There was a quite a lot of mild racism on this site about the virus in China. It was their genetics that made them susceptible, it was the fact that they pissed and shat in the streets. It's the fact they eat dogs or whatever.
Actually the Chinese, when they realised what was going on, are much better placed as a society and as a system of government to handle this.
Their mentality is correct. You do need to lock down from the top but you also need a willingness from below to accept that it is necessary. Do we have that in the UK?
I'm afraid not. What we have currently is: "I've booked my holiday and I'm going on it".
That needs to change very very quickly.
It won't
Like it or not the 'chinese' way of doing things has many advantages. Want to contain an outbreak? Shut down the city. Want to build a trainline, just do it...
This is often said without stopping to consider the downside.
It ignores property rights, planning law and public opinion - in other words the fundamentals of a democracy.
If the Chinese were building HS2 it would have started 5-6 years ago because they’d simply have ignored all opposition and just confiscated the land from those who went public in opposing them, paying minimal or little compensation, and heritage or environmental concerns would have been thrown right out the window.
In building the line everything (including health & safety) would have been sacrificed to maintaining the schedule, and political and legal threats used against non cooperative contractors who tried to play a commercial game.
Are we sure we’re up for that?
I'm not denying there's downsides, but there's advantages as well. And they shouldnt be ignored.
“But Mussolini made the trains run on time”
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither
I completely agree. Brexit was a vehicle for getting into power, nothing more.
This is key to understanding the last few years in UK politics. Brexit, yes, but more fundamentally what we have seen is the rollout of the Boris Johnson Project with Brexit merely a tool (albeit the biggest) in the box.
To write it up in school science format -
Objective:
The ascent to untrammeled political power of one Boris Johnson.
Method:
Raise profile and support in Tory rank and file. Use Brexit. Destabilize and bring down Theresa May. Use Brexit. Win party leadership and become PM. Use Brexit. Win general election with overall majority. Use Brexit.
And that really is what is so repellant about the superclub era, even if the money came from the purest of sources and was spent in scrupulous observance of financial fair play regulations: it means clubs such as Madrid and Barcelona can be run staggeringly badly with no real consequence, their wealth and status sustaining them so they can come back for another large slice of the pie the following year.
The New York Yankees have been doing just that for over 50 years.
In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.
My Boy Sherrod Brown.
I have a fiver riding on Sherrod Brown.
Alas I long ago traded away any Sherrod Brown bets I made way back when.
Groupthink on the “liberal” side is as silly and dangerous as it is anywhere else. Those who dislike what Brexit is turning into need to ask ourselves some hard questions about why we have not been able to persuade people to our views. Not simply deplore or criticise others for being wrong.
And how it that supposed to happen? All sorts of reasons against Brexit where given, mostly economics, trade, medicine, influence, etc, etc, and the basic response was a stamping of feet and toys being hurled from the Leaver pram.
We get told that it is all about identity and sovereignty. Remainers pointed out that the very act of Brexit proves we still had sovereignty and the shouting just starts up again.
What are you supposed to do when the other side does not want to listen? As a Remainer I viewed myself as British and the UK as a sovereign country - the things that Brexit was supposed to be giving me, I had already. To me Brexit just appears to be an almost wilful act of self-harm.
The only "justification" I can see for Brexit is the one that gets denied every time it is brought up - keep the foreigners out, they are taking our jobs. Point it out and toys start flying from the pram again.
And if you’d had your way, and the Europhile elite had engineered a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, you’d have proved that we, the British people, were very definitely NOT sovereign. If a vote can be overruled, all democratic sovereignty is lost.
You still don’t get this. I don’t believe you ever will. It is outwith your comprehension.
"The British people" are not sovereign you numpty, the British state is, and always was.
In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.
Isn't he a bit young to be running at only 67 years old?
I realise this has happened in the past e.g. James K Polk but it would be truly bizarre if they spent 6 months holding primaries and then picked someone else.
Living in a free society must be such a trial for some people.
I like a bit of freedom as much as the next man but there are limits. Watch the space on Covid, for example. People's freedom to spread it may need to be forcibly curtailed.
I like to think there's a significant difference between losing the freedom to spread a deadly disease and losing the freedom to pursue educational excellence for one's children...
I thought they had passed legislation to approve the runway anyway? Wouldn’t that mean - assuming correctly drafted - it is by definition lawful?
