I have closed out my GBP/CHF position at a profit, but my market sell positions are so far at a loss for the day. The market is a lot more panicky today, with far more short term volatility than we saw at the beginning of the week, and the Dow is so far trying to recover from its recent falls. A couple of my positions have stopped out but otherwise I am hanging in, and expecting renewed falls toward the weekend.
In a nutshell, it's a bureaucratic nightmare, which will affect even small businesses in NI. In fact it looks completely unworkable. Trouble ahead, I think.
It seems pretty clear the governmet is intending to ignore the provisons of the WA and that Suella Braverman has been brought in as AG to give legal cover to that. Where that leads to remains to be seen, but it's hard to see an upside for the UK.
Boris should be fine though. As we've seen with other recent examples, he and Cummings have been superb at reconstructing the thought processes of the British Right, so that they now regard all governmental and legal authority as belonging solely to the PM (rather than parliament, the cabinet, the courts or anything else). It's been an astonishing psychological takeover.
This worries me. If the precedent is set by a lovely cuddly, trustworthy, competent PM like Boris sidelining Parliament and the Courts, there will be no counter argument when son of Corbyn becomes PM.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
The trump admin had some twat giving evidence yesterday who claimed the death rate of coronavirus was the same as normal flu. He was aggressively questioned on this, because everyone knew he was wrong. But he just repeated the lie. Insane.
In fact, I don’t want to be alarmist, but the death rate on resolved cases (kill or cure) is right now at.... 8%.
An 8% mortality rate (should that happen) for a new, aggressive disease maybe more infectious than a cold is a very sobering concept.
Surely they would be dismayed? They love thinking they have the moral high ground
A very good point. Certainly I would rather lose with my purity intact than win ugly. But all is relative and with the oppo being "Boris" I think we can sink pretty low and yet retain that moral high ground.
Oh I am sure that will be the way they console themselves!
It wasn't just "feckless capitalist speculators" though.
Real world demand for ordinary Jo people to be able to buy things they didn't have the money for - and, relatedly, for governments to sign off market behaviour that enabled that, was just as much a driver.
Certainly, banks wanted to make profits, as did traders and so on - but at the bottom of it all were real people who also wanted to live a lifestyle they couldn't afford.
True. People, corporates, governments living beyond their means on copious amounts of cheap money. Risk management and prudence consigned to the bin. But the finance sector, driven by the bonus culture of Wall St and the City, was the mechanism. The mountain of derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, turned every dollar of 'bad' into multiple times that. And much of the "wanting to make profits" activity was at best insanely reckless and at worst fraudulent.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Remind me which party bailed out the banks to the tune of billions? I'm fairly certain it wasn't a party that had George Osborne CH and David Cameron (pbuh) as members.
Well that was Brown of course. And he had to, really, didn't he. But what I'm talking about are the political choices made by the Coalition in their mission to get on top of the public finances. The amount they chose to load onto those at the bottom. They could have made different choices.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Not sure to be honest but from the briefings I have read, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seems like an extremely credible organisation.
The Right Direction/Wrong Direction question is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING and totally non-intuitive result on the cross tabs.
Looks like the much-touted "Indy surge" is receding even before it passed the seaweed zone.
How do you deduce that from these figures then.
Well, No is ahead of Yes, albeit by just one point. That was after a few polls which had Yes ahead by one or two points.
There was some talk at the time of this representing a "tipping point" following which Yes would surge further ahead.
Probably too early to say but talk of a surge, and there was some, appears to be premature.
(Another theory is that the move to Yes was a Brexit blip caused by our departure from the EU, and that things would fall back to the prevailing narrow No lead. This poll seems to support that contention but, as I say, too early to tell).
I did not see much talk of any expected surge, that will only happen when campaigning starts or longer term as Westminster continue to crap on Scotland. Once the disaster that is Brexit, immigration , and the subjugation of the little devolved powers there are peak you are likely to see more change. Also given 70% of young people want it and the old staunch dyed in the wool unionists are popping off will also mean an uptick for certain.
Hmm. Lefties are always predicting the imminent demise of the right due to the rise of the yoof and the demise of the oldies. Never happens. The yoof wise up. Will be the same with Indy.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
It wasn't just "feckless capitalist speculators" though.
Real world demand for ordinary Jo people to be able to buy things they didn't have the money for - and, relatedly, for governments to sign off market behaviour that enabled that, was just as much a driver.
Certainly, banks wanted to make profits, as did traders and so on - but at the bottom of it all were real people who also wanted to live a lifestyle they couldn't afford.
True. People, corporates, governments living beyond their means on copious amounts of cheap money. Risk management and prudence consigned to the bin. But the finance sector, driven by the bonus culture of Wall St and the City, was the mechanism. The mountain of derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, turned every dollar of 'bad' into multiple times that. And much of the "wanting to make profits" activity was at best insanely reckless and at worst fraudulent.
Yes, I'd agree with all that. But there has been a tendency ever since it began - but even more so with Labour under Corbyn - to assign *all* the blame to greedy bankers and exonerate the public, which has the consequence of telling people that they were entitled to the wages and lifestyle they were enjoying in 2008 because the crash was all someone else's fault. Fact is, they weren't.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
It might be. And no doubt there are multiple factors contributing to recent falls. However it does seem overwhelmingly likely that Austerity is one of them. In which case there is a respectable argument to be made that many thousands of impoverished people have been quite literally sacrificed by David Cameron and George Osborne in order to pay the bills run up by feckless capitalist speculators. It's not a pleasant thought, I know, especially if one voted for them, but it has to be at the very least contemplated.
Remind me which party bailed out the banks to the tune of billions? I'm fairly certain it wasn't a party that had George Osborne CH and David Cameron (pbuh) as members.
But it was the Government containing George Osbourne and David Cameron who resold the government owned shares in the bailed out banks at a deliberately low price.
In a nutshell, it's a bureaucratic nightmare, which will affect even small businesses in NI. In fact it looks completely unworkable. Trouble ahead, I think.
It seems pretty clear the governmet is intending to ignore the provisons of the WA and that Suella Braverman has been brought in as AG to give legal cover to that. Where that leads to remains to be seen, but it's hard to see an upside for the UK.
Boris should be fine though. As we've seen with other recent examples, he and Cummings have been superb at reconstructing the thought processes of the British Right, so that they now regard all governmental and legal authority as belonging solely to the PM (rather than parliament, the cabinet, the courts or anything else). It's been an astonishing psychological takeover.
This worries me. If the precedent is set by a lovely cuddly, trustworthy, competent PM like Boris sidelining Parliament and the Courts, there will be no counter argument when son of Corbyn becomes PM.
"Son of Corbyn" or "Bastard of Boris"?
Please tell me there's no woman unfortunate/foolish enough to have got into the situations that would lead to an offspring about whom that would be a relevant question!
What makes Trump vulnerable is an economic recession. He is trying to head that off....
But vulnerable too to the covid virus itself. If we get the worst case scenario for rate of spread and mortality there could be many many deaths in America before polling day in November. And they say - and it's common sense - that most of those "taken" will be elderly and/or obese Trump supporters. In an election expected by most (although not me) to be close, this cull of his base could quite possibly be sufficient to tip him out of the White House. Not how I want him to lose, I must stress, but it has to be in the mental mix right now for any superforecaster worth his or her salt.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
The Right Direction/Wrong Direction question is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING and totally non-intuitive result on the cross tabs.
Looks like the much-touted "Indy surge" is receding even before it passed the seaweed zone.
How do you deduce that from these figures then.
Well, No is ahead of Yes, albeit by just one point. That was after a few polls which had Yes ahead by one or two points.
There was some talk at the time of this representing a "tipping point" following which Yes would surge further ahead.
Probably too early to say but talk of a surge, and there was some, appears to be premature.
(Another theory is that the move to Yes was a Brexit blip caused by our departure from the EU, and that things would fall back to the prevailing narrow No lead. This poll seems to support that contention but, as I say, too early to tell).
I did not see much talk of any expected surge, that will only happen when campaigning starts or longer term as Westminster continue to crap on Scotland. Once the disaster that is Brexit, immigration , and the subjugation of the little devolved powers there are peak you are likely to see more change. Also given 70% of young people want it and the old staunch dyed in the wool unionists are popping off will also mean an uptick for certain.
Hmm. Lefties are always predicting the imminent demise of the right due to the rise of the yoof and the demise of the oldies. Never happens. The yoof wise up. Will be the same with Indy.
There's an amusing irony here. Old people do die; the theory that this will guarantee permanent left-wing government never does.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Not sure to be honest but from the briefings I have read, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seems like an extremely credible organisation.
Errrr. See this. Here the CDC claims there is no community infection in the USA
It doesn’t mention that they have not started testing yet.
I very much doubt that the US has not started testing yet. From a quick skim of their website the CDC have developed a new assay which they are seeking to get rapid approval from the FDA. But in the meantime hospitals up and down the country will be doing their own home-made tests, where appropriate, just like they are in the UK.
But once the CDC have got approval for their new diagnostic it will further support whatever testing is going on locally. So they are doing it by the book, by the sounds of it.
Can I caution you regarding the over-consumption of Twitter? The situation is really not very good - I agree entirely - but you cannot just jump on any old rubbish.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say
My guess is the US government approach to Covid-19 will be, in general terms, complacency followed by blind panic involving harsh, punitive and generally ineffective measures.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say
They may have a dislike of globalisation - I suspect Trumps cutting this budget when meant we didn't recognise this disease until it killed your friend may trump it.
Hard to say as its possible that the argument is both too long and too complex (as there is an intermediary step) for trump voters..
What makes Trump vulnerable is an economic recession. He is trying to head that off....
But vulnerable too to the covid virus itself. If we get the worst case scenario for rate of spread and mortality there could be many many deaths in America before polling day in November. And they say - and it's common sense - that most of those "taken" will be elderly and/or obese Trump supporters. In an election expected by most (although not me) to be close, this cull of his base could quite possibly be sufficient to tip him out of the White House. Not how I want him to lose, I must stress, but it has to be in the mental mix right now for any superforecaster worth his or her salt.
Elderly, obese, Trump-supporter? Number one on that list would be Trump himself.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say
They may have a dislike of globalisation - I suspect Trumps cutting this budget when meant we didn't recognise this disease until it killed your friend may trump it.
Hard to say as its possible that the argument is both too long and too complex (as there is an intermediary step) for trump voters..
Well I'd say there is plenty of evidence, in life, on PB, on this thread, that people rigidly stick with their side when it comes to politics, and double down where necessary. So if you were someone with a negative view of globalisation (negative enough to vote for Trump's MAGA approach), a disease incubated in a foreign country and spread by globalisation would 'trump' any policy from the man you voted for
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Not sure to be honest but from the briefings I have read, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seems like an extremely credible organisation.
Errrr. See this. Here the CDC claims there is no community infection in the USA
It doesn’t mention that they have not started testing yet.
I very much doubt that the US has not started testing yet. From a quick skim of their website the CDC have developed a new assay which they are seeking to get rapid approval from the FDA. But in the meantime hospitals up and down the country will be doing their own home-made tests, where appropriate, just like they are in the UK.
But once the CDC have got approval for their new diagnostic it will further support whatever testing is going on locally. So they are doing it by the book, by the sounds of it.
Can I caution you regarding the over-consumption of Twitter? The situation is really not very good - I agree entirely - but you cannot just jump on any old rubbish.
I am actually quite judicious in what I link and retweet.
You are misinformed about testing in America. Their situation is suboptimal
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
You are worried that the man you idolise is about to be forensically taken apart by a proper LoTO. Right wing Tory tribalists are very worried, and so they should be.
We are about to see a normalisation of British politics where a decent LoTO properly calls the government to account. I look forward to Johnson being shown up as the most inappropriate PM we have had in recent history. It should not be very difficult.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
You are worried that the man you idolise is about to be forensically taken apart by a proper LoTO. Right wing Tory tribalists are very worried, and so they should be.
We are about to see a normalisation of British politics where a decent LoTO properly calls the government to account. I look forward to Johnson being shown up as the most inappropriate PM we have had in recent history. It should not be very difficult.
My only worry about Starmer is that he's going to bore us all to death...
I've not done much in the Denial phase but I was in the Angry phase for quite a long time. Angry at the ambivalence, angry at government policy, angry at the lack of understanding of the risk. Then depression for most of the last two weeks. I think I am in acceptance now, by and large. But I still get angry when I hear the likes of Simon Calder on national radio advising people that this will all blow over in a few months and we should be picking up the bargain cruise trips.
But on the whole, acceptance: let's think creatively about what we can do and let's get on with it.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
You are worried that the man you idolise is about to be forensically taken apart by a proper LoTO. Right wing Tory tribalists are very worried, and so they should be.
We are about to see a normalisation of British politics where a decent LoTO properly calls the government to account. I look forward to Johnson being shown up as the most inappropriate PM we have had in recent history. It should not be very difficult.
I'm not worried, I want a decent LOTO to hold the government to account, it leads to better governance and means we're less likely to see Tory splits. And since the government has an 80 seat majority that decent LOTO will not be able to block us, while holding the government to account. Win/win.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
Very well said!
Hear hear old bean, what? Another one that is worried! lol
Yes, I'd agree with all that. But there has been a tendency ever since it began - but even more so with Labour under Corbyn - to assign *all* the blame to greedy bankers and exonerate the public, which has the consequence of telling people that they were entitled to the wages and lifestyle they were enjoying in 2008 because the crash was all someone else's fault. Fact is, they weren't.
If you're saying that any sustained and significant departure from Sound Money principles, either by a government or a business or an individual, will one day end in tears, I totally agree. Trouble with this one, though, the 2008 Crash, was that the tears ended up streaming down the wrong cheeks. Because, OK, lots of people were indeed getting paid more than they ought to have been, and yes this does include many who were not banker types, but it WAS the individuals in that sector, and its affiliates, for whom the charge of over-remunerating themselves is most apt. The term could have been invented for them. It was larceny, in my book, much of it.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say.
The key demographic electorally is the independents that voted Trump last time. It’s how they react that really matters.
I've not done much in the Denial phase but I was in the Angry phase for quite a long time. Angry at the ambivalence, angry at government policy, angry at the lack of understanding of the risk. Then depression for most of the last two weeks. I think I am in acceptance now, by and large. But I still get angry when I hear the likes of Simon Calder on national radio advising people that this will all blow over in a few months and we should be picking up the bargain cruise trips.
But on the whole, acceptance: let's think creatively about what we can do and let's get on with it.
Why would anyone unaffected by it thus far be grieving anyway?! I don't think the seven stages of grief are relevant here, people haven't lost anything.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
You are worried that the man you idolise is about to be forensically taken apart by a proper LoTO. Right wing Tory tribalists are very worried, and so they should be.
We are about to see a normalisation of British politics where a decent LoTO properly calls the government to account. I look forward to Johnson being shown up as the most inappropriate PM we have had in recent history. It should not be very difficult.
I'm not worried, I want a decent LOTO to hold the government to account, it leads to better governance and means we're less likely to see Tory splits. And since the government has an 80 seat majority that decent LOTO will not be able to block us, while holding the government to account. Win/win.
You are a tribalist, so I don't believe you. You would like another Corbynesque LoTO so the Tory party can continue to be an alt-right parody of it's former self.
By the way, if you think a clever LoTO causes less splits in the governing party you must be very young or have a very short political memory.
I would be very confident if there were a couple of dozen, fairly confident if there were a few hundred. If it hits the thousands, and is fairly localised, it will be a mess.
We have our plans, let's just hope that the virus keeps to it's part of the plan.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Not sure to be honest but from the briefings I have read, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seems like an extremely credible organisation.
Errrr. See this. Here the CDC claims there is no community infection in the USA
It doesn’t mention that they have not started testing yet.
I very much doubt that the US has not started testing yet. From a quick skim of their website the CDC have developed a new assay which they are seeking to get rapid approval from the FDA. But in the meantime hospitals up and down the country will be doing their own home-made tests, where appropriate, just like they are in the UK.
But once the CDC have got approval for their new diagnostic it will further support whatever testing is going on locally. So they are doing it by the book, by the sounds of it.
Can I caution you regarding the over-consumption of Twitter? The situation is really not very good - I agree entirely - but you cannot just jump on any old rubbish.
I am actually quite judicious in what I link and retweet.
You are misinformed about testing in America. Their situation is suboptimal
We’ve done OK so far (tho the NHS’ mishandling of my case is not encouraging) - however I fear the UK number of cases is about to increase. We shall see.
Italy is now over half the cases that aren't China (78k) or Korea (1.2k). Thats got well out of control very quickly.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
I've not done much in the Denial phase but I was in the Angry phase for quite a long time. Angry at the ambivalence, angry at government policy, angry at the lack of understanding of the risk. Then depression for most of the last two weeks. I think I am in acceptance now, by and large. But I still get angry when I hear the likes of Simon Calder on national radio advising people that this will all blow over in a few months and we should be picking up the bargain cruise trips.
