So consistency isn’t the thing for our Rhiannon then

On Friday Wales began a two-week national “firebreak” Covid lockdown in an attempt to give some breathing space to its health service, which risks being overwhelmed by the rise in cases. It has not been without controversy – a ban on supermarkets selling non-essential items was criticised over the weekend. In the English press, the first minister, Mark Drakeford, and the Welsh government have been labelled as “clowns” who are trying to turn Wales “into a wartime, command economy: East Germany, except not as efficient, and with more sheep” (note the tedious xenophobia).

The criticism over the essential items rule is less about lockdown and more about what individuals consider “essential” during times of crisis (the government has now indicated that supermarkets will be allowed flexibility – hardly the actions of a Soviet dictatorship).

Speaking to friends and family in Wales, most people feel the Welsh government knows what it is doing.

One of the things the Welsh government has done is state that tampax, maxipads and all that wimmins’ stuff, is not an essential item.

Now try to imagine Rhiannon agreeing with that statement if it were not being said or done by Welsh socialists. Quite.

31 thoughts on “So consistency isn’t the thing for our Rhiannon then”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    One of the things the Welsh government has done is state that tampax, maxipads and all that wimmins’ stuff, is not an essential item.

    The story I read makes it more Kafakaesque than that. The Welsh government didn’t define what was essential and what wasn’t, they just threatened supermarkets with fines if they sold non-essential products. The supermarket in question had just blocked of an aisle in which sanitary products were displayed. My best guess is that all non-food aisles were blocked.

  2. I found that article intensely depressing to read. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Herr Drakeforf was a Tory this daft bint would be measuring out the piano wire.
    Curfews and lockdowns are a fucking stupid idea regardless of the party or nationality.

  3. (the government has now indicated that supermarkets will be allowed flexibility – hardly the actions of a Soviet dictatorship)

    ACKSHUALLY, bigots, it’s more like socialism with Chinese characteristics.

  4. The “flexibility” is actually the most stupid aspect of this policy. It means that you don’t know what any shop will classify as non-essential. Instead of just getting your shopping in one outlet you might have to try 3 or 4 in order to get bogroll, lightbulbs, washing-up liquid…

  5. Wimmin’s stuff include cosmetics. I can imagine how that’d play with wimmin I know “You take my eye liner from my cold dead hands”

  6. @Steve

    Yup that’s exactly how the CCP works. They rarely dictate what people *must* do, they just ensure everyone is aware that if people do something that displeases them then they’re in for it, so everyone overcompensates and censors etc more than the CCP would demand. The CCP can then say “we never forced anyone to do that”…

    It’s proper Orwellian

  7. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    Speaking to friends and family in Wales, most people feel the Welsh government knows what it is doing.

    Not the impression I get. As an example, there is a Welsh chap on a forum I use who appears so apolitical that I genuinely couldn’t tell you which way he leans, except when the name Drakeford is mentioned. ‘Clown’ is probably the politest description I’ve heard him use so far.

  8. It’s nonsense
    Apparently the reason for the non essential products ban is to avoid disadvantaging small retailers

    But I thought if they were closed they were having taxpayers money thrown at them?
    Nothing stopping them selling the same stuff on eBay or Gumtree assuming this huge untapped market actually exists

    AFAIAA there is no ban on online retailers selling and delivering the same goods

    So, WTF?

  9. Harry Haddock’s Ghost:“Not the impression I get”

    Well, of course not. It’s ‘I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon!’ all over again…

  10. Speaking to friends and family in Wales, most people feel the Welsh government knows what it is doing.

    Ahahaha hahahaha
    Deep breath
    Ahahaha hahahaha

    Nobody I’ve spoken to, living here in Wales, thinks that. Not one.
    Some think we should have more lockdowns – usually those whose job isn’t directly affected much. Most others, like myself, think the government should just do one and leave us to it.
    Not one person has said that Drakeford is doing a good job, or the Welsh government in general.
    Not one!
    That’s definitely made up.

  11. It’s not just a women’s thing, and I’m not using Rowling’s definition of what constitutes a woman, noting en passant that she excludes all post-menopausal women, as well as female children up to the menarche.

    No, it’s because all socialists are a bunch of fukkin’ bleeders!

  12. The issue for me is the right of governments to do whatever the fuck they think of. They do not have that right. They should never be allowed that practice in the absence of the right. It isn’t a health emergency in Wales and even if it was these measures would do no good. But regardless of the effectiveness, they just don’t have the right. Not the Welsh government, not the UK government.

  13. Interesting to see how the second lockdowns work out as there is a good chance they only “worked” the first time because they were introduced just as the virus was peaking.

  14. @Starfish

    I bet if the Welsh gvt hadn’t done this, independent shop-owners who compete with the supermarkets on “non-essentials” would have kicked up a fuss about it, though they may not have got any traction since what they were asking for would obviously be overreach. Just another self-interested industry group of course, not unusual, but their complaint of disadvantage would be rational even if marginal.

