This preserves the relative position of countries but likely causes asset price inflation.
Inflation is indeed one of the likely manifestations. The big picture unavoidable truth is that you cannot dodge a drop in living standards - or by corollary raise them - by printing money. If you could we would all be doing it all of the time and do nothing else. Bye bye economics.
Our challenge - and it really should be possible to achieve this - will be to ensure that the hit is taken by everyone apart from the just about (and not) managing. As the term implies, they cannot take a hit without being thrown into poverty, or are in poverty already.
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
My point is that the PM is out of commission and we have a sub-optimal decision making body for "the foreseeable future". And of all, really of all the times when we need a decision making body on its game and firing on all cylinders...it is right now.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
I cannot agree. The questions were spot on...a week ago. And I've yet to hear what the solution is, since any replacement for Boris as PM would face questions of mandate, so I don't even know what people are demanding here. As it is, our flexible system allows for decision-making to continue, and we have been provided a clear list of who is in charge in any emergency situation. Any non-emergency decision effectively gets taken inthe same way.
So no. The questions started out spot on, but asking the same questions when the situation has not changed in a week is not spot on, it's silly. It would be less silly if we had a President, but we don't. However vitally important the PM definitely is, we have alternatives in place for decision-making under his authority being delegated as he is oput of action. And constantly asking over and over who is in charge when an answer has been provided because we don't like the answer adds nothing, nor does it make the situation more chaotic than in fact is the case. And, once again, says nothing about how that suppose chaos is meant to be resolved.
The person who is in charge, the primus inter pares, is now out of commission and will be for some time. As Charles' post so eloquently, if perhaps unintentionally illustrated, there is no (or at least a less) effective decision making structure at a time when we need a super efficient, optimal one.
Meaning what? What do you think should happen? A new PM appointed, who, lacking the mandate that people left and right usually claim as so important, would be attacked as not having the right to take decisions?
That's the bit I do not understand here. Things are sub-optimal, sure, but I disagree on how sub-optimal that really is when the government response is being driven by its advisers for better and worse, but what do you think is the solution?
If the PM can't be PM through no fault of his own he should stand down and let someone be PM who can be PM.
No mandate? Simply not true as they would follow the precedent of any number of mid-term new PMs.
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
I do think the government is basically screwed. It won't show in polling for quite some time and for now they are still trusted and supported, but the messaging is all there about things that many think we should have done, where our preparations were not as good as others and so on, and unless we end up on the lower scale of deaths - which looks vanishingly unlikely - those messages will hit home once we are out of the worst.
There is more than enough paper trail on the decisions that lead back to the scientific advisers. I don't think the government will suffer for the decisions made in the last few weeks. It's how the government handles the economic fall out that will be the key measure.
Those just about managing always get hit by tax increases, there are not enough higher rate tax payers to make up the money needed so the basic rate will be raised
With the current rates and bands, you are right. They will need to be redesigned for the new circumstances.
Then why on earth do you believe in socialism? It's the ultimate exemplar of that saying.
When I say I'm a Hard Left Social Democrat, people no doubt think I'm trying it on, but this is exactly what I am. I believe in the big interventionist redistributing state and public ownership of utilities, but also in free enterprise and sound money. Which means oodles of taxation. The "hard left" bit comes from class war social measures such as abolishing private schools and the diversity and equality agenda, which I also like very much. But government borrowing (or money printing) to fund current spending? Or to fund grandiose pink elephants? No way.
Sounds like a dystopian world to me no thanks
We're going to need a new term to encapsulate its awfulness - I suggest "Hellworld" or "Shitplane".
The funny bit is the left very often doesn't want the results they say they want.
When the West London Free School opened, the standard complaint was that no more secondary schools were required in West London. Then the school was oversubscribed by 300%
When middle class people started sending their children to the school, the complaint changed to it wasn't "diverse" enough, because the ratio of those getting free school meals is lower than nearby schools. And the discipline is too harsh - because the teachers stop children from bullying others.
The ironic bit is that the school is one of the very few in London where you actually get a mix of children from really poor backgrounds, with the well off. In some cases, parents have moved from the private sector (primary).
Normally, segregation by postcode sorts that out....
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kindof hing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do.
Ah Vietnam, the more palatable communist dictatorship?
Yep - see my edited text.
Oh, I wasn't really criticising. Choosing between ranges of unpleasant regimes will remain a reality when they are so numerous, and probably increasing. I don't know if the Vietnamese regime is better or worse than China's though.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kindof hing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do.
Ah Vietnam, the more palatable communist dictatorship?
There was a documentary made in the 90s where an old school lefty (Johnny Pilger) went to Vietnam. The look on his face when the Finance minister explained the exact practical reasons why communist economic polices were shit was priceless.
So it's another of the communist branded but not actually Communist regimes out there. Seems inevitable.
I do think the government is basically screwed. It won't show in polling for quite some time and for now they are still trusted and supported, but the messaging is all there about things that many think we should have done, where our preparations were not as good as others and so on, and unless we end up on the lower scale of deaths - which looks vanishingly unlikely - those messages will hit home once we are out of the worst.
There is more than enough paper trail on the decisions that lead back to the scientific advisers. I don't think the government will suffer for the decisions made in the last few weeks. It's how the government handles the economic fall out that will be the key measure.
Those just about managing always get hit by tax increases, there are not enough higher rate tax payers to make up the money needed so the basic rate will be raised
With the current rates and bands, you are right. They will need to be redesigned for the new circumstances.
Every time labour have fiddled with tax bands, that favoured party of yours, the less well off workers have suffered. Forgive me if I expect the next time they try to be no different
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
There are 15 Hydrogen filling stations in the UK. Very convenient.
I do think the government is basically screwed. It won't show in polling for quite some time and for now they are still trusted and supported, but the messaging is all there about things that many think we should have done, where our preparations were not as good as others and so on, and unless we end up on the lower scale of deaths - which looks vanishingly unlikely - those messages will hit home once we are out of the worst.
There is more than enough paper trail on the decisions that lead back to the scientific advisers. I don't think the government will suffer for the decisions made in the last few weeks. It's how the government handles the economic fall out that will be the key measure.
For starters I think that even if they handle that brilliantly so many will suffer than there will be a hit, though it may not be as much as they fear. On the paper trail issue, it won't save them. If other places do better than us the question will be why the political choice was not made to overrule (even though overrulling the advice would itself be very criticised if that went wrong) or to get better advisers.
I think it is out of their hands. If we appear to have done ok then long term they can manage the criticisms. If we appear to be among the worst, every little problem, no matter if it was not of the government's making or unavoidable, will be amplified.
I don't think we will see an impact in that direction for many many months though, except on polling on individual issues.
The government was too slow to react and the death rate is a result of that. This much is obvious.
What is also not being said is that millions of people are being ignored by not being told that they are in a high risk group.
Note - Ireland - are over 60, people over 70 are particularly vulnerable and should cocoon - have a long-term medical condition - for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, liver disease or high blood pressure - have a weak immune system (immunosuppressed) - have a medical condition that can affect your breathing - are residents of nursing homes and other long-stay settings - are in specialist disability care and are over 50 years of age or have an underlying health problem
Note - in the UK - are 70 or older - are pregnant - lung conditions, such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis - heart disease, such as heart failure - chronic kidney disease - liver disease, such as hepatitis - conditions affecting the brain and nerves, such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy - diabetes - problems with your spleen – for example, sickle cell disease, or if you've had your spleen removed - a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets or chemotherapy - being very overweight (having a BMI of 40 or above)
(Ireland hasn't included pregnancy and BMI over 40, the former seems to have been shown to be very limited, the latter is only recent)
Look at those groups - A mass of people between 60 and 70, people with cancer (surely that must be a mistake to omit that), high blood pressure and nursing homes. Ignored, put in danger, abandoned.
The first and the last two and their omission has been absolutely deliberate. Nursing homes because they have clearly been positioned as deaths necessary to avoid the system being overrun. Between 60 and 70? Too many people, making them 'at risk' creates economic harm. Hypertension? This is the most vindictive decision made, not to warn people with hypertension. Not to put them (and that means me) on the list is a massive dereliction of duty. Why? Are we the same as the care home deaths? The ones who cannot be avoided, so why bother to warn them? Or is the calculation that so many people at risk is not palatable for economic reasons?
That nobody in the media is challenging this is a disgrace. It is not difficult for people to check their blood pressure and it will save lives, not just now but for normal times. I can only think that this is on purpose and, because we are too many, the calculation is to let us die. If you are between 60 and 70 and with hypertension (so, so many people), then it's pretty obvious that you are positioned as cannon fodder in this fight.
LOL, before I even tread it I know it will be wheeling out the swivel eyed union jack nutjobs as normal. SNPbad and no indyref2 , The Scottish Tory sockpuppet regional office manifesto.
What does any of that have to do with the Scottish government not offering as much financial support to businesses as the English government?
You moron , what do you know regarding what the Scottish Government policy is or is not. They have given out all the consequentials , ie the same as England in financial support. They have chosen to match it to the Scottish economy rather than copy the completely different English economy and you have a few sad sack greedy unionists who think they should get more than others , rounded up by the inept Tory leader to whinge about it. This causes moronic unionists like yourself to slavishly whine and moan without having a clue what you are a talking about. Stick to posting about cars spinning round a bit of tarmac it suits your brain power a lot better.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Do you realise how much it costs to make stuff here? The bloke who puts shoes on my horses imports his horseshoes from China, by post, cos its cheaper. English leather goods manufacturers export English leather to India to be made into things and shipped back. Not saying it's the wrong thing to do but the effects on wages and inflation are going to be mind blowing.
Those just about managing always get hit by tax increases, there are not enough higher rate tax payers to make up the money needed so the basic rate will be raised
With the current rates and bands, you are right. They will need to be redesigned for the new circumstances.
From the evidence of what the left do and propose this is what I believe. They have no interest in helping the poor they would rather have them reliant on state handouts so they can use it to buy votes. People being self sufficient threatens the left's ideal of a socialist dystopia.
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
There are 15 Hydrogen filling stations in the UK. Very convenient.
Home charging is close to irrelevant. The future with electric vehicles is already here - chargers than deliver 100KW plus. Charging station that deliver 1MW are already in prototype.
As someone who as actually... met liquid hydrogen. Good luck with that. There is a reason that hydrogen powered cars have always been the future - 10 years from the present.
If you want to improve the House of Commons, then getting rid of the bizarre rule that MPs can't clap would be a start IMHO
This is another one of those complaints that astounds me every time I see it. For one, they are occasionally permitted to clap although it is true it is not the convention of the House and Speakers generally try to put a stop to it ("Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption") but leaving that aside, how on earth would that improve or negatively affect the Commons? What possible difference would it make positively or negatively?
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
The government was too slow to react and the death rate is a result of that. This much is obvious.
What is also not being said is that millions of people are being ignored by not being told that they are in a high risk group.
Note - Ireland - are over 60, people over 70 are particularly vulnerable and should cocoon - have a long-term medical condition - for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, liver disease or high blood pressure - have a weak immune system (immunosuppressed) - have a medical condition that can affect your breathing - are residents of nursing homes and other long-stay settings - are in specialist disability care and are over 50 years of age or have an underlying health problem
Note - in the UK - are 70 or older - are pregnant - lung conditions, such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis - heart disease, such as heart failure - chronic kidney disease - liver disease, such as hepatitis - conditions affecting the brain and nerves, such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy - diabetes - problems with your spleen – for example, sickle cell disease, or if you've had your spleen removed - a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets or chemotherapy - being very overweight (having a BMI of 40 or above)
(Ireland hasn't included pregnancy and BMI over 40, the former seems to have been shown to be very limited, the latter is only recent)
Look at those groups - A mass of people between 60 and 70, people with cancer (surely that must be a mistake to omit that), high blood pressure and nursing homes. Ignored, put in danger, abandoned.
The last two and their omission has been absolutely deliberate. Nursing homes because they have clearly been positioned as deaths necessary to avoid the system being overrun.
Hypertension? This is the most vindictive decision made, not to warn people with hypertension. Not to put them (and that means me) on the list is a massive dereliction of duty. Why? Are we the same as the care home deaths? The ones who cannot be avoided, so why bother to warn them?
That nobody in the media is challenging this is a disgrace. It is not difficult for people to check their blood pressure and it will save lives, not just now but for normal times. I can only think that this is on purpose and, because we are too many, the calculation is to let us die. If you are between 60 and 70 and with hypertension (so, so many people), then it's pretty obvious that you are positioned as cannon fodder in this fight.
People with cancer are listed in the extremely vulnerable group by the UK government. As for the distinction between 60 and 70, is that significant for those without preexisting conditions?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
Yes, he is. The six figure salary tells us that. And at some stage the value of his shares will be realised and he will inherit, too. I would say he is almost certainly a member of the 1%.
“Wealthy” is an unhelpful term because it’s non specific. He’s certainly well paid and comfortably off.
It is unlikely that the value of his shares will be realised as I suspect that in about 27 years he will sell them to my daughter for £30,000.
But ignore his salary and dividend income, which pegs him as being as well off as (and taxed like) any successful member of the upper middle classes in London.
If you look at the market value of his shares he would be in the top 300-400 wealthiest people in the country. But he doesn’t get an income from them. If he could sell them then he would be very wealthy. But he can’t. He takes the view that it’s more like being a custodian of the business than an owner.
Good on him. But you asked me whether he is wealthy and I explained why I believe he is. If you ask me whether I think he is typical, I would say that I do not believe he is.
The challenge is that he pays tax on his income and personal assets like anyone else. And if the voters elect a government that want to put income tax to 60% or whatever that’s up to them.
But how do you determine the value of something that can’t be sold and generates little income? Another example;l: what is the value of a stately home? Sure you can tax the income but is the country better off if you force the sale to a Russian oligarch and close it to the public?
I do think the government is basically screwed. It won't show in polling for quite some time and for now they are still trusted and supported, but the messaging is all there about things that many think we should have done, where our preparations were not as good as others and so on, and unless we end up on the lower scale of deaths - which looks vanishingly unlikely - those messages will hit home once we are out of the worst.
There is more than enough paper trail on the decisions that lead back to the scientific advisers. I don't think the government will suffer for the decisions made in the last few weeks. It's how the government handles the economic fall out that will be the key measure.
The polls and other indicators show public support for the government in their efforts with 95% agreeing to the lockdown
Despite the media onslaught, especially over testing and PPE, I do believe voters understand that this pandemic has overwhelmed most governments and their common sense knows that the government are doing their best and trusting the science to the extent they shake their heads when more attacks often based on hindsight come from a media seeking to compromise and embarrass those dealing with a near impossible task
And I agree, the real test comes post this early period when the economy has to be handled and the army of NHS and others who frontlined the crisis have to be recognised especially in rising pay and the high earners including CEO's, celebrities, footballers and others should be the target of increasing higher taxes and accountability
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
You didn't get this wrong. You refused to be a member of a party which was lead by an anti-semitic cultist. That anti-semitic cultist has been booted out so you rejoined.
It is now a moderate, centre-left party with no tolerance for anti-semites and the socialist cult of Momentum.
Now perhaps NPXMPX2 needs to ask himself whether he still feels he can be a member of such a party.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
David, you want to phone your buddy carcrash Jackson and tell him that the Scottish Government have said independence is off the menu for the forseeable, the clown is still using it as the only Tory policy. You describe the Scottish Tories perfectly.
I've never met him Malc so I doubt I will have the opportunity. But I agree that it is time for the Scottish Tories to start developing a coherent set of policies to help Scotland through these very troubled times. Being part of a much larger economic unit with much greater resources will of course be key to that but it is not enough.
Scotland has so far been much less affected by this virus than England in general and London in particular, roughly half as badly as England as whole and maybe 1/4 of London. Which is great but we are going to be a lot more vulnerable to the second wave. What do we do about it?
Our economy is very service based with a pitiful amount of manufacturing. Services have been particularly badly hit. How do we look to address that? If this virus persists should we make WFH more viable by improving our connectivity? How do we keep our local airports going when flying is much less popular? How do we help those who education has been severely disrupted by this?
Just stating the obvious, that Independence would be suicidal, is not enough.
I know David and SNP are far from perfect but the opposition in Scotland to hold them to book is non-existant. Tories and Labour are just fixated on indyref2 ,whilst current SNP leadership are avoiding it like the plague , and Lib Dems are just a total joke. It is extremely poor all round for good stewardship especially as SNP are being run by a cabal interested in genderism and feminism etc and little else.
Malcolm, you are I are in serious danger of agreeing about this. It's troubling :-)
I'm glad to see that Boris is recovering. However should he have been shaking hands with Covid-19 sufferers and should he have delayed going to hospital for three days as he apparently did. We don't need macho gestures, you can't 'fight' a virus, we need timely decisions and action from our politicians in power.
It is so comforing to have yet another expert to advise ...using the benefit of hindsight...on .what the PM ought to have done.
Don't see how I could have predicted he would be dumb enough to shake hands with a Covid-19 sufferer or to avoid going to hospital when the staff were expecting him. So how does that make me an expert 'using the benefit of hindsight'? It seems that you're just making any criticism you could, no matter how contrived, of anyone who dares question Boris.
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
My point is that the PM is out of commission and we have a sub-optimal decision making body for "the foreseeable future". And of all, really of all the times when we need a decision making body on its game and firing on all cylinders...it is right now.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
I cannot agree. The questions were spot on...a week ago. And I've yet to hear what the solution is, since any replacement for Boris as PM would face questions of mandate, so I don't even know what people are demanding here. As it is, our flexible system allows for decision-making to continue, and we have been provided a clear list of who is in charge in any emergency situation. Any non-emergency decision effectively gets taken inthe same way.
So no. The questions started out spot on, but asking the same questions when the situation has not changed in a week is not spot on, it's silly. It would be less silly if we had a President, but we don't. However vitally important the PM definitely is, we have alternatives in place for decision-making under his authority being delegated as he is oput of action. And constantly asking over and over who is in charge when an answer has been provided because we don't like the answer adds nothing, nor does it make the situation more chaotic than in fact is the case. And, once again, says nothing about how that suppose chaos is meant to be resolved.
The person who is in charge, the primus inter pares, is now out of commission and will be for some time. As Charles' post so eloquently, if perhaps unintentionally illustrated, there is no (or at least a less) effective decision making structure at a time when we need a super efficient, optimal one.
Meaning what? What do you think should happen? A new PM appointed, who, lacking the mandate that people left and right usually claim as so important, would be attacked as not having the right to take decisions?
That's the bit I do not understand here. Things are sub-optimal, sure, but I disagree on how sub-optimal that really is when the government response is being driven by its advisers for better and worse, but what do you think is the solution?
If the PM can't be PM through no fault of his own he should stand down and let someone be PM who can be PM.
No mandate? Simply not true as they would follow the precedent of any number of mid-term new PMs.
You and I would say that about mandate. A great many people do not, in fact the Guardian explicitly brought it up in the first story about Raab filling in should it be necessary long term.
In fact it's the same issue as with your own problem with someone filling in for the PM - it's absolutely permissable legally and constitutionally, yet people complain about it every time it happens because it is not ideal in some way.
If you want to improve the House of Commons, then getting rid of the bizarre rule that MPs can't clap would be a start IMHO
This is another one of those complaints that astounds me every time I see it. For one, they are occasionally permitted to clap although it is true it is not the convention of the House and Speakers generally try to put a stop to it ("Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption") but leaving that aside, how on earth would that improve or negatively affect the Commons? What possible difference would it make positively or negatively?
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
If they didn’t sit opposite each other and actually had a predefined desk and technology connections we wouldn’t have to see guts spreading over waistbands, playing on their mobile phones and yelling and shouting like four years olds. The environment is a farce deliberately constructed that way to be intimidating to many.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Do you realise how much it costs to make stuff here? The bloke who puts shoes on my horses imports his horseshoes from China, by post, cos its cheaper. English leather goods manufacturers export English leather to India to be made into things and shipped back. Not saying it's the wrong thing to do but the effects on wages and inflation are going to be mind blowing.
The truth is, that it is perfectly possible to manufacturer competitively in the West, but it takes hard work.
Outsource to China, trebles all round, is easier.
I remember one chap, his chin trembled at the suggestion that he needed to invest in automation. Invest? Learn how his factory operated to remove inefficiencies?
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Malc first I hope you are all recovering.
And secondly, I don't think anyone has yet managed to repeal the law of comparative advantage.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether that law has worked to our advantage or not. The ivory tower economist looks at the way that China in particular has used unfair competition to destroy our industrial base and says, more fool them for giving us these goods on the cheap. But in the real world the next generation of Chinese have work and our next generation doesn't.
We grow poorer with our deficits and they acquire more and more of our assets with their surpluses. Comparative advantage really isn't the only game in town, there are other considerations which we were happy to ignore when free markets worked well for us.
The answer to this is not straightforward and needs a lot of hard thinking. It is the sort of issue where the Lib Dems might be able to strike a distinctive and attractive message if they do the hard work.
If you want to improve the House of Commons, then getting rid of the bizarre rule that MPs can't clap would be a start IMHO
This is another one of those complaints that astounds me every time I see it. For one, they are occasionally permitted to clap although it is true it is not the convention of the House and Speakers generally try to put a stop to it ("Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption") but leaving that aside, how on earth would that improve or negatively affect the Commons? What possible difference would it make positively or negatively?
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
If they didn’t sit opposite each other and actually had a predefined desk and technology connections we wouldn’t have to see guts spreading over waistbands, playing on their mobile phones and yelling and shouting like four years olds. The environment is a farce deliberately constructed that way to be intimidating to many.
I suppose you'd be much happier with one of those terrible hemicycle layouts? The whole point of parliament is for debate, not cooperation of all sides.
On topic, and I'll start with a confession, I'm no longer a member of the Liberal Democrats - I let my membership lapse and so for the first time in 40 years I am politically independent.
The Liberal Party I joined way back in 1980 died in the fires of the Coalition but it was always the logical cul-de-sac with which the Party was confronted. Short of making a true breakthrough (and there were only two real opportunities for that to happen - the SDP schism from Labour in 1981 and the Conservatives under IDS in 2003. Had there been no Falklands and had the Conservatives not ousted IDS, it's perfectly possible the Alliance or LDs could have finished second at the next election in terms of votes).
Back in the 80s the discussion behind the scenes was "what would we do if?". Out of that came equidistance which was as much to keep the Party together as it was to project a message of even-handedness to the electorate but there would come a point when a decision would have to be made.
Had 1992 gone differently we might have gone in with Kinnock - a coalition with Smith was certainly an option but Blair transformed the landscape and indeed took prospective LD votes.
2010 was the time when the choice had to be made - against the background of turmoil in Greece, the desire for stability was huge. The problem was those who had campaigned against the Conservatives couldn't stomach the idea of working with them but had the Party refused a Coalition we'd have been excoriated for not being "serious" and there's the trade off - do you sit in the armchair of Opposition achieving nothing or do you get your hands dirty knowing you'll get some of the policies enacted but having to vote through some things you didn't like as the price of being in that coalition?
On topic, and I'll start with a confession, I'm no longer a member of the Liberal Democrats - I let my membership lapse and so for the first time in 40 years I am politically independent.
The Liberal Party I joined way back in 1980 died in the fires of the Coalition but it was always the logical cul-de-sac with which the Party was confronted. Short of making a true breakthrough (and there were only two real opportunities for that to happen - the SDP schism from Labour in 1981 and the Conservatives under IDS in 2003. Had there been no Falklands and had the Conservatives not ousted IDS, it's perfectly possible the Alliance or LDs could have finished second at the next election in terms of votes).
Back in the 80s the discussion behind the scenes was "what would we do if?". Out of that came equidistance which was as much to keep the Party together as it was to project a message of even-handedness to the electorate but there would come a point when a decision would have to be made.
Had 1992 gone differently we might have gone in with Kinnock - a coalition with Smith was certainly an option but Blair transformed the landscape and indeed took prospective LD votes.
2010 was the time when the choice had to be made - against the background of turmoil in Greece, the desire for stability was huge. The problem was those who had campaigned against the Conservatives couldn't stomach the idea of working with them but had the Party refused a Coalition we'd have been excoriated for not being "serious" and there's the trade off - do you sit in the armchair of Opposition achieving nothing or do you get your hands dirty knowing you'll get some of the policies enacted but having to vote through some things you didn't like as the price of being in that coalition?
Wow - that couldn't have been an easy decision for you.
The government was too slow to react and the death rate is a result of that. This much is obvious.
What is also not being said is that millions of people are being ignored by not being told that they are in a high risk group.
Note - Ireland - are over 60, people over 70 are particularly vulnerable and should cocoon - have a long-term medical condition - for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, liver disease or high blood pressure - have a weak immune system (immunosuppressed) - have a medical condition that can affect your breathing - are residents of nursing homes and other long-stay settings - are in specialist disability care and are over 50 years of age or have an underlying health problem
Note - in the UK - are 70 or older - are pregnant - lung conditions, such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis - heart disease, such as heart failure - chronic kidney disease - liver disease, such as hepatitis - conditions affecting the brain and nerves, such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy - diabetes - problems with your spleen – for example, sickle cell disease, or if you've had your spleen removed - a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets or chemotherapy - being very overweight (having a BMI of 40 or above)
(Ireland hasn't included pregnancy and BMI over 40, the former seems to have been shown to be very limited, the latter is only recent)
Look at those groups - A mass of people between 60 and 70, people with cancer (surely that must be a mistake to omit that), high blood pressure and nursing homes. Ignored, put in danger, abandoned.
The last two and their omission has been absolutely deliberate. Nursing homes because they have clearly been positioned as deaths necessary to avoid the system being overrun.
Hypertension? This is the most vindictive decision made, not to warn people with hypertension. Not to put them (and that means me) on the list is a massive dereliction of duty. Why? Are we the same as the care home deaths? The ones who cannot be avoided, so why bother to warn them?
That nobody in the media is challenging this is a disgrace. It is not difficult for people to check their blood pressure and it will save lives, not just now but for normal times. I can only think that this is on purpose and, because we are too many, the calculation is to let us die. If you are between 60 and 70 and with hypertension (so, so many people), then it's pretty obvious that you are positioned as cannon fodder in this fight.
People with cancer are listed in the extremely vulnerable group by the UK government. As for the distinction between 60 and 70, is that significant for those without preexisting conditions?
To be accurate - the assessment of vulnerability with respect to cancer patients, for the UK, distinguishes between those who are remission (say) and those who are considered vulnerable because of their treatment effecting their immune system.
If you want to improve the House of Commons, then getting rid of the bizarre rule that MPs can't clap would be a start IMHO
This is another one of those complaints that astounds me every time I see it. For one, they are occasionally permitted to clap although it is true it is not the convention of the House and Speakers generally try to put a stop to it ("Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption") but leaving that aside, how on earth would that improve or negatively affect the Commons? What possible difference would it make positively or negatively?
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
If they didn’t sit opposite each other and actually had a predefined desk and technology connections we wouldn’t have to see guts spreading over waistbands, playing on their mobile phones and yelling and shouting like four years olds. The environment is a farce deliberately constructed that way to be intimidating to many.
I suppose you'd be much happier with one of those terrible hemicycle layouts? The whole point of parliament is for debate, not cooperation of all sides.
Has to be better than the binary set up in Westminster, why would it stop debate by not being opposite facing?
If you want to improve the House of Commons, then getting rid of the bizarre rule that MPs can't clap would be a start IMHO
This is another one of those complaints that astounds me every time I see it. For one, they are occasionally permitted to clap although it is true it is not the convention of the House and Speakers generally try to put a stop to it ("Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption") but leaving that aside, how on earth would that improve or negatively affect the Commons? What possible difference would it make positively or negatively?
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
If they didn’t sit opposite each other and actually had a predefined desk and technology connections we wouldn’t have to see guts spreading over waistbands, playing on their mobile phones and yelling and shouting like four years olds. The environment is a farce deliberately constructed that way to be intimidating to many.
It is interesting that under Boris, barracking at PMQs has largely died out which shows if party whips want a better debating environment, they can have one. Semicircular benches or rows of desks are not the blocking factor.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
I’d challenge that assumption. I don’t think the Lib Dem’s prospered at all under Blair
Sure they won a bunch of seats and some individuals had remunerative careers.
But they achieved nothing and did not advance their cause or strategic position
They put themselves in government for the first time in 80+ years (if you consider them the direct descendants of the Liberal party), if that's not advancement I'm not sure what is. Of course squandering that chance and allowing themselves to be ravished by a brutish Tory party wasn't great..
If (also on the BBC News), the UK is set to become the worst affected European country, what will that mean for the Cons in four years' time and what benefit will SKS be able to gain while avoiding "distasteful" accusations?
I think there will be a real risk of the Cons attracting an "incompetent" tag. Yes they listened to the experts but they are in charge and accountable and responsible.
Then again, four years is a lot of events away. Plenty could transpire within that time.
But I might be a backer of Lab Next General Election, albeit it is only 2.38 (bf) and ties up money for ages for a relatively modest annual return.
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
There are 15 Hydrogen filling stations in the UK. Very convenient.
15 so far. There was a time when there were 15 offering petrol.
And fast charge EV facilities make the electricity grid fall over without major expenditure on reinforcement.
The government was too slow to react and the death rate is a result of that. This much is obvious.
What is also not being said is that millions of people are being ignored by not being told that they are in a high risk group.
Note - Ireland - are over 60, people over 70 are particularly vulnerable and should cocoon - have a long-term medical condition - for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, liver disease or high blood pressure - have a weak immune system (immunosuppressed) - have a medical condition that can affect your breathing - are residents of nursing homes and other long-stay settings - are in specialist disability care and are over 50 years of age or have an underlying health problem
Note - in the UK - are 70 or older - are pregnant - lung conditions, such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis - heart disease, such as heart failure - chronic kidney disease - liver disease, such as hepatitis - conditions affecting the brain and nerves, such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy - diabetes - problems with your spleen – for example, sickle cell disease, or if you've had your spleen removed - a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets or chemotherapy - being very overweight (having a BMI of 40 or above)
(Ireland hasn't included pregnancy and BMI over 40, the former seems to have been shown to be very limited, the latter is only recent)
Look at those groups - A mass of people between 60 and 70, people with cancer (surely that must be a mistake to omit that), high blood pressure and nursing homes. Ignored, put in danger, abandoned.
The last two and their omission has been absolutely deliberate. Nursing homes because they have clearly been positioned as deaths necessary to avoid the system being overrun.
Hypertension? This is the most vindictive decision made, not to warn people with hypertension. Not to put them (and that means me) on the list is a massive dereliction of duty. Why? Are we the same as the care home deaths? The ones who cannot be avoided, so why bother to warn them?
That nobody in the media is challenging this is a disgrace. It is not difficult for people to check their blood pressure and it will save lives, not just now but for normal times. I can only think that this is on purpose and, because we are too many, the calculation is to let us die. If you are between 60 and 70 and with hypertension (so, so many people), then it's pretty obvious that you are positioned as cannon fodder in this fight.
People with cancer are listed in the extremely vulnerable group by the UK government. As for the distinction between 60 and 70, is that significant for those without preexisting conditions?
So that just leaves 60 to 70 (yes, it is significant and many are likely to have hypertension, diagnosed or undiagnosed), care homes (obvious that they are being left to die) and hypertension.
It's the leftover from the Herd Immunity attempt. Where do people think those extra deaths are going to mostly come from? Great to balance the economy as well, all those people who won't have twenty plus years of a pension to pay for. Whilst they are faffing about repeating the same question over and over, maybe just one journalist could ask why this omission in relation to other countries? It also underlies higher deaths in communities,such as the Afro-Caribbean community, where hypertension is a real issue.
If (also on the BBC News), the UK is set to become the worst affected European country, what will that mean for the Cons in four years' time and what benefit will SKS be able to gain while avoiding "distasteful" accusations?
I think there will be a real risk of the Cons attracting an "incompetent" tag. Yes they listened to the experts but they are in charge and accountable and responsible.
Then again, four years is a lot of events away. Plenty could transpire within that time.
But I might be a backer of Lab Next General Election, albeit it is only 2.38 (bf) and ties up money for ages for a relatively modest annual return.
More concerning in the short term, from that interview...
Sir Jeremy said a second or third wave of the virus "was probably inevitable" and treatment and a vaccine was "our only true exit strategy".
Not that this is news to most on here, but I think a lot of the public will be surprised to learn this.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Do you realise how much it costs to make stuff here? The bloke who puts shoes on my horses imports his horseshoes from China, by post, cos its cheaper. English leather goods manufacturers export English leather to India to be made into things and shipped back. Not saying it's the wrong thing to do but the effects on wages and inflation are going to be mind blowing.
The truth is, that it is perfectly possible to manufacturer competitively in the West, but it takes hard work.
Outsource to China, trebles all round, is easier.
I remember one chap, his chin trembled at the suggestion that he needed to invest in automation. Invest? Learn how his factory operated to remove inefficiencies?
One good thing to come out of this crisis is going to be some serious investment in production technology and automation.
I believe the Alliance and the LDs achieved much - primarily they revolutionised local politics. No longer were local voters ignored by parties - all parties now do community politics in a way neither the Conservatives nor Labour did 30 years ago.
The problem was always policy - sometimes we spent too much time being active and not much time working out what our policy was. Ideas on Green policies and decentralisation and taking the poorest out of paying tax were shamelessly plagiarised by the other parties but that's fine.
I don't care what colour rosette the Government has as long as it is implementing liberal policies - it can be run by Conservatives and to be fair that was a barb often aimed at the Coalition by the Right after 2010.
2015 was the end of that community-based Party which had been born out of the ashes of 1970. I believe around 75% of current LD members have joined since 2015 - it's not my Party any more.
Since 2015, the Party has moved in a different direction - internationalist (which the Liberal Party was to a point) and strongly pro-EU (as distinct from pro-Europe which many are in all parties).
The more you describe the details of your policies, the less I like them - it's like taking the worst aspects of hard left and monetarist fundamentalism and then implementing both at the same time!
Shudder.
It's pragmatic and balanced across the core aspirations of prosperity, equality and personal freedom. I'm describing a society that will be moderately prosperous, moderately equal and more than moderately free. It will not appeal to utopians who think we can have unlimited amounts of all of those three things. Neither will it appeal to people who heavily prioritize one of them over and above the other two. Or who do not care a great deal about one or more of them.
Your problem, it seems to me, is that you are counting on the magic money tree to buy off a drop in living standards caused by a sharp fall in economic activity. This is to run away from the hard choices that living in the real world dictates.
People with cancer are listed in the extremely vulnerable group by the UK government. As for the distinction between 60 and 70, is that significant for those without preexisting conditions?
So that just leaves 60 to 70 (yes, it is significant and many are likely to have hypertension, diagnosed or undiagnosed), care homes (obvious that they are being left to die) and hypertension.
It's the leftover from the Herd Immunity attempt. Where do people think those extra deaths are going to mostly come from? Great to balance the economy as well, all those people who won't have twenty plus years of a pension to pay for. Whilst they are faffing about repeating the same question over and over, maybe just one journalist could ask why this omission in relation to other countries? It also underlies higher deaths in communities,such as the Afro-Caribbean community, where hypertension is a real issue.
Is it, or is the risk for 60-70 year olds without pre-existing conditions not great enough to justify them staying locked up for 12 weeks? Remember, there's also a cost to someone's health for asking them to isolate themselves for that long.
As for people in care home being left to die. Really?
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
There are 15 Hydrogen filling stations in the UK. Very convenient.
15 so far. There was a time when there were 15 offering petrol.
And fast charge EV facilities make the electricity grid fall over without major expenditure on reinforcement.
The world is already changing.... Tesla, for example, is already installing battery storage at a number of their charging sites. This is because they can purchase electricity gradually over time, at the cheapest rates, using this.
Interestingly, there has been interest in the power sector in this - if we have thousand of charging stations scattered around with megawatts of storage (3MWh costs £600,000 at the moment), then using that storage capacity for grid stability become interesting. As in paying for extra capacity for storage at said sites.....
If you want to improve the House of Commons, then getting rid of the bizarre rule that MPs can't clap would be a start IMHO
This is another one of those complaints that astounds me every time I see it. For one, they are occasionally permitted to clap although it is true it is not the convention of the House and Speakers generally try to put a stop to it ("Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption") but leaving that aside, how on earth would that improve or negatively affect the Commons? What possible difference would it make positively or negatively?
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
If they didn’t sit opposite each other and actually had a predefined desk and technology connections we wouldn’t have to see guts spreading over waistbands, playing on their mobile phones and yelling and shouting like four years olds. The environment is a farce deliberately constructed that way to be intimidating to many.
There's an argument to be made there, to be sure. It's a lot stronger than suggesting clapping would improve the House. I don't find the adversarial seating arrangements problematic myself (I think the suggestion that seating arrangement more than political culture would change how we debate things to be unlikely, though I know many places with circular seating are more polite than ours), I don't even think it being slightly intimidating is an issue (these people are being granted legislative and executive authority over the country, I think they need to be strong characters, without it being intentionally offputting or bullying) but the lack of a desk for them to set papers or tablets for example I think is an inconvenience. They are allowed to use notes as an aid to memory without reading directly from them all the time, but something to set things on would not be unreasonable I think. I believe the Canadian House of Commons, also adversarially arranged, has such seating.
I don't know if there are predefined seats for all in Canada, though I am a bit lukewarm on that as it's so rare that everyone would be in the Chamber I don't think it is generally necessary. I don't think it is overall an issue that there is not a seat for everyone, though I do think with more than 100 unable to fit in there that is too many, and the number of MPs could be reduced below 600 easily.
As noted yelling and shouting is already not supposed to happen. Changing the rules does not affect that, that's a cultural issue. A very strong speaker and party leaders would be needed. Unfortunately a speaker is unlikely to be able to get it to stop entirely so their authority would be undermined if they tried and then stopped, and party leaders know it looks bad if their own side does not give vocal approval in some way, even if they can dial it down, so I doubt it will ever entirely stop.
There's changes or improvements to consider, certainly. But whether they would actually help or are just an excuse to change things for the sake of it is part of the issue.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Malc first I hope you are all recovering.
And secondly, I don't think anyone has yet managed to repeal the law of comparative advantage.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether that law has worked to our advantage or not. The ivory tower economist looks at the way that China in particular has used unfair competition to destroy our industrial base and says, more fool them for giving us these goods on the cheap. But in the real world the next generation of Chinese have work and our next generation doesn't.
We grow poorer with our deficits and they acquire more and more of our assets with their surpluses. Comparative advantage really isn't the only game in town, there are other considerations which we were happy to ignore when free markets worked well for us.
The answer to this is not straightforward and needs a lot of hard thinking. It is the sort of issue where the Lib Dems might be able to strike a distinctive and attractive message if they do the hard work.
Of course. But how far do you go? Smelt our own steel? Open the mines? Etc?
China was always going to destroy the cosy relationship between the developed and developing economies, at least until the Chinese consumer became a force (which he is becoming). At which point we look to other emerging nations.
On topic, and I'll start with a confession, I'm no longer a member of the Liberal Democrats - I let my membership lapse and so for the first time in 40 years I am politically independent.
The Liberal Party I joined way back in 1980 died in the fires of the Coalition but it was always the logical cul-de-sac with which the Party was confronted. Short of making a true breakthrough (and there were only two real opportunities for that to happen - the SDP schism from Labour in 1981 and the Conservatives under IDS in 2003. Had there been no Falklands and had the Conservatives not ousted IDS, it's perfectly possible the Alliance or LDs could have finished second at the next election in terms of votes).
Back in the 80s the discussion behind the scenes was "what would we do if?". Out of that came equidistance which was as much to keep the Party together as it was to project a message of even-handedness to the electorate but there would come a point when a decision would have to be made.
Had 1992 gone differently we might have gone in with Kinnock - a coalition with Smith was certainly an option but Blair transformed the landscape and indeed took prospective LD votes.
2010 was the time when the choice had to be made - against the background of turmoil in Greece, the desire for stability was huge. The problem was those who had campaigned against the Conservatives couldn't stomach the idea of working with them but had the Party refused a Coalition we'd have been excoriated for not being "serious" and there's the trade off - do you sit in the armchair of Opposition achieving nothing or do you get your hands dirty knowing you'll get some of the policies enacted but having to vote through some things you didn't like as the price of being in that coalition?
That is not what happened in 2010. First, it was not necessary to have a formal coalition at all, rather than, say, a confidence and supply agreement, as between the Conservatives and DUP in 2017, or something like the 1970s Lib-Lab pact.
But in the coalition negotiations, the LibDems did not need to concede on student fees and loans. The Conservatives did not regard this as their key policy. The LibDems could have asked for one of the great offices of state. Instead it chose as its main demand a referendum it promptly lost, on a policy designed to keep itself in power.
The more you describe the details of your policies, the less I like them - it's like taking the worst aspects of hard left and monetarist fundamentalism and then implementing both at the same time!
Shudder.
It's pragmatic and balanced across the core aspirations of prosperity, equality and personal freedom. I'm describing a society that will be moderately prosperous, moderately equal and more than moderately free.
Thing is I expect your world to end up as everyone moderately poor, private sector workers deemed second class compared to public sector workers, and pretty damn unfree after all labour never saw a database it didn't like and which party brought in the idea of id cards etc. The left has always been about controlling what people do and say it is built into your genes
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
There are 15 Hydrogen filling stations in the UK. Very convenient.
15 so far. There was a time when there were 15 offering petrol.
And fast charge EV facilities make the electricity grid fall over without major expenditure on reinforcement.
The world is already changing.... Tesla, for example, is already installing battery storage at a number of their charging sites. This is because they can purchase electricity gradually over time, at the cheapest rates, using this.
Interestingly, there has been interest in the power sector in this - if we have thousand of charging stations scattered around with megawatts of storage (3MWh costs £600,000 at the moment), then using that storage capacity for grid stability become interesting. As in paying for extra capacity for storage at said sites.....
Putting in battery storage at the 'filling station' evens out power load but at significant cost for all those extra batteries. An electrolyser and pressure vessel full of hydrogen also evens out the power load. Which is better? Someone needs to pay my employer to answer that.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
The more you describe the details of your policies, the less I like them - it's like taking the worst aspects of hard left and monetarist fundamentalism and then implementing both at the same time!
Shudder.
It's pragmatic and balanced across the core aspirations of prosperity, equality and personal freedom. I'm describing a society that will be moderately prosperous, moderately equal and more than moderately free. It will not appeal to utopians who think we can have unlimited amounts of all of those three things. Neither will it appeal to people who heavily prioritize one of them over and above the other two. Or who do not care a great deal about one or more of them.
Your problem, it seems to me, is that you are counting on the magic money tree to buy off a drop in living standards caused by a sharp fall in economic activity. This is to run away from the hard choices that living in the real world dictates.
No, you're describing a society that will be moderately prosperous, extremely levelled-down, and minimally free. Be honest about it.
I'd still like to see a fully worked-out explanation of why my response to a purely exogenous shock would not be preferable to colossal tax rises or weapons-grade austerity, but if the magic money tree is out, then it looks like it'll soon be time for Cut Hard 2: Cut Harder With A Vengeance...
PM lounges about in country estate whilst country suffers.
Not is not really fair
It was clearly a joke and I won't apologise for attempts at humour even if they fall flat. Boris, I'm sure, would approve of humour in dark times.
I am sure a certain section of twitter will be bashing out this (not as a joke) shortly. And comparing his situation to some poor sod in a tower block.
The problem with such a shamelessly pro-EU stance is it failed completely to recognise the obvious flaws of the EU - lack of accountability, centralisation of power etc - yet these were the same flaws which, as an LD, I had protested against successive Westminster Governments.
The hypocrisy was and is blatant - I've never had an issue with countries working together and there may be areas (environment, transport, crime) where pan-European bodies are vital.
There was an EEC which actively helped the poorer peripheries - the UK benefited from infrastructural largesse and that notion of the richer areas supporting the poorer both nationally and across Europe I can support but the Single Market isn't that - instead it relies on the old adage of compelling the people to move to the money rather than sending the money to help the people.
I voted Leave in 2016 because I thought the EU had lost its way and promises of reform had gone nowhere. A substantial minority of LDs (around 25-30%) agreed with me but they have been silenced by the pro-EU majority within the Party which culminated in Swinson's Revoke policy.
That was for me the final straw - you cannot defend democracy by subverting it. Had the policy been "we'll leave but we'll seek a BINO deal" I could have gone along with that since the referendum was only about leaving not about the terms of our departure. Indeed, I could even have supported a "we'll leave now but campaign to rejoin" - that's coherent though the terms of our renewed membership would have had to have been explicitly laid out.
On topic, and I'll start with a confession, I'm no longer a member of the Liberal Democrats - I let my membership lapse and so for the first time in 40 years I am politically independent.
The Liberal Party I joined way back in 1980 died in the fires of the Coalition but it was always the logical cul-de-sac with which the Party was confronted. Short of making a true breakthrough (and there were only two real opportunities for that to happen - the SDP schism from Labour in 1981 and the Conservatives under IDS in 2003. Had there been no Falklands and had the Conservatives not ousted IDS, it's perfectly possible the Alliance or LDs could have finished second at the next election in terms of votes).
Back in the 80s the discussion behind the scenes was "what would we do if?". Out of that came equidistance which was as much to keep the Party together as it was to project a message of even-handedness to the electorate but there would come a point when a decision would have to be made.
Had 1992 gone differently we might have gone in with Kinnock - a coalition with Smith was certainly an option but Blair transformed the landscape and indeed took prospective LD votes.
2010 was the time when the choice had to be made - against the background of turmoil in Greece, the desire for stability was huge. The problem was those who had campaigned against the Conservatives couldn't stomach the idea of working with them but had the Party refused a Coalition we'd have been excoriated for not being "serious" and there's the trade off - do you sit in the armchair of Opposition achieving nothing or do you get your hands dirty knowing you'll get some of the policies enacted but having to vote through some things you didn't like as the price of being in that coalition?
Good post Stodge. There were no easy answers in 2010, but perhaps for a smaller party that is their lot. The junior coalition partner often seems to suffer in such arrangements, but perhaps that is the price it pays for having the chance to get some of its policies enacted, which would not otherwise see the light of day.
I will never deny that the LDs deserve significant credit for seeking to steady the ship in 2010. Their big, big mistake was that Clegg could probably have gotten more from the negotiations. He should have insisted on a Great Office of State at the very least, and he should have played hard ball on tuition fees.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Malc first I hope you are all recovering.
And secondly, I don't think anyone has yet managed to repeal the law of comparative advantage.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether that law has worked to our advantage or not. The ivory tower economist looks at the way that China in particular has used unfair competition to destroy our industrial base and says, more fool them for giving us these goods on the cheap. But in the real world the next generation of Chinese have work and our next generation doesn't.
We grow poorer with our deficits and they acquire more and more of our assets with their surpluses. Comparative advantage really isn't the only game in town, there are other considerations which we were happy to ignore when free markets worked well for us.
The answer to this is not straightforward and needs a lot of hard thinking. It is the sort of issue where the Lib Dems might be able to strike a distinctive and attractive message if they do the hard work.
Of course. But how far do you go? Smelt our own steel? Open the mines? Etc?
China was always going to destroy the cosy relationship between the developed and developing economies, at least until the Chinese consumer became a force (which he is becoming). At which point we look to other emerging nations.
One place you might start would be to look at South Korea. They are extremely open to trade with China, have few natural resources,a population smaller than ours... and yet compete with them industrially - both in heavy industry (they currently beat them in heavy shipbuilding), and high tech.
PM lounges about in country estate whilst country suffers.
Not is not really fair
It was clearly a joke and I won't apologise for attempts at humour even if they fall flat. Boris, I'm sure, would approve of humour in dark times.
I am sure a certain section of twitter will be bashing out this (not as a joke) shortly. And comparing his situation to some poor sod in a tower block.
Expect conspiracy over the day in which he has risen again. And many jokes about the same.
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
There are 15 Hydrogen filling stations in the UK. Very convenient.
15 so far. There was a time when there were 15 offering petrol.
And fast charge EV facilities make the electricity grid fall over without major expenditure on reinforcement.
The world is already changing.... Tesla, for example, is already installing battery storage at a number of their charging sites. This is because they can purchase electricity gradually over time, at the cheapest rates, using this.
Interestingly, there has been interest in the power sector in this - if we have thousand of charging stations scattered around with megawatts of storage (3MWh costs £600,000 at the moment), then using that storage capacity for grid stability become interesting. As in paying for extra capacity for storage at said sites.....
Putting in battery storage at the 'filling station' evens out power load but at significant cost for all those extra batteries. An electrolyser and pressure vessel full of hydrogen also evens out the power load. Which is better? Someone needs to pay my employer to answer that.
You need to factor in the cost of a hydrogen storage tank. Maintenance of same. The complete rebuilding of everything in a wide radius to deal with safety rules for storage of hydrogen*. Also will you be allowed one in the locality you want one in? - BLEVs are entertaining. For those over the horizon.
*The safety rules for hydrogen are written, not in blood exactly. More the tiny fragments of those who forgot rule 1** of fun stuff. **Rule 1 - Fun stuff can be safe. Providing you remember how insanely dangerous it is.
The reason I know a fair bit, is that I worked for a company that looked quite hard at going into the hydrogen fuel business. Even operated a few sites.
I used to love the Goodies, but it aged very badly. It is barely watchable now.
Same here. A philosophical conundrum: was it always crap but we liked crap back then, or was it good back than but became crap over time?
It's an odd one, 70's music (& arguably film) becomes greater as time marches on while 70s comedy looks increasingly awful. Heresy, but I even find Python a bit not-in-a-good-way embarrassing on occasion.
PM lounges about in country estate whilst country suffers.
Not is not really fair
It was clearly a joke and I won't apologise for attempts at humour even if they fall flat. Boris, I'm sure, would approve of humour in dark times.
I am sure a certain section of twitter will be bashing out this (not as a joke) shortly. And comparing his situation to some poor sod in a tower block.
Expert conspiracy over the day in which he has risen again. And many jokes about the same.
It does look very like retreating to a second home. Makes Jenrick unsackable, for starters.
I used to love the Goodies, but it aged very badly. It is barely watchable now.
Same here. A philosophical conundrum: was it always crap but we liked crap back then, or was it good back than but became crap over time?
It's an odd one, 70's music (& arguably film) becomes greater as time marches on while 70s comedy looks increasingly awful. Heresy, but I even find Python a bit not-in-a-good-way embarrassing on occasion.
People with cancer are listed in the extremely vulnerable group by the UK government. As for the distinction between 60 and 70, is that significant for those without preexisting conditions?
So that just leaves 60 to 70 (yes, it is significant and many are likely to have hypertension, diagnosed or undiagnosed), care homes (obvious that they are being left to die) and hypertension.
It's the leftover from the Herd Immunity attempt. Where do people think those extra deaths are going to mostly come from? Great to balance the economy as well, all those people who won't have twenty plus years of a pension to pay for. Whilst they are faffing about repeating the same question over and over, maybe just one journalist could ask why this omission in relation to other countries? It also underlies higher deaths in communities,such as the Afro-Caribbean community, where hypertension is a real issue.
Is it, or is the risk for 60-70 year olds without pre-existing conditions not great enough to justify them staying locked up for 12 weeks? Remember, there's also a cost to someone's health for asking them to isolate themselves for that long.
As for people in care home being left to die. Really?
The question is why the UK has acted so differently. The UK is the one going against the norm, so why? The hypertension omission is the real giveaway and 'it's the economy stupid'. The calculation was to let more economically active, yet at risk, people die. It started to work so well that it nearly took out the PM. Imagine if that had been continued? So now, we are waiting to see if these at risk people are not warned about before making a decision to return to work. If they don't issue any such warning, then we really will know if this was the intent all along,
The care homes issue is pretty much global in comparison.
One thing a developer is very good at is identifying the loopholes in the law
It should be shocking but isnt.
I think after trump the President's power will be stripped so much it will be largely a ceremonial role.
Nah, they'll need the full power to undo everything he did, then a bit more to get things in order, and then all will return to normal.
Supreme Court justices should be time limited though, or at this rate both parties will just start appointing 30 year olds who can be on the court for 60 years.
Comments
Our challenge - and it really should be possible to achieve this - will be to ensure that the hit is taken by everyone apart from the just about (and not) managing. As the term implies, they cannot take a hit without being thrown into poverty, or are in poverty already.
No mandate? Simply not true as they would follow the precedent of any number of mid-term new PMs.
Ah, my coat...
When the West London Free School opened, the standard complaint was that no more secondary schools were required in West London. Then the school was oversubscribed by 300%
When middle class people started sending their children to the school, the complaint changed to it wasn't "diverse" enough, because the ratio of those getting free school meals is lower than nearby schools. And the discipline is too harsh - because the teachers stop children from bullying others.
The ironic bit is that the school is one of the very few in London where you actually get a mix of children from really poor backgrounds, with the well off. In some cases, parents have moved from the private sector (primary).
Normally, segregation by postcode sorts that out....
I think it is out of their hands. If we appear to have done ok then long term they can manage the criticisms. If we appear to be among the worst, every little problem, no matter if it was not of the government's making or unavoidable, will be amplified.
I don't think we will see an impact in that direction for many many months though, except on polling on individual issues.
What is also not being said is that millions of people are being ignored by not being told that they are in a high risk group.
Note - Ireland
- are over 60, people over 70 are particularly vulnerable and should cocoon
- have a long-term medical condition - for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, liver disease or high blood pressure
- have a weak immune system (immunosuppressed)
- have a medical condition that can affect your breathing
- are residents of nursing homes and other long-stay settings
- are in specialist disability care and are over 50 years of age or have an underlying health problem
Note - in the UK
- are 70 or older
- are pregnant
- lung conditions, such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis
- heart disease, such as heart failure
- chronic kidney disease
- liver disease, such as hepatitis
- conditions affecting the brain and nerves, such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
- diabetes
- problems with your spleen – for example, sickle cell disease, or if you've had your spleen removed
- a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets or chemotherapy
- being very overweight (having a BMI of 40 or above)
(Ireland hasn't included pregnancy and BMI over 40, the former seems to have been shown to be very limited, the latter is only recent)
Look at those groups - A mass of people between 60 and 70, people with cancer (surely that must be a mistake to omit that), high blood pressure and nursing homes. Ignored, put in danger, abandoned.
The first and the last two and their omission has been absolutely deliberate. Nursing homes because they have clearly been positioned as deaths necessary to avoid the system being overrun. Between 60 and 70? Too many people, making them 'at risk' creates economic harm. Hypertension? This is the most vindictive decision made, not to warn people with hypertension. Not to put them (and that means me) on the list is a massive dereliction of duty. Why? Are we the same as the care home deaths? The ones who cannot be avoided, so why bother to warn them? Or is the calculation that so many people at risk is not palatable for economic reasons?
That nobody in the media is challenging this is a disgrace. It is not difficult for people to check their blood pressure and it will save lives, not just now but for normal times. I can only think that this is on purpose and, because we are too many, the calculation is to let us die. If you are between 60 and 70 and with hypertension (so, so many people), then it's pretty obvious that you are positioned as cannon fodder in this fight.
The one thing you can criticize him for is maybe cutting Jeremy himself a little too much slack on the issue sometimes.
They have no interest in helping the poor they would rather have them reliant on state handouts so they can use it to buy votes. People being self sufficient threatens the left's ideal of a socialist dystopia.
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1249295116138958854
Delusional much?
As someone who as actually... met liquid hydrogen. Good luck with that. There is a reason that hydrogen powered cars have always been the future - 10 years from the present.
I assume it's on the basis people think it would put a stop to the heckling and barracking, though I don't see why that would be the case. Shouting is already out of order and the Speaker has to call them to order. Replacing it with authorised clapping would just be more interruption to the flow of debate, by different means.
Erskine May notes that there is frequently considerable volume of noise which it is scarcely possible to repress, however they clearly think they need to make an effort. The Select Committee on Modernization of the House of Cmomons made the not unreasonable point that if the practice of clapping became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not on its content but by length of applause. The barracking is, to the extent it happens in PMQs at least, unwelcome, but usually brief per contribution at least.
An attempt to simply clap all the time, in place of equally unwelcome chuntering and hollering, is nothing more than play acting being 'rebels' against the conventions of the House, it's even more childish than play acting within the procedures. It's causing disruption in a different way and claiming it is is better because it's not what the others do.
But how do you determine the value of something that can’t be sold and generates little income? Another example;l: what is the value of a stately home? Sure you can tax the income but is the country better off if you force the sale to a Russian oligarch and close it to the public?
Despite the media onslaught, especially over testing and PPE, I do believe voters understand that this pandemic has overwhelmed most governments and their common sense knows that the government are doing their best and trusting the science to the extent they shake their heads when more attacks often based on hindsight come from a media seeking to compromise and embarrass those dealing with a near impossible task
And I agree, the real test comes post this early period when the economy has to be handled and the army of NHS and others who frontlined the crisis have to be recognised especially in rising pay and the high earners including CEO's, celebrities, footballers and others should be the target of increasing higher taxes and accountability
It seems that you're just making any criticism you could, no matter how contrived, of anyone who dares question Boris.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10942573/donald-trump-says-coronavirus-will-miraculously-be-gone-by-april-this-year-once-the-weather-gets-warmer/
In fact it's the same issue as with your own problem with someone filling in for the PM - it's absolutely permissable legally and constitutionally, yet people complain about it every time it happens because it is not ideal in some way.
The Grim Reaper has got his boots on today.....
Outsource to China, trebles all round, is easier.
I remember one chap, his chin trembled at the suggestion that he needed to invest in automation. Invest? Learn how his factory operated to remove inefficiencies?
We grow poorer with our deficits and they acquire more and more of our assets with their surpluses. Comparative advantage really isn't the only game in town, there are other considerations which we were happy to ignore when free markets worked well for us.
The answer to this is not straightforward and needs a lot of hard thinking. It is the sort of issue where the Lib Dems might be able to strike a distinctive and attractive message if they do the hard work.
But a great shame.
On topic, and I'll start with a confession, I'm no longer a member of the Liberal Democrats - I let my membership lapse and so for the first time in 40 years I am politically independent.
The Liberal Party I joined way back in 1980 died in the fires of the Coalition but it was always the logical cul-de-sac with which the Party was confronted. Short of making a true breakthrough (and there were only two real opportunities for that to happen - the SDP schism from Labour in 1981 and the Conservatives under IDS in 2003. Had there been no Falklands and had the Conservatives not ousted IDS, it's perfectly possible the Alliance or LDs could have finished second at the next election in terms of votes).
Back in the 80s the discussion behind the scenes was "what would we do if?". Out of that came equidistance which was as much to keep the Party together as it was to project a message of even-handedness to the electorate but there would come a point when a decision would have to be made.
Had 1992 gone differently we might have gone in with Kinnock - a coalition with Smith was certainly an option but Blair transformed the landscape and indeed took prospective LD votes.
2010 was the time when the choice had to be made - against the background of turmoil in Greece, the desire for stability was huge. The problem was those who had campaigned against the Conservatives couldn't stomach the idea of working with them but had the Party refused a Coalition we'd have been excoriated for not being "serious" and there's the trade off - do you sit in the armchair of Opposition achieving nothing or do you get your hands dirty knowing you'll get some of the policies enacted but having to vote through some things you didn't like as the price of being in that coalition?
Upsetting reading, but it needs to be read.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-11th-april/
I think there will be a real risk of the Cons attracting an "incompetent" tag. Yes they listened to the experts but they are in charge and accountable and responsible.
Then again, four years is a lot of events away. Plenty could transpire within that time.
But I might be a backer of Lab Next General Election, albeit it is only 2.38 (bf) and ties up money for ages for a relatively modest annual return.
And fast charge EV facilities make the electricity grid fall over without major expenditure on reinforcement.
I used to love the Goodies, but it aged very badly. It is barely watchable now.
It's the leftover from the Herd Immunity attempt. Where do people think those extra deaths are going to mostly come from? Great to balance the economy as well, all those people who won't have twenty plus years of a pension to pay for. Whilst they are faffing about repeating the same question over and over, maybe just one journalist could ask why this omission in relation to other countries? It also underlies higher deaths in communities,such as the Afro-Caribbean community, where hypertension is a real issue.
Sir Jeremy said a second or third wave of the virus "was probably inevitable" and treatment and a vaccine was "our only true exit strategy".
Not that this is news to most on here, but I think a lot of the public will be surprised to learn this.
The problem was always policy - sometimes we spent too much time being active and not much time working out what our policy was. Ideas on Green policies and decentralisation and taking the poorest out of paying tax were shamelessly plagiarised by the other parties but that's fine.
I don't care what colour rosette the Government has as long as it is implementing liberal policies - it can be run by Conservatives and to be fair that was a barb often aimed at the Coalition by the Right after 2010.
2015 was the end of that community-based Party which had been born out of the ashes of 1970. I believe around 75% of current LD members have joined since 2015 - it's not my Party any more.
Since 2015, the Party has moved in a different direction - internationalist (which the Liberal Party was to a point) and strongly pro-EU (as distinct from pro-Europe which many are in all parties).
Your problem, it seems to me, is that you are counting on the magic money tree to buy off a drop in living standards caused by a sharp fall in economic activity. This is to run away from the hard choices that living in the real world dictates.
As for people in care home being left to die. Really?
Interestingly, there has been interest in the power sector in this - if we have thousand of charging stations scattered around with megawatts of storage (3MWh costs £600,000 at the moment), then using that storage capacity for grid stability become interesting. As in paying for extra capacity for storage at said sites.....
I don't know if there are predefined seats for all in Canada, though I am a bit lukewarm on that as it's so rare that everyone would be in the Chamber I don't think it is generally necessary. I don't think it is overall an issue that there is not a seat for everyone, though I do think with more than 100 unable to fit in there that is too many, and the number of MPs could be reduced below 600 easily.
As noted yelling and shouting is already not supposed to happen. Changing the rules does not affect that, that's a cultural issue. A very strong speaker and party leaders would be needed. Unfortunately a speaker is unlikely to be able to get it to stop entirely so their authority would be undermined if they tried and then stopped, and party leaders know it looks bad if their own side does not give vocal approval in some way, even if they can dial it down, so I doubt it will ever entirely stop.
There's changes or improvements to consider, certainly. But whether they would actually help or are just an excuse to change things for the sake of it is part of the issue.
China was always going to destroy the cosy relationship between the developed and developing economies, at least until the Chinese consumer became a force (which he is becoming). At which point we look to other emerging nations.
Sounds like he might have been lucky - even if he should have gone in earlier.
But in the coalition negotiations, the LibDems did not need to concede on student fees and loans. The Conservatives did not regard this as their key policy. The LibDems could have asked for one of the great offices of state. Instead it chose as its main demand a referendum it promptly lost, on a policy designed to keep itself in power.
PM left hospital.
I'd still like to see a fully worked-out explanation of why my response to a purely exogenous shock would not be preferable to colossal tax rises or weapons-grade austerity, but if the magic money tree is out, then it looks like it'll soon be time for Cut Hard 2: Cut Harder With A Vengeance...
The hypocrisy was and is blatant - I've never had an issue with countries working together and there may be areas (environment, transport, crime) where pan-European bodies are vital.
There was an EEC which actively helped the poorer peripheries - the UK benefited from infrastructural largesse and that notion of the richer areas supporting the poorer both nationally and across Europe I can support but the Single Market isn't that - instead it relies on the old adage of compelling the people to move to the money rather than sending the money to help the people.
I voted Leave in 2016 because I thought the EU had lost its way and promises of reform had gone nowhere. A substantial minority of LDs (around 25-30%) agreed with me but they have been silenced by the pro-EU majority within the Party which culminated in Swinson's Revoke policy.
That was for me the final straw - you cannot defend democracy by subverting it. Had the policy been "we'll leave but we'll seek a BINO deal" I could have gone along with that since the referendum was only about leaving not about the terms of our departure. Indeed, I could even have supported a "we'll leave now but campaign to rejoin" - that's coherent though the terms of our renewed membership would have had to have been explicitly laid out.
WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange secretly fathered two kids inside Ecuadorian embassy
I will never deny that the LDs deserve significant credit for seeking to steady the ship in 2010. Their big, big mistake was that Clegg could probably have gotten more from the negotiations. He should have insisted on a Great Office of State at the very least, and he should have played hard ball on tuition fees.
They are extremely open to trade with China, have few natural resources,a population smaller than ours... and yet compete with them industrially - both in heavy industry (they currently beat them in heavy shipbuilding), and high tech.
Maintenance of same.
The complete rebuilding of everything in a wide radius to deal with safety rules for storage of hydrogen*.
Also will you be allowed one in the locality you want one in? - BLEVs are entertaining. For those over the horizon.
*The safety rules for hydrogen are written, not in blood exactly. More the tiny fragments of those who forgot rule 1** of fun stuff.
**Rule 1 - Fun stuff can be safe. Providing you remember how insanely dangerous it is.
The reason I know a fair bit, is that I worked for a company that looked quite hard at going into the hydrogen fuel business. Even operated a few sites.
The care homes issue is pretty much global in comparison.
Supreme Court justices should be time limited though, or at this rate both parties will just start appointing 30 year olds who can be on the court for 60 years.