Isn't it the case that a law can prove to be unlawful if it breaks another law?
E.g., to use a hypothetical example, a law that reintroduced selective education might conceivably fall foul of the 2010 Equality Act which states ("An authority... must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.")
A suitable Equality Act amendment might be passed at the same time to overcome that difficulty but if not the hypothetical Selective Education Act could be unlawful. Maybe.
I completely agree. Brexit was a vehicle for getting into power, nothing more.
This is key to understanding the last few years in UK politics. Brexit, yes, but more fundamentally what we have seen is the rollout of the Boris Johnson Project with Brexit merely a tool (albeit the biggest) in the box.
To write it up in school science format -
Objective:
The ascent to untrammeled political power of one Boris Johnson.
Method:
Raise profile and support in Tory rank and file. Use Brexit. Destabilize and bring down Theresa May. Use Brexit. Win party leadership and become PM. Use Brexit. Win general election with overall majority. Use Brexit.
Results:
Done. Done. Done. Done (in spades).
Conclusion:
Objective achieved.
Quite. The point of the Tory landslide is not to enable Brexit. The point of Brexit was to enable a Tory landslide.
I voted Remain, but for a return to the political power dynamics of Thatcher in her pomp? I'll swallow Brexit with gusto.
In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.
All calls said the same thing.
"PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE......help us out here......"
In 2004 Rasmussen had Bush beating Kerry by 2, in 2008 Rasmussen had Obama beating McCain by 6 and as you say in 2016 they had Hillary ahead by 2 on the popular vote. So bar 2012 since they were founded in 2003 Rasmussen have a good record in presidential elections.
Plus given their poll today had Trump beating Sanders by 7, given in 2012 Obama won by 3, even on their same error as 2012 Trump would still lead Sanders by 2
The person was not "reinfected" they had a relapse. Something that is very common with viral diseases.
That’s not true either. The fact is doctors don’t really know, and major experts are disputing this.
My comment was based on this from the Guardian's live feed
Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia cautions against reading too much into the case of a Japanese woman who has tested positive for coronavirus for a second time.
In remarks distributed by the Science Media Centre he said:
So there are a two possibilities
1. This is indeed a relapse of the illness – This was seen in Sars but in someone who was being treated with steroids. It is possible that the illness could be biphasic as suggested by Dr Tierno, though this is unlikely to be common, based on current information.
2. She has a prolonged excretion of virus from her initial infection and tests were either not done or were not done sufficiently well or enough to confirm clearance. It does appear that swabs for the virus are not 100% reliable. In this case it is even possible that the recent sore throat may be unrelated. Covid-19 tends to cause upper respiratory tract symptoms rather less frequently than did Sars.
I would caution against reading too much into this report, given the lack of information. However, the report reinforces the fact that we have to investigate all such findings really thoroughly and report such information if we are to make the best decisions based on sound scientific evidence. At this time I would counsel against changing management guidelines based on this case but we do need to always keep them under review.
I was quite a heavy smoker and gave up pretty easily. My method was to choose a date in the not so distant future, and switch from Bensons to Silk Cut until then. On that date I just didn’t have my fag on the way to work, then didn’t have my fag at the 11am tea break, then not at lunch and so on. Little milestones. At night I tried to eat a fruit pastille without chewing every time I wanted a cigarette. And it worked! Actually can’t believe I ever smoked now
I am on Silk Cut now rather than Marlboro Red and on 10 a day rather than 20. But this is supplemented with vaping and nicotine lozenges - for after 5.30 pm since I don't smoke after 5.30 pm unless I'm out, which I hardly ever am. Out is for dynamic risk-takers, which is no longer me.
Pete Buttigieg's odds for the nomination are now weirdly short given his presidential odds. Implied 2-1 against vs Trump. If he's going to shock the world on Super Tuesday I'd have thought it would be the other way round.
Yes. I think the mistake the opposition are about to make is to argue against the Highbrow Tory ‘We don’t like certain aspects of clauses in EU legislature that inhibit our ability to trade with Buenos Aries’ version of Leave, when the only reason Leave won and Labour got thrashed is FOM. In short, they’re overthinking it in order to stay on their safe space and avoid having to do something major about immigration
I've "liked" your post because you provide a valuable service on here - being the only Leave poster who regularly makes the point that Immigration and FoM was the biggest single driver of the 2016 win for Brexit, and therefore for Brexit itself. I think you're wrong about Immigration but are totally right that being wrong about it was the most important common denominator distinguishing the 17m from the 16m. That we have on here so many Leavers with liberal views on Immigration rather warps our debate away from "out there". Not complaining, it's all good, but it's a point to be borne in mind.
