The official government statement said that Cummings gave 'help' with 'problems in Whitehall'. Someone's not being straight with us here.
Why?
I doubt the problems in Whitehall were solvable while he was actually in the meeting. So, pre-armed with first-hand information, he rode shotgun for SAGE.
I think the triple lock will go within the next year but ministers won't be able to do that AND keep a full lockdown on the oldies.
Yes and for the first time in many years the Conservatives will know what it is like to be unpopular and will have to deal with that. Will ending triple lock be the equivalent of Lamont's VAT on fuel - Sunak wouldn't be so stupid?
Its v expensive. I got a 3.99pc increase on.my pension. Better to ramp up fuel tax whipst prices are v low
And if you build a granny flat and with granny's home only liable for care costs for residential care home accommodation not domestic care now you also get tax free inheritance unless the estate is over £1 million
I wonder if that IHT line will hold given the parlous state of the public finances. If the Government has to borrow £300 billion against a backdrop of a gradual recovery from a disastrously low level, how will the public finances be restored?
Would you advocate spending cuts, tax rises or both?
It will as it would be political suicide for either Starmer or Boris to increase IHT as election 2017 showed so neither will.
Boris won the 2019 general election on a Berlusconi style package of keeping tax low and spending more and he and Sunak will just borrow to make up the difference. Austerity is dead, only the LDs had a manifesto last time which was even vaguely fiscally conservative
Are you not a little queasy about asking future generations to subsidise our living standards?
If the alternative is to impose massive wealth taxes - especially a big increase in taxing the process that, er, transfers wealth to future generations - then I have no problem with it whatsoever. Bring on the debt, then (as I think will be inevitable if the economic consequences of CV unfold as expected), write it off one way or another.
Letting this shitty virus turn us socialist would truly be to pile Pelion on Ossa.
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
Phillips’s appointment was also criticised by the Labour MP Naz Shah, who tweeted: “It’s an insult to the memory of the numerous Muslims who have lost their lives, and also an insult to those Muslims who continue to serve on the frontline.”
Phillips’s appointment was also criticised by the Labour MP Naz Shah, who tweeted: “It’s an insult to the memory of the numerous Muslims who have lost their lives, and also an insult to those Muslims who continue to serve on the frontline.”
Also the freddie sayers guy is a decent interviewer. Seems reasonably well informed, asks sensible questions and most importantly lets the people answer.
To be fair this approach depends a lot on the willingness of the interviewee to actually respond to the question ... I don't like interviewers interrupting politicians all the time, but if they don't then the pols tend just to produce evasive or point-scoring answers anyway. Ferguson on the other hand seemed very happy to get an opportunity to put his views across in a non-soundbitey way. So works both way. Was a good interview overall. For what it's worth, I think the journalists at the daily briefings need to realise that many of the questions they are asking are going to be answered by non-politicians who aren't going to be playing the normal games that politicians play. Therefore, it's better to give them a sensible non-point-scoring question that they can give a sensible answer to because it's likely they're willing to do so (as Ferguson was here).
Another case for the journos at the briefing not to be just the political correspondents, imo.
I think you’ll find that the scenario where the debt remains unaddressed by either inflation or taxes doesn’t turn out too well, either.
Of course, so that means cuts. Where to cut is the problem.
Trident seems a luxury. Or is that money already committed?
Hasn't defended us against this virus too well. MAD is ensured by the US-Russia balance of nukes anyway.
The virus/trident is mostly flippant but not entirely. I doubt this virus is a weapon os any sort. Imagin the Chinese developed something or other that was crippling unless you had some bit of gene code specific to Han ethnicity...
Which elements of lockdown aren't sustainable - genuine question. Is it the social ones or the economic ones ? I'm probably not going to visit a pub or a restaurant (Except to pick up takeout) till a vaccine is in or the virus is eliminated. I'd like to visit my parents at some point mind.
I think one of the first things to be relaxed should be the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying. I find those particularly harsh.
Which elements of lockdown aren't sustainable - genuine question. Is it the social ones or the economic ones ? I'm probably not going to visit a pub or a restaurant (Except to pick up takeout) till a vaccine is in or the virus is eliminated. I'd like to visit my parents at some point mind.
