Has the Netherlands re-imposesed a full lockdown? or just tweaked the restrictions for the unvaccinated?
p.s. I do like the chap pushing a bicycle thought in the middle, very Dutch.
Woke up this morning to see the rioting in Rotterdam on the news. It appears to be a reaction to what is described as a "partial lockdown" that has been imposed on the whole population, allegedly for three weeks - although we all know what happened over here last year, where the Government tried to deploy one of these useless "circuit breakers" in November, lifted it again, and finally ended up imprisoning everybody from Christmas to Easter.
Once ministers impose these measures, previous experience shows that they find it very hard to let go of them, because of the rising case numbers and the panicked screaming from the boffins that follows as soon as they do so. The only thing that brings relief is warm weather: a lot of people in the countries that are finding themselves back in yet another cycle of lockdowns are probably terrified that they're going to be stuck in them for six months.
My gut instinct is that we are not very far behind, although this isn't reflected in the data as yet. Its a good time to get stuff done before the next lockdown.
Agreed. I may be suffering from some cognitive bias because my wife and I currently have it, but there seems to be a lot of it about, it's spreading really easily pretty much whenever people interact indoors. I know so many people getting it right now. I do feel a bit better this morning after a relatively good night. Adjusting for my wife's tendency to be more stoical than me I suspect she now has it worse. I'm going to go and make her a cup of tea.
I hope that, when you've made the tea and can settle down again to read this, you both continue to feel better. If you are doing so, then it's clear, that for Mr & Mrs OLB, This Thing Will Pass!
Best of!
Seconded. I’m more or less over the after effects, having been back at work for a week.
For your viewing pleasure, here is Zarah Sultana being tied up in knots by her own mini-brain. Note Shadow Leader of the House Thangam Debbonaire's body language...
Where does the hard left find these utter morons like Sultana?
How on Earth can she not think of another word for 'dodgy?'
Admittedly I might have asked her to withdraw it on the grounds that called Grant Shapps 'dodgy' is something of an understatement, but surely 'inept,' 'dubious,' 'duplicitous,' 'lazy' and 'pig ignorant' would all have fitted the bill?
But then, she never was exactly with it.
Economical with the probity ?
I wonder if in her head Sultana regards the Speaker as "establishment to be resisted", like all other authority figures, for plucky activists.
If she’s the best the Labour left has, then the threat of their taking over the party again seems somewhat diminished.
Debbonaire seems very impressive. Great name (which she chose herself via deed poll, apparently), and a cellist of professional standard to boot.
Yes, Debbonaire comes over well. As for the 'left' in Labour, the problem imo is they're too weak not too strong. As usual you get overswing and it's happened here in response to Corbyn. The party leadership is extremely averse to anything which might conjur up memories of that man in the minds of floating voters. Hence, very very cagey on certain issues that for me they could be stronger on. But if one takes the view that winning an election is more important than pleasing me, as many will, then I reckon Starmer is playing things about right. Roll on those policies. Let's hope there's some killers.
When you hear Sultana on the subject of tuition fees or on the increased NI on the working ages, you do get a good idea of what should be a central Labour theme. She may not be the right vessel, but this is something that the Front bench should be pushing:
They should. In a populist age you handicap yourself if you shy away from it. Also a risk though in that Labour are vulnerable to 'class war' attacks when sounding radical. So they need to get across anger at the working poor being screwed but without looking like they have the affluent and those aspiring to be affluent in their cross hairs.
PS: You're an interesting poster. One of the most left wing on here on many things yet a staunch Lib Dem!
It is baffling Labour can't commit to a super elite wealth tax at a time when obviously new taxes are needed and this is the only new tax that polls well. Apparently no policies are allowed until the GE but it makes no sense to me. Potential Labour voters will be drifting off to greens, LDs or becoming non voters over the next 3 years, when they could be drawn in with a popular policy. Momentum is needed well ahead of the GE.
I get the caution, and BJ is being very helpful to the strategy, but I am hoping for some radical polices and that one, a wealth tax that raises a lot of money, is right at the top of the list. As I say, I think the political risk of it, despite the polls, is that it opens up the 'class war' line of attack or its cousin the 'politics of envy'. We know how the Tories and the media demonize anything Labour propose which smacks of that and we also know how effective it can be. Still, I agree with you. The big picture imo is we tax wealth or we drop the idea of the welfare state and good public services for all. So it's seize the moment. Not sure they will though.
We already have close to 40% of UK GDP taken by the UK Government in tax. We don't need a welfare state and public services for all either. The average earning voter and above does not need much if any welfare and the richest and highest earning 10% can use private healthcare and private education.
However I would not be surprised if Labour backed a wealth tax in 2023/24 even under Starmer as Ed Miliband and Corbyn both did
You have to be ahermit living on St Kilda not to use public services. We all use them.
As for the highet earning 10% - well whoopee-shit for them, what about the rest of us?
Not necessarily, most of the rich educate their children privately and probably most of them generally use private healthcare too and only go to the NHS if they have an emergency.
If you are rich or a high earner probably the only public services you directly benefit from are the police, fire service and rubbish collection and the former 2 only a very occasional basis if ever.
However the richest 10% still pay for state healthcare and education for the remaining 90% via their taxes
Well @Benpointer has beaten me to the list (of which it is only a small subset). You only have to look at your council tax bill to see how much you pay for the police. You are not using them occasionally. You are using them all the time. All those police cars going up and down the motorway, clearing accidents, etc you are personally using otherwise you are going nowhere. And when you do directly need the services of the police, fire brigade, or an ambulance you are really getting a lot of value. I have personally only needed the fire brigade once to be rescued from a car in a flood. Even got a lift home in a fire engine which was fun. Sadly the car didn't do as well as me.
What if you don't use motorways, don't commit any crimes, have never had a house fire and are hale and hearty, you are getting a real bum deal.
Most people drive, policing is just not for motorways, and of course you benefit from detection and deterrence of crimes in general. I benefited from the police deciding to raid the cannabis farm upstairs. Fire and health I see very much as insurance payments. In any case, most of us will use a lot of NHS in the final years of our lives however healthy we are now. And you, @malcolmg, presumably need a new spleen every few years.
@JohnLilburne I was being very tongue in cheek John.
Comments
I was being very tongue in cheek John.