I actually like the concept of FOM. But we have to accept that, as it stands, it is unattractive for most of the UK, particularly the poorer people. They want job security at home, not freedom to move around Europe as they please.
I work at home and my gf is on maternity leave. The other day, watching the news on Brexit, I said we could move to Poland, buy a house, be mortgage free & raise our family there. I was kind of joking, although I would kind of like to do something like that, but she didn’t even assume for one nanosecond that I would be serious.
Not unattractive for Scotland for sure.
Scotland should be attracting workers by offering lower taxes than rUk - not higher taxes as under the SNP.
What bollox Harry, I explained this to you in Janet and John language the other day. Show this to your Mum and she will explain it to you. 56% of Scottish taxpayers pay less than the UK taxpayers. If you include the free additional services Scotland gets then the other 44% also pay less, that means 100% pay less tax than rest of UK. This was detailed in Westminster parliament by a Tory minister, under duress from SNP to tell the truth, last week or earlier this week.
In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.
Isn't he a bit young to be running at only 67 years old?
I realise this has happened in the past e.g. James K Polk but it would be truly bizarre if they spent 6 months holding primaries and then picked someone else.
If the Dem Nominee is outsourced, I can't see Trump losing. I would say that outcome would be the ultimate in political disenfranchisement.
IMO a plurality should be enough and would be enough for anyone but Sanders.
Groupthink on the “liberal” side is as silly and dangerous as it is anywhere else. Those who dislike what Brexit is turning into need to ask ourselves some hard questions about why we have not been able to persuade people to our views. Not simply deplore or criticise others for being wrong.
And how it that supposed to happen? All sorts of reasons against Brexit where given, mostly economics, trade, medicine, influence, etc, etc, and the basic response was a stamping of feet and toys being hurled from the Leaver pram.
We get told that it is all about identity and sovereignty. Remainers pointed out that the very act of Brexit proves we still had sovereignty and the shouting just starts up again.
What are you supposed to do when the other side does not want to listen? As a Remainer I viewed myself as British and the UK as a sovereign country - the things that Brexit was supposed to be giving me, I had already. To me Brexit just appears to be an almost wilful act of self-harm.
The only "justification" I can see for Brexit is the one that gets denied every time it is brought up - keep the foreigners out, they are taking our jobs. Point it out and toys start flying from the pram again.
And if you’d had your way, and the Europhile elite had engineered a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, you’d have proved that we, the British people, were very definitely NOT sovereign. If a vote can be overruled, all democratic sovereignty is lost.
You still don’t get this. I don’t believe you ever will. It is outwith your comprehension.
No, I did understand it.
You do not seem to get that just because I was on the losing side does not mean that I eject my previous stance and fall into line. I am not Big_G.
Like UKIP and Farage, who disagreed for 40 years, I shall continue to argue my side of the argument. That is the essential of democracy. If I (and Remain) had been able to persuade the majority of people in the UK to reverse the previous decision, that is still democracy. It is persuasion, not tanks on the lawn or the rule of the jackboot.
Besides, what are you complaining about? You won. You got your Brexit.
IF this outbreak happened in China under, say Mao, we in the west probably would never have even heard about it, much less been in danger of catching it.
Globalisation has undoubtedly brought huge benefits, but I wonder if this changes the debate down the line at all.
Has anyone here watched BBC Storyville on Jonestown? A Leonardo di Caprio production I think. Quite harrowing, I had to pause it a couple of times it was so heavy.
I like to think there's a significant difference between losing the freedom to spread a deadly disease and losing the freedom to pursue educational excellence for one's children...
But where the excellence is at the expense of those less financially blessed it becomes something not a million miles from hard-coding gross inequality into our society. To go with the disease analogy it is not just propagating it but making it impossible to treat. But anyway. We are where we are.
In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.
Isn't he a bit young to be running at only 67 years old?
I realise this has happened in the past e.g. James K Polk but it would be truly bizarre if they spent 6 months holding primaries and then picked someone else.
Has anyone here watched BBC Storyville on Jonestown? A Leonardo di Caprio production I think. Quite harrowing, I had to pause it a couple of times it was so heavy.