But on the whole, acceptance: let's think creatively about what we can do and let's get on with it.
Why would anyone unaffected by it thus far be grieving anyway?! I don't think the seven stages of grief are relevant here, people haven't lost anything.
Really? As I feel like I have 'grieved' quite a lot these last few weeks.
Maybe it is not a perfect fit for this situation or maybe I am just further through the process than you?
I've not done much in the Denial phase but I was in the Angry phase for quite a long time. Angry at the ambivalence, angry at government policy, angry at the lack of understanding of the risk. Then depression for most of the last two weeks. I think I am in acceptance now, by and large. But I still get angry when I hear the likes of Simon Calder on national radio advising people that this will all blow over in a few months and we should be picking up the bargain cruise trips.
But on the whole, acceptance: let's think creatively about what we can do and let's get on with it.
Why would anyone unaffected by it thus far be grieving anyway?! I don't think the seven stages of grief are relevant here, people haven't lost anything.
Really? As I feel like I have 'grieved' quite a lot these last few weeks.
Maybe it is not a perfect fit for this situation or maybe I am just further through the process than you?
I guess others can see if it resonates with them.
Haha well I guess you are further down the process as I have barely a moments thought to how I feel about it!
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is it?
Not sure to be honest but from the briefings I have read, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seems like an extremely credible organisation.
Errrr. See this. Here the CDC claims there is no community infection in the USA
It doesn’t mention that they have not started testing yet.
I very much doubt that the US has not started testing yet. From a quick skim of their website the CDC have developed a new assay which they are seeking to get rapid approval from the FDA. But in the meantime hospitals up and down the country will be doing their own home-made tests, where appropriate, just like they are in the UK.
But once the CDC have got approval for their new diagnostic it will further support whatever testing is going on locally. So they are doing it by the book, by the sounds of it.
Can I caution you regarding the over-consumption of Twitter? The situation is really not very good - I agree entirely - but you cannot just jump on any old rubbish.
I am actually quite judicious in what I link and retweet.
You are misinformed about testing in America. Their situation is suboptimal
We’ve done OK so far (tho the NHS’ mishandling of my case is not encouraging) - however I fear the UK number of cases is about to increase. We shall see.
Italy is now over half the cases that aren't China (78k) or Korea (1.2k). Thats got well out of control very quickly.
No, as we know the incubation period to be up to 3 weeks, we are seeing detected cases affected before the controls were implemented. Indeed the mass screening as part of the response is why the Italian and ROK figures have jumped.
It is too early to tell if the measures are working.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say.
The key demographic electorally is the independents that voted Trump last time. It’s how they react that really matters.
This is key. There was little sign of Corbyn attracting independent or previous non-voters like this in equivalent places like the west midlands, for instance.
However, today seems to show some of the first signs of national head-to-head polls that are not as favourable for Sanders against Trump. It could be that his nuanced stance on things like Cuba, while actually to the right of the UK left and Corbyn, might be beginning to hurt him, and that is something that does bear comparison with Corbyn.
Yes, I'd agree with all that. But there has been a tendency ever since it began - but even more so with Labour under Corbyn - to assign *all* the blame to greedy bankers and exonerate the public, which has the consequence of telling people that they were entitled to the wages and lifestyle they were enjoying in 2008 because the crash was all someone else's fault. Fact is, they weren't.
If you're saying that any sustained and significant departure from Sound Money principles, either by a government or a business or an individual, will one day end in tears, I totally agree. Trouble with this one, though, the 2008 Crash, was that the tears ended up streaming down the wrong cheeks. Because, OK, lots of people were indeed getting paid more than they ought to have been, and yes this does include many who were not banker types, but it WAS the individuals in that sector, and its affiliates, for whom the charge of over-remunerating themselves is most apt. The term could have been invented for them. It was larceny, in my book, much of it.
Yes, absolutely. And many of them effectively got away with it. They might have lost their jobs but they kept very nice pensions, for example.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
Yes, I'd agree with all that. But there has been a tendency ever since it began - but even more so with Labour under Corbyn - to assign *all* the blame to greedy bankers and exonerate the public, which has the consequence of telling people that they were entitled to the wages and lifestyle they were enjoying in 2008 because the crash was all someone else's fault. Fact is, they weren't.