I think one of the first things to be relaxed should be the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying. I find those particularly harsh.
You can have a massive funeral if the potential attendees are sufficiently chavtastic :
So on the other hand you give them some help with an unaffordable level of Inheritance Tax while at the same time bequeathing them an enormous level of debt which will require servicing let alone reduction so future generations will have to spend the national wealth on servicing the debt we have created for them.
So much for the Conservative Party's reputation for sound fiscal management and sensible economics. At the next GE we'll be faced with a choice of two high-spending social democratic parties.
On that basis, the only rationale for voting Conservative is they will be better at managing high levels of public borrowing and debt than Labour.
The Tories won a majority on a manifesto of low tax and high spend in 2019, May lost her majority in 2017 on a manifesto of high tax and low spend in 2017. Like it or not that is the mandate the voters gave the Tories and Boris.
As I said before the LDs are the most fiscally conservative party at the moment
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
☺
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson - we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
☺
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson, we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
☺
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson, we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
☺
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson, we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
We need to screw Virgin.
Branson needs to.feel.the oai .personally . I have always refused to.give him any of my money.
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
☺
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson, we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
Well for me this crisis both provides an opportunity and creates an imperative for a properly progressive tax & spend regime - one that matches pain to the ability to bear it.
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Isn't "matching pain to the ability to bear it" known as torture?
☺
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson, we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
We need to screw Virgin.
Branson needs to.feel.the oai .personally . I have always refused to.give him any of my money.
I am still working through those conundrums you posed me last week about elites and meritocracy etc. Brain whirring away like mad on it. Leading to one or two adjustments - which is a good thing I think. ☺
The Tories won a majority on a manifesto of low tax and high spend in 2019, May lost her majority in 2017 on a manifesto of high tax and low spend in 2017. Like it or not that is the mandate the voters gave the Tories and Boris.
As I said before the LDs are the most fiscally conservative party at the moment
As Martin Fry said before, "that was then but this is now".
Simply parroting the mantra of events from what now seem an eternity ago butters no parsnips with me. Obviously, the Government is the victim of circumstances which were (supposedly) unforeseeable back last December.
The "mandate" you cling to no longer exists or applies as the world has changed. I've asked you how you think a Conservative Government would or should respond to the new challenges provided by covid-19 and your response, to paraphrase Claudia and Tess is "keep borrowing".
That would make the Conservatives one of two high spending social democratic parties - why should we vote for them rather than Labour next time?
You wouldn't want to be that surgeon would you? The poor man will probably be launched on the end of the next missile test.
Well, if the reports are accurate the reason the operation to insert a stent went wrong is that the surgeon was so terrified his hands were shaking uncontrollably.
In which case, like Stalin, Kim Jong Un’s viciousness and drive to induce gibbering terror in everyone will have ended up actually killing him.
Karma’s a bitch...
But, no, I would not want to be that surgeon unless I was also shagging Kim’s sister and therefore could hope for protection.
Of course, she might be glad to be rid of him...and reward the surgeon!
Why should age be the sole criterion? From what we know people are at much greater risk if they are fat or male.
Why not quarantine all fat men? Or men, come to that?
Before WW2 - and for a little while after it - people lived without vaccines or antibiotics and, therefore lived with the possibility of catching diseases which might prove harmful or lethal : TB, lots of childhood diseases, pneumonia, polio etc.
We are going to have to learn to live like that once again, at least until a vaccine or cure is found (if they are). What we can’t do indefinitely - any more than our parents, grand-parents or great-grand-parents did - is destroy our economies and the present and future hopes of our children.
There is always risk in life. We are learning this lesson the hard way but it is a lesson we need to understand.
And before anyone accuses me of demanding an immediate end to the lockdown, I am not making a policy demand. There are lots of facts and factors I am unaware of which will determine what should be done next. But we do need to understand that we cannot eliminate risk and will have to come to some modus vivendi. Nor am I indifferent to the deaths which will occur. My own personal position makes me acutely aware of the risk. But I am also even more aware of my children and their friends and what a shut down society and economy means for them - especially if this lasts into next year or for another calendar year (until 2022, really?). Their future matters.
Which elements of lockdown aren't sustainable - genuine question. Is it the social ones or the economic ones ? I'm probably not going to visit a pub or a restaurant (Except to pick up takeout) till a vaccine is in or the virus is eliminated. I'd like to visit my parents at some point mind.
I think one of the first things to be relaxed should be the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying. I find those particularly harsh.
Funerals can be big vectors for infection - just look at Spain
Which elements of lockdown aren't sustainable - genuine question. Is it the social ones or the economic ones ? I'm probably not going to visit a pub or a restaurant (Except to pick up takeout) till a vaccine is in or the virus is eliminated. I'd like to visit my parents at some point mind.
I think one of the first things to be relaxed should be the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying. I find those particularly harsh.
Funerals can be big vectors for infection - just look at Spain
You wouldn't want to be that surgeon would you? The poor man will probably be launched on the end of the next missile test.
Well, if the reports are accurate the reason the operation to insert a stent went wrong is that the surgeon was so terrified his hands were shaking uncontrollably.
In which case, like Stalin, Kim Jong Un’s viciousness and drive to induce gibbering terror in everyone will have ended up actually killing him.
Karma’s a bitch...
But, no, I would not want to be that surgeon unless I was also shagging Kim’s sister and therefore could hope for protection.
Of course, she might be glad to be rid of him...and reward the surgeon!
Poetic justice!
If she is glad though, I'm afraid the surgeon would still have to go - to tie off the loose ends.
I don't want to talk the poor man's chances down - hopefully most of the rumours about NK are overblown and he's going to be fine.
Which elements of lockdown aren't sustainable - genuine question. Is it the social ones or the economic ones ? I'm probably not going to visit a pub or a restaurant (Except to pick up takeout) till a vaccine is in or the virus is eliminated. I'd like to visit my parents at some point mind.
I think one of the first things to be relaxed should be the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying. I find those particularly harsh.
Funerals can be big vectors for infection - just look at Spain
Agreed.
Therefore organists should have their fees tripled for attending them.
Also the freddie sayers guy is a decent interviewer. Seems reasonably well informed, asks sensible questions and most importantly lets the people answer.
To be fair this approach depends a lot on the willingness of the interviewee to actually respond to the question ... I don't like interviewers interrupting politicians all the time, but if they don't then the pols tend just to produce evasive or point-scoring answers anyway. Ferguson on the other hand seemed very happy to get an opportunity to put his views across in a non-soundbitey way. So works both way. Was a good interview overall. For what it's worth, I think the journalists at the daily briefings need to realise that many of the questions they are asking are going to be answered by non-politicians who aren't going to be playing the normal games that politicians play. Therefore, it's better to give them a sensible non-point-scoring question that they can give a sensible answer to because it's likely they're willing to do so (as Ferguson was here).
Another case for the journos at the briefing not to be just the political correspondents, imo.
Some of the comments under the Ferguson interview on YouTube are shocking. People accusing him of being in the pay of Bill Gates and saying he's responsible for crimes against humanity because of the shutdown... 🤦♂️
Why should age be the sole criterion? From what we know people are at much greater risk if they are fat or male.
Why not quarantine all fat men? [SNIP]
I am not sure your assumption that fat people are at greater risk is true. Take a look at figure 9 on page 10 of the latest Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre report on Covid-19 cases in ICUs.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
Did they take into account things like how many people will die from not getting their cancer treatment, etc? I'm sceptical about the whole "behavioural science" discipline.
Just given it a go, obviously helpful seeing Carraghers so copied it a bit, but think my team is better if a bit too attacking, think its valid. Finding the last pick does indeed get tricky.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
We may well see 50k deaths in first 3 months with shielding so same order of magnitude. Not impossible we get towards 100k in the first year still with the lockdown.
This note from the government website suggests that the fraction positive number over the past few weeks may have been rather overstated, since I imagine many of these negative tests are quite recent, given the ramp up in capacity:
"The difference between the cumulative numbers from today and yesterday for people tested is 50,499 higher than the daily increase figure. Cumulative testing figures include 50,499 retrospective reports of people who tested negative between 31 January and 24 April. These are now available due to a new reporting system that includes more laboratories reporting all test results. The overnight change reported is based on figures using the new system. The reporting system of positive results remains stable and no issues have been identified with this data."
If Korea is in the news, I can make one of my very rare TV show recommendations. The Korean version of the Good Doctor, available on Netflix, is utterly charming. Totally ridiculous and a lot of fun. Much better balanced than the US version, once you accept the fairytale nature of the programme.
Some of the comments under the Ferguson interview on YouTube are shocking. People accusing him of being in the pay of Bill Gates and saying he's responsible for crimes against humanity because of the shutdown... 🤦♂️
Never ever, ever, ever read the comments on a youtube video of anything remotely current affairs. It makes politics twitter look like a phd thesis.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
I am still working through those conundrums you posed me last week about elites and meritocracy etc. Brain whirring away like mad on it. Leading to one or two adjustments - which is a good thing I think. ☺
Reassuring to know that, given the volume of stuff I spew out on here, at least a fraction of it is genuinely thought-provoking...
Some of the comments under the Ferguson interview on YouTube are shocking. People accusing him of being in the pay of Bill Gates and saying he's responsible for crimes against humanity because of the shutdown... 🤦♂️
Never ever, ever, ever read the comments on a youtube video of anything remotely current affairs. It makes politics twitter look like a phd thesis.
Just given it a go, obviously helpful seeing Carraghers so copied it a bit, but think my team is better if a bit too attacking, think its valid. Finding the last pick does indeed get tricky.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
Did they take into account things like how many people will die from not getting their cancer treatment, etc? I'm sceptical about the whole "behavioural science" discipline.
Of course not. It looks as if all these modellers are interested in Covid-19 and absolutely nothing else.
The Government also needs to be asking about the scale of mortality from non-Covid cases that go undiagnosed or untreated, a potentially huge spike in mental illness, mass unemployment and poverty, the collapse of the tax base and the consequent inability to fund public services at anything like their current level.
I also make no apology for repeating the following:
Delays in diagnosing and treating people with cancer could lead to more years of lost life than with Covid-19, according to a leading cancer expert.
A drop-off in screening and referrals means roughly 2,700 fewer people are being diagnosed every week, Cancer Research UK says.
Cancer screening has paused in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with few invitations sent out in England.
People are still advised to contact their GP with worrying symptoms.
But Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King's College London, said there was more fear of Covid-19 than of having cancer at the moment. With GPs more difficult to contact than normal, this was resulting in a "dramatic drop-off" in referrals to specialists, he said.
"Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19," he said.
With cancer patients generally much younger, Prof Sullivan predicted "years of lost life will be quite dramatic" on top of "a huge amount of avoidable mortality".
In short, there's a realistic prospect of the lockdown killing more people than the virus and resulting in far more years of life lost as a result of cancer *alone*, never mind anything else. This absolutely does not mean that the lockdown simply has to go and people should be left to take their chances with the disease, but an easing of restrictions is essential and, presumably, cannot be left until about March 2021 whilst the modellers fret and pore over the daily Covid statistics.
Government has more things to worry about than the virus: its approach to handling it going forward will have to strike a balance, not just be 'Stay at Home' ad infinitum.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
Did they take into account things like how many people will die from not getting their cancer treatment, etc? I'm sceptical about the whole "behavioural science" discipline.
Of course not. It looks as if all these modellers are interested in Covid-19 and absolutely nothing else.
The Government also needs to be asking about the scale of mortality from non-Covid cases that go undiagnosed or untreated, a potentially huge spike in mental illness, mass unemployment and poverty, the collapse of the tax base and the consequent inability to fund public services at anything like their current level.
I also make no apology for repeating the following:
Delays in diagnosing and treating people with cancer could lead to more years of lost life than with Covid-19, according to a leading cancer expert.
A drop-off in screening and referrals means roughly 2,700 fewer people are being diagnosed every week, Cancer Research UK says.
Cancer screening has paused in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with few invitations sent out in England.
People are still advised to contact their GP with worrying symptoms.
But Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King's College London, said there was more fear of Covid-19 than of having cancer at the moment. With GPs more difficult to contact than normal, this was resulting in a "dramatic drop-off" in referrals to specialists, he said.
"Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19," he said.
With cancer patients generally much younger, Prof Sullivan predicted "years of lost life will be quite dramatic" on top of "a huge amount of avoidable mortality".
In short, there's a realistic prospect of the lockdown killing more people than the virus and resulting in far more years of life lost as a result of cancer *alone*, never mind anything else. This absolutely does not mean that the lockdown simply has to go and people should be left to take their chances with the disease, but an easing of restrictions is essential and, presumably, cannot be left until about March 2021 whilst the modellers fret and pore over the daily Covid statistics.
Government has more things to worry about than the virus: its approach to handling it going forward will have to strike a balance, not just be 'Stay at Home' ad infinitum.
It's a valid point but one which I suspect is repeated in all the countries affected in much the same way. Certainly in Spain it is.
Just given it a go, obviously helpful seeing Carraghers so copied it a bit, but think my team is better if a bit too attacking, think its valid. Finding the last pick does indeed get tricky.
In interview with Ferguson, he said they modelled idea of just shielding oldies / vulnerable and letting rest just social distance. Even keeping 80% isolated, would result in 100k deaths. CV would be too widespread and too many oldies still require some interactions with younger people for care, food, etc.
Did they take into account things like how many people will die from not getting their cancer treatment, etc? I'm sceptical about the whole "behavioural science" discipline.
Of course not. It looks as if all these modellers are interested in Covid-19 and absolutely nothing else.
The Government also needs to be asking about the scale of mortality from non-Covid cases that go undiagnosed or untreated, a potentially huge spike in mental illness, mass unemployment and poverty, the collapse of the tax base and the consequent inability to fund public services at anything like their current level.
I also make no apology for repeating the following:
Delays in diagnosing and treating people with cancer could lead to more years of lost life than with Covid-19, according to a leading cancer expert.
A drop-off in screening and referrals means roughly 2,700 fewer people are being diagnosed every week, Cancer Research UK says.
Cancer screening has paused in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with few invitations sent out in England.
People are still advised to contact their GP with worrying symptoms.
But Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King's College London, said there was more fear of Covid-19 than of having cancer at the moment. With GPs more difficult to contact than normal, this was resulting in a "dramatic drop-off" in referrals to specialists, he said.
"Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19," he said.
With cancer patients generally much younger, Prof Sullivan predicted "years of lost life will be quite dramatic" on top of "a huge amount of avoidable mortality".
In short, there's a realistic prospect of the lockdown killing more people than the virus and resulting in far more years of life lost as a result of cancer *alone*, never mind anything else. This absolutely does not mean that the lockdown simply has to go and people should be left to take their chances with the disease, but an easing of restrictions is essential and, presumably, cannot be left until about March 2021 whilst the modellers fret and pore over the daily Covid statistics.
Government has more things to worry about than the virus: its approach to handling it going forward will have to strike a balance, not just be 'Stay at Home' ad infinitum.
I'd recommend watching that full Unherd interview with Ferguson:
This is actually one of the issues he talks about. One thing that's complicated is that the problem of people being unable to access healthcare is, in different respects, both exacerbated but also relieved by lockdown.
Without lockdown you've got overcrowded hospitals and no capacity for other procedures. In fact until and unless lockdown manages to reduces cases to a manageable number, there'll still be the problem of eg vulnerable people not being able to go to hospital for fear of nosocomial infection, and things like chemotherapy/organ transplant being extremely dangerous due to their effect on the immune system. I don't think it's as simple as saying "if we had abolished lockdown, all this other health care would have been able to continue as normal".
But on the other hand, and Ferguson admits this in the interview, lockdown does produce serious health harms. It's a tricky one, frankly.
Are we going to have 40 years of internal Tory feuding and multiple governments/prime ministers destroyed over our China policy?
I’m waiting for the Tory China hawks to decide that we need closer European integration.
We need closer Western cooperation and possibly global democratic cooperation.
This should be a foreign, defence and economic alliance between sovereign nations. Not a project to build a new country.
Yes of course that would be great! But its not going to happen regardless of what we want to happen, so we need a strategy for dealing with less Western co-operation, more nationalism, isolationism and trade tensions than we have seen for the last 25-30 years.
China and Russia will have long term plans on how to benefit from this period whilst our politicians will lurch from incident to incident with no coherent plan beyond appearing popular in the press.
