Parliament should not be suspended due to the coronavirus epidemic, and MPs should continue to attend Parliament in person. They are essential workers and they must continue to do their jobs, but there can be fewer of them in the Chamber. I doubt that most other democracies will be suspending their legislative assemblies. The Conservatives have form on this after all the prorogation tactics over Brexit last year. This move to suspend Parliament and civil liberties is too much like the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. I say don't do it.
Why aren't MPs only getting 80% of their 80k salary
I've no objection to a recall of Parliament, but is there a particular purpose the parties have in mind or just as a general principle?
I would suggest even just general principle is reason enough. We are a Parliamentary democracy and Parliament needs to be able to hold the executive to account as they have done in situations equally if not more serious than this.
It may well be reason enough, but if they have particular scrutiny in mind, genuine scrutiny, on top of a general principle, that would be good.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
TBF that's an utterly massive circle. None of the threats you mention would take out all or most of it at once, and this pandemic certainly won't, unless it takes out the rest of the world too. Maybe regional war? Chinese character malfunction? Asteroid strike, I guess...
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
We don't actually need most of the stuff that's made in those places.
We need iphones, otherwise how is the state going to track, trace and contact everyone I breathe on for the next five years?
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
We don't actually need most of the stuff that's made in those places.
We need iphones, otherwise how is the state going to track, trace and contact everyone I breathe on for the next five years?
Maybe one day people will grow tired of smartphones.
Only extraordinary in that Leave isn't streets ahead.
I find it very unlikely that the EU in 2030 will have 27 members, as now. The institution might have weathered Brexit, but coronavirus on top is a mortal blow.
For non euro members it’s a no-brainer. If the monetary flows from rich to poor have ended, get out. Or demand a looser membership.
The nightmare is being in the euro. That’s almost impossible to quit.
Either there is massive reform or it will become a club of Germany, Benelux etc. Euro is a deflationary super weapon.
It's far too early to say. In six months' time, we may be looking at a group of countries with trashed currencies wishing they were in the Eurozone.
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
We don't actually need most of the stuff that's made in those places.
We need iphones, otherwise how is the state going to track, trace and contact everyone I breathe on for the next five years?
Maybe one day people will grow tired of smartphones.
Given the level of convenience they offer, why would that be? What would replace them, or why would we en masse cease to want what they presently provide? Yes we got by without them until a decade ago, and many people still don't have them, but I'm not sure what about them people will 'tire' of.
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
The problem is this:
Let's say the government proposes a plan to diversify supply of (say) certain non-essential products. So, from now on all new vacuum pumps need to come from the UK. And, of course, the subcomponents need to come from the UK too, otherwise you haven't really reduced risk.
The problem is that these vacuum pumps are more expensive than ones from China or Korea or Bangladesh or wherever. So we need to force British firms to buy vacuum pumps at above market rates.
And who is going to buy these vacuum pumps, other than Brits, who can be forced to do so? And any British firm that needs to use vacuum pumps will have higher costs than firms abroad that can buy on the open market.
Any country which chooses the mutual dependence of trade over self reliance will end up richer.
The alternative is the greater resilience of more secure supply lines (perhaps) but at the expense of the total size of the economy. Ah... small beer you say... but the problem is that this stuff is cumulative. Autarky has never been a successful economic strategy.
Arkansas Total 25 Deaths +1 Today Iowa Total 34 Deaths +3 Today Nebraska Total 17 Deaths No Change today North Dakota Total 7 Deaths +1 Today Wyoming Total 0 Deaths
Parliament should not be suspended due to the coronavirus epidemic, and MPs should continue to attend Parliament in person. They are essential workers and they must continue to do their jobs, but there can be fewer of them in the Chamber. I doubt that most other democracies will be suspending their legislative assemblies. The Conservatives have form on this after all the prorogation tactics over Brexit last year. This move to suspend Parliament and civil liberties is too much like the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. I say don't do it.
Ministers can be questioned online (as Holyrood and Cardiff are already doing) and if necessary votes on key legislation taken online too
Only extraordinary in that Leave isn't streets ahead.
I find it very unlikely that the EU in 2030 will have 27 members, as now. The institution might have weathered Brexit, but coronavirus on top is a mortal blow.
For non euro members it’s a no-brainer. If the monetary flows from rich to poor have ended, get out. Or demand a looser membership.
The nightmare is being in the euro. That’s almost impossible to quit.
Either there is massive reform or it will become a club of Germany, Benelux etc. Euro is a deflationary super weapon.
It's far too early to say. In six months' time, we may be looking at a group of countries with trashed currencies wishing they were in the Eurozone.
Let's say the government proposes a plan to diversify supply of (say) certain non-essential products. So, from now on all new vacuum pumps need to come from the UK. And, of course, the subcomponents need to come from the UK too, otherwise you haven't really reduced risk.
The problem is that these vacuum pumps are more expensive than ones from China or Korea or Bangladesh or wherever. So we need to force British firms to buy vacuum pumps at above market rates.
And who is going to buy these vacuum pumps, other than Brits, who can be forced to do so? And any British firm that needs to use vacuum pumps will have higher costs than firms abroad that can buy on the open market.
Any country which chooses the mutual dependence of trade over self reliance will end up richer.
The alternative is the greater resilience of more secure supply lines (perhaps) but at the expense of the total size of the economy. Ah... small beer you say... but the problem is that this stuff is cumulative. Autarky has never been a successful economic strategy.
I accept and agree with the point you are making, but some businesses and services do geographically disperse their manufacturing and operations to be more resilient. It seems to me that we have now discovered that such an approach should be extended to a wider part of the economy.
I'm certainly not advocating making everything in the UK, or even significantly increasing how much is made in the UK, but we do need greater diversity. The mess we've gotten into with things like PPE and chemical reagents can't be allowed to return to the way it was before the crisis.
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
We don't actually need most of the stuff that's made in those places.
We need iphones, otherwise how is the state going to track, trace and contact everyone I breathe on for the next five years?
Maybe one day people will grow tired of smartphones.
Given the level of convenience they offer, why would that be? What would replace them, or why would we en masse cease to want what they presently provide? Yes we got by without them until a decade ago, and many people still don't have them, but I'm not sure what about them people will 'tire' of.
Once we can embed their functionality into smart contact lenses, we won't need smartphones.
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
We don't actually need most of the stuff that's made in those places.
We need iphones, otherwise how is the state going to track, trace and contact everyone I breathe on for the next five years?
Maybe one day people will grow tired of smartphones.
Given the level of convenience they offer, why would that be? What would replace them, or why would we en masse cease to want what they presently provide? Yes we got by without them until a decade ago, and many people still don't have them, but I'm not sure what about them people will 'tire' of.
Is convenience more important than freedom from constant surveillance? I don't think so. I seem to be in a minority.
It's worth pondering why Corbyn should find it necessary to make such a statement.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
This could be hugely important if it's true of other countries:
"Iceland has tested one-tenth of its population for coronavirus at random and found half of people have the disease without realising - with only seven deaths in 1,600 cases"
It's worth pondering why Corbyn should find it necessary to make such a statement.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
We can only hope, eh. Out of interest, does anybody else find this outfit using the Benn name slightly dodgy? As far as I can tell they are just a random outfit with a Twitter account and FB page, not a society, and presumably no endorsement from the Benn family. If I was Hillary I'd be releasing the lawyers.
It's worth pondering why Corbyn should find it necessary to make such a statement.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
It's worth pondering why Corbyn should find it necessary to make such a statement.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
We can only hope, eh. Out of interest, does anybody else find this outfit using the Benn name slightly dodgy? As far as I can tell they are just a random outfit with a Twitter account and FB page, not a society, and presumably no endorsement from the Benn family. If I was Hillary I'd be releasing the lawyers.
Also reveals that this was always a personality cult.
iirc Starmer hasn't changed a single policy. All he has done is refreshed the front bench with people who can string a sentence together and add up police numbers.
This could be hugely important if it's true of other countries:
"Iceland has tested one-tenth of its population for coronavirus at random and found half of people have the disease without realising - with only seven deaths in 1,600 cases"
Trump is surprisingly short to win the election given the GOP's odds in the battleground states? Bookies have Trump as favourite overall but State odds suggest:
Dems decent favourites in Pennslyvania, Wisconsin Dems narrowly win Arizona Toss up in Florida, North Carolina GOP only decent favourites (roughly 1/2) in Iowa, Georgia
That doesn't match, surely? Some value on one side, or a semi-arb available.
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
The problem is this:
Let's say the government proposes a plan to diversify supply of (say) certain non-essential products. So, from now on all new vacuum pumps need to come from the UK. And, of course, the subcomponents need to come from the UK too, otherwise you haven't really reduced risk.
The problem is that these vacuum pumps are more expensive than ones from China or Korea or Bangladesh or wherever. So we need to force British firms to buy vacuum pumps at above market rates.
And who is going to buy these vacuum pumps, other than Brits, who can be forced to do so? And any British firm that needs to use vacuum pumps will have higher costs than firms abroad that can buy on the open market.
Any country which chooses the mutual dependence of trade over self reliance will end up richer.
The alternative is the greater resilience of more secure supply lines (perhaps) but at the expense of the total size of the economy. Ah... small beer you say... but the problem is that this stuff is cumulative. Autarky has never been a successful economic strategy.
For another example, a Britain "self-sufficient" in food (in a world where all countries aimed for self-sufficiency) would probably turn out to be more vulnerable to food-supply disruption than a Britain that relies on a web of global trade links for food... because while a bad harvest in the UK is bound to happen every few years, and in "self-sufficiency" world will hit your entire source of food, it's usually offset by some countries having good harvests while others have bad, so in "trade-link" world you just do more business with whoever's running a good surplus and able to sell it to you cheapest (once transport costs are included, but for a lot of bulk goods like grains that's surprisingly cheap even over thousands of miles).
Having said that, there's a lot of merit in what @glw said, if you don't read it as promoting UK autarky (which may not have been his intention anyway - it certainly wasn't the way I read it). Just as a risk management issue (both political risk and unanticipated disasters), it would be preferable if critical supplies can be sourced from locations where supply shocks are likely to be as uncorrelated as possible. Far apart enough not to be both taken out by the same hurricane or earthquake, perhaps in different cultural/economic/political blocs (the concentration of oil supply in Arab countries was to cause regret to Western countries in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War). The problem is how you coordinate that. At least with autarky you might be able to persuade your own country's population that they should put up with the economic pain of autarky because it's patriotic to buy British and anyway it's making them safer. How do you persuade them it's in the UK's interest to somehow, in conjunction with other countries (who'll also need persuading) try by some means (what would the mechanism even be?) to get global pharmaceutical supply chains to "double up" or "triple up" with parallel alternatives to the Chinese/Indian route being fostered in say South Africa and Latin America? Those might be places which can't compete with the incumbents on costs, so just how would they be made viable and who would have to shoulder the burden the "added costs" in the "costs vs security" trade-off?
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
TOTP 89 on BBC4 just finishing and No1 is Back to Life by Soul II Soul. How old do I feel? When this was happening I was playing football over the school field at night with my mates with this blaring out the stereo and jumpers for goalposts!
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
I'd be surprised if that ship hasn't already sailed with no means of turning back.
TOTP 89 on BBC4 just finishing and No1 is Back to Life by Soul II Soul. How old do I feel? When this was happening I was playing football over the school field at night with my mates with this blaring out the stereo and jumpers for goalposts!
Arh, those olden days when one could go out the house whenever one felt like it.
You'll be telling us next that your house had toilet paper and flour.
It's worth pondering why Corbyn should find it necessary to make such a statement.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
Or simply that Jezza is a Party loyalist to his core? He's had plenty of opportunities to flounder over the years. He always stayed in the Labour Party even WHILST opposing their policies.
TOTP 89 on BBC4 just finishing and No1 is Back to Life by Soul II Soul. How old do I feel? When this was happening I was playing football over the school field at night with my mates with this blaring out the stereo and jumpers for goalposts!
A classic seminal record, but I’ve always thought Get a Life is a better track.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Trump will likely hold Arizona and is polling OK in Wisconsin too, which makes Michigan and Pennsylvania the key swing states
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Exactly.
It will probably be a repeat of 2004, Biden like Kerry gets close but not close enough
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Exactly.
It will probably be a repeat of 2004, Biden like Kerry gets close but not close enough
If Trump takes the hit on what is fast unravelling as the USA's ill-prepared Coronavirus scandal, I wouldn't be so sure of Trump's re-election.
It's worth pondering why Corbyn should find it necessary to make such a statement.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
Or simply that Jezza is a Party loyalist to his core? He's had plenty of opportunities to flounder over the years. He always stayed in the Labour Party even WHILST opposing their policies.
Amusing autocorrect. Flounce of course. But he floundered as well.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Exactly.
It will probably be a repeat of 2004, Biden like Kerry gets close but not close enough
We'll see. It will be close imho. Probably turning on a few thousand votes in a handful of States.Like last time.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Exactly.
It will probably be a repeat of 2004, Biden like Kerry gets close but not close enough
We'll see. It will be close imho. Probably turning on a few thousand votes in a handful of States.Like last time.
If so Pennsylvania will probably be this year's Ohio or Florida
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Are you sure? So far it seems to be Spectator and Telegraph journalists, the jet set and those who invoke the Blitz spirit with tedious regularity who are chafing under the strain. Oh and libertarians too.
Commentators are foolishly extrapolating from data in exceptional times.
Political success or failure hinges not only on how well or badly the incumbent government tackles Coronavirus and how it deals with the chaotic aftermath, it is also all about fast-moving uncontrollable events.
As it stands none of the current polling indicates anything other than the mindset on the days the poll was taken.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Exactly.
It will probably be a repeat of 2004, Biden like Kerry gets close but not close enough
If Trump takes the hit on what is fast unravelling as the USA's ill-prepared Coronavirus scandal, I wouldn't be so sure of Trump's re-election.
"if" doing a lot of work there.
Biden has to reach out to the white working class in a way no Dem has done since Clinton in 96.
Penn, WI, Ohio.
These are his people, so he can do it, as long as the kids on the campaign with their Big Data sets and iphone based surveys of what the pulse is down at Wholefoods don't distract him.
He needs to make that 'bunch of malarkey' speech over and over again.
Every morning he needs to get out of bed and think what am I going to say today that persuades blue collar America to turn from Trump. Forget the latte drinking classes - they are already on board.
Most of all, he needs to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs again.
Incidentally I've put the statewide odds onto an EC map, no toss-ups so Florida and NC barely stay Republican. But Trump still loses by a state or two. The state and overall odds don't add up.
Been pondering this. Conventional wisdom has it that a first term President rarely loses. Particularly one who takes over from the other Party. Fair enough. But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
Exactly.
It will probably be a repeat of 2004, Biden like Kerry gets close but not close enough
If Trump takes the hit on what is fast unravelling as the USA's ill-prepared Coronavirus scandal, I wouldn't be so sure of Trump's re-election.
"if" doing a lot of work there.
Biden has to reach out to the white working class in a way no Dem has done since Clinton in 96.
Penn, WI, Ohio.
These are his people, so he can do it, as long as the kids on the campaign with their Big Data sets and iphone based surveys of what the pulse is down at Wholefoods don't distract him.
He needs to make that 'bunch of malarkey' speech over and over again.
Every morning he needs to get out of bed and think what am I going to say today that persuades blue collar America to turn from Trump. Forget the latte drinking classes - they are already on board.
Most of all, he needs to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs again.
Disagree with your 'if' statement, and current polling already suggests Trump's inconsistency over Coronavirus might be punished by November.
As to Biden thinking 'what am I going to say today'? He first needs to think 'what day is it today'?
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Are you sure? So far it seems to be Spectator and Telegraph journalists, the jet set and those who invoke the Blitz spirit with tedious regularity who are chafing under the strain. Oh and libertarians too.
Andy Cooke had an excellent post on this earlier. I think it’s a small number of people who are desperate to go back to the life that they were enjoying before. It’s a dangerous mindset and betrays a lack of imagination and creativity. It’s also resulted in their getting to a dangerous position, whereby they would happily throw anyone and everyone under a bus so that they can return to a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
They need to get real, things are going to change and it is up to them to adapt to the new reality, not for others to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit them.
Those who are going to come out of this with their position enhanced have already moved beyond that. They can see the opportunities, the ways that they can adapt, the openings that will come their way. Let’s hope that government prepares people for a forward looking, entrepreneurial effort rather than a backward looking one.
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Are you sure? So far it seems to be Spectator and Telegraph journalists, the jet set and those who invoke the Blitz spirit with tedious regularity who are chafing under the strain. Oh and libertarians too.
Andy Cooke had an excellent post on this earlier. I think it’s a small number of people who are desperate to go back to the life that they were enjoying before. It’s a dangerous mindset and betrays a lack of imagination and creativity. It’s also resulted in their getting to a dangerous position, whereby they would happily throw anyone and everyone under a bus so that they can return to a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
They need to get real, things are going to change and it is up to them to adapt to the new reality, not for others to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit them.
Those who are going to come out of this with their position enhanced have already moved beyond that. They can see the opportunities, the ways that they can adapt, the openings that will come their way. Let’s hope that government prepares people for a forward looking, entrepreneurial effort rather than a backward looking one.
Excellent post. What the libertarians seem not to level with is that lifting the lockdown will result in a return to an exponetial growth in the pandemic, with horrendous and traumatic figures day after day, this time as a deliberate policy. Such a situation cannot possibly be contemplated.
I don't know what's weirder about this: that Lord Ashcroft commissioned a national poll of the US election, that the poll showed a 12% Biden lead before D/Ks were re-allocated, or that the write-up of the poll and focus group spends virtually the whole time talking up Trump's chances. It's like the article was written before the poll results came back.
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Are you sure? So far it seems to be Spectator and Telegraph journalists, the jet set and those who invoke the Blitz spirit with tedious regularity who are chafing under the strain. Oh and libertarians too.
Andy Cooke had an excellent post on this earlier. I think it’s a small number of people who are desperate to go back to the life that they were enjoying before. It’s a dangerous mindset and betrays a lack of imagination and creativity. It’s also resulted in their getting to a dangerous position, whereby they would happily throw anyone and everyone under a bus so that they can return to a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
They need to get real, things are going to change and it is up to them to adapt to the new reality, not for others to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit them.
Those who are going to come out of this with their position enhanced have already moved beyond that. They can see the opportunities, the ways that they can adapt, the openings that will come their way. Let’s hope that government prepares people for a forward looking, entrepreneurial effort rather than a backward looking one.
Excellent post. What the libertarians seem not to level with is that lifting the lockdown will result in a return to an exponetial growth in the pandemic, with horrendous and traumatic figures day after day, this time as a deliberate policy. Such a situation cannot possibly be contemplated.
I am slightly to the left of libertarian but still lean that way so its not all of us as I supported the lockdown. For a libertarian a governement is there to enforce the rule of law, provide a minimum safety net and defend the country.
To me the lock down comes under the defend the country thing currently
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Are you sure? So far it seems to be Spectator and Telegraph journalists, the jet set and those who invoke the Blitz spirit with tedious regularity who are chafing under the strain. Oh and libertarians too.
Andy Cooke had an excellent post on this earlier. I think it’s a small number of people who are desperate to go back to the life that they were enjoying before. It’s a dangerous mindset and betrays a lack of imagination and creativity. It’s also resulted in their getting to a dangerous position, whereby they would happily throw anyone and everyone under a bus so that they can return to a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
They need to get real, things are going to change and it is up to them to adapt to the new reality, not for others to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit them.
Those who are going to come out of this with their position enhanced have already moved beyond that. They can see the opportunities, the ways that they can adapt, the openings that will come their way. Let’s hope that government prepares people for a forward looking, entrepreneurial effort rather than a backward looking one.
Excellent post. What the libertarians seem not to level with is that lifting the lockdown will result in a return to an exponetial growth in the pandemic, with horrendous and traumatic figures day after day, this time as a deliberate policy. Such a situation cannot possibly be contemplated.
I am slightly to the left of libertarian but still lean that way so its not all of us as I supported the lockdown. For a libertarian a governement is there to enforce the rule of law, provide a minimum safety net and defend the country.
To me the lock down comes under the defend the country thing currently
Yes, and we can see that on here. Like I said, it cuts across ideological lines. Maybe it's an age thing as well (for obvious reasons). My instinct is to oppose powers of the state being able to compel and to see into people's lives but this is different. It isn't stopping people from doing what they want, it's stopping people from causing harm. It goes back to Mill.
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. "
No surprises there then; we could all come up with those names even if we might not have Michele Obama at 15/1. Yesterday I looked at the Betfair market and noted even the vaguely plausible outsiders were all sitting at 100, as if some shrewdie had snapped up the longer prices (or a layer just asked for them to be introduced and set 100 as the price).
The "party insider's" odds are well underround at 70 per cent -- in other words you could back the lot and guarantee a profit -- in other words, the insider and reporter know damn all about betting.
Never mind all that. Wikipedia confirms the good professor is great grandson of the Kekulé who, as we all remember from our GCSEs or O-levels, pretty much invented organic chemistry.
I think the Hard Left have jumped on a bandwagon as it passed the crumbling edifice that was once known as their house.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
Are you sure? So far it seems to be Spectator and Telegraph journalists, the jet set and those who invoke the Blitz spirit with tedious regularity who are chafing under the strain. Oh and libertarians too.
Andy Cooke had an excellent post on this earlier. I think it’s a small number of people who are desperate to go back to the life that they were enjoying before. It’s a dangerous mindset and betrays a lack of imagination and creativity. It’s also resulted in their getting to a dangerous position, whereby they would happily throw anyone and everyone under a bus so that they can return to a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
They need to get real, things are going to change and it is up to them to adapt to the new reality, not for others to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit them.
Those who are going to come out of this with their position enhanced have already moved beyond that. They can see the opportunities, the ways that they can adapt, the openings that will come their way. Let’s hope that government prepares people for a forward looking, entrepreneurial effort rather than a backward looking one.
Excellent post. What the libertarians seem not to level with is that lifting the lockdown will result in a return to an exponetial growth in the pandemic, with horrendous and traumatic figures day after day, this time as a deliberate policy. Such a situation cannot possibly be contemplated.
It is not 'the Libertarians' who are necessarily pushing for this. Plenty of us under that label on here are very supportive of the lockdown on the basis of individual responsibility for the well being of our friends and neighbours. It is the same in the wider country as a whole where it is those seeking to make political capital out of this who are most likely to be pushing for an early end or who opposed from the start. They are driven by political calculation not ideology.
Given he wasn't sat around the table when the discussions were happening, there is no way that, just because he is a cancer specialist, he can know what the thinking of the Government was. He knows as much as the rest of us
Can I contradict Mr Harry Cole. Do not buy a paper it could well be infested with Coronavirus, infact 'stay at home'.
Besides, The Mail is also quite dreadful.
NHS saves Johnson's life.
The next n number of NHS funding settlements are going to be interesting.
"We saved your life PM, how about funding us to save someone else's?"
I have no doubt that Boris will lavish a lot of money on the NHS
Indeed I expect to be his focus every day from now on.
Yep - the NHS is going to be getting a lot more money. And they’ll have to look at social care, too. We’re all going to be paying a lot more tax. Interesting times.
And manufacturing. Ridiculously reliant on China for just about everything from iphones to basic medication. Big change coming.
It's not China that's the problem, it's having all your eggs in one basket that is the issue.
A ridiculous amount of stuff comes from a surprisingly small, if populus, area. You can draw a circle around Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the industrial parts of China, a huge amount of stuff is made within this area that is only 2-3% of the Earth's surface. I've long thought that it was a problem, and that typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like could seriously disrupt manufacturing that we depend on. I didn't consider pandemics.
From a security point of view, in the broadest sense of the word, we want the manufacturing of essential goods to be geographically dispersed, even if it's not quite as economically efficient. It doesn't mean they have to be made in the UK, as we would still want other sources for things we make, just in case.
The problem is this:
Let's say the government proposes a plan to diversify supply of (say) certain non-essential products. So, from now on all new vacuum pumps need to come from the UK. And, of course, the subcomponents need to come from the UK too, otherwise you haven't really reduced risk.
The problem is that these vacuum pumps are more expensive than ones from China or Korea or Bangladesh or wherever. So we need to force British firms to buy vacuum pumps at above market rates.
And who is going to buy these vacuum pumps, other than Brits, who can be forced to do so? And any British firm that needs to use vacuum pumps will have higher costs than firms abroad that can buy on the open market.
Any country which chooses the mutual dependence of trade over self reliance will end up richer.
The alternative is the greater resilience of more secure supply lines (perhaps) but at the expense of the total size of the economy. Ah... small beer you say... but the problem is that this stuff is cumulative. Autarky has never been a successful economic strategy.
And a country which chooses total dependence on trade over having any of its own production risks catastrophe if that trade is disrupted.
Given he wasn't sat around the table when the discussions were happening, there is no way that, just because he is a cancer specialist, he can know what the thinking of the Government was. He knows as much as the rest of us
The sacredness of NHS will be used to batter Govts of all.persuasions.
Comments
That's the 64000 pound question.
Gets pyjama coat!!
If you do not know what OANN is then be glad.
Let's say the government proposes a plan to diversify supply of (say) certain non-essential products. So, from now on all new vacuum pumps need to come from the UK. And, of course, the subcomponents need to come from the UK too, otherwise you haven't really reduced risk.
The problem is that these vacuum pumps are more expensive than ones from China or Korea or Bangladesh or wherever. So we need to force British firms to buy vacuum pumps at above market rates.
And who is going to buy these vacuum pumps, other than Brits, who can be forced to do so? And any British firm that needs to use vacuum pumps will have higher costs than firms abroad that can buy on the open market.
Any country which chooses the mutual dependence of trade over self reliance will end up richer.
The alternative is the greater resilience of more secure supply lines (perhaps) but at the expense of the total size of the economy. Ah... small beer you say... but the problem is that this stuff is cumulative. Autarky has never been a successful economic strategy.
Iowa Total 34 Deaths +3 Today
Nebraska Total 17 Deaths No Change today
North Dakota Total 7 Deaths +1 Today
Wyoming Total 0 Deaths
You don't need to order social distancing there.
I'm certainly not advocating making everything in the UK, or even significantly increasing how much is made in the UK, but we do need greater diversity. The mess we've gotten into with things like PPE and chemical reagents can't be allowed to return to the way it was before the crisis.
No joke
https://www.youtube.com/user/BobRossInc/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=7
Reading between the lines, it suggests that some on the extreme left have been resigning from the Labour Party, and that the number is significant enough for Corbyn to intervene to try to limit the damage to his faction's base.
"Iceland has tested one-tenth of its population for coronavirus at random and found half of people have the disease without realising - with only seven deaths in 1,600 cases"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210401/Iceland-finds-half-population-asymptomatic-infected-Covid-19.html
iirc Starmer hasn't changed a single policy. All he has done is refreshed the front bench with people who can string a sentence together and add up police numbers.
Trump is surprisingly short to win the election given the GOP's odds in the battleground states? Bookies have Trump as favourite overall but State odds suggest:
Dems decent favourites in Pennslyvania, Wisconsin
Dems narrowly win Arizona
Toss up in Florida, North Carolina
GOP only decent favourites (roughly 1/2) in Iowa, Georgia
That doesn't match, surely? Some value on one side, or a semi-arb available.
Prof Alexander Kekulé says the lockdown is in danger of going on too long and causing more damage than the virus’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/11/german-scientist-predicted-european-epidemic-calls-end-lockdown/
Having said that, there's a lot of merit in what @glw said, if you don't read it as promoting UK autarky (which may not have been his intention anyway - it certainly wasn't the way I read it). Just as a risk management issue (both political risk and unanticipated disasters), it would be preferable if critical supplies can be sourced from locations where supply shocks are likely to be as uncorrelated as possible. Far apart enough not to be both taken out by the same hurricane or earthquake, perhaps in different cultural/economic/political blocs (the concentration of oil supply in Arab countries was to cause regret to Western countries in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War). The problem is how you coordinate that. At least with autarky you might be able to persuade your own country's population that they should put up with the economic pain of autarky because it's patriotic to buy British and anyway it's making them safer. How do you persuade them it's in the UK's interest to somehow, in conjunction with other countries (who'll also need persuading) try by some means (what would the mechanism even be?) to get global pharmaceutical supply chains to "double up" or "triple up" with parallel alternatives to the Chinese/Indian route being fostered in say South Africa and Latin America? Those might be places which can't compete with the incumbents on costs, so just how would they be made viable and who would have to shoulder the burden the "added costs" in the "costs vs security" trade-off?
But Trump is anything but a conventional President. And these are far from usual times.
You'll be telling us next that your house had toilet paper and flour.
Once the lockdown has gone on for three months (should that happen) they will be bleating on about the police state that is stopping them meeting once a week above the local vegan cafe in order to plan the overthrow of capitalism.
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1249011661496889348?s=20
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1249011662880833536?s=20
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1249011665380745217?s=20
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1249011668161609729?s=20
Political success or failure hinges not only on how well or badly the incumbent government tackles Coronavirus and how it deals with the chaotic aftermath, it is also all about fast-moving uncontrollable events.
As it stands none of the current polling indicates anything other than the mindset on the days the poll was taken.
Biden has to reach out to the white working class in a way no Dem has done since Clinton in 96.
Penn, WI, Ohio.
These are his people, so he can do it, as long as the kids on the campaign with their Big Data sets and iphone based surveys of what the pulse is down at Wholefoods don't distract him.
He needs to make that 'bunch of malarkey' speech over and over again.
Every morning he needs to get out of bed and think what am I going to say today that persuades blue collar America to turn from Trump. Forget the latte drinking classes - they are already on board.
Most of all, he needs to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs again.
As to Biden thinking 'what am I going to say today'? He first needs to think 'what day is it today'?
They need to get real, things are going to change and it is up to them to adapt to the new reality, not for others to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit them.
Those who are going to come out of this with their position enhanced have already moved beyond that. They can see the opportunities, the ways that they can adapt, the openings that will come their way. Let’s hope that government prepares people for a forward looking, entrepreneurial effort rather than a backward looking one.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2020/04/counting-on-trumps-performance-to-see-him-kicked-out-i-wouldnt-bet-on-it/
To me the lock down comes under the defend the country thing currently
https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1249099143638736896
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. "
Prof Alexander Kekulé says the lockdown is in danger of going on too long and causing more damage than the virus" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/11/german-scientist-predicted-european-epidemic-calls-end-lockdown/
The "party insider's" odds are well underround at 70 per cent -- in other words you could back the lot and guarantee a profit -- in other words, the insider and reporter know damn all about betting.