Interesting the differences in results. While STV is the theoretically best system, Ams is the most likely one to be adopted if the UK ever does switch to PR. It could potentially happen if 2024 results in a hung parliament. Unlike in 2010 when Labour were basically done with government, a Labour Party in 2024 would be much more willing to implement PR with Lib Dems to get into government.
If the Tories win 2024, its more likely that Labour would win in 2029 with a majority and so PR once again off the table.
Would the SNP be in favour of PR though? I’d say not, on the numbers.
They've always said they back it on principle despite it being a negative for them in seat terms. I think they would struggle to justify vetoing any incoming non tory government over something like PR, especially as AMS is already used in the Scottish Parliament.
It would be interesting to see the difference between theory and practice. Not many MPs are principled enough to vote themselves out of a job.
Equally, they are all (in general) arrogant enough to think that they are comfortably above average for the cohort and so would survive a cull...
It is now strong odds on that there WILL be a recession in the US this year. That is a big market move over the weekend. If so, perhaps the Dow remains a strong sell. Its fall last week only took it back to where it was a few months ago. How about it tests 20,000 at some point in the near future?
Rather than back Bernie for the Nom at 2.04, is it not better to back "no contested convention" at 2.4? Rationale: Bernie will not win a contested convention and thus will only get the Nom with an outright majority.
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Interesting the differences in results. While STV is the theoretically best system, Ams is the most likely one to be adopted if the UK ever does switch to PR. It could potentially happen if 2024 results in a hung parliament. Unlike in 2010 when Labour were basically done with government, a Labour Party in 2024 would be much more willing to implement PR with Lib Dems to get into government.
If the Tories win 2024, its more likely that Labour would win in 2029 with a majority and so PR once again off the table.
Would the SNP be in favour of PR though? I’d say not, on the numbers.
They've always said they back it on principle despite it being a negative for them in seat terms. I think they would struggle to justify vetoing any incoming non tory government over something like PR, especially as AMS is already used in the Scottish Parliament.
It would be interesting to see the difference between theory and practice. Not many MPs are principled enough to vote themselves out of a job.
Equally, they are all (in general) arrogant enough to think that they are comfortably above average for the cohort and so would survive a cull...
Authorities in China have closed the first of 16 hospitals specially built in Wuhan to tackle the coronavirus epidemic, the Chinese state broadcaster CCTV has said. According to Reuters:
News of the closure coincided with a sharp fall in new cases in Hubei province and its capital of Wuhan but China remained on alert for people returning home with the virus from other countries where it has spread.
“The rapid rising trend of virus cases in Wuhan has been controlled,” Mi Feng, a spokesman for China’s National Health Commission told a briefing.
“Outbreaks in Hubei outside of Wuhan are curbed and provinces outside of Hubei are showing a positive trend.”
The virus emerged in Wuhan late last year and has since infected more than 86,500 people, the majority in China, with most in Hubei.
************************************************* The lockdown seems to be working very well in China.
At the very end we will be able to see which countries got their policies right for this and which were just too decadent.
We still need a few weeks before we can conclude that China is out of the woods, but it does look promising.
Meanwhile, this is an interesting couple of figures (Guardian): ...More than two months on, most cases and deaths are still confined to China, whose health commission reported 202 new infections on Monday – the lowest daily rise since late January – and 42 new deaths. Hubei province, where the outbreak has been concentrated, recorded 196 of the 202 new cases and all of the new deaths.
The death toll in China rose to 2,912, but it is also creeping up in other countries. Iran has the second highest number of deaths, with 54...
Quite clearly, the number of deaths reported form China is a lagging indicator (they will continue for some time even if there are no new infections at all) - while the number from Iran, in contrast, suggests that there are many, many infections undetected.
IOW, the reported number of deaths, without context, is meaningless for forecasting what comes next. Eadric please note.
I make no apologies for this regular and somewhat gruesome wading through mortality figures. It is important to understand that this is not the end of civilisation.
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
But why?
For reasons that are really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post on here.
Boris's fidelity???
There was that Pádraig Belton tweet that no one believed because C. Symonds wasn't thought to be pregnant but now.....
If there is anything that is a racing certainty it's that Johnson is going to fuck around on FLOTUK. The only question is whether she is so besmitten with the trappings of office that she'll cave it all in or put up with it.
She knows what his track record is. She had no scruples about having an affair with a married man. So she is hardly in a position to complain if he does to her what he has done to his other lovers.
It is now strong odds on that there WILL be a recession in the US this year. That is a big market move over the weekend. If so, perhaps the Dow remains a strong sell. Its fall last week only took it back to where it was a few months ago. How about it tests 20,000 at some point in the near future?
Rather than back Bernie for the Nom at 2.04, is it not better to back "no contested convention" at 2.4? Rationale: Bernie will not win a contested convention and thus will only get the Nom with an outright majority.
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Sounds similar to me. I cashed out my nomination and president books (for now), and have also laid Trump around that price.
