Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prydey
Enlighten everyone then why the actions of those not complying is the fault of somebody else?
Perhaps Dan Andrews should've welded people's doors shut??
|
Because there needs to be security/systems in place to keep people in quarantine from spreading it to others. Not rejecting the best option (Andrews didn't like the optics of ADF troops on the streets - FACT), not choosing the worst option where untrained security guards allowed infected people to leave quarantine to go to the supermarket/coffee shop- FACT.
The whole idea of quarantine is to keep people isolated from the outside world, so they don't spread it. There is no need to weld the doors shut if they actually treated quarantine like it's supposed to be
If the government put in place the correct security/systems the second wave wouldn't have happened. Nearly every case now can be traced back to this quarantine debacle. What part of that don't you get?
The idiots didn't comply and spread it around BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by russellw
So here is some logic for you.
We still seem unable to separate the individual from the body corporate.
The public service (and indeed most Government departments) make a myriad of bad decisions or mistakes every day. Are these then deemed to be the 'fault' of Daniel Andrews?
We've previously discussed the notion of ministerial responsibility that dictated that a minister would sacrifice themselves if their department made a monumental enough stuff-up. It, of course, went out of favour sometime in the 70's either because (1) it was a seriously outdated notion to begin with or (2) Government just got too big for it to be feasible or (3) the almost un-sackable public servants were actually the ones pulling the levers that led to the stuff-ups.
If it were still in fashion, then the Minister for Jobs Precinct and Regions is the responsible minister anyway and not the executive branch of Government.
Let me diverge for a moment. At a stretch it could be argued that because the executive branch of Government (cabinet) selects the ministerial positions it should bear some responsibility for those who turn out to be bad choices and we do sometimes see that in the corporate world (albeit rarely) when a Board has chosen a CEO who turns out to be a dud and someone falls on their sword. I'm inclined, however, to think that it differs because the actual power in any ministerial portfolio actually rests with the permanent Departmental heads which is not the case in the corporate world.
However, it isn't in fashion any more than publicly blaming public servants is and for evidence let me point to the report from the Ruby Princess bungle which created a fair portion of the first wave in this country. While the report acknowledged that mistakes had been made at the 'lever-pulling' level, it also excused them on the basis that the public servants were doing their best. Personally; looking at the systemic failures in that process, I very much doubt that their best was anywhere near what we have a right to expect but they escape culpability anyway.
Likewise, that report acknowledged that the mistakes were too far removed from the executive branch of Government (= the politicians) that it laid no blame on them either.
You can argue until you are blue in the face as to whether that is morally correct but the fact remains that is how it is these days.
My question to you then is when did we wholeheartedly adopt the American 'populist' view of politics?
If I could be bothered, I'd quote some of your posts in this thread that would qualify from a logical stand-point but it would be an exercise in futility.
So let me give you an example (a real one) from the Corporate world where it is still common for titular heads (read CEO's) to get the shove when things go pear shaped. The only real differences in that environment are that (1) the 'voters' (shareholders) don't have to wait for an election to express their views; (2) Boards are often quick to avoid a share price melt-down and (3) the senior executives aren't a protected species like public servants.
The Banking Royal Commission cost 3 of the 4 CEO's at the big banks their job along with more than 200 senior executives but only one single Boards member (the NAB Chairman) actually resigned over the report.
Given that the Board is the equivalent of the executive branch of Government and the Chairman the equivalent to a Premier, only one of them (Ken Henry from NAB) was sufficiently embarrassed by the findings to resign although (1) he was probably offered the opportunity to resign rather than be sacked and (2) he got singled out for a savage caning in the report over his conduct during the RC and his position would have been untenable anyway.
In conclusion. If you don't like what the Andrews Government has done you have three options:
1. Vote against them at the next election;
2. Hope the current hotel quarantine inquiry slams him hard enough that he loses the support of his party; or
3. Suck it up.
I'm sure it won't come as a surprise when I say I've never voted Labour in 44 years of voting but every time I see negative Nancy (O'Brien) on the TV, I want to throw something heavy at it and I may well change the voting habits of a lifetime.
|
I've never voted Liberal. Which makes Dans screw ups even harder to take.
He won't get voted out though. The state Libs are an absolute basketcase and are no alternative. They don't have a hope in hell.