dodgy path.

It's not a good way to govern a country.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Dominic Cummings v H&SC and S&T select committees *Official Match Thread*

Because he is liked by the members and that's about it.

The members like him because he is a winner. They are fully aware that he is a horrid **** but he is generally able to win elections in any circumstance. I do wonder how many old people his Government must needlessly kill before he loses the traditional blue rinse vote, the Daily Mail clearly wants a new Tory leader in charge of the Government for example. There could be a implosion at some point with that **** Gove always ready with knife to stab Johnson in the back.

I would also hazard a guess that many of the ‘new’ Tory voters actually ‘love’ him; exactly because he is a ****, just like them. Looking after No.1 is what he has always shamelessly done, many see this as a wonderful example of how to lead your life. With a strong shot of nationalism, a pint of anti-identity politics and a series of fake populist policies like ‘levelling up’ (40 Tory constituencies selected out of the 45 in the scheme), it really doesn’t matter how many people this ****er kills, he has your typical ‘Sun reader’ drunk on his particular brand of cheap right wing populism and they’ll always give him a majority.

 

[clapham_gull]

One of the things that made Thatcher a formidable politician was that she picked her ministers on competence. Her cabinet always had a hard core of people who weren't hard core Thatcherites - early on it was Carrington, Heseltine, Pym, Prior and Walker; later it was Major, Hurd, Clarke and Chris Patten.

And if you were a Thatcherite, your views didn't matter if you were incompetent (Moore) or a transgressor (Parkinson), you were out the door. How very different from the current cabinet, where competence is almost seen as a disadvantage and where members walk a very dodgy path.

It's not a good way to govern a country.

Yep, he's ****ed up considerably with recruitment but as you say he probably doesn't understand the Tory party at all. They are winners and I understand the most successful political party on the planet. He could have easily brought on board a number of competent individuals but they decided to purge and only employ the ideologically pure.

You could argue they are still "winners" in the face of an equally dysfunctional opposition but there is more to politics than simply winning. You need to run the country.

Unfortunately the debate is too much about comparing this administration with an alternative Labour one. For the term of a government it's irrelevant.

 

[Gwylan]

You could argue they are still "winners" in the face of an equally dysfunctional opposition but there is more to politics than simply winning.

I genuinely don't think the Tories see it that way - they think it's all about winning and literally nothing else. They've been in power for 11 years and in that time they've swung from the socially liberal, economically auster Europhile Cameron to the economically liberal, socially right-wing Brexiter Johnson with scarcely a pause.

 

[amexer]

I thought Ian Hyslop summed up Cummings situation so well on Have I Got News For You

 

[Hugo Rune]

I thought Ian Hislop summed up Cummings’ situation so well on Have I Got News For You.

Great spot.

My two favourite quotes were: ‘Of course Johnson is unfit for office, he employed Cummings’.

And ‘I believed Cummings when he was talking about others but I believed nothing when he was talking about himself’.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

It was an economic point, not a sociological one. Whilst I accept the modern critique of traditional socialism as being lacking in the nuance needed to deal with the multivarious needs of the individual, you have to accept that post Thatcherite management of a capitalist economy is equally as inadequate to this need, but as the accepted paradigm, is not subject to the same criticisms. Of course no politician can address the needs of every individual. That really goes without saying. We can make generalisations about communities though, and historical and economic indications are that the policy of repeated Conservative governments is to underfund public services, prioritise cutting taxes for the better off and were partly responsible for dismantling the industries that were at the heart of many of the working class communities of the UK.

Yes, we should be questioning why the disaster plan wasn't in place. Corporate responsibility doesn't stop at the civil servants though. Governance is not just a title, its a job. It seems like its a job that somebody hasn't been doing properly. The same organisation has been in governance positions for over a decade and yet I suspect that this organisation, the Conservative Party, will wheedle its way into blaming others and get itself re-elected... again.

I don't agree wit your view on Thatcher and don't agree at all with a view that Thatcherism was "equally as inadequate as socialism". To think that then you have never lived in London and you dont know people from places like Russia, the Ukraine, Romania who lived under socialism. All those I have known despise it and are still afraid of it today. Whilst you will also not accept the point, but the state control of the economy / lives is evil. Whether by National Socialism, the Portugese Military dictatorship (until 1984) facist Spain (until1975), the USSR or Mao's China, it's evil to its core. In fact, China moving from a totalitarian socialist dictatorship with its cultural revolutions, extreme poverty and famines to a capitalist dictatorship where nobody starves and 1.6 billion people have some personal disposable income so they can make at least some of their own choices with that money, is for the people of China, progress. Something you take for granted because you live in the UK.

You also won't immediately agree with this but Thatcher's importance, like pretty much all leaders in a free economy/ society is overblown. The leaders are important but "events dear boy, events" even more important. Thatcher became PM when the UK had to change as it was dealing with the last knockings of the post war, post Empire economy. Whether it had been Foot or Thatcher, the economy was going to change. The choice was whether to align yourself with the USSR or free market America. We can all thank our parents/ grandparents in the sensible part of the electorate who chose Thatcher rather than USSR supporting Foot. If you don't accept that and think that socialism is marvellous but just done wrongly then get on a train to London and speak to people who lived under it. I want to be free not equal and the fact that you have been lucky to live in the UK, probably explains why you might not understand that comment.

My dislike of socialism goes further. I am a liberal. It is not for the state to allocate jobs or stop me having the freedom to earn more or less than you. It's not the state's business how I run my life. The mantra of promoting "equality" sends chills down my spine. I don't want to be equal, I want to be free, and you can't be both. State imposed equality is pure evil. You have no bloody right to hold me back or I you. The welfare state created post war I agree with but to turn that welfare state into the economy, rather than as a basic safety net is terrifying to all that believe in freedom. How we have got to a situation where a vast proportion of the population think that being a liberal and socialist is the same thing, when they are mortal enemies pretty much sums it up. It's as daft as those who think it is liberal to have law and regulation created by the appointed EU Commission rather than a directly elected politician.

Back on point, the UK civil service failing to have a disaster plan that I've been paying their wages to produce makes me want a refund of all those civil servants I have been paying the wages of over all these years. Incredible.

 

[Stato]

I don't agree wit your view on Thatcher and don't agree at all with a view that Thatcherism was "equally as inadequate as socialism". To think that then you have never lived in London and you dont know people from places like Russia, the Ukraine, Romania who lived under socialism. All those I have known despise it and are still afraid of it today. Whilst you will also not accept the point, but the state control of the economy / lives is evil. Whether by National Socialism, the Portugese Military dictatorship (until 1984) facist Spain (until1975), the USSR or Mao's China, it's evil to its core. In fact, China moving from a totalitarian socialist dictatorship with its cultural revolutions, extreme poverty and famines to a capitalist dictatorship where nobody starves and 1.6 billion people have some personal disposable income so they can make at least some of their own choices with that money, is for the people of China, progress. Something you take for granted because you live in the UK.

You also won't immediately agree with this but Thatcher's importance, like pretty much all leaders in a free economy/ society is overblown. The leaders are important but "events dear boy, events" even more important. Thatcher became PM when the UK had to change as it was dealing with the last knockings of the post war, post Empire economy. Whether it had been Foot or Thatcher, the economy was going to change. The choice was whether to align yourself with the USSR or free market America. We can all thank our parents/ grandparents in the sensible part of the electorate who chose Thatcher rather than USSR supporting Foot. If you don't accept that and think that socialism is marvellous but just done wrongly then get on a train to London and speak to people who lived under it. I want to be free not equal and the fact that you have been lucky to live in the UK, probably explains why you might not understand that comment.

My dislike of socialism goes further. I am a liberal. It is not for the state to allocate jobs or stop me having the freedom to earn more or less than you. It's not the state's business how I run my life. The mantra of promoting "equality" sends chills down my spine. I don't want to be equal, I want to be free, and you can't be both. State imposed equality is pure evil. You have no bloody right to hold me back or I you. The welfare state created post war I agree with but to turn that welfare state into the economy, rather than as a basic safety net is terrifying to all that believe in freedom. How we have got to a situation where a vast proportion of the population think that being a liberal and socialist is the same thing, when they are mortal enemies pretty much sums it up. It's as daft as those who think it is liberal to have law and regulation created by the appointed EU Commission rather than a directly elected politician.

Back on point, the UK civil service failing to have a disaster plan that I've been paying their wages to produce makes me want a refund of all those civil servants I have been paying the wages of over all these years. Incredible.

You can dislike whichever system you choose, but it wasn't relevant to my point, which was only that all economic theories take a macro approach, make assumptions about individual needs and are neither designed nor equipped to address the multifarious needs and desires of millions of individuals.

You've already had the saving from civil services wages. About 80,000 jobs were cut by Johnson's Conservative predecessors between 2010 and 2015. The numbers have risen since 2016, but largely to work on Brexit. When those 80,000 jobs were cut, the workload wasn't. Its not hard to work out why there may have been failures.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

You can dislike whichever system you choose, but it wasn't relevant to my point, which was only that all economic theories take a macro approach, make assumptions about individual needs and are neither designed nor equipped to address the multifarious needs and desires of millions of individuals.

You've already had the saving from civil services wages. About 80,000 jobs were cut by Johnson's Conservative predecessors between 2010 and 2015. The numbers have risen since 2016, but largely to work on Brexit. When those 80,000 jobs were cut, the workload wasn't. Its not hard to work out why there may have been failures.

If you think that excuses the head of the civil service not even knowing they they had not completed their homework and had a disaster plan, then you have another thing coming. Not knowing that there wasn't a disaster plan is just beyond disgraceful. The PM and the rest then had to do their job for them. The plan should have been drafted by the civil service and be evolved, changed / tweaked every year. That is what the civil service was charged to do. The fact the Civil Service hadn't done one is disgraceful and the fact that the head of the civil service didnt even know there wasn't one is just beyond belief. The head of the civil service whose job it was, didnt even know, I will say it again..didn't even know. It's like us having enemy ships off the coast and the PM turning to the military to ask what the defence plans are for the defence of UK and the military saying.. "oh blimey I knew there was something I meant to do". I will say it again, how on earth did the head of the civil service not even know if there was or was not a plan? I would say I'm surprised but I'm not.

 

[Stato]

If you think that excuses the head of the civil service not even knowing they they had not completed their homework and had a disaster plan, then you have another thing coming. Not knowing that there wasn't a disaster plan is just beyond disgraceful. The PM and the rest then had to do their job for them. The plan should have been drafted by the civil service and be evolved, changed / tweaked every year. That is what the civil service was charged to do. The fact the Civil Service hadn't done one is disgraceful and the fact that the head of the civil service didnt even know there wasn't one is just beyond belief. The head of the civil service whose job it was, didnt even know, I will say it again..didn't even know. It's like us having enemy ships off the coast and the PM turning to the military to ask what the defence plans are for the defence of UK and the military saying.. "oh blimey I knew there was something I meant to do". I will say it again, how on earth did the head of the civil service not even know if there was or was not a plan? I would say I'm surprised but I'm not.

Convenient that you argue that corporate responsibility for ensuring that something is done, for some reason stops with the unelected officers, rather than with the government that you still want to support. What was Harry H Truman's famous phrase? Something like 'The buck stops (with the bloke I told to do it. I never checked whether he was doing it. I didn't ask to see it, or review his progress or try to understand or integrate his findings into wider policy planning. Don't blame me. I was more busy with Brexit, Shakespeare and wallpaper. It's everyone else that messed up and I just want to stay) here!

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

Convenient that you argue that corporate responsibility for ensuring that something is done, for some reason stops with the unelected officers, rather than with the government that you still want to support. What was Harry H Truman's famous phrase? Something like 'The buck stops (with the bloke I told to do it. I never checked whether he was doing it. I didn't ask to see it, or review his progress or try to understand or integrate his findings into wider policy planning. Don't blame me. I was more busy with Brexit, Shakespeare and wallpaper. It's everyone else that messed up and I just want to stay) here!