Sanders will win a contested convention if he's able to get over the line with Warren.
What about Warren endorsing Biden in exchange for VP? Much chance of that IYO?
Definitely plausible, she's a pragmatist. She gave Hillary a free run in exchange for lots of promises over appointments, she could play an even bigger power move on Biden with both the VP slot and a whole load of policy that she wants.
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
Edit scrub that a 2021 general election is possible if Boris completely screws up. I can't see even him screwing things up that badly though as Gove is watching over the important areas.
No that's not my reasoning. As I said, it's really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post.
Get Eadric to post it?
Yeah, well I think he would get where I'm coming from.
Presumably your scenario involves the virus wiping out the Tory majority. I can't see it, personally. Tory MPs don't tend to be old like they were in the 1990s.
Doing some rough number crunching, on the published age band mortality rates (which are also estimates for now), you would expect only a one in four chance of even a single MP under the age of 40 (out of the 116 in the Commons) succumbing to the virus.
Perhaps one death out of the 190 MPs aged between 40 and 49; two to three of the 197 MPs between 50 and 59... and maybe six out of the remaining 142 aged over 60.
Democracy is unlikely to be overturned - and that is assuming a 100% infection rate.
The mean age of the House of Lords is about 70. If Corona is to clear out a chamber then the upper house is more likely.
High-status/-income individuals have better health and live longer. So deduct maybe 30-40% from this theoretical 8-10 in the HoC. Take off another 30% for individuals who have unexpected immunity/resistance and you're down to maybe five. I don't think that's much worse than the number of byelections in the 1974-79 parliament.
The Lords need to take more care, yes. But surely they epitomise 'high-status individuals'. I'd expect mortality to be much worse among 70-something pensioners in ... Mansfield, Walsall, N W Durham, Bolsover, Sedgefield [NB, choose your new safe Tory seat].
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
But why?
For reasons that are really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post on here.
Boris's fidelity???
There was that Pádraig Belton tweet that no one believed because C. Symonds wasn't thought to be pregnant but now.....
If there is anything that is a racing certainty it's that Johnson is going to fuck around on FLOTUK. The only question is whether she is so besmitten with the trappings of office that she'll cave it all in or put up with it.
She knows what his track record is. She had no scruples about having an affair with a married man. So she is hardly in a position to complain if he does to her what he has done to his other lovers.
Miaow!
No "Miaow" about it.... simply reality.
There was a story on Popbitch last week that Boris hasn't been seen in public much recently because he has a black eye as Carrie was fed up with sitting at home pregnant while he was screwing another woman. In some photos his left eye does appear bruised and this appeared last Thursday in Popbitch before Carrie's pregnancy was announced.
Good piece linked to above by the CER. Saying, in essence, that having caved once before, Boris will cave again to the EU and be able to sell it to his party and the British public who are either ignorant or don't care about the issues.
Yes. Reasonably solid point of view and one I happen to share.
Brexit means Damage Limitation which means Close Alignment.
Authorities in China have closed the first of 16 hospitals specially built in Wuhan to tackle the coronavirus epidemic, the Chinese state broadcaster CCTV has said. According to Reuters:
News of the closure coincided with a sharp fall in new cases in Hubei province and its capital of Wuhan but China remained on alert for people returning home with the virus from other countries where it has spread.
“The rapid rising trend of virus cases in Wuhan has been controlled,” Mi Feng, a spokesman for China’s National Health Commission told a briefing.
“Outbreaks in Hubei outside of Wuhan are curbed and provinces outside of Hubei are showing a positive trend.”
The virus emerged in Wuhan late last year and has since infected more than 86,500 people, the majority in China, with most in Hubei.
************************************************* The lockdown seems to be working very well in China.
At the very end we will be able to see which countries got their policies right for this and which were just too decadent.
We still need a few weeks before we can conclude that China is out of the woods, but it does look promising.
Meanwhile, this is an interesting couple of figures (Guardian): ...More than two months on, most cases and deaths are still confined to China, whose health commission reported 202 new infections on Monday – the lowest daily rise since late January – and 42 new deaths. Hubei province, where the outbreak has been concentrated, recorded 196 of the 202 new cases and all of the new deaths.
The death toll in China rose to 2,912, but it is also creeping up in other countries. Iran has the second highest number of deaths, with 54...
Quite clearly, the number of deaths reported form China is a lagging indicator (they will continue for some time even if there are no new infections at all) - while the number from Iran, in contrast, suggests that there are many, many infections undetected.
IOW, the reported number of deaths, without context, is meaningless for forecasting what comes next. Eadric please note.
I make no apologies for this regular and somewhat gruesome wading through mortality figures. It is important to understand that this is not the end of civilisation.
Regular postings are useful, particularly when they are factual and balanced like yours are.
I think the Chinese are going for St Louis (lock down) whilst Iran is going for Philadelphia (let it rip or delay lock down).
