Agree with a lot of that Bruce but would also like to add to it.
You mention this new committee will not have access to some of the material SAGE does, which is fair enough. But what it does have access to is hindsight. My experience of King during this crisis is that he has been very critical of the government and the advice it has been receiving, and I have found myself agreeing with a lot of what he has said. But I've also found some of his comments self serving and made with the benefit of hindsight. If this new committee is there to provide advice and recommendations on dealing with ongoing issues, such as how to manage coming out of lockdown, or ideas on how to manage an control testing and contact tracing, then I support it fully. However my fear is that it will turn into a mini inquest into how the current incumbents have handled the crisis, which given that we're probably not even half way through it will probably do more harm than good. I hope my fears are unwarranted.
I totally agree with you that the government need to be more open and transparent in their handling of this pandemic. Most people are following shutdown instructions but I put this down to fear, rather than any great level of trust in our government. I've long been of the opinion that the level of talent and expertise within our government is poor, both in terms of our MPs and within permanent government. The very best brains are attracted to the private sector, and why wouldn't they given they could earn 7 figure incomes rather than low six figure or even 5 figure when you consider an MPs salary.
The amount of information being given out by SAGE is zilch. As you know, each SAGE committee is set up according to the underlying crisis, and is supposed to comprise the best brains from government, academia and the private sector. I've been trying to find out who comprises this current SAGE committee as I strongly suspect it consists of mainly government people and selected academics. So it was interesting to see your comments on this specific point in your post. Have you seen an actual list of committee members or is it just your opinion that it is filled with government staff that you are expressing as fact. It would be good if you have seen evidence by the way, because it would support my theory, so I'm not trying to trip you up here.
Where I disagree with you is your assumption that the committee would be chosen at ministerial level. They would have the final say for sure, but their decisions would have been based purely on the advice/recommendations from permanent staff.. So I could see the turn of events going like this. Johnson instructing Hancock to set up a SAGE committee to deal with the crisis. Hancock in turn would have asked either the CSO or the CMO to put the arrangements in place and to come up with a list of people to be on the committee. This stinks of government protectionism for me, of keeping things in house. They would not want anybody from the private sector coming in because they would most probably be scared that they would disagree and offer much different advice. Hopefully all of this will come out in a full enquiry in the fullness of time, and on something of this magnitude, the Government will have to publish the findings of the enquiry. The two things I'm most interested in is when, i.e at what stage in the pandemic, did Johnson commit to a SAGE committee being set up. And who drew up the list and what names were on that list?. IMO they were key moments in how this government ended up tackling this crisis.
As regards Patel, yeah I'm not a fan. Her previous role within the foreign office leaves massive question marks over integrity. Like many politicians these days I believe that she is nowhere near talented enough or experienced enough for the high position she currently enjoys, and as you know, even as a Brexiteer, I was far from enamoured by her proposed immigration bill that had more holes in it than a piece of Dutch cheese. But if my concern about this SAGE committee are true, then she was exactly the type of minister we needed in charge on Health, rather than that wimp Hancock. At least she may have stood up to them, questioned some of their advice and, hopefully, insisted on more people being drafted in from the private sector, because quite simply that's were all of the expertise is. The people you want in charge in a crisis are not necessarily those you would want in charge in normal times.
Heavens. I suppose his degrees in medicine, physiology, tropical medicine, epidemiology, medical law and business, along with a few decades experience working in epidemiology pale in significance to your own expertise in...?