Just given it a go, obviously helpful seeing Carraghers so copied it a bit, but think my team is better if a bit too attacking, think its valid. Finding the last pick does indeed get tricky.
Just given it a go, obviously helpful seeing Carraghers so copied it a bit, but think my team is better if a bit too attacking, think its valid. Finding the last pick does indeed get tricky.
Are we going to have 40 years of internal Tory feuding and multiple governments/prime ministers destroyed over our China policy?
I’m waiting for the Tory China hawks to decide that we need closer European integration.
We need closer Western cooperation and possibly global democratic cooperation.
This should be a foreign, defence and economic alliance between sovereign nations. Not a project to build a new country.
Yes of course that would be great! But its not going to happen regardless of what we want to happen, so we need a strategy for dealing with less Western co-operation, more nationalism, isolationism and trade tensions than we have seen for the last 25-30 years.
China and Russia will have long term plans on how to benefit from this period whilst our politicians will lurch from incident to incident with no coherent plan beyond appearing popular in the press.
Russia is facing one of the starkest strategic dilemmas of all, and may need to reorient its foreign policy towards Western integration.
Comments
I doubt the problems in Whitehall were solvable while he was actually in the meeting. So, pre-armed with first-hand information, he rode shotgun for SAGE.
Seems reasonable.
https://twitter.com/Maxwellsnp/status/1253777198923866119
I'm working on the general framework (with some numbers) and when you see it I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/25/leading-muslims-hit-out-at-trevor-phillipss-role-in-covid-19-bame-deaths-inquiry
Click the link under ‘Ladda ner data’
http://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/bekraftade-fall-i-sverige/
Another case for the journos at the briefing not to be just the political correspondents, imo.
https://twitter.com/carra23/status/1250066001821130759?s=21
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8253341/Police-rushed-funeral-gunman-opened-fire-mourners-Manchester-cemetery.html
The Guardian is public enemy #1 for many who believe Mr C was present but not involved.
As I said before the LDs are the most fiscally conservative party at the moment
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr Branson - we expect you to make a large contribution to repairing the public finances"
But, then, Scotland had a female leader before Labour as well.
I am still working through those conundrums you posed me last week about elites and meritocracy etc. Brain whirring away like mad on it. Leading to one or two adjustments - which is a good thing I think. ☺
Simply parroting the mantra of events from what now seem an eternity ago butters no parsnips with me. Obviously, the Government is the victim of circumstances which were (supposedly) unforeseeable back last December.
The "mandate" you cling to no longer exists or applies as the world has changed. I've asked you how you think a Conservative Government would or should respond to the new challenges provided by covid-19 and your response, to paraphrase Claudia and Tess is "keep borrowing".
That would make the Conservatives one of two high spending social democratic parties - why should we vote for them rather than Labour next time?
In which case, like Stalin, Kim Jong Un’s viciousness and drive to induce gibbering terror in everyone will have ended up actually killing him.
Karma’s a bitch...
But, no, I would not want to be that surgeon unless I was also shagging Kim’s sister and therefore could hope for protection.
Of course, she might be glad to be rid of him...and reward the surgeon!
Why not quarantine all fat men? Or men, come to that?
Before WW2 - and for a little while after it - people lived without vaccines or antibiotics and, therefore lived with the possibility of catching diseases which might prove harmful or lethal : TB, lots of childhood diseases, pneumonia, polio etc.
We are going to have to learn to live like that once again, at least until a vaccine or cure is found (if they are). What we can’t do indefinitely - any more than our parents, grand-parents or great-grand-parents did - is destroy our economies and the present and future hopes of our children.
There is always risk in life. We are learning this lesson the hard way but it is a lesson we need to understand.
And before anyone accuses me of demanding an immediate end to the lockdown, I am not making a policy demand. There are lots of facts and factors I am unaware of which will determine what should be done next. But we do need to understand that we cannot eliminate risk and will have to come to some modus vivendi. Nor am I indifferent to the deaths which will occur. My own personal position makes me acutely aware of the risk. But I am also even more aware of my children and their friends and what a shut down society and economy means for them - especially if this lasts into next year or for another calendar year (until 2022, really?). Their future matters.
If she is glad though, I'm afraid the surgeon would still have to go - to tie off the loose ends.
I don't want to talk the poor man's chances down - hopefully most of the rumours about NK are overblown and he's going to be fine.
Therefore organists should have their fees tripled for attending them.
*looks hopefully at bank account*
I am the Kim of puns.
Over 70's however, especially recent ones, just won't accept it and in many cases, I agree.
Awesomely bad.
(Sorry, @Floater. But if you don’t like puns you’ve got no Seoul.)
https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c5a62b13-6486-ea11-9125-00505601089b
https://twitter.com/BrugesGroup/status/1254083609822191618
Southall
Maldini, Terry, Hansen, Lahm
Kante Valderama
Messi Bergkamp Ronaldo
Pele
"The difference between the cumulative numbers from today and yesterday for people tested is 50,499 higher than the daily increase figure. Cumulative testing figures include 50,499 retrospective reports of people who tested negative between 31 January and 24 April. These are now available due to a new reporting system that includes more laboratories reporting all test results. The overnight change reported is based on figures using the new system. The reporting system of positive results remains stable and no issues have been identified with this data."
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/asia/2018/06/keeping-kims-north-korea-s-communist-monarchy
Run-DMZ!
I wonder if there are nearby collectively-minded western organisations whose support they can enlist in their struggle?
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1254126808741687296
The bubble is bursting?
What a band....
Although unfortunately Kante and Terry both played for the same club, Chelsea... a tweak required
This should be a foreign, defence and economic alliance between sovereign nations. Not a project to build a new country.
The Government also needs to be asking about the scale of mortality from non-Covid cases that go undiagnosed or untreated, a potentially huge spike in mental illness, mass unemployment and poverty, the collapse of the tax base and the consequent inability to fund public services at anything like their current level.
I also make no apology for repeating the following:
Delays in diagnosing and treating people with cancer could lead to more years of lost life than with Covid-19, according to a leading cancer expert.
A drop-off in screening and referrals means roughly 2,700 fewer people are being diagnosed every week, Cancer Research UK says.
Cancer screening has paused in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with few invitations sent out in England.
People are still advised to contact their GP with worrying symptoms.
But Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King's College London, said there was more fear of Covid-19 than of having cancer at the moment. With GPs more difficult to contact than normal, this was resulting in a "dramatic drop-off" in referrals to specialists, he said.
"Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19," he said.
With cancer patients generally much younger, Prof Sullivan predicted "years of lost life will be quite dramatic" on top of "a huge amount of avoidable mortality".
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52382303
In short, there's a realistic prospect of the lockdown killing more people than the virus and resulting in far more years of life lost as a result of cancer *alone*, never mind anything else. This absolutely does not mean that the lockdown simply has to go and people should be left to take their chances with the disease, but an easing of restrictions is essential and, presumably, cannot be left until about March 2021 whilst the modellers fret and pore over the daily Covid statistics.
Government has more things to worry about than the virus: its approach to handling it going forward will have to strike a balance, not just be 'Stay at Home' ad infinitum.
https://twitter.com/minchaochoy/status/1253879387868598279?s=21
I’m inclined to believe that he’s dead.
https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1254055568626630656
This is actually one of the issues he talks about. One thing that's complicated is that the problem of people being unable to access healthcare is, in different respects, both exacerbated but also relieved by lockdown.
Without lockdown you've got overcrowded hospitals and no capacity for other procedures. In fact until and unless lockdown manages to reduces cases to a manageable number, there'll still be the problem of eg vulnerable people not being able to go to hospital for fear of nosocomial infection, and things like chemotherapy/organ transplant being extremely dangerous due to their effect on the immune system. I don't think it's as simple as saying "if we had abolished lockdown, all this other health care would have been able to continue as normal".
But on the other hand, and Ferguson admits this in the interview, lockdown does produce serious health harms. It's a tricky one, frankly.
China and Russia will have long term plans on how to benefit from this period whilst our politicians will lurch from incident to incident with no coherent plan beyond appearing popular in the press.
Jaaskeleinen
Alexander-Arnold
Kompany
Montero
Maldini
Extebberia
Moutinho
Keane
Pires
Messi
Lewandowski