The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
I completely agre that there are many crackpots out there but the bottom line is that we have a government that is continually fighting an election campaign. One that it won less than a year ago and will be safely esconced in government for another 4+ years unless it makes another horlicks out of looking after care homes and yet it cannot lead to save its life, much less anyone else's. There needs to be consensus not continual fighting, turning people into snoops, hiding the facts in case it makes you look daft. His biggest hero, Mr Churchill, was never afaid to change his mind as circumstances changed and that was undoubtedly one of his biggest strengths. Not Bojo or any of the clowns in the cabinet and it is a bi-product of appointing ministers based on loyalty and their views on Brexit, which is no different to how the communist party appoint in China, which is funny in one way but both sad and frightening, in another.
As @cleavers has mentioned on more than one occassion, it's not that complex, it's all about the messaging.
The initial messaging at the beginning of the national lockdown was unambiguous: Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives. It was clear, it fit nicely within the rule of three and it gave people a clear, call to action.
The people responded accordingly, not how the behavioural scientists predicted. People understood what was being asked of them, why it was being asked and, for the overwhelming majority, they followed the restrictions accordingly.
But, since then, we’ve found ourselves slipping into ever more vague language in follow-up messaging. Soon, it shifted towards terms like ‘stay alert’ and ‘defeat the virus’, – terms which lacked a clear, tangible meaning to people. They were open to interpretation, even by the most senior of government ministers and officials, and it led people to concerting more effort finding loopholes than keeping sight of why the restrictions were there in the first place, as they were bound to do. That is without the mixed messaging about going to work, staying at home, getting thin, eating out to help out and the rest. These are all nebulous terms that mean nothing. Once you have vague messages people will interpret them in their own way.
The one other thing they did very well was focus on how high the compliance was. Telling people that 85% are compliant is just totally different to saying 15% are getting away with it and we want you to spy on them and report them so we can fine them. Thanking the 85% means that number is likely to get bigger whilst focussing on the 15% means the 85% will get smaller, as people baulk at the perception that everybody is doing what they want except me. Then, of course, they doubled down on that by blaming the public for the rise in cases, which was never going to be a great tactic.
However, driving division and difference is what this government specialises in so it was probably never going to end up any differently.
Last edited:
