Searched the threads last night and found this post that I missed last night, I'm assuming this is what upset you Dougseal. Missed it with the change of thread last night.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.
This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?
Yes I am suggesting that.
Then you are an ignorant arsehole with no sense of empathy. You have no idea that the pain many people without children go through and then to be told, constantly, that we are somehow further emotionally defective by shits like you just rubs their noses in it. You have kids. Good for you. Wallow in your self righteousness and your sense of superiority.
I'm not self-righteous, I have no sense of superiority and I never once said that anyone is emotionally defective. That is all on you not me, you're putting words in my mouth I never said.
Of course anyone who doesn't have children can care for others whether it be pets, nieces or nephews, brothers or sisters etc - but caring for a child, looking after them every day etc as they grow up is simply different to a relationship with a sibling you grew up with or someone you see every now and then.
And so on the topic of inheritance which is what we were talking about parents will care more to pass on something to their children than non-parents will who can't pass anything to their children because they don't have any. That's not a defect its just what it is! And caring to pass something on to a sibling or niece or nephew is different to passing something on to your child - again it just is what it is. That's not defective.
PS you can be a parent without biologically having a child of your own genes. Anyone who adopts a child etc is a parent. Similarly someone who fathers a child biologically but never has anything to do with them is not a parent. Being a parent is not about genetics.
That’s not what you said. Don’t backtrack. You suggested, by your own admission, that people with kids care more than those without. You are a man who cannot envisage anything beyond his own experience and openly suggested people without that experience are less able to “care”. Have you ever stood in a hospital while your dreams of children literally, quite literally, died in your arms? You, tosser that you are, suggest that that tragedy makes such people less likely to care. You have no empathy and such lack of empathy is highly suggestive of psychopathy. You are, as I said, an arsehole.
Its called context. Care to pass something on the subject of inheritance tax that we were talking about yes absolutely.
If you misread what I wrote then I'm sorry it offended you. Of course non-parents can care about other things other people, I never said otherwise. Of course people who have undergone tragedy can care about that.
And again anyone who adopts or otherwise looks after a child that isn't biologically theirs is a parent. But in the context you asked my answer was and remains yes.
You made an explicit statement. It has nothing to do with context. I now understand why you hated Theresa May so much. You really are a nasty nasty man.
You are being nasty and making personal insults and statements not me.
It had everything to do with context. Everything has to do with context. The context was a discussion about Inheritance Tax. I will quote again the exact words used.
NickP: "As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better."
eadric: "You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that. "
DougSeal: "Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?" [my note here - Nick's point was on IHT]
Philip_Thompson: "Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any." [my note here - again about passing on to kids, IHT discussion]
DougSeal: "This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?" [my note here - even here you're still talking about the context of IHT]
We're not talking about generic caring. We're talking about passing on something via inheritance and especially to one's children. That is the conversation. If you read more to it - despite even you saying it was about IHT then that is on you not me.
And when you calm down and realise you're wrong feel free to apologise at your leisure for calling me names repeatedly. I've never called you a name. Oh and maybe apologise for thinking I was trying a zinger when I said I'm sorry [for a typo] because my children were distracting me and I made a typo. That was no zinger its literally true.
I'm not going to get involved in the personal spat here, but a person's opinions and interests about where their money goes after they die should not be down-weighted because then have no childern.
Searched the threads last night and found this post that I missed last night, I'm assuming this is what upset you Dougseal. Missed it with the change of thread last night.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.
This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?
Yes I am suggesting that.
Then you are an ignorant arsehole with no sense of empathy. You have no idea that the pain many people without children go through and then to be told, constantly, that we are somehow further emotionally defective by shits like you just rubs their noses in it. You have kids. Good for you. Wallow in your self righteousness and your sense of superiority.
I'm not self-righteous, I have no sense of superiority and I never once said that anyone is emotionally defective. That is all on you not me, you're putting words in my mouth I never said.
Of course anyone who doesn't have children can care for others whether it be pets, nieces or nephews, brothers or sisters etc - but caring for a child, looking after them every day etc as they grow up is simply different to a relationship with a sibling you grew up with or someone you see every now and then.
And so on the topic of inheritance which is what we were talking about parents will care more to pass on something to their children than non-parents will who can't pass anything to their children because they don't have any. That's not a defect its just what it is! And caring to pass something on to a sibling or niece or nephew is different to passing something on to your child - again it just is what it is. That's not defective.
PS you can be a parent without biologically having a child of your own genes. Anyone who adopts a child etc is a parent. Similarly someone who fathers a child biologically but never has anything to do with them is not a parent. Being a parent is not about genetics.
That’s not what you said. Don’t backtrack. You suggested, by your own admission, that people with kids care more than those without. You are a man who cannot envisage anything beyond his own experience and openly suggested people without that experience are less able to “care”. Have you ever stood in a hospital while your dreams of children literally, quite literally, died in your arms? You, tosser that you are, suggest that that tragedy makes such people less likely to care. You have no empathy and such lack of empathy is highly suggestive of psychopathy. You are, as I said, an arsehole.
Its called context. Care to pass something on the subject of inheritance tax that we were talking about yes absolutely.
If you misread what I wrote then I'm sorry it offended you. Of course non-parents can care about other things other people, I never said otherwise. Of course people who have undergone tragedy can care about that.
And again anyone who adopts or otherwise looks after a child that isn't biologically theirs is a parent. But in the context you asked my answer was and remains yes.
You made an explicit statement. It has nothing to do with context. I now understand why you hated Theresa May so much. You really are a nasty nasty man.
You are being nasty and making personal insults and statements not me.
It had everything to do with context. Everything has to do with context. The context was a discussion about Inheritance Tax. I will quote again the exact words used.
NickP: "As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better."
eadric: "You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that. "
DougSeal: "Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?" [my note here - Nick's point was on IHT]
Philip_Thompson: "Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any." [my note here - again about passing on to kids, IHT discussion]
DougSeal: "This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?" [my note here - even here you're still talking about the context of IHT]
We're not talking about generic caring. We're talking about passing on something via inheritance and especially to one's children. That is the conversation. If you read more to it - despite even you saying it was about IHT then that is on you not me.
And when you calm down and realise you're wrong feel free to apologise at your leisure for calling me names repeatedly. I've never called you a name. Oh and maybe apologise for thinking I was trying a zinger when I said I'm sorry [for a typo] because my children were distracting me and I made a typo. That was no zinger its literally true.
I'm not going to get involved in the personal spat here, but a person's opinions and interests about where their money goes after they die should not be down-weighted because then have no childern.
And. moreover, those who don't have childrten are financially penalised after death to the extent of about £120K (depending on precise date of death).
Raab's answer on care homes disingenuous. And Starmer did a poor job of holding the government to account on that.
Raab listed in some detail the potential sources of infection being brought in to care homes, while ignoring what is very probably the single most significant one.
1.6 million Brits have returned from abroad since Covid began - almost all on commercial flights - in the last month 200,000 from Spain and 50,000 from Australia. 19,000 Cruise ship Brits have returned home.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
By your own admission the photo opportunity is the easy stuff. Wouldn't it make sense to start with the easy stuff in a staged return?
Can't quite believe you're asking such a daft question.
Because we're in a crisis and the PM needs to concentrate on the important parts of the job. Not fluff.
I'd expect the Daily Mirror to be low, being an anti Tory paper in a broadly Tory country right now. But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
This chart doesn’t really tell us anything, except maybe the relative perceptions of BBC v ITV.
Paper’s reach is too small and atomised to me measured in this way, although would be interesting to see Mail Online vs Guardian as the main two “free” sites.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.
LOL you wouldn't even have had a response yet from a Corbyn government
Irrelevant. there is not a Corbyn government. there is a Johnson/Cummings one. So far, I would give them 8/10 for the business support from the Chancellor, 8/10 for the emergency hospital provision, 1/10 for general preparedness, 2/10 for testing implementation, 0/10 for their ridiculous JCB/Dyson/ventilator stunt, and 2/10 for general leadership in a crisis. Corbyn might have been worse, but it is totally irrelevant and does not let this bunch of amateurs off the hook. Other than the Chancellor they look like a bunch of over promoted district councillors.
Yep.
5/10 for comms, too.
Confusing messages about almost every aspect of the pandemic.
Just contrast Merkel's clear explanation of the need to keep Rt below 1 with Johnson's ridiculous waffle comparing the virus to a mugger.
Is it entirely fair to compare someone with a doctorate in physics to someone with a 2:1 in classics?
It's absolutely fair - Classics (or rather Greats or Literae Humaniores, please) is vastly superior.
True but irrelevant because Angela Merkel is a chemist and not a physicist.
Mea culpa. She was a physicist till her late 20s but later got a doctorate in quantum chemistry. (Though actually she is now a politician, not a physicist or a chemist.)
And I was wrong, because a classicist is obviously better placed to understand the mathematics of epidemiology than someone with training in physics and chemistry.
My misguided attempt to defend Boris was fatally flawed. He's fair game on this issue.
Off topic, but of relevance to those with an interest north of the border....
Malcolmg, aside, this is the kind of bampottery that we have to put up with in Scotland. And this guy is a current MP and former Cabinet Secretary for Justice at Holyrood!!
Spineless cowards like Raab and Co are trying to shift all of the responsibility for one of the biggest decisions this country has had to make since the war onto them.
advisers advise, governments decide. But not if you listen to Raab.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
I love the fact that you think chatting shit with a non-entity is a 'key part of his job'.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Except that the alternative would have been a Conservative leader with more gravitas. The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December. The members wanted the most Brexity candidate possible and the real irony is that I doubt Boris is much bothered by Brexit either way other than it providing him with a vehicle to the leadership.
Yeah because May did such a good job beating Corbyn and a Continuity May option like Hunt would have done well wouldn't they?
I am talking about who would have done a better job of dealing with this pandemic. You clearly don't believe anyone could have done a better job than Boris. I disagree.
In a few months time we will know how successful our government has been compared to others. I am content to wait.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
Takes all sorts. Personally, if someone is recovering from illness I’d give them the easier tasks first. My girlfriend had a C-Section last November, so I made sure she didn’t have to lift anything, and when she did she started on things that were light before moving on to heavier objects.
Who was the nutjob MP that wanted Britain at the back of the queue for a vaccine ?
Bonkers.
Not watching after the Starmer bits. Presumably one of Corbyn's little minions though?
To me the bizarre bit is that assumes that any vaccine will be made in one location - do some people think that it will be made in the lab that discovers it?
Oxford (for example) have said that they will not put any restrictions on usage of their work - that will mean that various vaccine production facilities round the world will (try) and start making anything they produce. Or am I missing something?
India is already setting up to be by some distance the largest manufacturer of that particular vaccine.
The FT Coronavirus charts are better than the Guardian's. I think those results say more about underlying bias than recent performance - but still interesting on that basis.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Except that the alternative would have been a Conservative leader with more gravitas. The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December. The members wanted the most Brexity candidate possible and the real irony is that I doubt Boris is much bothered by Brexit either way other than it providing him with a vehicle to the leadership.
Yeah because May did such a good job beating Corbyn and a Continuity May option like Hunt would have done well wouldn't they?
I am talking about who would have done a better job of dealing with this pandemic. You clearly don't believe anyone could have done a better job than Boris. I disagree.
In a few months time we will know how successful our government has been compared to others. I am content to wait.
The word you used were "The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December" - that was about a pandemic?
I am happy with our government and content to wait too.
That would be slightly more interesting if the percentages excluded don't knows. As it is it's hard to get a feel for how consumers of each outlet feel relative to one another (though that might say more about them than the outlets).
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
By your own admission the photo opportunity is the easy stuff. Wouldn't it make sense to start with the easy stuff in a staged return?
Can't quite believe you're asking such a daft question.
Because we're in a crisis and the PM needs to concentrate on the important parts of the job. Not fluff.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
I can't recall him taking part in any photo opportunities since he returned to work and if he had then that would be something to criticise.
Do you accept that at prior times before this that all previous PMs have sometimes considered something else the PM needs to do is more important at that time than PMQs and sent a deputy instead?
If hypothetically the PM were able to have the energy to attend and give 100% to a COBR meeting or PMQs would you accept that COBR might at this time be the more important choice?
An interesting choice given Boris's record of attendance at such meetings. Why do you assume it is impossible to schedule a meeting and PMQs so that they don't clash.
If he cannot manage PMQs or if he can only manage one meeting he's not fit enough to be PM. He should get better and then do the job properly. If he remains incapable for a long time then the issue of whether he should remain PM arises. But we are not there yet. So I hope he uses his paternity leave to get better properly. And when he's back I would want him not to avoid responding to questions in Parliament.