If you're saying that any sustained and significant departure from Sound Money principles, either by a government or a business or an individual, will one day end in tears, I totally agree. Trouble with this one, though, the 2008 Crash, was that the tears ended up streaming down the wrong cheeks. Because, OK, lots of people were indeed getting paid more than they ought to have been, and yes this does include many who were not banker types, but it WAS the individuals in that sector, and its affiliates, for whom the charge of over-remunerating themselves is most apt. The term could have been invented for them. It was larceny, in my book, much of it.
Yes, absolutely. And many of them effectively got away with it. They might have lost their jobs but they kept very nice pensions, for example.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
That the govt then nationalised their industry, paid them millions in annual bonuses during a decade of loss making, fines and settlements for scandals didnt help either!
The Right Direction/Wrong Direction question is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING and totally non-intuitive result on the cross tabs.
Looks like the much-touted "Indy surge" is receding even before it passed the seaweed zone.
How do you deduce that from these figures then.
Well, No is ahead of Yes, albeit by just one point. That was after a few polls which had Yes ahead by one or two points.
There was some talk at the time of this representing a "tipping point" following which Yes would surge further ahead.
Probably too early to say but talk of a surge, and there was some, appears to be premature.
(Another theory is that the move to Yes was a Brexit blip caused by our departure from the EU, and that things would fall back to the prevailing narrow No lead. This poll seems to support that contention but, as I say, too early to tell).
I did not see much talk of any expected surge, that will only happen when campaigning starts or longer term as Westminster continue to crap on Scotland. Once the disaster that is Brexit, immigration , and the subjugation of the little devolved powers there are peak you are likely to see more change. Also given 70% of young people want it and the old staunch dyed in the wool unionists are popping off will also mean an uptick for certain.
Hmm. Lefties are always predicting the imminent demise of the right due to the rise of the yoof and the demise of the oldies. Never happens. The yoof wise up. Will be the same with Indy.
Hmmm , not convinced Indy is a left/right thing and hard to see them changing their minds.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
Also one of Mrs Thatcher's first acts as PM was to civilise the Scots and Northern Irish and decriminalise homosexuality there.
Is weird/interesting how Scotland and Northern Ireland have diverged on all things LBTQ since the 80s.
Starmer has exactly what it takes to be elected Labour Party leader . . .
. . . a penis.
Well let us hope that unlike the boorish twat we currently have as a PM he knows not to share it too liberally with any young woman that is attracted to power.
I'd rather the PM is a boorish twat who gets his jollies with the opposite sex*, than a pretentious twat who has no life of his own and wants to meddle in all of ours instead.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
You are worried that the man you idolise is about to be forensically taken apart by a proper LoTO. Right wing Tory tribalists are very worried, and so they should be.
We are about to see a normalisation of British politics where a decent LoTO properly calls the government to account. I look forward to Johnson being shown up as the most inappropriate PM we have had in recent history. It should not be very difficult.
I'm not worried, I want a decent LOTO to hold the government to account, it leads to better governance and means we're less likely to see Tory splits. And since the government has an 80 seat majority that decent LOTO will not be able to block us, while holding the government to account. Win/win.
You are a tribalist, so I don't believe you. You would like another Corbynesque LoTO so the Tory party can continue to be an alt-right parody of it's former self.
By the way, if you think a clever LoTO causes less splits in the governing party you must be very young or have a very short political memory.
No I don't. I'm not a tribalist, I'm principled, there's a difference. I back the Tories when they back my libertarian principles and oppose them when they don't.
I firmly opposed and despised Theresa May. I was disgusted in her treatment of immigration while Cameron was PM, I quit the party when she was elected leader, I was appalled when she literally used the word libertarian as an insult in a speech and I 100% consistently opposed her withdrawal agreement. Are those the actions of a tribalist?
I know full well that the Tories won't be in power forever. While they're in power I want them to act as close to my libertarian beliefs as possible and to be re-elected where possible, but I know full well they will eventually be replaced. When they get replaced I want the least damaging opposition possible to take over. My ideal would be for Lib Dems to replace Labour as a moderate opposition holding the Tories to account but I don't see that happening any time soon.
And as it seemed in December, this ridiculously overlong voting process seems designed purely to give the Corbyn generation enough time to think about how to retain influence in the party. It might be that they didn't anticipate the neutralising impact of Starmer's left-right unifying approach on that, because it already looks irrelevant to the institutions of the party.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
Got to wonder how a spread of the epidemic to the USA plays for Trump's chances of re-election. There'd be some serious material there for some really kooky conspiracising too, possibly including by Trump himself.
The election related coronavirus conspiracy theories have already begun. 2020 is going to be crazy.
Yes, absolutely. And many of them effectively got away with it. They might have lost their jobs but they kept very nice pensions, for example.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
OK. Fair comment. They were prominent in a list of culprits, let's just say that.
But your point about pinning ALL the blame on feckless financiers is interesting. Because although the Left has certainly tried their damnedest to do that - and I do think it has more merit than blaming it ALL on, say, Gordon Brown - I would say they have abjectly failed to do so. In fact this is IMO the most interesting and unresolved question in modern western politics. The rational response to the Crash was surely to lurch Left. This is what I would have expected a critical mass of the public to conclude to be the suitable response. Yet it has not panned out like that. The reverse if anything. And OK, some of this is because things happened to go pop on the watch of various Centre Left governments. But there's more to it than this, I feel. Seems to me that people have drawn the wrong conclusions. Brexit, Trump etc.
Yes, absolutely. And many of them effectively got away with it. They might have lost their jobs but they kept very nice pensions, for example.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
OK. Fair comment. They were prominent in a list of culprits, let's just say that.
But your point about pinning ALL the blame on feckless financiers is interesting. Because although the Left has certainly tried their damnedest to do that - and I do think it has more merit than blaming it ALL on, say, Gordon Brown - I would say they have abjectly failed to do so. In fact this is IMO the most interesting and unresolved question in modern western politics. The rational response to the Crash was surely to lurch Left. This is what I would have expected a critical mass of the public to conclude to be the suitable response. Yet it has not panned out like that. The reverse if anything. And OK, some of this is because things happened to go pop on the watch of various Centre Left governments. But there's more to it than this, I feel. Seems to me that people have drawn the wrong conclusions. Brexit, Trump etc.
In the UK, the Liberal Democrats played a crucial role in this, by adding centrist legitimacy to the idea that state spending had overwhelming reponsibility for the crash. In the US, culture war tactics stopped the idea of wall street blame getting wider purchase in the fly-over states. Now that we have those same culture war tactics being imported over here, and yet also potentially married with more big-spending economic policy, also as in the US, the opportunities for the left are getting scarcer.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
Thatcher was also supportive of what we now call evidence based policy making. She often insisted on reading lots of background details about goventment policy which most PMs leave to the departmental advisors. This was often credited to her actually having degrees in a scientific subject.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
The drop in air travel could make 2020 the greenest for some time. They used to say we needed a good war, now maybe pandemic has replaced combat
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
What happened to your “we’re all going to get it anyway, so stop worrying”??
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
Isn’t everyone in your family around three decades younger than you ? If so, unless they are respiratory compromised, it’s only you that need panic.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
Stick to your Essex island, stock up with beans and shotgun shells.
Yes, absolutely. And many of them effectively got away with it. They might have lost their jobs but they kept very nice pensions, for example.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
OK. Fair comment. They were prominent in a list of culprits, let's just say that.
But your point about pinning ALL the blame on feckless financiers is interesting. Because although the Left has certainly tried their damnedest to do that - and I do think it has more merit than blaming it ALL on, say, Gordon Brown - I would say they have abjectly failed to do so. In fact this is IMO the most interesting and unresolved question in modern western politics. The rational response to the Crash was surely to lurch Left. This is what I would have expected a critical mass of the public to conclude to be the suitable response. Yet it has not panned out like that. The reverse if anything. And OK, some of this is because things happened to go pop on the watch of various Centre Left governments. But there's more to it than this, I feel. Seems to me that people have drawn the wrong conclusions. Brexit, Trump etc.
About half the electorate and more than half the voters have done very well out of aftermath of the crash as asset values have risen faster than wages. It is no coincidence the young with reasonable income potential but asset poor have swung leftwards whilst the majority of voters have swung to the right.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
The drop in air travel could make 2020 the greenest for some time. They used to say we needed a good war, now maybe pandemic has replaced combat
Even more than many elections the leadership contest feels like a situation where having made an immediate choice people are very reluctant to move position - has there been any indication people are shifting views at all?
