The Brexit experts were substantially* correct. The rejection of their expertise from some quarters included after the fact misrepresentation of what they had previously said. If you dismiss empirical research from the start as "Project Fear" you don't objectively evaluate whether the outturn was correct. You are more likely to work backwards from the assumption that it was incorrect.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
Britain has more equal wealth (as opposed to income) than Germany.
I think that because so many Germans rent, they are on average capital poor. Indeed doesn't the median Greek have more capital than the median German, but lower income? A lot of it fairly illiquid though.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
Britain has more equal wealth (as opposed to income) than Germany.
The CIA begs to differ (although the differences are marginal): 68 vs 70.
Although I suspect the existence of large numbers of Russian plutocrats who call London home skews the numbers somewhat.
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Can Imperial College just fuck off please? They've had an utterly disastrous run at this. Right up there with the WHO (not the Roger Daltry outfit), Richard Branson, and Sports Direct. Can't think why anyone gives them the time of day. What does Cheltenham Ladies College or The British Meat Processors' Association, or the surviving cast of Hi De Hi have to say about Coronavirus? Let's hear from someone else who hasn't yet made an abject laughing stock of themselves over this.
Ah the good old "Here we stand, waiting for the people".
And what is wrong with that? If the public as a whole do NOT want a substantial redistribution of wealth and opportunity which helps some and hurts others - as it must - then fine. But they should surely not be denied the choice.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
... by cutting FE, OU and school budgets and by imposing high interest rate loans on those who cannot afford to buy their way through university?
And I have advocated any of those when? Clue I don't vote Tory and haven't done since they moved left.
I would prefer to see vocational courses and ou course subsidised for the poor and unemployed. University fees are different however as that is largely down to the asinine insistence that 50% should goto university. Put it back to 10 to 15% selected purely on merit and have it free.
What we need to reduce is the number of people spending the years between 18 and 21 on a full-time residential degree course in a 'foreign' town or city.
More use of distance-learning, part-time and intensive courses at varying prices would be a big improvement. It's one of those models that's ripe for being turned upside-down by the internet, but is protected by vested interests.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
Britain has more equal wealth (as opposed to income) than Germany.
The CIA begs to differ (although the differences are marginal): 68 vs 70.
Although I suspect the existence of large numbers of Russian plutocrats who call London home skews the numbers somewhat.
Median or Mean? If asymmetrical in distribution the former might be a better measure.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Can Imperial College just fuck off please? They've had an utterly disastrous run at this. Right up there with the WHO (not the Roger Daltry outfit), Richard Branson, and Sports Direct. Can't think why anyone gives them the time of day. What does Cheltenham Ladies College or The British Meat Processors' Association, or the surviving cast of Hi De Hi have to say about Coronavirus? Let's hear from someone else who hasn't yet made an abject laughing stock of themselves over this.
That Piers Morgan seems to know his stuff. And his initials suggest he would make a great leader. Far better than trusting experts imo.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability.
But there is no evidence that the economy would not have recovered, and possibly recovered more sustainably and robustly, had the post-war consensus not prevailed.
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Ah the good old "Here we stand, waiting for the people".
And what is wrong with that? If the public as a whole do NOT want a substantial redistribution of wealth and opportunity which helps some and hurts others - as it must - then fine. But they should surely not be denied the choice.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
... by cutting FE, OU and school budgets and by imposing high interest rate loans on those who cannot afford to buy their way through university?
And I have advocated any of those when? Clue I don't vote Tory and haven't done since they moved left.
I would prefer to see vocational courses and ou course subsidised for the poor and unemployed. University fees are different however as that is largely down to the asinine insistence that 50% should goto university. Put it back to 10 to 15% selected purely on merit and have it free.
What we need to reduce is the number of people spending the years between 18 and 21 on a full-time residential degree course in a 'foreign' town or city.
More use of distance-learning, part-time and intensive courses at varying prices would be a big improvement. It's one of those models that's ripe for being turned upside-down by the internet, but is protected by vested interests.
I think we need that but also a lot less of the snobbish "You must goto university pressure". When my offspring was coming up to that age I did sit down with him and tell him he should think very carefully if he wanted to go and outlined other options like learning a trade. The rest of his family applied pressure to go. He went got a good degree and msc but has regretted it ever since as what it mainly taught him was he didn't want to work in a lab and he now does completely different stuff
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Can Imperial College just fuck off please? They've had an utterly disastrous run at this. Right up there with the WHO (not the Roger Daltry outfit), Richard Branson, and Sports Direct. Can't think why anyone gives them the time of day. What does Cheltenham Ladies College or The British Meat Processors' Association, or the surviving cast of Hi De Hi have to say about Coronavirus? Let's hear from someone else who hasn't yet made an abject laughing stock of themselves over this.
That Piers Morgan seems to know his stuff. And his initials suggest he would make a great leader. Far better than trusting experts imo.
Pike is not an expert, but is being permitted to represent himself as one.
Was having a chat with some friends and the subject of "experts" came up. Everyone thought it was weird that no one believed "experts" wrt Brexit but are ready to be told to stay indoors for 12 weeks by these ones.
I have my theory. Want to see what the PB consensus is.
You want to see a PB consensus?
Really? I mean - really?
The only consensus we have on PB is that pineapple on pizza is shit.
There are even people who don’t like my awesome puns.
There is certainly not a pizza consensus.
More chance of a Marmite consensus!
What a strange analogy - everybody with any sense loves Marmite!
I certainly do. Fortunately I bought a jar on my penultimate shopping trip before the shielding began.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
not a huge difference in wealth D- must try harder
2000 Euros goes a lot further in Germany than in the UK.
It may do but I have friends in germany who live in households with that sort of income and they complain about the same issues money wise as my uk friends
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Can Imperial College just fuck off please? They've had an utterly disastrous run at this. Right up there with the WHO (not the Roger Daltry outfit), Richard Branson, and Sports Direct. Can't think why anyone gives them the time of day. What does Cheltenham Ladies College or The British Meat Processors' Association, or the surviving cast of Hi De Hi have to say about Coronavirus? Let's hear from someone else who hasn't yet made an abject laughing stock of themselves over this.
That Piers Morgan seems to know his stuff. And his initials suggest he would make a great leader. Far better than trusting experts imo.
Piers Morgan wouldn't know how to write an academic paper. That makes him a lot less dangerous in terms of public policy than Professor Billy Big Bollocks from Imperial who has crunched some numbers, has a Twitter account and fancies getting his 15 minutes.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability.
But there is no evidence that the economy would not have recovered, and possibly recovered more sustainably and robustly, had the post-war consensus not prevailed.
Very much so. However, there were complicating issues in the 1970s. The New Right linked moral issues and changes in social values with economic decline, hence the rise of Thatcherism and Reaganism. Many people were very frightened and disorientated by the speed of social changes that had taken place, making them easy to convince of an economic link, and the younger and more optimistic 1960s generation became disillusioned that the broadly consensual system that had existed was no longer producing economic opportunities for them in the same way, also making them more receptive to Thatcher's and Reagan's ideas.
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Can Imperial College just fuck off please? They've had an utterly disastrous run at this. Right up there with the WHO (not the Roger Daltry outfit), Richard Branson, and Sports Direct. Can't think why anyone gives them the time of day. What does Cheltenham Ladies College or The British Meat Processors' Association, or the surviving cast of Hi De Hi have to say about Coronavirus? Let's hear from someone else who hasn't yet made an abject laughing stock of themselves over this.
That Piers Morgan seems to know his stuff. And his initials suggest he would make a great leader. Far better than trusting experts imo.
Pike is not an expert, but is being permitted to represent himself as one.
Agree he is not an expert, not sure if he is presenting himself as one, but it is the media who are misrepresenting him - suggesting he is equivalent to Ferguson or even speaking on Fergusons behalf simply because they are both at Imperial.
(Even if he is encouraging this, the science editors in the msm should have been ensuring he doesnt get much coverage).
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Can Imperial College just fuck off please? They've had an utterly disastrous run at this. Right up there with the WHO (not the Roger Daltry outfit), Richard Branson, and Sports Direct. Can't think why anyone gives them the time of day. What does Cheltenham Ladies College or The British Meat Processors' Association, or the surviving cast of Hi De Hi have to say about Coronavirus? Let's hear from someone else who hasn't yet made an abject laughing stock of themselves over this.
That Piers Morgan seems to know his stuff. And his initials suggest he would make a great leader. Far better than trusting experts imo.
Pike is not an expert, but is being permitted to represent himself as one.
Agree he is not an expert, not sure if he is presenting himself as one, but it is the media who are misrepresenting him - suggesting he is equivalent to Ferguson or even speaking on Fergusons behalf simply because they are both at Imperial.
(Even if he is encouraging this, the science editors in the msm should have been ensuring he doesnt get much coverage).
Putting a preprint of something on a preprint server looks to me like a claim to be an expert in the relevant field. It is the science editor of the Times who is giving him uncritical airtime.
More use of distance-learning, part-time and intensive courses at varying prices would be a big improvement. It's one of those models that's ripe for being turned upside-down by the internet, but is protected by vested interests.
Why do most university courses, over widely different subjects, last exactly three years?
There must be many people who would prefer a shorter more focused course (and then take more than one if needed).
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
not a huge difference in wealth D- must try harder
2000 Euros goes a lot further in Germany than in the UK.
It may do but I have friends in germany who live in households with that sort of income and they complain about the same issues money wise as my uk friends
It depends where in Germany. I have colleagues working in our German office who are commuting ludicrous distances to work - and not in Berlin. The housing costs may be less, but so are the salaries.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
They were in single file - one was 2m behind the other!
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
Long local walk with the dog today - the only person I saw was a neon lycra-clad cyclist who shot past about 2 feet from me.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. I remember him talking about how suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated, and how they were instantly unpopular.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Indeed, but perhaps the media also shouldn't have spent the column inches in the first place. Filtering out the dross from the relevant information is meant to be an important part of their job.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
not a huge difference in wealth D- must try harder
2000 Euros goes a lot further in Germany than in the UK.
It may do but I have friends in germany who live in households with that sort of income and they complain about the same issues money wise as my uk friends
It depends where in Germany. I have colleagues working in our German office who are commuting ludicrous distances to work - and not in Berlin. The housing costs may be less, but so are the salaries.
I don't see the relevance of Berlin, here. The average salaries for professionals are higher in Munich, Frankfurt and Hamburg.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. I remember him talking about how suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated, and how they were instantly unpopular.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. I remember him talking about how suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated, and how they were instantly unpopular.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
Roy Lilly
Didn't want to name names, and actually he seems to have become more moderate and thoughtful since those years long ago, but yes. It must have been the "High 80s".
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. He said that suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated.
Incisive command and control from then top, and simple systems, have their problems.
When my mum came out of hospital last autumn, the hospital explicitly told us that the only way to get hold of the discharge policy - which is the document that tells you what support you are entitled to - was via a FOI request, which can legally take 28 days but often takes months.
The effect is that coming out of hospital support, which can only be requested before you come out, is routinely denied.
The refusal came from the ward, and from the 'Patient Engagement Team'.
In fact the discharge was rushed and she was back in in a very few days.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. I remember him talking about how suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated, and how they were instantly unpopular.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
Rings true to me, though no Rollers. Nearly all innovation comes from frontline staff and is stifled by management. It is great to be free of it at the moment, and all pulling in the same direction.
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. I remember him talking about how suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated, and how they were instantly unpopular.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
Rings true to me, though no Rollers. Nearly all innovation comes from frontline staff and is stifled by management. It is great to be free of it at the moment, and all pulling in the same direction.
Yes, absolutely. I wonder if there is a weekend effect, at least in the number of new cases (i.e., fewer tests)? Seems much lower than yesterday, which is surprising (also the same in Germany). Having said that, the number of new fatalities did not increase either, which should be independent of when the data were collated.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
not a huge difference in wealth D- must try harder
2000 Euros goes a lot further in Germany than in the UK.
It may do but I have friends in germany who live in households with that sort of income and they complain about the same issues money wise as my uk friends
It depends where in Germany. I have colleagues working in our German office who are commuting ludicrous distances to work - and not in Berlin. The housing costs may be less, but so are the salaries.
I don't see the relevance of Berlin, here. The average salaries for professionals are higher in Munich, Frankfurt and Hamburg.
One distortion of Gini Coefficients is whether they have been calculated before or after the equalising impact of the benefit system.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
This reminds me of my father's comments the month the NHS managers' Rolls-Royces - yes, really - arrived in his Surrey hospital car park in the 1980s. I remember him talking about how suddenly every clinical decision became more complicated, and how they were instantly unpopular.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
Rings true to me, though no Rollers. Nearly all innovation comes from frontline staff and is stifled by management. It is great to be free of it at the moment, and all pulling in the same direction.
My favourite one-liner on the NHS - "The National Healthcare Prevention Service - frustrated every day by insubordinate doctors and nurses"..
Shades of war - Canberra being converted into a troopship in a quarter of the estimated time.. The dock workers and the low level management told senior management and the union leaders to piss of to a nice bar or something and let them get it done...
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Indeed, but perhaps the media also shouldn't have spent the column inches in the first place. Filtering out the dross from the relevant information is meant to be an important part of their job.
There is an incentive for individual journalists to offer the next hot-take. In particular, political journalists when they dip their toe into science seem to confuse themselves and think there is such thing as 'balance', as if there are always two sides to an argument. So they offer an alternative view thinking they are doing good.
Most of the time this is harmless but when we are talking about a generational health crisis that necessitates public-adherence to a policy, then this idea of balance is actively dangerous. The likes of Neil seem to be intrinsically sceptical of academic experts predicting doom. Hitchens is simply a moron who has no idea on the difference between causation and correlation. He's an embarrassment and if anything positive can come from this virus it will be that his name is even more of a laughing stock. I'm sure though he'll double-down and spin some conspiracy theory that a few of his simple followers lap up.
The governmental elite have some sort of weird love affair with China that the rest of us simply don't understand.
No, it’s realpolitik.
It's a hardwired belief that only China can make things cheaply. This is not actually true anymore.
And there is a realisation that cheaper is not always better. Crucial supplies are far better to be made much closer to home and under the control of states that we can trust e.g. I think it is clear far better to have Germany make testing kits, UK make ventilators, Sweden PPE, than China, than worrying about kits that only work 30% of the time or masks that are worse than useless, and inability to control the supply when China can takes over even British owned factories and diverts all the output to the domestic market.
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
You expect our media to report anything constructively
This crisis has revealed our media to be out of their depth, too interested in gotcha moments, and entirely negative to Boris and HMG rather than sensible forensic questioning
However, the people are not listening with 72% government approval rate
Imperial's the Oxford of London isn't it? What an utter dump.
The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.
Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.
Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”
Perhaps he should stick to his own areas of research?
Indeed, but perhaps the media also shouldn't have spent the column inches in the first place. Filtering out the dross from the relevant information is meant to be an important part of their job.
There is an incentive for individual journalists to offer the next hot-take. In particular, political journalists when they dip their toe into science seem to confuse themselves and think there is such thing as 'balance', as if there are always two sides to an argument. So they offer an alternative view thinking they are doing good.
In the past, we wouldn't have even known a lot of this and journalist could spout this stuff and very few people could challenge it. Now we all have the internet, we can personally read these papers and debunk the crap.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
War Socialism - 15 minutes after the all clear, the managers will be back. And they will have lists of those who need to be "dealt with" to ensure "an orderly transition back to proper operations"
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
War Socialism - 15 minutes after the all clear, the managers will be back. And they will have lists of those who need to be "dealt with" to ensure "an orderly transition back to proper operations"
I would perhaps not express it in quite those terms, but I'd be equally wary of thinking change would be long term. In other places too, for example local government, people will be finding some areas do not seem as vital as they used to, but there will be concern at sticking to, shall we say, expedited and simplified procedures. Sometimes for good reasons, others for status quo.
The british public aren't so stupid as to believe labour are offering a redistribution of wealth and opportunity is why. You are only offering to redistribute wealth. The poor will largely just take the handout and say thanks and do nothing to change their lives for the better. When labour talks about redressing inequality most people know it means making everyone equally poor.
The old adage is give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for life.
Labour gives a fish Right wing people like me prefer to teach people to fish
Germany has managed to redistribute wealth without making everyone poorer.
And I refuse to believe the Germans are cleverer than us - lower corona death rate or no lower corona death rate.
The Germans have plenty of uber rich - check out the German private banks....
The CIA publishes "gini coefficients" on income inequality. (The lower the number, the less income inequality.)
The US is 45 The UK is 32 Germany is 27
In other words, we have greater inequality than Germany but we are more like them than the US.
There are 16 million odd households in germany with a net income of less than 2000 euros. These are the people labour would be calling "living in poverty" in the uk.
not a huge difference in wealth D- must try harder
2000 Euros goes a lot further in Germany than in the UK.
It may do but I have friends in germany who live in households with that sort of income and they complain about the same issues money wise as my uk friends
It depends where in Germany. I have colleagues working in our German office who are commuting ludicrous distances to work - and not in Berlin. The housing costs may be less, but so are the salaries.
I don't see the relevance of Berlin, here. The average salaries for professionals are higher in Munich, Frankfurt and Hamburg.
Not so sure about Hamburg. Berlin has demented housing costs... but the wages in the other German cities often put people in a worse position than in the UK.
A professional wage in Manchester seems to put you in a much better place than a professional wage in Hamburg.
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
You expect our media to report anything constructively
This crisis has revealed our media to be out of their depth, too interested in gotcha moments, and entirely negative to Boris and HMG rather than sensible forensic questioning
However, the people are not listening with 72% government approval rate
They really have been beyond terrible. We know they were very partisan on the Brexit debate, different media, different sides, and happy to spin things that reinforced their viewpoint.
However, they have been just absolutely different league of shit-ness. All of them are screaming 6 MONNNNNNNNNTHHSSSSSSSS....
Firstly, what she said has always been the plan and isn't a surprise. Secondly, it is massively irresponsible, as you are making it sound like we are going to be locked in our homes for that long and it will no doubt firstly make it even harder for those struggling with the idea of 3-4 weeks and secondly encourage more morons to go well f##k it, if it is going to be that long, what's the point.
It why Boris tried to give some sunlight at the end of the tunnel with his hey if we can do this for 12 weeks we will be able to force this on the backfoot and save a hell of a lot of lives.
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
She literally says "The issue about the timeframe is really important. This is not to say we would be in complete lockdown for six months".
Then I caught myself thinking, "Maybe I should watch The Phantom Menace"
Seriously worried now
You know it has got really bad when you feel like watching the Hans Solo movie. And definitely call 999 if you feel an urge to listen to Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
Perhaps the gap should have all but disappeared precisely because David Cameron has moved his own party close to the Labour offering.
Once in power with a minimal gap, you can then move the other direction. Labour did this under Blair/Brown - they pledged to match Tory spending originally then moved away and overspent, while being able to introduce their own priorities like NMW etc
Cameron did the same trick. He moved close to the Labour government, originally pledging to match Labour's overspending then once in office moved away - Blair/Brown's government wouldn't have had an EU referendum etc
You view Labour narrowing the gap so its close to the government as an awful concept. Maybe its what you need to do to allow the public to take that leap to you - and then you can pull in the direction you want to do so. You don't take a big gap and widen it to a chasm and expect a miracle.
That is a reasonable description of what has sometimes gone before but I see no good reason to aspire to it. Post corona, post Brexit, the political landscape will be utterly transformed. As it was to a lesser extent anyway by GE19. Labour need to develop an offering that works for this new world but keeps to the core values. "Move back to the centre" is not a useful description of the required process. "Stay radical but modernize" works much better. In fact, I think I will send that in to Keir.
After such a shock to the system I am not at all convinced that the British public will be in the mood for radicalisation.
I would have thought their outlook would more likely fit the dictionary definition of conservative. Getting everything back to the way it was as soon as possible.
I just can't see an appetite for radical anything.
It might be more a question of normalising radical solutions. The left around the world may want to normalise far greater social benefits and insurance, and the right more closed borders, for instance.
That is true. We hosed money at society in times of crisis let's do just that in normal times.
It was how they felt after WW2. They didn't want to go back to the hardship of the interwar years with the Jarrow marchers etc. I think it was Tony Benn who said something along the lines of 'We'd had a command economy to win the war, why not do the same to win the peace?'.
Sadly, that approach led to massive ongoing stagnation and economic decline, the disastrous waste of time of joining the then EEC, and the jolting reforms of Thatcherism.
Before that, though, it had led to a period of affluence and economic development, and huge improvements in social and health indicators and social cohesion. The period, with all its imperfections, was ended by an oil shock after 25 years of stability, and in many places, especially during the 1950s and 60's, huge economic growth and social progress at a time of concurrent very high taxation.
Part of the problem is that a command economy regards improvements as an affront to The Way Things Should Be Done.
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Though that is very different at the moment. The NHS is adapting very quickly since the internal market has been suspended.
War Socialism - 15 minutes after the all clear, the managers will be back. And they will have lists of those who need to be "dealt with" to ensure "an orderly transition back to proper operations"
I would perhaps not express it in quite those terms, but I'd be equally wary of thinking change would be long term. In other places too, for example local government, people will be finding some areas do not seem as vital as they used to, but there will be concern at sticking to, shall we say, expedited and simplified procedures. Sometimes for good reasons, others for status quo.
I would go so far - the 300 page report merchants will be back with a vengeance and looking for payback.
Remember the administrator a few years back - who when told that the her admin budget was to be reduced, put all the oncology nurses at a children's hospital on notice that they might be fired. And then emailed her pals about her genius in protecting her empire?
One thing worrying me about all the lockdowns is that governments have now shown extremist environmental groups how easy it is to achieve their aims. With the cheapness of the required apparatus to make it happen and the fact some of these groups do have some knowledgable people in them I wonder how long before we get one of the "whatever it takes" groups to release their own virus
One thing worrying me about all the lockdowns is that governments have now shown extremist environmental groups how easy it is to achieve their aims. With the cheapness of the required apparatus to make it happen and the fact some of these groups do have some knowledgable people in them I wonder how long before we get one of the "whatever it takes" groups to release their own virus
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
She literally says "The issue about the timeframe is really important. This is not to say we would be in complete lockdown for six months".
36 min mark, in her response she doesn't say that at all. It is clear that she thinks 3 months of what we currently have and then the next 3 months there gradual lifting of restrictions until probably 6 months we are back to normal.
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
She literally says "The issue about the timeframe is really important. This is not to say we would be in complete lockdown for six months".
36 min mark, in her response she doesn't say that at all. It is clear that she thinks 3 months of what we currently have and then the next 3 months there gradual lifting of restrictions until probably 6 months we are back to normal.
I wonder how long travel restrictions will stay in place.
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
Long local walk with the dog today - the only person I saw was a neon lycra-clad cyclist who shot past about 2 feet from me.
Some things never change.
Ditto. Is there something about jogging and cycling which makes joggers and cyclists uniquely selfish?
I have been cycling a lot recently, we are forced to ride in the gutter, moving out 2 metres guarantees you a short cut from a long painful Corvid death. Yes it is difficult for us all, however I agree, I see so many selfish cyclists, and I am a non selfish cyclist myself.
One thing worrying me about all the lockdowns is that governments have now shown extremist environmental groups how easy it is to achieve their aims. With the cheapness of the required apparatus to make it happen and the fact some of these groups do have some knowledgable people in them I wonder how long before we get one of the "whatever it takes" groups to release their own virus
*cough*12 monkeys*cough*
while that was sort of the plot until now environmental groups never had any evidence that this sort of thing would work to shut down the western economies.
The 12 monkeys plot I believe was an ultra extreme group who felt wiping out the race was a useful thing to do. You have to be on the extremest fringe to think that I would hope.
Currently we have all sorts of people going on about carbon emissions reducing etc. The aim of people like xr. I suspect not even ISIS wanted to totally wipe out the race. I also think there are groups who would regard a million deaths as a price worth paying in the climate movement
I know Trump likes to go on about the Fake News media...but f##k me, CH4 news literally just said how will it be possible to live in a lockdown like this for 6 months.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
She literally says "The issue about the timeframe is really important. This is not to say we would be in complete lockdown for six months".
36 min mark, in her response she doesn't say that at all. It is clear that she thinks 3 months of what we currently have and then the next 3 months there gradual lifting of restrictions until probably 6 months we are back to normal.
I wonder how long travel restrictions will stay in place.
I think a lot of the timeline is really dependent on having the ability to a) test those that have had it and b) the development of a rapid test for those that might have it.
You can allow a lot more freedom if you know those that are immune and how to quickly shut down any new cases.
Clearly a) is coming, but nobody seems to have and b) with any reliability / doesn't come with so many caveats that they aren't really practical in the real world.
The major Western European nations will record between 20-40,000 deaths in this ‘first wave’ of corona. Germany might do slightly better.
That’s brutal, and grim, but not the apocalypse
The big questions will then be, how do we deal with a 2nd wave in the winter?
And: what can we learn from Sweden. They seem determined to pursue herd immunity, to preserve the economy.
If they suffer no more than elsewhere, that’s an epochal argument
So not the 2 million deaths you were hyperventilating over last week?
What the F. That was always the extreme worst case scenario.
The REASONABLE worst case scenario was 500,000 dead, if the health system crashed
And remember this is 20-40k in the FIRST WAVE. Spanish flu was more lethal when it came back for a second bite. We need a vaccine.
Fortunately, a more brutal second wave seems unlikely. The virus seems to mutate slowly so no reason to expect it to be fundamentally nastier.
In principle we could adapt vaccines to these changes - similar to the flu. But at least there is no evidence that it will be worse. Equally important, at least in the short term, are anti-virals, especially if they can act prophylactically.
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
Long local walk with the dog today - the only person I saw was a neon lycra-clad cyclist who shot past about 2 feet from me.
Some things never change.
Ditto. Is there something about jogging and cycling which makes joggers and cyclists uniquely selfish?
A few cyclists, a few joggers and a few walkers are selfish. More selfish cyclists pass you as cycling is faster.
Then I caught myself thinking, "Maybe I should watch The Phantom Menace"
Seriously worried now
You know it has got really bad when you feel like watching the Hans Solo movie. And definitely call 999 if you feel an urge to listen to Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
Or a desperate desire to go out and join the Tory party!
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
Long local walk with the dog today - the only person I saw was a neon lycra-clad cyclist who shot past about 2 feet from me.
Some things never change.
Ditto. Is there something about jogging and cycling which makes joggers and cyclists uniquely selfish?
The two groups I justifiably resent are joggers and supermarket trolly users.
I genuinely wonder if we are all going to be getting some sort of virtual "badge" that says I am a plague survivor and those people will be allowed to live by different conditions.
Time for another tedious update from me. Writing this crap is helping me, so please indulge me...
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
I’ve come across a few couples keeping their distance like that, completely stupid and it’s a pain when they don’t feel inclined to get into single file to let you pass.
Long local walk with the dog today - the only person I saw was a neon lycra-clad cyclist who shot past about 2 feet from me.
Some things never change.
Ditto. Is there something about jogging and cycling which makes joggers and cyclists uniquely selfish?
The two groups I justifiably resent are joggers and supermarket trolly users.
I've noticed that they are getting rid of baskets and the big trolleys at the supermarkets, the standard sized trolley is becoming standard. I think mostly because it forces separation.
Comments
* Most experts in most detail.
Although I suspect the existence of large numbers of Russian plutocrats who call London home skews the numbers somewhat.
More use of distance-learning, part-time and intensive courses at varying prices would be a big improvement. It's one of those models that's ripe for being turned upside-down by the internet, but is protected by vested interests.
(Even if he is encouraging this, the science editors in the msm should have been ensuring he doesnt get much coverage).
https://twitter.com/citizen_sane/status/1244242696832778240
So, my Amazon order for CCS Foot Cream arrived today. Some PBers will recall that I recommended it for dry hands.
After that, I went to close the gate and spotted nine people and one dog in the lane. One pair appeared to be together but were staying 2m apart.
There must be many people who would prefer a shorter more focused course (and then take more than one if needed).
Father Ted - truly the gift that keeps on giving. Father Jack For Pope!
Hence BT regarding the usage of non-BT phones as a crime....
One favourite is the story of how, under national ownership, a plan was presented to replace a steel mill with a more modern one, better placed for a larger port - this was interpreted thus : "So you want to demolish the steal mill in one of this governments constituencies, build another in a constituency held by another party, employ less workers and all for what? Better and cheaper steel? Why can't we do what we always do - a subsidy until the next election?"
Another is some civil service correspondence under Thatcher, in the early days, lambasting her for her encouraging the micro-computer revolution. This was because the national strategy was for the UK to build mini-computers (anyone remember them?)
Drink!
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1244298415342850050?s=09
Some things never change.
The NHS could often be unwieldy and inefficient, ofcourse, but as with the BBC, major over-reach was made affecting quality.
When my mum came out of hospital last autumn, the hospital explicitly told us that the only way to get hold of the discharge policy - which is the document that tells you what support you are entitled to - was via a FOI request, which can legally take 28 days but often takes months.
The effect is that coming out of hospital support, which can only be requested before you come out, is routinely denied.
The refusal came from the ward, and from the 'Patient Engagement Team'.
In fact the discharge was rushed and she was back in in a very few days.
Well, that isn't what deputy lady egg-head said at all. She was talking about it probably take 3-6 months before we can get back to total normal life. That isn't "lockdown".
And secondly, the media are reporting this as if they have only just discovered this incredible top secret information. That is why you enormous bell-ends the government from the very start said we have to get the timing right on this as this isn't a couple of week thing we are going to be undertaking.
Campaigners tend to pick and choose.
Shades of war - Canberra being converted into a troopship in a quarter of the estimated time.. The dock workers and the low level management told senior management and the union leaders to piss of to a nice bar or something and let them get it done...
Most of the time this is harmless but when we are talking about a generational health crisis that necessitates public-adherence to a policy, then this idea of balance is actively dangerous. The likes of Neil seem to be intrinsically sceptical of academic experts predicting doom. Hitchens is simply a moron who has no idea on the difference between causation and correlation. He's an embarrassment and if anything positive can come from this virus it will be that his name is even more of a laughing stock. I'm sure though he'll double-down and spin some conspiracy theory that a few of his simple followers lap up.
This crisis has revealed our media to be out of their depth, too interested in gotcha moments, and entirely negative to Boris and HMG rather than sensible forensic questioning
However, the people are not listening with 72% government approval rate
https://en.as.com/en/2020/03/26/videos/1585227640_719175.html
A professional wage in Manchester seems to put you in a much better place than a professional wage in Hamburg.
Then I caught myself thinking, "Maybe I should watch The Phantom Menace"
Seriously worried now
However, they have been just absolutely different league of shit-ness. All of them are screaming 6 MONNNNNNNNNTHHSSSSSSSS....
Firstly, what she said has always been the plan and isn't a surprise. Secondly, it is massively irresponsible, as you are making it sound like we are going to be locked in our homes for that long and it will no doubt firstly make it even harder for those struggling with the idea of 3-4 weeks and secondly encourage more morons to go well f##k it, if it is going to be that long, what's the point.
It why Boris tried to give some sunlight at the end of the tunnel with his hey if we can do this for 12 weeks we will be able to force this on the backfoot and save a hell of a lot of lives.
Remember the administrator a few years back - who when told that the her admin budget was to be reduced, put all the oncology nurses at a children's hospital on notice that they might be fired. And then emailed her pals about her genius in protecting her empire?
Surely he could both?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsVCsGIMDQ
Ah, my coat.
Yes it is difficult for us all, however I agree, I see so many selfish cyclists, and I am a non selfish cyclist myself.
The 12 monkeys plot I believe was an ultra extreme group who felt wiping out the race was a useful thing to do. You have to be on the extremest fringe to think that I would hope.
Currently we have all sorts of people going on about carbon emissions reducing etc. The aim of people like xr. I suspect not even ISIS wanted to totally wipe out the race. I also think there are groups who would regard a million deaths as a price worth paying in the climate movement
You can allow a lot more freedom if you know those that are immune and how to quickly shut down any new cases.
Clearly a) is coming, but nobody seems to have and b) with any reliability / doesn't come with so many caveats that they aren't really practical in the real world.
In principle we could adapt vaccines to these changes - similar to the flu. But at least there is no evidence that it will be worse. Equally important, at least in the short term, are anti-virals, especially if they can act prophylactically.
For an interesting discussion about how we can get out of wave I and move forward, see: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/national-coronavirus-response-a-road-map-to-reopening/
We've had a kitchen cabinet meeting and come up with the following creative alternatives.
'Full English Leftovers'
'Past Sell By Date Melange'
'Old Fish Finger Fricassee'
'Pasta Joke'
'When Did We Buy That Surprise'
'Tinned Salmonella'
'That Milk's Gone Off Angel Delight'
'Lotto Risotto'
'Coronation Chickpea'
'Curried Stale Mince Pies'
All washed down with a glass or two of 'Who Gave Us This?'
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1244337616952188931