Talk:British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Latest page move

User:Birtig, in regard to the recent page move, is 'UK' preferred over 'British'? Asking because 'British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic' seemed to be favoured in the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 6. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that two other titles, Indian government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, are written in the same style. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Reaction and Criticism

I am disappointed about the recent moving of my page purely dedicated to criticism of the government response because it was an opportunity for a detailed examination of the criticisms. The deletion of that page and addition of its contents onto this page risks creating an article that is too long again, like the main covid in the UK page. Therefore I have decided that I will make a page purely dedicated to the "criticism against the lockdown" for reasons I will explain below:

Criticism should not be coupled with "reaction". The lockdown policy was a decision made by the government that has been criticised from the start. The alternative views on the governments actions should be given their due weight. Also, the subheadings I wrote "critics agianst lockdown" and "critics for lockdown" are rather clumsy attempts at trying to show the difference between the views. The section should be renamed simply "criticism" and the types of criticisms explained simply and I will go into more detail on the "criticism against" on a separate page. That will keep the length down and keep a "balanced presentation" on this page.

The warning label: " This section may lend undue weight to criticism of the government response. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (October 2020)" is merely in comparison to how much people have written on this wikipedia page about critics in favour of it. This label unintentionally gives an imperative to undermine the "critics against" section because that is easier than doing research on "critics for" because research is time consuming and it is easier to delete than add.

So, I am going to create a separate page on "Critics against lockdown" because this position is so alternative to the "critics for lockdown" who just wanted a more stringent approach that is in line with the approach the government took. That way, the section "critics against" wont be eroded for the sake of "balance" in comparison to the slightly smaller criticism section.

Any ideas on what I should call the page? They are often referred to as "lockdown skeptics" but I think I will refer to it as "UK Criticism of the Covid Lockdown" unless anyone can think of a better name? I will add a link to it to this page into a much reduced in size "critics against" section. (By the way, I know there is a page on conspiracy theorists against the lockdown, I am talking about legitimate scientists, politicians and writers who have expressed this view.) Gd123lbp (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Gd123lbp, I originally created Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and moved over content from the main UK COVID-19 page where there was talk page consensus for the page to be created. In a discussion a user notified me that the page had gone because of WP:NPOV problems. I have since rescued the deleted content by copying it onto this page. I was originally in favour of a criticism page, as were others including Tracland, and think it still has much potential. If you want to revive the page that became a redirect, or create a new page, WP:CRITS is the guideline to take notice of. It says there has to be balance and rebuttals of negative arguments in either a section or an article. It also says that "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally... discouraged", so that was the reason for the 'reaction and criticism' section heading.

I'd prefer a general criticism page, but for the page you're talking about, one title might be Criticism of the British government COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of cronyism - Explanation

As a layman, I do not fully understand the 'allegations of cronyism', could someone write a clearer explanation of what is meant by this in this case? This is not clearly explained at the start and would greatly improve this section if it was. Thanks. I also want to add; there has been some fantastic research and writing done here, long may it continue. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Notifying Bangalamania, who wrote that section. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me! First of all, I am as much of a layman as anyone here, and can claim no credit for research; all that goes to the journalists and newspapers cited in the section. The Sunday Times probably explains the "chumocracy" (which currently links to cronyism on WP) claims best here:

In normal times, ministers must advertise contracts for privately provided services so that any company has a chance of securing the work. A person’s connections are not supposed to help.

The government is also legally required to publish details of awarded contracts within 30 days, so the public knows how its money is being spent.

During the pandemic, neither has happened. Facing a sudden need to deliver millions of items of PPE, test kits and vaccines, ministers used emergency procedures to award work directly.

According to Tussell, a data provider on official spending, Whitehall departments have taken an average of 72 days to publicise who has received money, meaning public debate has often moved on before decisions can be scrutinised.

It is a less straightforward situation than the bribery or “cash-for-questions” scandal investigated by [Lord] Nolan. As the government mounted a war effort to combat Covid-19, it has instead resembled more of a “chumocracy”.