It is not convenient at all. Whether it is reasonable for a PM to assume the civil service had in place a disaster plan because they had been asked to do it is something I've not fully formed a view on. That could go either way. I lean towards the PM should when elected have checked with the civil service and also checked the military had a plan for defending Britain should it be needed. But I probably could be persuaded either way on that. But the civil service not having done one that is tweaked on an annual basis is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that the boss of thecivil service didnt even know there wasnt one. It is not even arguable and they cannot blame "being busy". Its the bloody disaster plan that should be there and updated year on year. That's what happens in the corporate world. The corporate world has disaster plans that are on constant review. Being busy is called life and called work. The civil service should hang their heads in shame and boss fired.

 

[drew]

I don't agree wit your view on Thatcher and don't agree at all with a view that Thatcherism was "equally as inadequate as socialism". To think that then you have never lived in London and you dont know people from places like Russia, the Ukraine, Romania who lived under socialism. All those I have known despise it and are still afraid of it today. Whilst you will also not accept the point, but the state control of the economy / lives is evil. Whether by National Socialism, the Portugese Military dictatorship (until 1984) facist Spain (until1975), the USSR or Mao's China, it's evil to its core. In fact, China moving from a totalitarian socialist dictatorship with its cultural revolutions, extreme poverty and famines to a capitalist dictatorship where nobody starves and 1.6 billion people have some personal disposable income so they can make at least some of their own choices with that money, is for the people of China, progress. Something you take for granted because you live in the UK.

You also won't immediately agree with this but Thatcher's importance, like pretty much all leaders in a free economy/ society is overblown. The leaders are important but "events dear boy, events" even more important. Thatcher became PM when the UK had to change as it was dealing with the last knockings of the post war, post Empire economy. Whether it had been Foot or Thatcher, the economy was going to change. The choice was whether to align yourself with the USSR or free market America. We can all thank our parents/ grandparents in the sensible part of the electorate who chose Thatcher rather than USSR supporting Foot. If you don't accept that and think that socialism is marvellous but just done wrongly then get on a train to London and speak to people who lived under it. I want to be free not equal and the fact that you have been lucky to live in the UK, probably explains why you might not understand that comment.

My dislike of socialism goes further. I am a liberal. It is not for the state to allocate jobs or stop me having the freedom to earn more or less than you. It's not the state's business how I run my life. The mantra of promoting "equality" sends chills down my spine. I don't want to be equal, I want to be free, and you can't be both. State imposed equality is pure evil. You have no bloody right to hold me back or I you. The welfare state created post war I agree with but to turn that welfare state into the economy, rather than as a basic safety net is terrifying to all that believe in freedom. How we have got to a situation where a vast proportion of the population think that being a liberal and socialist is the same thing, when they are mortal enemies pretty much sums it up. It's as daft as those who think it is liberal to have law and regulation created by the appointed EU Commission rather than a directly elected politician.

Back on point, the UK civil service failing to have a disaster plan that I've been paying their wages to produce makes me want a refund of all those civil servants I have been paying the wages of over all these years. Incredible.

I don't think for one minute we would ever be a socialist state as you describe. Also, the idea is surely not to make everyone equal but to give everyone equal opportunity. What people make of that opportunity is down to them and, in many cases, a slice of luck.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It is not convenient at all. Whether it is reasonable for a PM to assume the civil service had in place a disaster plan because they had been asked to do it is something I've not fully formed a view on. That could go either way. I lean towards the PM should when elected have checked with the civil service and also checked the military had a plan for defending Britain should it be needed. But I probably could be persuaded either way on that. But the civil service not having done one that is tweaked on an annual basis is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that the boss of thecivil service didnt even know there wasnt one. It is not even arguable and they cannot blame "being busy". Its the bloody disaster plan that should be there and updated year on year. That's what happens in the corporate world. The corporate world has disaster plans that are on constant review. Being busy is called life and called work. The civil service should hang their heads in shame and boss fired.

A lot of the large corporates I worked for prioritised other things over their business continuity and because there was a board in charge of strategy, that was what was done and risks were taken none of which, luckily, blew up in our faces .