    Many of them will have some kind of online sales operation but if there wasn’t some demand from customers who wanted to see / feel / try the produce then they wouldn’t have bothered running a bricks and mortar operation to get closed down in the first place. We do know from experience with the first lockdown that it produced pent-up demand. Yes people did switch to online, but not everybody does shop that way and even those who can didn’t turn out to switch to it exclusively. We know some shop sales experienced a surge to above pre-lockdown levels suggesting at least some customers preferred to defer purchases until they could get in-store again. So the claim that small non-essential retailers would have been damaged by allowing competing supermarket sales seems almost certain to be true, since it seems inevitable some of that demand will result in consumers who would otherwise have preferred to wait it out and buy from the independent shop post-lockdown instead switching to a supermarket.

    The subsidy is completely irrelevant to this since they get the same subsidy whether the non-closed shops are allowed to compete with them or not, hence their calculation is “we would be better off with subsidy plus pent-up demand than with subsidy alone” and their preference would be to build up pent-up demand by blocking sales at non-closed stores.

    The online sales bit is more subtle since if they made a big push on that front it would cannibalise their other sales, including from otherwise pent-up demand, but a two-week lockdown is probably too short (and occurred at too short notice) for most firms to specifically build up their online capacity for. Though if a retailer in the pandemic period hasn’t been thinking about their online operations in general then goodness knows why. Even if they have built up their online side though, they’d still prefer “lockdown online sales plus subsidies plus pent-up demand from people who’ll wait to buy in-store” instead of just the first two alone, and indeed if supermarkets could sell during lockdown then it would probably eat into the first category too.

    So if eg a children’s clothes shop owner who also sells on ebay says “allowing Tesco to sell kids’ clothes in-store while I’m shut is unfair and will hurt my business” then, relative to the case in which Tesco are banned from doing so, he is almost certainly correct. The mistake is thinking that, just because he is correct, he needs to be listened to and given extra protection. Not all industry lobbying gets such a generous hearing.

  15. @MBE
    this of course assumes that anyone was actually going to buy anything from that store and wasn’t buying at Tesco anyway

    Free markets eh?

  16. “As a Welsh person living in England, I feel envious of my loved ones united behind a government they can trust.”
    How does one respond to a remark such as this?
    Where’s Ecks when you need him?

  17. @Starfish

    Well yes, it’s a bit like the weak anthropic principle. Unless the store had some sales in the first place, despite competition from Tesco, there wouldn’t be a store-owner to complain about it… But seeing customers use Tesco rather than wait for your own store to reopen, while you’re powerless to do anything except advertising your small-scale online operations, wouldn’t be a pleasant experience.

    In practice I suspect many of these businesses were on the edge of commercial viability even pre-pandemic – the general upheaval of Covid, including the step-change rise in online sales, might kill off even more of bricks and mortar retail. So I would expect them to complain loudly about every extra nail they can hear banging into the coffin.

  18. In a similar vein there was somebody on the radio yesterday complaining that when they give people food vouchers they can’t control what the reciepnts choose to spend them on. Yep, it’s all about state control of individual actions.

  19. “As a Welsh person living in England, I feel envious of my loved ones united behind a government they can trust.”
    How does one respond to a remark such as this?

    Tell the pop-eyed cultist to fvck off back to the land of her fathers?

  20. @MBE

    I don’t see it as the government’s duty to protect archaic business models, especially as that government has done so much to make small businesses unviable

    Like all socialist governments their solution is to make all businesses unviable

  21. @starfish

    Well quite. My view is that restricting non-essential sales at supermarkets may be somewhat effective at the stated aim of limiting the disadvantage to those stores which are closed. Not that this is an invaluably worthwhile aim or that it couldn’t have been achieved in another way that’s less harmful to consumers.

  22. Speaking to friends and family in Wales, most people feel the Welsh government knows what it is doing.

    I can believe that. After all it is a group of people either selected by or related to an ocean-going fuckwit.

    More generally, the Taffs did vote Labour in to control of their glorified parish council. And voting for Labour is voting for more oppressive cuntery. Even now, when we have a UK government reaching new depths of oppressive cuntery, Labour is demanding more and more of it.

  23. ‘Wales’ is not a monolithic entity (they don’t even speak the same version of Welsh). There’s more difference between the ‘multicultural’ cities of the south compared to Mid and North Wales, which are almost entirely empty and monocultural, than between London and Cornwall. So applying a ‘one size fits all’ Covid lockdown (even if you believe such a thing justified) was always monumental stupidity.

  24. The tide is turning against the cunts and the Great Paid Holiday ends at the weekend. The vast amount of economic damage done to us will become increasingly apparent.

    I don’t this will get Blojob/Krankie/Draketurd the brutal physical shitbashing they so deserve. But I think a political bashing is on the cards. People seeing through the shite is now over the border into a majority–even if some of them have few guts for a fight.

  25. “Not the Welsh government, not the UK government.”

    Exactly. Government has the authority to quarantine the sick, or the exposed. Not the healthy/general population. As so often happens in today’s world, the argument is over whether or not something is a good idea, not whether the government has any right to do whatever. They assume the authority, and, when no one stops them, they assume more authority. Til we have a big, fascist state controlling most everything.

  26. Locally we get lots of ‘advice’ then when asked about lifting restrictions the govt just turns around and says we didn’t mandate anything or pass any new regulations.
    It’s all very creepy and Orwellian

  27. ‘complaining that when they give people food vouchers they can’t control what the reciepnts choose to spend them on.’

    Government as jerks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *