The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
He's not doing it because he is not well and is returning to work. If he is returning to work from a serious illness he should do those elements of the job he is capable of doing while he recovers until he can do the job 100%. As the law and government advice says. https://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/
PMQs does need high priority yes as has Johnson given it, PMs miss PMQs only if they have a strong reason not to do so and Johnson does have a strong reason not to do so as is standard under the law of the land and would be standard under any other job under Health and Safety at Work Act etc
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
As I postulated a few days ago, I think Johnson will be keen to prolong this period whereby with the (valid) excuse of "still a bit weak" he can keep hold of the strings of power but duck out of anything he finds tedious or smacks of hard work such as PMQs or in depth reading of papers. It's a most acceptable situation for him.
I do love a bit af cynicism - and you may very well be right. I`m not sure. I do think that Johnson has a powerful sense of duty - though I know many on here will pounce on me for suggesting so.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian you have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
To be honest, I don’t care that Boris is still too poorly to do HMQs. PMs get sick sometimes.
I do care that we seem to heading toward the highest rate of mortality per million in Europe, despite having advance warning of this virus.
I’m astonished that this is not the main issue right now.
I am also deeply concerned about the economy.
Overall, one does not feel a strong sense of confidence in the government’s abilities to lead the country out of this, nor in their ability to be transparent about what is going on.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian
The woman who voted to decriminalise homosexuality in 1967 wasn't a libertarian?
We seem to have raced ahead of France on the testing front too.
We are certainly going to be racing way ahead of France on the deaths front from today, when the daily figures are revised to include deaths outside hospital, which will bring them into line with the way that French figures have been reported from the outset.
The latest announcements on testing just add to the testing shambles. What the Government did a few days ago is to announce that something north of 10 million people CAN (in theory) now get tests. I would have much preferred it if they had said that a far smaller number deemed to be of top priority MUST be tested within a week, that number to include all care home staff and residents in order to try and halt the rampant spread within that sector. Instead those who should be the highest priority will try and largely fail to fight their way to the front of the queue. eg. As the availability of at home kits is still quite limited, why not reserve them all for care homes.
Political imperitives have taken over - the Government wants to be seen to be testing more people, and the easiest way to get the numbers up is to avoid reserving tests for those who need them most.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
So are all our PB don't question the government let me know when it's ok to get out from under the table crew happy that BoJo is still not able to function properly as PM?
Be realistic.
He will have to phase back into the job as would anyone in similar circumstances. Should he simply stay off until he's 100% fit? Or should he start back while avoiding the physically most taxing situations until he is able to withstand them physically?
A footballer returning from injury isn't expected to play a full 90 minutes on their first day back. They return to training then to the pitch often for say 30 minutes off the bench before returning to a full fixture when match fit. Why should a PM who nearly died be any different?
It's the PM. As we have seen, nothing very much happens without his say so, oversight, or input. I do not feel in the mood right now, with the UK facing a once in a lifetime crisis, to have a PM who is playing himself back in gradually.
It is what it is. Better that he is sensible and follows doctors advice than he returns to 100% too soon and makes his condition worse once more.
The fact we need his oversight or input is precisely why he is back where it matters most. He's in Downing Street, I'm assuming in Cabinet and COBR. PMQs or Press Conferences Raab can deputise for as long as necessary ... And any cabinets or COBR's he needs to miss too.
Better back gradually than off completely.
That is looking at it through a Boris/Cons Party (of which I am a member) prism.
Better for Boris that it's steady as she goes.
For the country, however, I would like someone at 100% fully fit and not a part timer. Are you really happy with someone who is evidently not at optimal capacity to lead us right at this moment?
No I'm looking at it from the country perspective. Our country doesn't have a President it never has and I think it is better the PM recovers taking charge of what he can when he can than being an extremist view of all or nothing.
Can you tell me how the country will improve at all by having Raab as permanent full time Prime Minister instead of having him deputise where required as part of a British cabinet government?
Yes. That and @Carlotta's point about it would be Raab are well made.
But just as when people whine about lack of democratic mandates when a party has received, say, 35% of the vote, we must in this instance look at our democratic institution. Raab may be great or awful but I want someone in charge who is in charge. If the procedure is that the person in charge is Raab if Johnson is out of commission then yes, I want Raab. That is our functioning democratic process.
To be honest, I don’t care that Boris is still too poorly to do HMQs. PMs get sick sometimes.
I do care that we seem to heading toward the highest rate of mortality per million in Europe, despite having advance warning of this virus.
I’m astonished that this is not the main issue right now.
I am also deeply concerned about the economy.
Overall, one does not feel a strong sense of confidence in the government’s abilities to lead the country out of this, nor in their ability to be transparent about what is going on.
Is any Govt transparent.. I cannot think of a single Govt in my lifetime that gave me confidence bar the first two of Mrs Thatcher 's administrations.
That Washington Post graphic is why BA's 12k job cuts is just the top of the iceberg for the travel industry. Volunteering to go in a flying petri-dish is going to be a pretty brave/desperate call until we get a vaccine for this thing.
Do we count the last age as having started in around 1980? Thatcher, Reagan etc - the free market decades? 1980 - 2019. I wonder what we will call the decades starting 2020 - ?
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
He's not doing it because he is not well and is returning to work. If he is returning to work from a serious illness he should do those elements of the job he is capable of doing while he recovers until he can do the job 100%. As the law and government advice says. https://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/
PMQs does need high priority yes as has Johnson given it, PMs miss PMQs only if they have a strong reason not to do so and Johnson does have a strong reason not to do so as is standard under the law of the land and would be standard under any other job under Health and Safety at Work Act etc
We appear to have a Prime Minister with untrammelled power and no responsibilities at present. This state of affairs may continue indefinitely so far as you are concerned.
How are we to judge the Prime Minister’s faculties if they are not put on display? Indeed, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this absence is that the Prime Minister is too unwell to listen and think for half an hour at a time.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
I hesitate to enter the fray on this, but I`d say that Thatcher was more of a libertarian than Cameron and Osborne, and much more than Johnson.
Worth remembering that libertarianism is at the extreme end of liberalism not conservatism.
If this is true, Johnson is clearly not fighting fit and is unable to perform the tasks required of the PM.
Has there ever been a PM who has taken so much time off in his first six months? Not just his illness, but his Feb break in Dorneywood and his fortnight in the Caribbean.
Johnson is the polar opposite of May, he enjoys campaigning but not the day job, while May was vice versa. He is indeed Britain Trump.
That is just unfair and coming from a doctor it is more surprising
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
I am not complaining of his illness, but even before that he was prone to absenteeism, from the prorogation of Parliament onwards. Can you really not see the pattern?
The Tory members picked lazy over hard-working, funny over solid, panache over calm and ideologically pure over accomplished. I wonder how many will quietly reflect they made the wrong choice.
Yeah they must regret that 80 seat majority he won
Would Hunt have won a majority? I think so. But you may be right that Tory members would see an incompetent response to a crisis, which likely cost hundreds if not thousands of lives, as a small price to pay for winning an election and keeping rich people's taxes low.
The anger towards Boris on PB is pronounced.
Just for interest our Furlough payment from the Government hit our bank account this morning. This has kept this business going and 50 people employed. They have done an incredible job to get this system up and running and working so effectively, which is something I thought they had no chance of doing, and they should be commended. But hey lets all moan about Boris having a phased return to work after nearly dying a couple of weeks ago.
The furlough scheme is a great idea - and the UK seems to be doing very well on that front. You're right that is an incredible job if it is making payments already.
We seem to have raced ahead of France on the testing front too.
Yes. It was bizarre to me that our testing numbers were so low to start with - I never got a clear picture from the media of why that was the case.
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
Ever heard of a staged return to work?
Sure. You still have to be able to do the job. Evidently, Boris Johnson isn’t.
That's not true and could even break the law if you told an employee it was all or nothing.
You have to do those elements of the job that you can. Evidently Boris Johnson is doing so. He will need to do all of his job when he is capable of doing so but until then the constitution is and has been for everyone that if the PM is incapable of doing PMQs then a deputy must do it to be held to account on their behalf. As every PM ever has always done.
Will dentists be allowed to re open to treat those suffering from gnashed teeth?
They need equipping with PPE first. Everything they do creates an aerosol, and mouths are peak virus.
Don't they use PPE as a matter of course? My dentist always seems to have gloves, mask and visor on.
Dentists in the Netherlands have been advised that they can take patients for regular care from 20th April according to https://www.lassustandartsen.nl. UK nationals can currently travel to the Netherlands, and in theory non-essential travel is permitted. If someone needs urgent or non-urgent dental treatment it may be possible to have it in the Netherlands, but it would be better to get it done before the end of the EU transition period to avoid the travel restrictions.
Wouldn't the UK regulations prevent you leaving your house for non-essential dental treatment?
I don't think so, as any form of healthcare seems to be considered "essential". "Essential" does not have to mean "emergency".
You are also allowed to move house where reasonably necessary, and to leave your house to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
Interesting, if true. ... According to two people involved, Cummings played far more than a bystander’s role at a crucial SAGE meeting on March 18, as the panel discussed social distancing options to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are private, the people said Cummings asked why a lockdown was not being imposed sooner, swayed the discussion toward faster action, and made clear he thought pubs and restaurants should be closed within two days. They then were....
It is interesting.
I'm curious if his critics think we supposed to be annoyed that Cummings got involved and we should have stayed out of lockdown? Or are we supposed to be annoyed that he left it until then to not be a bystander?
Cummings had far more sense than the scientists then.
Thank goodness he was there.
Cummings may well have been giving sensible advice. But this claim, if true (and it paints Cummings in a good light and the scientists in a bad one, it’s worth noting) does rather undermine the previous claims that the government was “following the science”.
Of course the decision was a mixture of science and politics. But it feels as if the government is trying to make its decision seem inevitable, rather than a decision for which Ministers - rather than scientists - should be accountable.
One might add that 'science', and scientific discussion, is something conducted in public, and open to full scrutiny, not something that is done behind closed doors, unattributably.
To be honest, I don’t care that Boris is still too poorly to do HMQs. PMs get sick sometimes.
I do care that we seem to heading toward the highest rate of mortality per million in Europe, despite having advance warning of this virus.
I’m astonished that this is not the main issue right now.
I am also deeply concerned about the economy.
Overall, one does not feel a strong sense of confidence in the government’s abilities to lead the country out of this, nor in their ability to be transparent about what is going on.
Is any Govt transparent.. I cannot think of a single Govt in my lifetime that gave me confidence bar the first two of Mrs Thatcher 's administrations.
I think 2010-2015 was very satisfactory.
I am not particularly a Blair fan, but I guess a case should be made for 1997-2001.
Before that, yes, you have to go back to the early 80s (before my time).
Perhaps the best we can hope for is 5 years in every 15.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
Thatcher was a libertarian in economic terms but not social terms, if she was a libertarian in social terms she would never have introduced Section 28 and opposed immigration controls.
That Washington Post graphic is why BA's 12k job cuts is just the top of the iceberg for the travel industry. Volunteering to go in a flying petri-dish is going to be a pretty brave/desperate call until we get a vaccine for this thing.
Do we count the last age as having started in around 1980? Thatcher, Reagan etc - the free market decades? 1980 - 2019. I wonder what we will call the decades starting 2020 - ?
Depends how the virus/a vaccine pan out and whether people rebound like a coiled spring into the way life was previously or perhaps, whilst not enjoying the total lockdown we now have, prefer a more relaxed pace of life.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
He is an IDS disciple and as far as I know campaigned for him in GE 19 which explains a lot
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
He's not doing it because he is not well and is returning to work. If he is returning to work from a serious illness he should do those elements of the job he is capable of doing while he recovers until he can do the job 100%. As the law and government advice says. https://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/
PMQs does need high priority yes as has Johnson given it, PMs miss PMQs only if they have a strong reason not to do so and Johnson does have a strong reason not to do so as is standard under the law of the land and would be standard under any other job under Health and Safety at Work Act etc
We appear to have a Prime Minister with untrammelled power and no responsibilities at present. This state of affairs may continue indefinitely so far as you are concerned.
How are we to judge the Prime Minister’s faculties if they are not put on display? Indeed, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this absence is that the Prime Minister is too unwell to listen and think for half an hour at a time.
If so, he is too ill to return to work.
Welcome to Britain. That is our constitution, we don't have an election right now so we aren't judging the PM and his First Secretary of State who is his nominated deputy is attending PMQs as every PM ever has always done when they are unable to attend. Please name any PM with a 100% attendance at PMQs.
I started watching PMQs when Blair was Prime Minister and I can't recall any PM ever who never missed a PMQs.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
I hesitate to enter the fray on this, but I`d say that Thatcher was more of a libertarian than Cameron and Osborne, and much more than Johnson.
Worth remembering that libertarianism is at the extreme end of liberalism not conservatism.
Thatcher was only very slectively libertarian. What was her stance on homosexuality, promiscuity, legalising drugs, free speech (e.g. for SF), aparthied?
That Washington Post graphic is why BA's 12k job cuts is just the top of the iceberg for the travel industry. Volunteering to go in a flying petri-dish is going to be a pretty brave/desperate call until we get a vaccine for this thing.
Do we count the last age as having started in around 1980? Thatcher, Reagan etc - the free market decades? 1980 - 2019. I wonder what we will call the decades starting 2020 - ?
If you read William Gibson's latest novels from the last decade or so, they take place in a future world where something called "The Jackpot" happened in the 21st century. A period of several years of climate change, political instability, droughts, famines, pandemics and chaos. In which 80% of the population die off. The joke is that the rich carry on and effectively don't notice all the poor people are dead...
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
I hesitate to enter the fray on this, but I`d say that Thatcher was more of a libertarian than Cameron and Osborne, and much more than Johnson.
Worth remembering that libertarianism is at the extreme end of liberalism not conservatism.
Thatcher was only very slectively libertarian. What was her stance on homosexuality, promiscuity, legalising drugs, free speech (e.g. for SF), aparthied?
That Washington Post graphic is why BA's 12k job cuts is just the top of the iceberg for the travel industry. Volunteering to go in a flying petri-dish is going to be a pretty brave/desperate call until we get a vaccine for this thing.
Perhaps I am guilty of “normalcy bias” but I’m not willing to give up on global travel just yet.
EasyJet and Wizz expect to be flying in May or June, and are both busy working on adjustments necessary to reassure passengers.
Some research I saw suggested there was huge pent-up demand for travel in 2021 - so much so the analysts in question were recommending buying some airline stocks.
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
Ever heard of a staged return to work?
Sure. You still have to be able to do the job. Evidently, Boris Johnson isn’t.
That's not true and could even break the law if you told an employee it was all or nothing.
You have to do those elements of the job that you can. Evidently Boris Johnson is doing so. He will need to do all of his job when he is capable of doing so but until then the constitution is and has been for everyone that if the PM is incapable of doing PMQs then a deputy must do it to be held to account on their behalf. As every PM ever has always done.
You’re making several mistaken assumptions. Two in particular are worth stressing:
First, Boris Johnson is not an employee.
Secondly, you’re assuming he’s fit for work and then wanting to make adjustments to the role to suit him. On the evidence we have, he is not fit to return to work. He should be signed off until he is capable of sitting and thinking for half an hour at a time, at least.
- Usually, we can't. But it happens that Sweden is one of a trio of very similar countries. Similar distributions of people, similar lifestyles and cultures, similar geographically, and fairly similar economic setups. Similar history - even similar languages. Hell, they've been one country before now, or two countries, dependent on who Norway was part of. The Nordic countries: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Sweden's population is a bit less than that of the other two added together. Denmark is a bit denser population-wise, and has a significant land border with Germany and close to the extremely population dense region of the Benelux area, but other than that - very close, overall. It would probably be the most meaningful comparison between countries of almost any selected countries.
What about NI and the Republic ? (I'm not arguing with your overall point.)
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
I hesitate to enter the fray on this, but I`d say that Thatcher was more of a libertarian than Cameron and Osborne, and much more than Johnson.
Worth remembering that libertarianism is at the extreme end of liberalism not conservatism.
Thatcher was only very slectively libertarian. What was her stance on homosexuality, promiscuity, legalising drugs, free speech (e.g. for SF), aparthied?
Her stance on homosexuality was that she voted to legalise it. It was illegal when she entered Parliament and she voted to legalise it.
You have to judge people from the era they were in.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
I hesitate to enter the fray on this, but I`d say that Thatcher was more of a libertarian than Cameron and Osborne, and much more than Johnson.
Worth remembering that libertarianism is at the extreme end of liberalism not conservatism.
Thatcher was only very slectively libertarian. What was her stance on homosexuality, promiscuity, legalising drugs, free speech (e.g. for SF), aparthied?
Indeed, she took a traditional view of social matters based on her Methodist upbringing, she certainly opposed legalising drugs and was no fan of promiscuity either
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
He is an IDS disciple and as far as I know campaigned for him in GE 19 which explains a lot
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
He's not doing it because he is not well and is returning to work. If he is returning to work from a serious illness he should do those elements of the job he is capable of doing while he recovers until he can do the job 100%. As the law and government advice says. https://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/
PMQs does need high priority yes as has Johnson given it, PMs miss PMQs only if they have a strong reason not to do so and Johnson does have a strong reason not to do so as is standard under the law of the land and would be standard under any other job under Health and Safety at Work Act etc
We appear to have a Prime Minister with untrammelled power and no responsibilities at present. This state of affairs may continue indefinitely so far as you are concerned.
How are we to judge the Prime Minister’s faculties if they are not put on display? Indeed, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this absence is that the Prime Minister is too unwell to listen and think for half an hour at a time.
If so, he is too ill to return to work.
Welcome to Britain. That is our constitution, we don't have an election right now so we aren't judging the PM and his First Secretary of State who is his nominated deputy is attending PMQs as every PM ever has always done when they are unable to attend. Please name any PM with a 100% attendance at PMQs.
I started watching PMQs when Blair was Prime Minister and I can't recall any PM ever who never missed a PMQs.
If you’re not going to bother noticing when your mistakes have been corrected, you aren’t worth engaging with.
Okay. We can argue over the death rate, and whether or not I, in particular, am vulnerable if we lift the lockdown...
- Let's not. No-one really knows, and I'm tired of people going "I found THIS on the internet which says what I want it to say." We don't know. We don't know what the IFR actually is - it's probably somewhere between 0.4% and 1.0%; we don't know if survivors are permanently damaged; we don't know if children can or cannot pass it on; we don't know what would happen to those in younger and fitter demographics if the health service was overwhelmed, so there's not much use in that. Far more heat than light.
Okay. But what about Sweden? Are you going to continue to dismiss it?
- If you like, we CAN do a comparison.
You said we couldn't.
- Usually, we can't. But it happens that Sweden is one of a trio of very similar countries. Similar distributions of people, similar lifestyles and cultures, similar geographically, and fairly similar economic setups. Similar history - even similar languages. Hell, they've been one country before now, or two countries, dependent on who Norway was part of. The Nordic countries: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Sweden's population is a bit less than that of the other two added together. Denmark is a bit denser population-wise, and has a significant land border with Germany and close to the extremely population dense region of the Benelux area, but other than that - very close, overall. It would probably be the most meaningful comparison between countries of almost any selected countries.
And what do you get?
- Well, if all three did the same thing, you'd expect Denmark to be hit the worst (highest population densities and most borders with other countries). Then Sweden (bigger than the other two and with a border with Denmark), and then Norway. Denmark and Norway both locked down, so here's the cumulative death tolls for both of them (scaled up to the level they would be if they had Sweden-level populations) and a "counterfactual Sweden" exactly half way between the two. It's a very crude model, but should be broadly indicative.
- And this is what actually happened with Sweden. If all else was the same (it never quite is), then the only difference would be the lockdown issue.
- And, to add crude model onto crude model, we can derive a multiplier factor from the first one (as infections spread multiplicatively). If (and, as said above, this "If" is bearing a lot of weight) the only different factor was the lockdown-or-Swedish-partial-lockdown, we could apply the multiplier to reported death rates in hospitals in England and get this:
- Bear in mind my original insistence that we CAN'T compare countries to countries. But if we did, the best comparison we can have with running a counterfactual on "What would have happened if we followed Sweden's route" is right there. [part 2 of 2]
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
Ever heard of a staged return to work?
Sure. You still have to be able to do the job. Evidently, Boris Johnson isn’t.
That's not true and could even break the law if you told an employee it was all or nothing.
You have to do those elements of the job that you can. Evidently Boris Johnson is doing so. He will need to do all of his job when he is capable of doing so but until then the constitution is and has been for everyone that if the PM is incapable of doing PMQs then a deputy must do it to be held to account on their behalf. As every PM ever has always done.
You’re making several mistaken assumptions. Two in particular are worth stressing:
First, Boris Johnson is not an employee.
Secondly, you’re assuming he’s fit for work and then wanting to make adjustments to the role to suit him. On the evidence we have, he is not fit to return to work. He should be signed off until he is capable of sitting and thinking for half an hour at a time, at least.
You're being preposterous. PMQs is much more than just sitting and thinking for half an hour at a time.
I never said Johnson was an employee but him following the medical advice and standard legal procedures set down in law is entirely reasonable.
Oh and Johnson wouldn't attend PMQs today anyway as his baby boy was born today! Did Blair and Cameron attend PMQs when their childre were born?
We seem to have raced ahead of France on the testing front too.
We are certainly going to be racing way ahead of France on the deaths front from today, when the daily figures are revised to include deaths outside hospital, which will bring them into line with the way that French figures have been reported from the outset.
The latest announcements on testing just add to the testing shambles. What the Government did a few days ago is to announce that something north of 10 million people CAN (in theory) now get tests. I would have much preferred it if they had said that a far smaller number deemed to be of top priority MUST be tested within a week, that number to include all care home staff and residents in order to try and halt the rampant spread within that sector. Instead those who should be the highest priority will try and largely fail to fight their way to the front of the queue. eg. As the availability of at home kits is still quite limited, why not reserve them all for care homes.
Political imperitives have taken over - the Government wants to be seen to be testing more people, and the easiest way to get the numbers up is to avoid reserving tests for those who need them most.
I'd agree with that. If they are planning to end the lockdown anytime soon, a targeted testing program is absolutely essential in order to control the virus. Testing is not a public relations exercise.
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
He's not doing it because he is not well and is returning to work. If he is returning to work from a serious illness he should do those elements of the job he is capable of doing while he recovers until he can do the job 100%. As the law and government advice says. https://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/
PMQs does need high priority yes as has Johnson given it, PMs miss PMQs only if they have a strong reason not to do so and Johnson does have a strong reason not to do so as is standard under the law of the land and would be standard under any other job under Health and Safety at Work Act etc
We appear to have a Prime Minister with untrammelled power and no responsibilities at present. This state of affairs may continue indefinitely so far as you are concerned.
How are we to judge the Prime Minister’s faculties if they are not put on display? Indeed, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this absence is that the Prime Minister is too unwell to listen and think for half an hour at a time.
If so, he is too ill to return to work.
Welcome to Britain. That is our constitution, we don't have an election right now so we aren't judging the PM and his First Secretary of State who is his nominated deputy is attending PMQs as every PM ever has always done when they are unable to attend. Please name any PM with a 100% attendance at PMQs.
I started watching PMQs when Blair was Prime Minister and I can't recall any PM ever who never missed a PMQs.
If you’re not going to bother noticing when your mistakes have been corrected, you aren’t worth engaging with.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
Thatcher was a libertarian in economic terms but not social terms, if she was a libertarian in social terms she would never have introduced Section 28 and opposed immigration controls.
Oh dear you are such an extremist fool. Its not all or nothing.
Why not say if she was a conservative in social terms she would never have voted to legalise homosexuality?
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
As I postulated a few days ago, I think Johnson will be keen to prolong this period whereby with the (valid) excuse of "still a bit weak" he can keep hold of the strings of power but duck out of anything he finds tedious or smacks of hard work such as PMQs or in depth reading of papers. It's a most acceptable situation for him.
I do love a bit af cynicism - and you may very well be right. I`m not sure. I do think that Johnson has a powerful sense of duty - though I know many on here will pounce on me for suggesting so.
I don't know about pouncing on you - not entirely happy with that image - but I will come straight back and say I disagree rather strongly. The main reason I was (and still am) unhappy about this man as our PM is I feel he lacks the sense of public service which I like to imagine lies at the core of those who aspire to and attain the position. I can honestly state I have sensed this (a real sense of duty) about every PM in my lifetime with the one exception of this current manifestation. This "Boris". Of course it might be that his experience with Covid-19 has changed him for the better in this regard. I'm not ruling out the possibility.
If this is true, Johnson is clearly not fighting fit and is unable to perform the tasks required of the PM.
Has there ever been a PM who has taken so much time off in his first six months? Not just his illness, but his Feb break in Dorneywood and his fortnight in the Caribbean.
Johnson is the polar opposite of May, he enjoys campaigning but not the day job, while May was vice versa. He is indeed Britain Trump.
That is just unfair and coming from a doctor it is more surprising
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
I am not complaining of his illness, but even before that he was prone to absenteeism, from the prorogation of Parliament onwards. Can you really not see the pattern?
The Tory members picked lazy over hard-working, funny over solid, panache over calm and ideologically pure over accomplished. I wonder how many will quietly reflect they made the wrong choice.
Yeah they must regret that 80 seat majority he won
Would Hunt have won a majority? I think so. But you may be right that Tory members would see an incompetent response to a crisis, which likely cost hundreds if not thousands of lives, as a small price to pay for winning an election and keeping rich people's taxes low.
The anger towards Boris on PB is pronounced.
Just for interest our Furlough payment from the Government hit our bank account this morning. This has kept this business going and 50 people employed. They have done an incredible job to get this system up and running and working so effectively, which is something I thought they had no chance of doing, and they should be commended. But hey lets all moan about Boris having a phased return to work after nearly dying a couple of weeks ago.
The furlough scheme is a great idea - and the UK seems to be doing very well on that front. You're right that is an incredible job if it is making payments already.
We seem to have raced ahead of France on the testing front too.
Yes. It was bizarre to me that our testing numbers were so low to start with - I never got a clear picture from the media of why that was the case.
Thought I read somewhere that PHE did not want private companies involved, I may be wrong though
That Washington Post graphic is why BA's 12k job cuts is just the top of the iceberg for the travel industry. Volunteering to go in a flying petri-dish is going to be a pretty brave/desperate call until we get a vaccine for this thing.
Do we count the last age as having started in around 1980? Thatcher, Reagan etc - the free market decades? 1980 - 2019. I wonder what we will call the decades starting 2020 - ?
Pace Ehrenburg and Hobsbawm: The Short 21st Century.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
He is an IDS disciple and as far as I know campaigned for him in GE 19 which explains a lot
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
That's not the NHS, doctors or governments advice for returning to work. Returning to work from a near death experience has never been a case of all or nothing no halfway house.
If he can’t do Prime Minister’s Questions, he can’t do the job. Being held to account is a central part of the role.
If he can't do PMQs he has to send a deputy to be held to account. Same as every other PM ever.
No. Not the same as every PM ever. Prime Ministers have given, rightly, Prime Minister’s Questions very high priority. They usually miss it only if they are out of the country.
The current Prime Minister is missing it today, it seems, solely because he is not up to the job. If he is not up to the job, he shouldn’t be playing at doing it.
Ever heard of a staged return to work?
Sure. You still have to be able to do the job. Evidently, Boris Johnson isn’t.
That argument is really only valid if the ONLY thing Boris does all week is PMQs.
And it does appear that Boris is now on Paternity leave.
- Usually, we can't. But it happens that Sweden is one of a trio of very similar countries. Similar distributions of people, similar lifestyles and cultures, similar geographically, and fairly similar economic setups. Similar history - even similar languages. Hell, they've been one country before now, or two countries, dependent on who Norway was part of. The Nordic countries: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Sweden's population is a bit less than that of the other two added together. Denmark is a bit denser population-wise, and has a significant land border with Germany and close to the extremely population dense region of the Benelux area, but other than that - very close, overall. It would probably be the most meaningful comparison between countries of almost any selected countries.
What about NI and the Republic ? (I'm not arguing with your overall point.)
Yeah, that'd probably be another decent place to look for comparisons. I'm wondering if the Balkans could be likewise. Maybe Austria with parts of Germany as well.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
Thatcher was a libertarian in economic terms but not social terms, if she was a libertarian in social terms she would never have introduced Section 28 and opposed immigration controls.
Oh dear you are such an extremist fool. Its not all or nothing.
Why not say if she was a conservative in social terms she would never have voted to legalise homosexuality?
Thatcher saw a difference between legalising homosexuality and promoting homosexuality, times have changed and that view is no longer the majority view but it was certainly not a libertarian view even then
That Washington Post graphic is why BA's 12k job cuts is just the top of the iceberg for the travel industry. Volunteering to go in a flying petri-dish is going to be a pretty brave/desperate call until we get a vaccine for this thing.
Do we count the last age as having started in around 1980? Thatcher, Reagan etc - the free market decades? 1980 - 2019. I wonder what we will call the decades starting 2020 - ?
Depends how the virus/a vaccine pan out and whether people rebound like a coiled spring into the way life was previously or perhaps, whilst not enjoying the total lockdown we now have, prefer a more relaxed pace of life.
I don’t think there is anything relaxed about a life in which one can’t see family or friends, can’t visit a museum or gallery, or go to a play, concert, gig or film, can’t eat out, can’t explore parts of one’s country or visit historic or architectural attractions or join with others in any sort of communal activity. And this is the sort of life we will have to endure - because none of these activities are possible with “social distancing”
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
There is a half-way house which was quite often occupied by Winston Churchill during the Second World War.
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
There is a half-way house which was quite often occupied by Winston Churchill during the Second World War.
He could have died two weeks ago and not only do you dismiss this, but even compare him to Trump
Apparently we should be comparing him to Berlusconi.
Way to go, Tories.
HYUFD does not represent Tories. He is the Tory version of a Corbynist without a Corbyn leading the party.
Rubbish, you are a libertarian not a conservative so don't lecture me on what being a Tory is
I am a libertarian Conservative yes. Like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. So I'll lecture you all I like your desire for a purist conservative only party is no different to a Corbynist desire for a socialist only Labour party. Get over yourself.
Thatcher was not a libertarian, nor really are Cameron and Johnson.
Osborne maybe but if you think the Tories would have won the last general election on a platform of more austerity and deeper spending cuts you are deluded
Thatcher was libertarian. So were Cameron and Johnson.
If you think anyone would ever win an election on your platform of only true believer conservatives f**k everyone else they should vote for someone else platform then you are deluded. You are worse than Iain Duncan Smith, whom it wouldn't surprise me if you supported.
No they were not, to be a libertarian to have to be socially liberal as well as support deep spending cuts and tax cuts.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
Thatcher didn't cut taxes or spending? She voted to legalise homosexuality.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
Thatcher was a libertarian in economic terms but not social terms, if she was a libertarian in social terms she would never have introduced Section 28 and opposed immigration controls.
Oh dear you are such an extremist fool. Its not all or nothing.
Why not say if she was a conservative in social terms she would never have voted to legalise homosexuality?
Thatcher saw a difference between legalising homosexuality and promoting homosexuality, times have changed and that view is no longer the majority view but it was certainly not a libertarian view even then
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
There is a half-way house which was quite often occupied by Winston Churchill during the Second World War.
Even better (!) for him. Not only "still a bit weak" but also a new father with the opportunity to project a bit of a "21st century man" image, attending the birth, helping Carrie with the baby in those difficult early weeks, doing his share around the nappies. It could all the true, of course, but it does not need to be to be compelling. So, no, do not expect "Boris" to be doing anything on the work front that he doesn't fancy the look of for quite some time. There will just be a few videos and the occasional set piece.
The Prime Minister should either be on sick leave or he should be performing his duties. There isn't a halfway house. Clue: he should be on sick leave.
If he had paid more attention to his duties when he was fully fit he, and we, wouldn’t be in quite so bad a mess now.
There is a half-way house which was quite often occupied by Winston Churchill during the Second World War.
The cocktail bar ?
Apart from the incident in the Spanish-Cuban war, I can find little evidence that Churchill was a cocktails man.
Que the tin-foil hatters which will now claim that Boris deliberately induced the babys birth to avoid PMQs and any questioning...
I'm certainly not suggesting that. Neither did he deliberately contract Covid-19. What I am suggesting is that both these events provide great cover for skiving off all the bits of the job he doesn't fancy - and that I expect him to exploit the opportunity to the max. Why wouldn't he? It's just "Boris being Boris".
Bet you he takes no tough questions in public for at least two weeks.
Comments
PMQs does need high priority yes as has Johnson given it, PMs miss PMQs only if they have a strong reason not to do so and Johnson does have a strong reason not to do so as is standard under the law of the land and would be standard under any other job under Health and Safety at Work Act etc
'Selective statistics' would be preferable.
Thatcher was not a social liberal, she introduced Section 28 after all and wanted tight immigration controls, Cameron was more One Nation Conservative, Osborne more libertarian.
Johnson promised to increase spending not cut spending and he also promised tighter immigration controls.
I do care that we seem to heading toward the highest rate of mortality per million in Europe, despite having advance warning of this virus.
I’m astonished that this is not the main issue right now.
I am also deeply concerned about the economy.
Overall, one does not feel a strong sense of confidence in the government’s abilities to lead the country out of this, nor in their ability to be transparent about what is going on.
The latest announcements on testing just add to the testing shambles. What the Government did a few days ago is to announce that something north of 10 million people CAN (in theory) now get tests. I would have much preferred it if they had said that a far smaller number deemed to be of top priority MUST be tested within a week, that number to include all care home staff and residents in order to try and halt the rampant spread within that sector. Instead those who should be the highest priority will try and largely fail to fight their way to the front of the queue. eg. As the availability of at home kits is still quite limited, why not reserve them all for care homes.
Political imperitives have taken over - the Government wants to be seen to be testing more people, and the easiest way to get the numbers up is to avoid reserving tests for those who need them most.
You have some perverse view of what a libertarian is - a libertarian is someone who is against the government running our lives either economically or socially. Margaret Thatcher certainly falls under that.
But just as when people whine about lack of democratic mandates when a party has received, say, 35% of the vote, we must in this instance look at our democratic institution. Raab may be great or awful but I want someone in charge who is in charge. If the procedure is that the person in charge is Raab if Johnson is out of commission then yes, I want Raab. That is our functioning democratic process.
Not tempted at the moment. Currently feeling quietly confidence of my bet on Hamilton scoring at under 21 races this year.
Edited extra bit: assuming it isn't voided, of course.
Do we count the last age as having started in around 1980? Thatcher, Reagan etc - the free market decades? 1980 - 2019. I wonder what we will call the decades starting 2020 - ?
How are we to judge the Prime Minister’s faculties if they are not put on display? Indeed, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this absence is that the Prime Minister is too unwell to listen and think for half an hour at a time.
If so, he is too ill to return to work.
Worth remembering that libertarianism is at the extreme end of liberalism not conservatism.
You have to do those elements of the job that you can. Evidently Boris Johnson is doing so. He will need to do all of his job when he is capable of doing so but until then the constitution is and has been for everyone that if the PM is incapable of doing PMQs then a deputy must do it to be held to account on their behalf. As every PM ever has always done.
Otherwise it is not science.
I am not particularly a Blair fan, but I guess a case should be made for 1997-2001.
Before that, yes, you have to go back to the early 80s (before my time).
Perhaps the best we can hope for is 5 years in every 15.
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1255420043426439168
I started watching PMQs when Blair was Prime Minister and I can't recall any PM ever who never missed a PMQs.
EasyJet and Wizz expect to be flying in May or June, and are both busy working on adjustments necessary to reassure passengers.
Some research I saw suggested there was huge pent-up demand for travel in 2021 - so much so the analysts in question were recommending buying some airline stocks.
2020 is fucked though.
First, Boris Johnson is not an employee.
Secondly, you’re assuming he’s fit for work and then wanting to make adjustments to the role to suit him. On the evidence we have, he is not fit to return to work. He should be signed off until he is capable of sitting and thinking for half an hour at a time, at least.
(I'm not arguing with your overall point.)
You have to judge people from the era they were in.
Also gives BJ a pretty good reason not to be at PMQs right now.
Boris off on pat leave for two more weeks.
It is churlish to say it, but fuck it, this is PB:
He’s a part-time PM.
I never said Johnson was an employee but him following the medical advice and standard legal procedures set down in law is entirely reasonable.
Oh and Johnson wouldn't attend PMQs today anyway as his baby boy was born today! Did Blair and Cameron attend PMQs when their childre were born?
If they are planning to end the lockdown anytime soon, a targeted testing program is absolutely essential in order to control the virus.
Testing is not a public relations exercise.
Why not say if she was a conservative in social terms she would never have voted to legalise homosexuality?
Never mind them, how's Boris?
And it does appear that Boris is now on Paternity leave.
Although....
(And, btw, in the context, 'repost' is an excellent typo.)
I'm wondering if the Balkans could be likewise. Maybe Austria with parts of Germany as well.
So exactly how many kids is that now?
Bet you he takes no tough questions in public for at least two weeks.
https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/margaret-thatchers-role-sas-transformation-fw-de-klerk-5-december-2016