The same as if they were to say we are going to cut all costs significantly for the next 10 years whilst simultaneously taking on the largest project of the last 40 years. Now obviously those two things are diametrically opposed, so you would hope that wouldn't be their strategy, but if it was they would be responsible for prioritising what was done and what wasn't done in order to meet that strategy

 

[Stato]

It is not convenient at all. Whether it is reasonable for a PM to assume the civil service had in place a disaster plan because they had been asked to do it is something I've not fully formed a view on. That could go either way. I lean towards the PM should when elected have checked with the civil service and also checked the military had a plan for defending Britain should it be needed. But I probably could be persuaded either way on that. But the civil service not having done one that is tweaked on an annual basis is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that the boss of thecivil service didnt even know there wasnt one. It is not even arguable and they cannot blame "being busy". Its the bloody disaster plan that should be there and updated year on year. That's what happens in the corporate world. The corporate world has disaster plans that are on constant review. Being busy is called life and called work. The civil service should hang their heads in shame and boss fired.

I'm sorry, but that is just absolute nonsense. Whether or not the people elected to govern the country should have been governing is not up for debate. The word 'governance' is key. It's not just a title, its a responsibility. In any corporate organisation, those at the top are responsible for putting systems in place to ensure that they damn well know what has and hasn't been done. If they are unaware that failures are happening, it is absolutely their failure. This is made quite clear in UK health and safety law. If you are responsible for the safety of a building and an incident occurs, it is no legal defence to say 'I told him to do it. It's his fault.' The HSE and the courts would laugh at you, before asking you to evidence the structures that you had in place to ensure compliance. The same applies with safeguarding. Those at the top hold the overall responsibility to ensure that failures do not happen.

Yes, civil servants responsible have failed. So have their governors. If what Cummings says is true, there is absolutely no question of that. You don't get to turn it into a discussion, just because you happen to like them more than you do their party political opponents. They simply didn't do their job.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

I don't think for one minute we would ever be a socialist state as you describe. Also, the idea is surely not to make everyone equal but to give everyone equal opportunity. What people make of that opportunity is down to them and, in many cases, a slice of luck.

I agree in trying to have some intervention for equality of opportunity. But there is again a lack of understanding of what socialism is. This belief that socialism is kind, cuddly, friendly is born out of the fact that people in the UK have never been under its jackboot. I have a good friend who is North Vietnamese. Father and grandfather fought against the French and then the Americans respectively. This conflict I can see from both sides. I follow why Kennedy went in, I equally see why the Vietnamese moved to socialism. The West had ignored the Vietnamese against the French and they sought help from Russia. But the people were never socialist. They tried it briefly after the Americans left and do you know what it meant? Yes food and other shortages because they couldn't predict demand, but just as bad was the "cultural education" where people were educated to be organs of the state. The individual lived for the good of the state and not the life they want to live. It is evil and the Vietnamese chucked it out and moved to a one party capitalist dictatorship pretty sharpish. The whole Vietnamese conflict was a huge misunderstanding. Anyone who knows the Vietnamese mindset will know it is very entrepreneurial. There is no way on earth they would ever have been socialist for long. If Kennedy had understood that the socialism came as a consequence of seeking Russian/ Chinese help to kick out the French, then the US might have avoided that conflict. Socialism is pure evil because it requires a person to be subservient to the state. That is what socialism is. The decadent, naive and frankly poorly educated British students walking around with their socialist t shirts have no understanding of just what offence they cause to people had have lived under the socialist jackboot. I know people in Asia, Russia and Europe who had their thoughts attempted to be "educated" and who remember a lack of choice in their lives. These UK born and bred socialists really do need to understand that it is not nice, it is not cuddly and it is not kind. I want to be free not equal.

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

A lot of the large corporates I worked for prioritised other things over their business continuity and because there was a board in charge of strategy, that was what was done and risks were taken none of which, luckily, blew up in our faces .

The same as if they were to say we are going to cut all costs significantly for the next 10 years whilst simultaneously taking on the largest project of the last 40 years. Now obviously those two things are diametrically opposed, so you would hope that wouldn't be their strategy, but if it was they would be responsible for prioritising what was done and what wasn't done in order to meet that strategy

That maybe so (tho thats not my experience where its been taken seriously ever since Ive been in the workplace). But you know what.. the one's you worked actually had a drafted plan, they just may have not have updated it. the boss of the civil service didnt even know if they had one, never mind reviewing it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't think for one minute we would ever be a socialist state as you describe. Also, the idea is surely not to make everyone equal but to give everyone equal opportunity. What people make of that opportunity is down to them and, in many cases, a slice of luck.