Note St Louis incurs a second wave as measures are relaxed. The hope for our pandemic would be that the second wave this time could be combated with a battery of new interventions/and or better knowledge of the virus.
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
But why?
For reasons that are really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post on here.
Boris's fidelity???
There was that Pádraig Belton tweet that no one believed because C. Symonds wasn't thought to be pregnant but now.....
If there is anything that is a racing certainty it's that Johnson is going to fuck around on FLOTUK. The only question is whether she is so besmitten with the trappings of office that she'll cave it all in or put up with it.
She knows what his track record is. She had no scruples about having an affair with a married man. So she is hardly in a position to complain if he does to her what he has done to his other lovers.
Who was it who said, that the man who marries his mistress simply creates a vacancy?
Perhaps - but there is an argument that the economic implications are overstated by the doom mongers.
If coronavirus proves controllable, then we could be back to normal within a matter of months; if not, we could also be back to some kind of normality within a matter of moths, as there will no longer be any point in massive lockdowns/quarantines.
And to put it brutally, most of the active workforce will be far less affected than the retired.
Central banks acting to prevent liquidity crises in a co-ordinated manner is simply common sense.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
But why?
For reasons that are really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post on here.
Boris's fidelity???
There was that Pádraig Belton tweet that no one believed because C. Symonds wasn't thought to be pregnant but now.....
If there is anything that is a racing certainty it's that Johnson is going to fuck around on FLOTUK. The only question is whether she is so besmitten with the trappings of office that she'll cave it all in or put up with it.
She knows what his track record is. She had no scruples about having an affair with a married man. So she is hardly in a position to complain if he does to her what he has done to his other lovers.
Who was it who said that the man who marries his mistress simply creates a vacancy?
James Goldsmith.
But he at least stayed on good terms with all his wives, mistresses and children and acknowledged and provided for them all.
Boris seems to behave more like a tomcat with a preferred home.
When did they get it though? It typically seems to take a few weeks to kill you...
Sgnicant numbers of the Spanish cases are young people either skiing or studying in Italy. The cases are quite spread out therefore each region is not as yet under stress. I think there are about five cases regarded as serious. Now at 98
I sold half my equities on the mini-bounce this morning around 8:30. Only holding on to my Egyptian goldmine (doing well) and two acquisition targets that shouldn't be affected by the virus (internet based) and might get snapped up at current prices but with a premium.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Mr. Max, not watching it, but wondering what it contains that makes you say that?
The difference between her and Zac Brown is huge. He cleaned house and fixed all of the problems at McLaren when they went through their bad patch, I don't think CW has even identified what the issues are so she doesn't know how to fix them.
Qatar MotoGP cancelled due to Byronavirus as many of the teams and crews are based in Italy. Moto3/2 will go ahead as they are already there for testing. Losail is a Ducati/Yamaha track so its omission probably tips the championship even more in favour of Marquez. The season opener is now Texas on 5th April.
Mr. Max, not watching it, but wondering what it contains that makes you say that?
Plenty of evidence over the past three or four seasons, I'd say!
The Netflix show is very good at getting behind the scenes, in a way that hasn't been done before with everyone so secretive about what goes on. It's also generating a lot of new fans, especially in the traditionally very difficult US market.
(You can usually sign up to a month's free sub to Netflix, but you'll need to remember to cancel it).
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Agreed; I am just trying to err on the side of optimism.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
It would be discourteous not to inform him of any decisions being taken that will affect London. But I don't think they Mayor's remit covers this sort of thing.
There was a story on Popbitch last week that Boris hasn't been seen in public much recently because he has a black eye as Carrie was fed up with sitting at home pregnant while he was screwing another woman. In some photos his left eye does appear bruised and this appeared last Thursday in Popbitch before Carrie's pregnancy was announced.
I am just saying.
The tory party just won't care what he does with his dick until he puts it in a mixed race Canadian actor.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Agreed; I am just trying to err on the side of optimism.
All ideology needs chucking out the window for this. I don't understand why Khan, and for that matter Andy Burnham (plus others), should not be closely involved in these discussions.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
I sold half my equities on the mini-bounce this morning around 8:30. Only holding on to my Egyptian goldmine (doing well) and two acquisition targets that shouldn't be affected by the virus (internet based) and might get snapped up at current prices but with a premium.
As long as the Egyptians stay healthy enough to be sweating away digging your gold, I guess
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Is Khan skipping meetings with his own advisors? I do not expect to hear much about Khan as I am nowhere near London and I expect reporting of his activities to be London-centric.
Implementing the requirements of a FTA by January 1 2021 was always going to be a stretch, dealing with Covid-19 at the same time looks to be very high risk indeed. So how do you react to the proposition:
UK and EU announce now that the transition period is extended to Jan 2022 at the earliest to allow Governments to concentrate on the Covid-19 crisis.
Do you respond:
A) No way, it’s clearly a remaniac trick to defer and hopefully cancel full separation for ever, Oh yes, anything to delay full Brexit, or C) That makes perfect sense in the circumstances and would show a maturity of thinking both sides of the channel.
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Agreed; I am just trying to err on the side of optimism.
All ideology needs chucking out the window for this. I don't understand why Khan, and for that matter Andy Burnham (plus others), should not be closely involved in these discussions.
Here are a few reasons for limiting numbers:
Too many cooks, too many politicans, too many agendas, too many egos
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
Sorry, I took most of it. I did spot it, after all
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
Sorry, I took most of it. I did spot it, after all
Not your fault - I just didn't max out. (& thanks, if it was you tip; I hadn't kept track.)
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Agreed; I am just trying to err on the side of optimism.
All ideology needs chucking out the window for this. I don't understand why Khan, and for that matter Andy Burnham (plus others), should not be closely involved in these discussions.
Here are a few reasons for limiting numbers:
Too many cooks, too many politicans, too many agendas, too many egos
With an ego the size of Boris Johnson's there will be no space in the room for anyone else.
Qatar MotoGP cancelled due to Byronavirus as many of the teams and crews are based in Italy. Moto3/2 will go ahead as they are already there for testing. Losail is a Ducati/Yamaha track so its omission probably tips the championship even more in favour of Marquez. The season opener is now Texas on 5th April.
In situations like this it’s key to panic buy. Stock up on all essentials and none-essentials. Food and drink are always winners but don’t just stop there – think your Xbox controller may run out of AA batteries? Then buy all the batteries you can find.
Definitely plausible, she's a pragmatist. She gave Hillary a free run in exchange for lots of promises over appointments, she could play an even bigger power move on Biden with both the VP slot and a whole load of policy that she wants.
And surely the VP must be a woman.
So, Biden/Warren or Sanders/Abrams, this is what I'm thinking atm.
All these crises going on - floods, viruses, EU stuff, Home Office falling apart, etc.
It seems to be remarkably quiet on the Boris Front...
He's chairing a COBRA meeting on Coronavirus this morning, to be fair.
How many days late?
I don't think it's late at all. The meeting is to approve the plan that the government has drawn up, a plan which has likely involved hundreds of people working around the clock to produce. If it could have been held earlier I'm sure it would have.
"One of the reasons why Bernie Sanders was doing so well was that he was completely dominating the primaries as the candidate for the progressive wing of the party while the centrist vote was split between Biden, Buttigieg , and Klobuchar."
For what it's worth, a Morning Consult poll has/had the Buttigieg vote split quite evenly between Sanders, Biden, Warren and Bloomberg. Many preferences come down to name recognition rather than to 'ideology' and so on. If Biden outperforms expectations tomorrow then it would probably be more down to post-South Carolina momentum rather than to Buttgieg's withdrawal.
Buttgieg will still get some of the credit for it though - which is all that matters now.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Definitely plausible, she's a pragmatist. She gave Hillary a free run in exchange for lots of promises over appointments, she could play an even bigger power move on Biden with both the VP slot and a whole load of policy that she wants.
And surely the VP must be a woman.
So, Biden/Warren or Sanders/Abrams, this is what I'm thinking atm.
All these crises going on - floods, viruses, EU stuff, Home Office falling apart, etc.
It seems to be remarkably quiet on the Boris Front...
He's chairing a COBRA meeting on Coronavirus this morning, to be fair.
How many days late?
That depends on the work that has been commissioned and carried out prior to the meeting, I should think.
So anything from 20 to 0
For Coronavirus 20 is far too high and 0 is a little low. A meeting towards the end of last week, so 3 days maybe, and another again today to measure progress.
As for the floods, yes 20 is probably about right.
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
Sorry, I took most of it. I did spot it, after all
Not your fault - I just didn't max out. (& thanks, if it was you tip; I hadn't kept track.)
Yes, it was. Tbf it was never heavily traded. And there are risks - economies lag, the US has a lot of momentum, and there may be a summer respite. I may lay some of it off soon,once the odds get low enough it isn't foregoing much
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
Sorry, I took most of it. I did spot it, after all
Not your fault - I just didn't max out. (& thanks, if it was you tip; I hadn't kept track.)
I didn`t take the 2.9 last week. I`m waiting for the US recession odds to come in a bit more and then I`ll lay it. My reasoning: 1) the terms of the bet are two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and 2) I believe that the virus threat is being exaggerated.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
If the Government doesn't get a wiggle on, it may come to that.
My tasteless Tissue as a debate framer. I've done these a couple of times before.
Bets not accepted, this is theory only. I will cover longer timeframes in subsequent posts over the next few hours.
UK deaths attributed to Coronavirus by end of 30/9/20: under 10: 9/4 10-100: 11/8 100-1000: 5/2 over 1000: 4/1
Context: Epidemic behaviour possible in some UK locations, particularly if spring is cold. Season still looks relevant for every graph I've seen of pandemics, and a 'bubble under' profile (steady flow of cases for a longer time), due to good control of small case clusters and/or weather improving is also quite likely.
Italy informs my numbers quite heavily.
Some overround, especially at the top end of deaths, as would likely be a popular bet.
This Tissue shall now be binned, and I'll deal with 'by 31/3/21 and by 31/3/24 later.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Agreed; I am just trying to err on the side of optimism.
All ideology needs chucking out the window for this. I don't understand why Khan, and for that matter Andy Burnham (plus others), should not be closely involved in these discussions.
Here are a few reasons for limiting numbers:
Too many cooks, too many politicans, too many agendas, too many egos
The risks of not having those in charge of large cities involved in the decision-makingthere are:-
1. Poor or mis or late communication. 2. Less effective co-ordination. 3. Delays in taking necessary action. 4. Relevant information / factors not taken into account. 5. The illness spreading and / or unnecessary deaths.
But, sure, let’s worry about politicians’ egos first.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
There will be established protocols for who attends all these meetings, and what followup and communication is done with others afterwards. Initially they probably want the minimum number of people involved. There will undoubtedly be more meetings this afternoon and tomorrow.
It's not specifically a London issue, so inviting one mayor means inviting many more local government representatives.
The only reason we hear this is because someone in his team is briefing journalists, rather than getting on with the job in London. It's how Sadiq Khan has always worked.
Implementing the requirements of a FTA by January 1 2021 was always going to be a stretch, dealing with Covid-19 at the same time looks to be very high risk indeed. So how do you react to the proposition:
UK and EU announce now that the transition period is extended to Jan 2022 at the earliest to allow Governments to concentrate on the Covid-19 crisis.
Do you respond:
A ) No way, it’s clearly a remaniac trick to defer and hopefully cancel full separation for ever, B ) Oh yes, anything to delay full Brexit, or C ) That makes perfect sense in the circumstances and would show a maturity of thinking both sides of the channel.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
I don't for a moment disagree. But unlike (for example) the US, we do have public health systems and institutions in place capable of providing sensible and timely advice to government.
Even the current bunch in power have some chance of making a decent fist of it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Agreed; I am just trying to err on the side of optimism.
All ideology needs chucking out the window for this. I don't understand why Khan, and for that matter Andy Burnham (plus others), should not be closely involved in these discussions.
Here are a few reasons for limiting numbers:
Too many cooks, too many politicans, too many agendas, too many egos
The risks of not having those in charge of large cities involved in the decision-makingthere are:-
1. Poor or mis or late communication. 2. Less effective co-ordination. 3. Delays in taking necessary action. 4. Relevant information / factors not taken into account. 5. The illness spreading and / or unnecessary deaths.
But, sure, let’s worry about politicians’ egos first.
Making an assumption that consultation has not happened in the route to reaching a conclusion may be right and it may be wrong.
I would rather hear what they come up with and the informed reaction to it rather than condemnation prior to the release of that information.
If the results are a plan drawn up on the back of an envelope at the last minute, then opprobrium may be bountiful. If it it a considered and workable plan for Cities, Towns and Rural areas that is presented, then opprobrium will be withheld.
More politicians do not always equate to better outcomes.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
There will be established protocols for who attends all these meetings, and what followup and communication is done with others afterwards. Initially they probably want the minimum number of people involved. There will undoubtedly be more meetings this afternoon and tomorrow.
It's not specifically a London issue, so inviting one mayor means inviting many more local government representatives.
The only reason we hear this is because someone in his team is briefing journalists, rather than getting on with the job in London. It's how Sadiq Khan has always worked.
“Established protocols”.
Because of course this is a government that has respect for and follows “established protocols”.
Definitely plausible, she's a pragmatist. She gave Hillary a free run in exchange for lots of promises over appointments, she could play an even bigger power move on Biden with both the VP slot and a whole load of policy that she wants.
And surely the VP must be a woman.
So, Biden/Warren or Sanders/Abrams, this is what I'm thinking atm.
But he at least stayed on good terms with all his wives, mistresses and children and acknowledged and provided for them all.
Boris seems to behave more like a tomcat with a preferred home.
This is one the (many) more subtle privileges of money. It allows you to cushion the consequences for others of your bad behaviour. It buys you an uplift on the "decent bloke" scale that is not in truth merited. Goldsmith is fundamentally no better in this regard than the feckless benefits junkie who impregnates half the women on the estate.
As for "Boris" his sexual incontinence and endless infidelities are, to anyone with standards, a serious black mark on his character and therefore on his suitability to be our PM. It does not follow that he is NOT suitable, to be clear. It means that when assessing his positives against his negatives, this character defect should be included in the latter list. The notion that his personal life is of no relevance is one that I find unintelligible.
10 minutes and the FTSE100 will be negative. Why do we seem to think that you can out stimulate a problem based on facts rather than sentiment?
It`s all about sentiment, and it`s all about supply and demand. Generally speaking, people are not dumping their shares. The problem is on the buy side. No-one is buying. From an investing perspective my belief is that the virus itself is less of a worry than the self-generated panic. Under these conditions the markets will bounce back strongly. However, fear rules at the moment so maybe not yet.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
10 minutes and the FTSE100 will be negative. Why do we seem to think that you can out stimulate a problem based on facts rather than sentiment?
It`s all about sentiment, and it`s all about supply and demand. Generally speaking, people are not dumping their shares. The problem is on the buy side. No-one is buying. From an investing perspective my belief is that the virus itself is less of a worry than the self-generated panic. Under these conditions the markets will bounce back strongly. However, fear rules at the moment so maybe not yet.
I partially agree but... don't forget that the self-generated panic seems likely to have a real and severe effect on the global economy. That for me is why equties should be a sell right now.
R4 saying markets are rallying today on the back of co-ordinated "will take all actions necessary" statements from central banks around the world.
Haha. If only pandemics were so easy to control.
Dead cat springs to mind.
Perhaps - but there is an argument that the economic implications are overstated by the doom mongers.
If coronavirus proves controllable, then we could be back to normal within a matter of months; if not, we could also be back to some kind of normality within a matter of moths, as there will no longer be any point in massive lockdowns/quarantines.
And to put it brutally, most of the active workforce will be far less affected than the retired.
Central banks acting to prevent liquidity crises in a co-ordinated manner is simply common sense.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
It was the EU that prevented the UK retaining membership of various things.
Clearly operations like Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus, pandemic planning etc need have nothing to do with a deeper political cooperation.
But the EU made it so by saying it was not possible without free movement - something completely unconnected and unattractive to the UK
Although they have now compromised on Galileo so hopefully there will be more rational behaviour in future.
R4 saying markets are rallying today on the back of co-ordinated "will take all actions necessary" statements from central banks around the world.
Perhaps - but there is an argument that the economic implications are overstated by the doom mongers.
If coronavirus proves controllable, then we could be back to normal within a matter of months; if not, we could also be back to some kind of normality within a matter of moths, as there will no longer be any point in massive lockdowns/quarantines.
And to put it brutally, most of the active workforce will be far less affected than the retired.
Central banks acting to prevent liquidity crises in a co-ordinated manner is simply common sense.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
It was the EU that prevented the UK retaining membership of various things.
Clearly operations like Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus, pandemic planning etc need have nothing to do with a deeper political cooperation.
But the EU made it so by saying it was not possible without free movement - something completely unconnected and unattractive to the UK
Although they have now compromised on Galileo so hopefully there will be more rational behaviour in future.
Interesting, I never realised that about Euratom. Have you got some evidence that our continued membership was tied to fee movement?
But he at least stayed on good terms with all his wives, mistresses and children and acknowledged and provided for them all.
Boris seems to behave more like a tomcat with a preferred home.
This is one the (many) more subtle privileges of money. It allows you to cushion the consequences for others of your bad behaviour. It buys you an uplift on the "decent bloke" scale that is not in truth merited. Goldsmith is fundamentally no better in this regard than the feckless benefits junkie who impregnates half the women on the estate.
As for "Boris" his sexual incontinence and endless infidelities are, to anyone with standards, a serious black mark on his character and therefore on his suitability to be our PM. It does not follow that he is NOT suitable, to be clear. It means that when assessing his positives against his negatives, this character defect should be included in the latter list. The notion that his personal life is of no relevance is one that I find unintelligible.
Well said. There will be many Conservatives who think the same way about the PM as a person.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Its the 15 to 20 percent requiring ICU treatment that is the problem. No country in the world has a health service that can cover those sort of numbers.
R4 saying markets are rallying today on the back of co-ordinated "will take all actions necessary" statements from central banks around the world.
If coronavirus proves controllable, then we could be back to normal within a matter of months; if not, we could also be back to some kind of normality within a matter of moths, as there will no longer be any point in massive lockdowns/quarantines.
And to put it brutally, most of the active workforce will be far less affected than the retired.
Central banks acting to prevent liquidity crises in a co-ordinated manner is simply common sense.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
It was the EU that prevented the UK retaining membership of various things.
Clearly operations like Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus, pandemic planning etc need have nothing to do with a deeper political cooperation.
But the EU made it so by saying it was not possible without free movement - something completely unconnected and unattractive to the UK
Although they have now compromised on Galileo so hopefully there will be more rational behaviour in future.
Interesting, I never realised that about Euratom. Have you got some evidence that our continued membership was tied to fee movement?
10 minutes and the FTSE100 will be negative. Why do we seem to think that you can out stimulate a problem based on facts rather than sentiment?
It`s all about sentiment, and it`s all about supply and demand. Generally speaking, people are not dumping their shares. The problem is on the buy side. No-one is buying. From an investing perspective my belief is that the virus itself is less of a worry than the self-generated panic. Under these conditions the markets will bounce back strongly. However, fear rules at the moment so maybe not yet.
What happens when we catch up to the two month dearth of Chinese production? Where is all the supply going to come from if the EU displays the same problems in a months time and the US fails to contain its spread.
I probably don't have to add I'm just a retail fool but I can't see where all the things we are supposed to be buying will come from for the next few months?
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
He leads Sanders by just 2.4% in Texas and the lead is coming down. My worst case scenario for Trump has him on 208 EV, best case on 334, mid case on 282 - all based on latest state polls. But a hell of a lot could change on virus, Dow, healthcare, economy and it's mainly downside for Trump.
10 minutes and the FTSE100 will be negative. Why do we seem to think that you can out stimulate a problem based on facts rather than sentiment?
It`s all about sentiment, and it`s all about supply and demand. Generally speaking, people are not dumping their shares. The problem is on the buy side. No-one is buying. From an investing perspective my belief is that the virus itself is less of a worry than the self-generated panic. Under these conditions the markets will bounce back strongly. However, fear rules at the moment so maybe not yet.
What happens when we catch up to the two month dearth of Chinese production? Where is all the supply going to come from if the EU displays the same problems in a months time and the US fails to contain its spread.
I probably don't have to add I'm just a retail fool but I can't see were all the things we are supposed to be buying will come from for the next few months?
If coronavirus proves controllable, then we could be back to normal within a matter of months; if not, we could also be back to some kind of normality within a matter of moths, as there will no longer be any point in massive lockdowns/quarantines.
And to put it brutally, most of the active workforce will be far less affected than the retired.
Central banks acting to prevent liquidity crises in a co-ordinated manner is simply common sense.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
It was the EU that prevented the UK retaining membership of various things.
Clearly operations like Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus, pandemic planning etc need have nothing to do with a deeper political cooperation.
But the EU made it so by saying it was not possible without free movement - something completely unconnected and unattractive to the UK
Although they have now compromised on Galileo so hopefully there will be more rational behaviour in future.
Interesting, I never realised that about Euratom. Have you got some evidence that our continued membership was tied to fee movement?
I sold half my equities on the mini-bounce this morning around 8:30. Only holding on to my Egyptian goldmine (doing well) and two acquisition targets that shouldn't be affected by the virus (internet based) and might get snapped up at current prices but with a premium.
As long as the Egyptians stay healthy enough to be sweating away digging your gold, I guess
10 minutes and the FTSE100 will be negative. Why do we seem to think that you can out stimulate a problem based on facts rather than sentiment?
It`s all about sentiment, and it`s all about supply and demand. Generally speaking, people are not dumping their shares. The problem is on the buy side. No-one is buying. From an investing perspective my belief is that the virus itself is less of a worry than the self-generated panic. Under these conditions the markets will bounce back strongly. However, fear rules at the moment so maybe not yet.
I partially agree but... don't forget that the self-generated panic seems likely to have a real and severe effect on the global economy. That for me is why equties should be a sell right now.
I agree with you in respect of some sectors - travel comes to mind - but I`m talking generally and am an advocate of buying ETFs which track the market as a whole. E.g. VUKE - which tracks the FTSE 100, or VEUR which tracks European index - both down 11- 12%.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
It's a bit late in the day (as this is Saturday's story) but Peston has an interesting viewpoint. Cummings and the Government have an overambitious set of deadlines as they have never actually delivered anything.
1 data point: I cashed out my Bernie for president 8:1 and have laid Trump at 1.7. For me the Biden v Bernie monstrosity could go anywhere.
Laying Trump at 1.7 is spectacular value. Behind the bluster he is clinging on by his fingertips. He's the Wizard Of Oz and by November there will be sufficient Dorothys amongst the American public to render him unelectable. I see him losing the Rust Belt and a big chunk of the Sun Belt too. Even Texas would not astonish me. I think he will struggle for 200 in the EC.
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
Sorry, I took most of it. I did spot it, after all
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Comments
Meanwhile, this is an interesting couple of figures (Guardian):
...More than two months on, most cases and deaths are still confined to China, whose health commission reported 202 new infections on Monday – the lowest daily rise since late January – and 42 new deaths. Hubei province, where the outbreak has been concentrated, recorded 196 of the 202 new cases and all of the new deaths.
The death toll in China rose to 2,912, but it is also creeping up in other countries. Iran has the second highest number of deaths, with 54...
Quite clearly, the number of deaths reported form China is a lagging indicator (they will continue for some time even if there are no new infections at all) - while the number from Iran, in contrast, suggests that there are many, many infections undetected.
IOW, the reported number of deaths, without context, is meaningless for forecasting what comes next. Eadric please note.
I make no apologies for this regular and somewhat gruesome wading through mortality figures. It is important to understand that this is not the end of civilisation.
The Lords need to take more care, yes. But surely they epitomise 'high-status individuals'. I'd expect mortality to be much worse among 70-something pensioners in ... Mansfield, Walsall, N W Durham, Bolsover, Sedgefield [NB, choose your new safe Tory seat].
I am just saying.
Brexit means Damage Limitation which means Close Alignment.
At least for the foreseeable future.
Regular postings are useful, particularly when they are factual and balanced like yours are.
I think the Chinese are going for St Louis (lock down) whilst Iran is going for Philadelphia (let it rip or delay lock down).
Note St Louis incurs a second wave as measures are relaxed. The hope for our pandemic would be that the second wave this time could be combated with a battery of new interventions/and or better knowledge of the virus.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
But he at least stayed on good terms with all his wives, mistresses and children and acknowledged and provided for them all.
Boris seems to behave more like a tomcat with a preferred home.
All these crises going on - floods, viruses, EU stuff, Home Office falling apart, etc.
It seems to be remarkably quiet on the Boris Front...
The Netflix show is very good at getting behind the scenes, in a way that hasn't been done before with everyone so secretive about what goes on. It's also generating a lot of new fans, especially in the traditionally very difficult US market.
(You can usually sign up to a month's free sub to Netflix, but you'll need to remember to cancel it).
It could have been a photo opportunity, or it could have been Boris sorting out Covid19.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
But then nothing he could do would meet with your approval apart from re joining the EU
UK and EU announce now that the transition period is extended to Jan 2022 at the earliest to allow Governments to concentrate on the Covid-19 crisis.
Do you respond:
A) No way, it’s clearly a remaniac trick to defer and hopefully cancel full separation for ever,
C) That makes perfect sense in the circumstances and would show a maturity of thinking both sides of the channel.
Too many cooks, too many politicans, too many agendas, too many egos
(& thanks, if it was you tip; I hadn't kept track.)
https://tinyurl.com/t2vtgzy
In situations like this it’s key to panic buy. Stock up on all essentials and none-essentials. Food and drink are always winners but don’t just stop there – think your Xbox controller may run out of AA batteries? Then buy all the batteries you can find.
So, Biden/Warren or Sanders/Abrams, this is what I'm thinking atm.
So anything from 20 to 0
As for the floods, yes 20 is probably about right.
Bets not accepted, this is theory only. I will cover longer timeframes in subsequent posts over the next few hours.
UK deaths attributed to Coronavirus by end of 30/9/20:
under 10: 9/4
10-100: 11/8
100-1000: 5/2
over 1000: 4/1
Context: Epidemic behaviour possible in some UK locations, particularly if spring is cold. Season still looks relevant for every graph I've seen of pandemics, and a 'bubble under' profile (steady flow of cases for a longer time), due to good control of small case clusters and/or weather improving is also quite likely.
Italy informs my numbers quite heavily.
Some overround, especially at the top end of deaths, as would likely be a popular bet.
This Tissue shall now be binned, and I'll deal with 'by 31/3/21 and by 31/3/24 later.
1. Poor or mis or late communication.
2. Less effective co-ordination.
3. Delays in taking necessary action.
4. Relevant information / factors not taken into account.
5. The illness spreading and / or unnecessary deaths.
But, sure, let’s worry about politicians’ egos first.
It's not specifically a London issue, so inviting one mayor means inviting many more local government representatives.
The only reason we hear this is because someone in his team is briefing journalists, rather than getting on with the job in London. It's how Sadiq Khan has always worked.
And fair play on Brown. Took a while but McLaren had a big step forward last year.
I would rather hear what they come up with and the informed reaction to it rather than condemnation prior to the release of that information.
If the results are a plan drawn up on the back of an envelope at the last minute, then opprobrium may be bountiful. If it it a considered and workable plan for Cities, Towns and Rural areas that is presented, then opprobrium will be withheld.
More politicians do not always equate to better outcomes.
'ITALY TO SWITCH SIDES, NOW TO FIGHT AGAINST HUMANITY WITH THE CORONAVIRUS'
Because of course this is a government that has respect for and follows “established protocols”.
As for "Boris" his sexual incontinence and endless infidelities are, to anyone with standards, a serious black mark on his character and therefore on his suitability to be our PM. It does not follow that he is NOT suitable, to be clear. It means that when assessing his positives against his negatives, this character defect should be included in the latter list. The notion that his personal life is of no relevance is one that I find unintelligible.
It's comforting hence some of the discussions on here.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200301-sitrep-41-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6768306d_2
Clearly operations like Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus, pandemic planning etc need have nothing to do with a deeper political cooperation.
But the EU made it so by saying it was not possible without free movement - something completely unconnected and unattractive to the UK
Although they have now compromised on Galileo so hopefully there will be more rational behaviour in future.
I think that took 12 minutes actually
Fee movement is a key consideration!
I probably don't have to add I'm just a retail fool but I can't see where all the things we are supposed to be buying will come from for the next few months?
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Not that helps the economy in anyway whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1234441274956140545