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
Thatcher was also supportive of what we now call evidence based policy making. She often insisted on reading lots of background details about goventment policy which most PMs leave to the departmental advisors. This was often credited to her actually having degrees in a scientific subject.
She made a major speech to the UN on climate change which had been written by Lord Deben aka John Gummer. He said recently that no-one else in the govt was remotely interested.
Comments
Is there a pools panel or a Duckworth Lewis equivalent?
. . . a penis.
But once the CDC have got approval for their new diagnostic it will further support whatever testing is going on locally. So they are doing it by the book, by the sounds of it.
Can I caution you regarding the over-consumption of Twitter? The situation is really not very good - I agree entirely - but you cannot just jump on any old rubbish.
* or same sex if that way inclined.
Hard to say as its possible that the argument is both too long and too complex (as there is an intermediary step) for trump voters..
We are about to see a normalisation of British politics where a decent LoTO properly calls the government to account. I look forward to Johnson being shown up as the most inappropriate PM we have had in recent history. It should not be very difficult.
Where are we all on this then for Corona?
I've not done much in the Denial phase but I was in the Angry phase for quite a long time. Angry at the ambivalence, angry at government policy, angry at the lack of understanding of the risk. Then depression for most of the last two weeks. I think I am in acceptance now, by and large. But I still get angry when I hear the likes of Simon Calder on national radio advising people that this will all blow over in a few months and we should be picking up the bargain cruise trips.
But on the whole, acceptance: let's think creatively about what we can do and let's get on with it.
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1232709598425100288?s=21
By the way, if you think a clever LoTO causes less splits in the governing party you must be very young or have a very short political memory.
We have our plans, let's just hope that the virus keeps to it's part of the plan.
https://twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1232699563946889216
https://twitter.com/DeItaOne/status/1232710003552923650
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449525268529815552?s=20
Maybe it is not a perfect fit for this situation or maybe I am just further through the process than you?
I guess others can see if it resonates with them.
It is too early to tell if the measures are working.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/bernie-sanders-pa-lancaster-stands-up-20200226.html
However, today seems to show some of the first signs of national head-to-head polls that are not as favourable for Sanders against Trump. It could be that his nuanced stance on things like Cuba, while actually to the right of the UK left and Corbyn, might be beginning to hurt him, and that is something that does bear comparison with Corbyn.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
2/3...
https://eu.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/26/palmetto-poll-joe-biden-has-big-lead-sc-democratic-primary/4875355002/
Is weird/interesting how Scotland and Northern Ireland have diverged on all things LBTQ since the 80s.
I firmly opposed and despised Theresa May. I was disgusted in her treatment of immigration while Cameron was PM, I quit the party when she was elected leader, I was appalled when she literally used the word libertarian as an insult in a speech and I 100% consistently opposed her withdrawal agreement. Are those the actions of a tribalist?
I know full well that the Tories won't be in power forever. While they're in power I want them to act as close to my libertarian beliefs as possible and to be re-elected where possible, but I know full well they will eventually be replaced. When they get replaced I want the least damaging opposition possible to take over. My ideal would be for Lib Dems to replace Labour as a moderate opposition holding the Tories to account but I don't see that happening any time soon.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
But your point about pinning ALL the blame on feckless financiers is interesting. Because although the Left has certainly tried their damnedest to do that - and I do think it has more merit than blaming it ALL on, say, Gordon Brown - I would say they have abjectly failed to do so. In fact this is IMO the most interesting and unresolved question in modern western politics. The rational response to the Crash was surely to lurch Left. This is what I would have expected a critical mass of the public to conclude to be the suitable response. Yet it has not panned out like that. The reverse if anything. And OK, some of this is because things happened to go pop on the watch of various Centre Left governments. But there's more to it than this, I feel. Seems to me that people have drawn the wrong conclusions. Brexit, Trump etc.
Brexit is the wild card here, however.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1232719782757224448?s=09
If so, unless they are respiratory compromised, it’s only you that need panic.
Starmer 40%
Corbyn 28%
Nandy 12%
RLB 8%
But we know that before he was elected.