Precisely. Equality of opportunity. The mantra of, and a key reason why Tony Blair was elected 3 times.

The previous poster doesn't appear to have the faintest idea that communism, socialism and (FFS!) National Socialism are not one and the same. Even a dedicated reader of the daily express would surely know the difference. Surely?

And it is argued by some that labour are barely even socialist. Old lefties like one of my brothers hated Blair more than he hated Thatcher.

I find it extraordinary that people think it a good thing to take the time to write ludicrous an uninformed political 'history lessons' on a football forum. Not since the days of fredbinney/waveknight/bushy have I seen such . . . . oddness

 

[WATFORD zero]

That maybe so (tho thats not my experience where its been taken seriously ever since Ive been in the workplace). But you know what.. the one's you worked actually had a drafted plan, they just may have not have updated it. the boss of the civil service didnt even know if they had one, never mind reviewing it.

I assume you are talking about Lord Sedwill who said

"Reflecting on the government's handling of coronavirus, he said: "Although we had exercised and prepared for pandemic threats, we didn't have in place the exact measures, and we hadn't rehearsed the exact measures" for the challenge Covid-19 presented.

"I think there is a genuine question about whether we could have been better prepared in the first place and that is obviously a very legitimate challenge."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54617148

Or here

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/tom-swarbrick/political-decisions-impeded-uks-pandemic-preparedness/

The former head of the Civil Service suggested that despite knowing the threat a pandemic posed to the UK, resources weren't made available by the Government to prepare the UK sufficiently.

"We've had to make choices in which contingency plans to make," Lord Mark Sedwill told Tom Swarbrick when quizzed on how the UK has responded to the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic.

In an exclusive interview the former National Security Adviser told Swarbrick On Sunday that the National Security Council applied some of the recommendations of Exercise Cygnus, a war game carried out in 2016 which found Britain to be majorly underprepared for a potential pandemic.

In hindsight, Tom Swarbrick wondered if the National Security Council responded quickly enough or whether "the only thing that the NSC pushed out of that legislation."

Lord Sedwill insisted that all that his changes were made as they were seen fit at the time, although he noted that "increasing preparedness, increasing contingency capability requires investment and resources."

He added that "those are decisions made at each spending review," and are thus in the hands of politicians.

I don't think he said that he didn't know if they had one, unless you have a different source ?

 

[Charity Shield 1910]

I assume you are talking about Lord Sedwill who said

"Reflecting on the government's handling of coronavirus, he said: "Although we had exercised and prepared for pandemic threats, we didn't have in place the exact measures, and we hadn't rehearsed the exact measures" for the challenge Covid-19 presented.

"I think there is a genuine question about whether we could have been better prepared in the first place and that is obviously a very legitimate challenge."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54617148

I don't think he said that he didn't know if they had one, unless you have a different source ?

I wasnt no. It was the part of Cummings evidence where he explained that he was in a meeting with the PM. Then a "top official" (sorry I didnt make a note of her name) burst into the meeting in a state of distress and said "We are fkd, the disaster plan, well its not been done, we dont have one and we are going to kill thousands of people". The PM, Cummings and all then had to create one from scratch. I'm sorry but the Civil Service should have had a plan updated on an annual basis. There just is no excuse. Should a PM check every time he is elected by asking to see it? Well I don't think this is hindsight but yes I think he should. Every CEO of a large corporate would want to see it regularly. So yes I do criticise the PM as well.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I wasnt no. It was the part of Cummings evidence where he explained that he was in a meeting with the PM. Then a "top official" (sorry I didnt make a note of her name) burst into the meeting in a state of distress and said "We are fkd, the disaster plan, well its not been done, we dont have one and we are going to kill thousands of people". The PM, Cummings and all then had to create one from scratch. I'm sorry but the Civil Service should have had a plan updated on an annual basis. There just is no excuse. Should a PM check every time he is elected by asking to see it? Well I don't think this is hindsight but yes I think he should. Every CEO of a large corporate would want to see it regularly. So yes I do criticise the PM as well.

...