<< Besides, as TB's comments show below, I'm not the only one making a comment with a political element, but I don't see you complaining about his (I wonder why?). >>

Andy, as you don't seem to be complaining either, we are apparently in agreement with TB's post. But as regards the abilities of those in government, whether or not ministers make the best decisions and issue best instructions, events over the last few months show that it doesn't necessarily make things happen. The machinery between Westminster and the hospitals seems to have been the main source of difficulty. That area should not be on the Left or the Right.

Just because I'm not 'complaining' about TB's post doesn't mean I endorse it. Frankly (even now) I have better things to do with my time than go toe-to-toe all day with people I ideologically disagree with.

The problem I have is that the Left (and 95% of the media, for clicks/£££ and/or ideological reasons, and I included news outlets I would normally consume in that), including, I'm sad to say many civil servants, including some frontline staff, politicised the pandemic for their own purposes, rather than 'pullled together' for the sake of the nation and make the 'constructive criticism' of the government's efforts. Starmer's promise to do so lasted all of one day; the media about a week.

I agree that in tough and new situations mistakes will always be made and they need to be identified, solutions found asap and methods/policies changed so that future problems are minimised. That doesn't mean going after (and to the Nth degree) those who mostly are not there as experts and have to rely on actual experts (the vast majority of which had not been criticised before in the media or by politicians) to guide their decisions.

Note that despite their many failings which are higher than the UK government's, I give some slack (and don't rag on them every day) the likes of the Welsh & Scottish First Ministers/governments because I also realise they too aren't experts.

What I DON'T like is the uncritical podium that many politicians and activists have been given (many with their civil service hat on, often hiding their political affilliation or their MSM friends doing so), the vast majority of whom are slating the Tories as if they alone came up with all the scientific advice, when, for 99% of the time they folllowed it.

Would we be in a better position had Starmer and the Labour party been in office for the same time as Boris' government - highly unlikely (and more likely far worse a position), given they would've caved to the unions and activists essentially calling for lockdowns until a vaccine arrives (which cannot be guaranteed) and free money for all, all the while the economy tanks until it resembles Venezuela's.

Much of the blame, other than of the Chinese government [85%] and their paid-for WHO mouthpieces [10%], goes to the civil service and the system by which it and government departments are run, which cannot be easily changed due to the pushback from those in positions of power who work in them.

Many in the media are criticising ministers precisely because their roles in all this are essentially to do what the 'experts' tell them, but then what else do we do? It would be difficult in the extreme to ensure every government has the right mix of MPs (of ability in both politics, leadership and technical fields) to fulflill every government role.

As the ongoing arguments about the 'expertise' of both government (Civil Service) 'experts' and of critics from their own field show, science is still very much an evolving field with many disparate viewpoints, huge egos, personal/political vendettas, ideologically-driven agendas and extremely poor management of people and systems. Most (nearly all) of the critics also come to arguments with the benefit of hindsight and also do not have the weight of personal responbility for the well-being of millions on their shoulders. I've (elsewhere) compared them to football pundits - it's easy to criticise when they aren't the ones in the top job.

That our country has not been alone around the globe in making mistakes (and of the same nature), with some countries doing better because they don't politicise their civil services as much as we do and whose media isn't so sensationalist or agenda-driven (often for £££ and/or power), others by pure luck (rather than judegment) of their decisions or, more often, the geography/make-up/location/demographics of their nation or a combination of both.

That we are still probably not even a third of the way through the pandemic also means that we cannot really say for sure who will come out 'best' (more least worst off) overall, given how many unknowns there still are.

I'm all for debating issues, including of policies etc from a political perspective - what I don't believe is a good idea (and why I criticise the media [including the Telegraph, I may add] regularly) are obvious hate campaigns and hit pieces against X or Y using unproven opinions as sticks to beat easy targets. Hence why I disliked the premise of the 'OMB' thread - it isn't a debate thread - it's a bubble to reinforce the opinions of those believeing in that premise and to spread political agendas.

I'd much rather talk about issues and how to resolve them rather than having to defend X or Y politician from one attack after another just because certain individuals 'hate' that person or what they and their ilk stand for, or more likely that they (still) cannot accept they lost a political battle fought and lost 4 years ago, and that the country/world has more important things to be dealing with.