We had recorded it. My wife watched it and deleted it, she found it so disturbing.
Yes. I think the mistake the opposition are about to make is to argue against the Highbrow Tory ‘We don’t like certain aspects of clauses in EU legislature that inhibit our ability to trade with Buenos Aries’ version of Leave, when the only reason Leave won and Labour got thrashed is FOM. In short, they’re overthinking it in order to stay on their safe space and avoid having to do something major about immigration
I've "liked" your post because you provide a valuable service on here - being the only Leave poster who regularly makes the point that Immigration and FoM was the biggest single driver of the 2016 win for Brexit, and therefore for Brexit itself. I think you're wrong about Immigration but are totally right that being wrong about it was the most important common denominator distinguishing the 17m from the 16m. That we have on here so many Leavers with liberal views on Immigration rather warps our debate away from "out there". Not complaining, it's all good, but it's a point to be borne in mind.
I actually like the concept of FOM. But we have to accept that, as it stands, it is unattractive for most of the UK, particularly the poorer people. They want job security at home, not freedom to move around Europe as they please.
I work at home and my gf is on maternity leave. The other day, watching the news on Brexit, I said we could move to Poland, buy a house, be mortgage free & raise our family there. I was kind of joking, although I would kind of like to do something like that, but she didn’t even assume for one nanosecond that I would be serious.
Not unattractive for Scotland for sure.
Scotland should be attracting workers by offering lower taxes than rUk - not higher taxes as under the SNP.
What bollox Harry, I explained this to you in Janet and John language the other day. Show this to your Mum and she will explain it to you. 56% of Scottish taxpayers pay less than the UK taxpayers. If you include the free additional services Scotland gets then the other 44% also pay less, that means 100% pay less tax than rest of UK. This was detailed in Westminster parliament by a Tory minister, under duress from SNP to tell the truth, last week or earlier this week.
Yes, and I've explained that this is a bogus argument. The 56% are, literally. just a few quid better off, while higher-rate taxpayers are clobbered. And the free stuff is due to large fiscal transfers to Holyrood from Westminster - over £1000 per person more available for spending than south of the border. You can buy a lot of flags with that.
Comments
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither
To write it up in school science format -
Objective:
The ascent to untrammeled political power of one Boris Johnson.
Method:
Raise profile and support in Tory rank and file. Use Brexit.
Destabilize and bring down Theresa May. Use Brexit.
Win party leadership and become PM. Use Brexit.
Win general election with overall majority. Use Brexit.
Results:
Done. Done. Done. Done (in spades).
Conclusion:
Objective achieved.
Curse you Biden.
E.g., to use a hypothetical example, a law that reintroduced selective education might conceivably fall foul of the 2010 Equality Act which states ("An authority... must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.")
A suitable Equality Act amendment might be passed at the same time to overcome that difficulty but if not the hypothetical Selective Education Act could be unlawful. Maybe.
I voted Remain, but for a return to the political power dynamics of Thatcher in her pomp? I'll swallow Brexit with gusto.
"PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE......help us out here......"
Feck, the Pope is Patient Zero.
https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1233004467580284930
Francis the Mule.
56% of Scottish taxpayers pay less than the UK taxpayers. If you include the free additional services Scotland gets then the other 44% also pay less, that means 100% pay less tax than rest of UK. This was detailed in Westminster parliament by a Tory minister, under duress from SNP to tell the truth, last week or earlier this week.
This bit really did stand out
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1233012429627494401
IMO a plurality should be enough and would be enough for anyone but Sanders.
You do not seem to get that just because I was on the losing side does not mean that I eject my previous stance and fall into line. I am not Big_G.
Like UKIP and Farage, who disagreed for 40 years, I shall continue to argue my side of the argument. That is the essential of democracy. If I (and Remain) had been able to persuade the majority of people in the UK to reverse the previous decision, that is still democracy. It is persuasion, not tanks on the lawn or the rule of the jackboot.
Besides, what are you complaining about? You won. You got your Brexit.
Globalisation has undoubtedly brought huge benefits, but I wonder if this changes the debate down the line at all.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.162087290
What part of that would you change?
That ain't bizarre. That's self-preservation.
But anything to big up your party is OK by you????
Are UK ministers going to be self isolating from Hatt Mancock?
NEW THREAD
But you will, I fear, be disappointed in your hopes for him and this administration from this point on.