Keir Starmer seems to be confused about who’s running the country, calling Rishi Sunak “Prime Minister” five times in the Commons today. It’s a sign he isn’t taking responsibility for his Government’s decisions, says the Daily Sceptic‘s Laurie Wastell in the Spectator. Here’s an excerpt.
When Sir Keir Starmer faced off against Rishi Sunak at the despatch box today, in the first Prime Minister’s Questions after the Parliamentary recess, he seemed to be rather unsure what his role was. Over the course of their exchanges, the ostensible leader of the country referred to his opposite number not once, not twice, but five times as “the Prime Minister”.
It was bad enough when Starmer made this mistake back in July, though after four years in opposition and just weeks into the new role, we might perhaps understand it having become a habit. But to do it again? After he’s been in office for two months, attended a NATO Summit, given numerous grim-faced Downing Street speeches and announced a raft of nannying laws? For Sir Keir to forget who’s running the country a second time is a ridiculous error. One can imagine Starmer squinting down at his briefing cards ahead of the next PMQs: “Note to self: YOU are the one in charge – not Rishi Sunak, not Sue Gray, not the OBR, not ‘international law’.”
But in light of his poor performance at today’s PMQs, where he appeared unwilling to take responsibility for any of the Government’s actions, it seems perhaps this gaffe is worse than just a slip of the tongue. It came as Rishi Sunak pressed Starmer on his Government’s decision to suspend 30 out of 350 of Britain’s arms export licences to Israel. Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the suspension on Monday, saying that there is a “clear risk” that the equipment in question could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. It’s a move that gives credence to the claim that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza, which will no doubt please Hamas. The Chief Rabbi has said it “beggars belief”.
The Conservative Government was generally a strong supporter of Israel in its war against Hamas, and Sunak’s question was the obvious one: how would this decision help to secure the release of the 101 hostages still being held by the terrorist group?
Starmer was apparently unable to speak about the effects of this decision, and could only answer in legalese. “The legal framework is clear,” he insisted, explaining that his Government “arrived at this decision” after consulting the relevant “guidance”. He maintained, strangely, that the suspension of licences to Israel was “not an Israel issue”, it was in fact “a legal decision, not a policy decision”.
Of course, we know this would suit the former prosecutor very well, since it would appear to absolve him of any political responsibility. But the fact is that this was a decision made by his Government and he bears responsibility for it.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Have you spoken to Dr Malcolm Kendrick, he works in carehomes, he’s been speaking out about this https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/05/11/how-to-make-a-crisis-far-far-worse/
One of few remaining Doctors with ‘common sense’, recommend his book ‘Doctoring Data’ a real eye-opener.
One of the reasons for so many deaths in care homes is that it was a disaster waiting to happen
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/18/daphne-havercroft-covid-19-how-the-nhs-protects-itself-by-neglecting-the-elderly/
NSW following the same NHS protocol
Another reason for so many deaths in care homes is that the NHS and local authority goal is to spend as little money as possible on the care needs of the residents. Many of them are approaching the end of their lives and they are not getting the health care they need to reduce their risk of succumbing to serious diseases because the NHS downplays their health care needs to avoid having to provide the care it free at the point of need. Local authorities go along with this.
People whose care needs are primarily health as opposed to social care are legally entitled to have all their care paid for by the NHS, under NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC).
Despite people living longer with complex health needs, the number deemed eligible for CHC has fallen and there is a post code lottery. This problem has been brewing for a long time, exacerbated by reduction in the number of acute hospital beds.
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/continuing-health-care-funding-and-end-of-life-care/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/27/vulnerable-pensioners-dementia-facing-crippling-care-bills-following/
You would think that local authorities would push back against the NHS and not accept responsibility for people whose care needs might be primarily health needs and therefore outside the local authority’s legal remit, but they don’t and cave in.
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/nhs-chc-and-supine-council-leaders/
Of course not everyone in a care home is eligible for NHS CHC, but such is the NHS enthusiasm to downplay all health needs, that there is a risk that provision of routine, health care, free at the point of need, including end of life and palliative care planning, is patchy at best, so the residents are sitting ducks when a nasty virus enters their care home.
Everyone in a care home is registered with a GP and many practices look after all the residents in a care home, doing the weekly equivalent of ward rounds. Therefore what risk assessments did GPs do before allowing hospitals to discharge recovering Covid-19 patients into care homes in order to protect their patients from unnecessary risk of harm and death?
I think the answer is in Dr Kendrick’s blog.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/05/11/how-to-make-a-crisis-far-far-worse/
“The bullying began. Of course, it wasn’t called bullying, but hospitals needed to be cleared out and nothing and no-one was going to get in the way.”
Obviously there were no risk assessments.
Thanks for this – will have a look at these links. Very helpful.
would you knowingly give someone with ‘distressing shortness of breath’ a drug with ‘respiratory depression and respiratory arrest’ as a known side effect (according to manufacturer’s safety warning)