This is a world in which ministers have turned to friends with links to the Conservatives because of a mixture of trust, convenience and a panicked need to deliver, rather than a desire to benefit themselves financially.

The end result, however, is arguably similar: friends of the Conservatives have played a central role in responding to the pandemic, securing high-profile positions and contracts along the way.

I hope that clarifies things? And if anyone can think of a good way to summarise that, I'd very much appreciate it! --Bangalamania (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gd123lbp: I've edited the section now and added some new info; hopefully it's clearer now. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Eat Out to Help Out

"In terms of the COVID-19 pandemic, a study at the University of Warwick found that the scheme contributed to a rise in COVID-19 infections."- one study says this, why should it be included? The ONS website says that the entire hospitality industry was about 3% of cases, which isn't a significant contribution. And there's no way to say which of them where "caused" by the "Eat Out to Help Out" scheme. Taking one study on it and assuming it's correct is nonsense. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday 4 October 2020 the prime minister acknowledged the possibility that "Eat Out to Help Out" could have helped spread Covid-19, saying:

I also think that it is important now, irrespective of whether Eat Out To Help Out you know, what the balance of there was, it unquestionably helped to protect many… there are two million jobs at least in the hospitality sector. It was very important to keep those jobs going. Now, if it, insofar as that scheme may have helped to spread the virus, then obviously we need to counteract that and we need to counteract that with the discipline and the measures that we’re proposing. I hope you understand the balance we’re trying to strike.

(See Boris Johnson admits ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ could have helped spread Covid for the Metro's report on the interview.) Of course, his former special adviser might have something to add on the matter when he gives evidence to parliament tomorrow. JezGrove (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need the predictable attacks from the opposition?

I wondered what is the perceived encyclopaedic value of the addition to the article of worthless content such as the predictable, probably insincere, opposition mischief-making comments, as restored in this edit by Arcahaeoindris. They might be of notable interest if they were agreeing with or supporting the government, but is this day-to-day and totally routine "whatever you say we disagree with it" type stuff really of any value at all? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @DeFacto:. I'm not really sure of your reasoning. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policies that suggest only comments that support or agree with ruling government policies or approaches are allowed. Aren't opposition parties a component of the UK's democracy, and therefore a few sentences dedicated to them being WP:DUE weight? Also, what is "mischief making" even supposed to mean? In any case, there are actually sections of this article that desperately need updates and expansion - perhaps effort is better spent editing those to add new content, not cutting sourced content. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

My reasoning is that adding these de rigueur, insincere, standard, mundane, and predictable attacks to almost everything the government does is akin to, say, adding the opinions of Max Verstappen in the Lewis Hamilton article after each of Hamilton's achievements. That too would be considered undue, biased, and unnecessary. Mischief-making means deliberately trying to cause trouble for other people. Also, being sourced does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is actually more like not including any mention of the opposition or parliamentary debate in the article for Winter of Discontent or Suez Crisis. As a significant crisis, the opposition is expected to hold the government to account and debate policies. Calling this just "mischief making" is nonsensical. Is the UK not a democracy? Perhaps the specific content or critiques from the opposition quoted in the article could be more substantive, but to remove them altogether on the grounds that they simply disagree with government policy is not WP:UNDUE weight - we are talking about just two or three sentences here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Mudslinging and mischief-making is not parliamentary debate, or holding the government to account. If there was parliamentary debate that might be notable and worth mentioning. Adding the mudslinging is as undue as would be adding that they bowed to the speaker on the way in - it is an unremarkable and predictable as that. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your characterisation of the limited commentary as "mudslinging". Could you please be more specific in what exactly you would like taken out and explain why it is WP:UNDUE, rather than just say that it is from the opposition? I am still unconvinced by the rationale you have outlined. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto; routine, predictable opposition comments don't need to be mentioned. The opposition is expected to make these comments. It doesn't even have to be legitimate criticism; it usually isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, do people actually expect Keir Starmer and his band of merry red Tories to oppose the Tories? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all. I have given it some thought and think this kind of content actually would better belong in an article or section on the political impact of the pandemic, as in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics in the Republic of Ireland. Maybe in Reception, or on another page, rather than integrated into the government response.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)