Spineless cowards like Raab and Co are trying to shift all of the responsibility for one of the biggest decisions this country has had to make since the war onto them.
advisers advise, governments decide. But not if you listen to Raab.
I disagree with you on (probably) most things, but on this, I find it hard to disagree.
I'd expect the Daily Mirror to be low, being an anti Tory paper in a broadly Tory country right now. But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
Edit: The graphic as shown on PB excludes the Sun and Mail o_O ! Dire for them.
Telegraph readership still exceeds Times readership though, even if more have a positive view of the Times (which is probably the closest thing we have to a centrist paper now) they are not paying to read it
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
Takes all sorts. Personally, if someone is recovering from illness I’d give them the easier tasks first. My girlfriend had a C-Section last November, so I made sure she didn’t have to lift anything, and when she did she started on things that were light before moving on to heavier objects.
Except that there is no one in a position to 'give' the PM tasks. If he's in charge, then such things are up to him. Thats why this 'staged return to work' business is unconvincing.
That would be slightly more interesting if the percentages excluded don't knows. As it is it's hard to get a feel for how consumers of each outlet feel relative to one another (though that might say more about them than the outlets).
Does that chart imply 45% of the country have an opinion on whether The Guardian is covering the Coronavirus well or not? I doubt 4.5% do
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
The point some of us are trying to make is not that we should have followed HK necessarily. The point is that for 2 weeks when the consequences of the pandemic were becoming worse by the day Boris skived off to Chevening for 2 weeks with his girlfriend to sort out his convoluted private life. He was not focussed on the upcoming problem and he should have been. Only time will tell how costly that will prove.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
Absolutely. Shutting down the economy now is fine, but shutting the borders a few weeks ago — no, we couldn't possibly have done that.
It's always amusing when people say that lockdown is the result of a conspiracy by very rich people.
Wrong sort of rich person...will be what the tinfoil hatters will say...he is a disruptor.
It depends what business you are in - Jeff Bezos is doing very, very well.
More seriously this is a genuine concerning part of this. The likes of Amazon were already incredibly powerful, the longer this goes on, the worse the outcome for many companies, further consolidating things with the likes of Amazon.
I think a 20% tax on online purchases would be in order to try to help the high street retail trade to recover. Amazon have been handed an unfair advantage for a few months, that should be reversed for six months once shops can fully re-open.
On the face of it Biden has a clear poll lead against Trump so should be favourite. However punters may be sticking with Trump as his supporters seem much more enthusiastic than Biden's. Biden faces the problem that John Kerry or Mitt Romney faced, a vote for him seems to be more against the incumbent than for them
In the current climate, excitement is just not a particularly important metric.
Prospective Democratic voters are pretty damned determined to get rid of Trump; they'd vote for a ham sandwich in preference.
And who but fools are excited about an election when the economy is crashing and there are millions of unemployed, and while the pandemic still menaces ?
Well, our very own kinabalu has said that he thinks that a re-elected Trump would be more worrisome than a global pandemic.
- I'll revise down to "equally worrying" but no further.
But just to say again, I cannot see a 2nd term for Trump. To re-elect him having seen how he behaves in office and when he has zero tangible achievements to his name apart from appointing a misogynist drunk to the Supreme Court, would mean that America has gone completely loco. It would render them a rogue nation. Beyond the pale. It could happen - of course it could, he's the incumbent - but I'd be wanting a LOT longer than even money on it.
Why does re electing Trump render the US more rogue than Brazil electing Bolsonaro, India re electing Modi, Russia re electing Putin, Israel re electing Netanyahu, Russia re electing Putin, Hungary re electing Orban, Italy electing Berlusconi or even us re electing Boris?
If voters want to elect or re elect a populist that is up to them, the US will still be the largest economy and military on earth and we will still have to deal with them
Trump is not a populist imo. Rather, he ran as a populist but has governed as an elitist GOP insider.
No, Romney or Jeb Bush would have governed as elitist GOP insiders, Trump has not
No, ignore the rhetoric and look at the reality. Trump's record is appointing Republican justices, cutting taxes for corporations and billionaires, and trying to axe Obamacare. All pre-existing House GOP positions, and none that can be described as populist. Trade wars are the exception. Incidentally, this is why I do not accept that Trump and Boris are interchangeable.
Trump's immigration bans are also not the 'compassionate conservatism' reaching out to Hispanics the Bushes were pushing.
Trump is also far closer to Putin and Kim Jong Un than the GOP elite is comfortable with
I'd expect the Daily Mirror to be low, being an anti Tory paper in a broadly Tory country right now. But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
Edit: The graphic as shown on PB excludes the Sun and Mail o_O ! Dire for them.
The Guardian score is (relative to the other papers) a bit of a devastating blow to those who think it is an irrelevant talking to itself woke rag that is totally insignificant and doesn't reflect real people.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
Takes all sorts. Personally, if someone is recovering from illness I’d give them the easier tasks first. My girlfriend had a C-Section last November, so I made sure she didn’t have to lift anything, and when she did she started on things that were light before moving on to heavier objects.
Lifting heavy objects is not essential to being a mother. Presumably she holds your baby.
I have always told my staff to come back to work when they are properly better. Unimportant stuff does not need doing. The important stuff does. That's what they're paid for.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no obvious need to do so in January. But if had UK had just done that in early March, when lots of people were close to begging the government to take action, it might have saved many lives too.
There was no need for a lockdown in January, but we could have stopped people travelling in and out of the country, with a quarantine for British people wanting to return to the UK.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no basis to do that. Remember that in the early stages we were doing really well at tracking and isolating each case that occurred, and it looked at the time that that would continue to be the best approach. What people who criticise the government for not taking more drastic action earlier are missing (or are conveniently forgetting) is that the outbreak in Northern Italy wan't picked up for some considerable time. By the time the Italians realised how bad things were, it had already spread, and it was that which suddenly disrupted the track-and-isolate approach.
The fact that there was a serious virus outbreak in China was well known in January. Why didn't we stop travel to and from China and neighbouring countries at that time? There seems to have been a fatalistic attitude that we "couldn't possibly stop the virus from spreading from country to country". I don't understand why there was such an attitude with regard to the virus spreading between countries, but at the same time there's a belief that we can and ought do all sorts of things to stop it spreading within countries? That doesn't make sense.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
By your own admission the photo opportunity is the easy stuff. Wouldn't it make sense to start with the easy stuff in a staged return?
Can't quite believe you're asking such a daft question.
Because we're in a crisis and the PM needs to concentrate on the important parts of the job. Not fluff.
That would be slightly more interesting if the percentages excluded don't knows. As it is it's hard to get a feel for how consumers of each outlet feel relative to one another (though that might say more about them than the outlets).
Does that chart imply 45% of the country have an opinion on whether The Guardian is covering the Coronavirus well or not? I doubt 4.5% do
isn't it the 1st or 2nd most read news site in Britain after the BBC?
EDIT: Just checked, BBC, then MailOnline the Guardian.
MailOnline is the other papaer with highest all outcomes figure there
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
Takes all sorts. Personally, if someone is recovering from illness I’d give them the easier tasks first. My girlfriend had a C-Section last November, so I made sure she didn’t have to lift anything, and when she did she started on things that were light before moving on to heavier objects.
Lifting heavy objects is not essential to being a mother. Presumably she holds your baby.
I have always told my staff to come back to work when they are properly better. Unimportant stuff does not need doing. The important stuff does. That's what they're paid for.
A baby is quite a heavy object for someone who’s recently had a C-Section to lift. She couldn’t drive for two months, so I did the driving. When she could drive, she started with small journeys rather than lengthy ones. This all seems so obvious. People who are recovering from serious illnesses l/big operations start back to work with lighter workloads whether they’re Adolf Hitler or Mother Theresa
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no basis to do that. Remember that in the early stages we were doing really well at tracking and isolating each case that occurred, and it looked at the time that that would continue to be the best approach. What people who criticise the government for not taking more drastic action earlier are missing (or are conveniently forgetting) is that the outbreak in Northern Italy wan't picked up for some considerable time. By the time the Italians realised how bad things were, it had already spread, and it was that which suddenly disrupted the track-and-isolate approach.
The fact that there was a serious virus outbreak in China was well known in January. Why didn't we stop travel from China and neighbouring countries at that time?
Italy stopped direct flights from China and it has been argued that it made matters worse by redirectling passengers through connecting flights from other countries.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.
LOL you wouldn't even have had a response yet from a Corbyn government
Irrelevant. there is not a Corbyn government. there is a Johnson/Cummings one. So far, I would give them 8/10 for the business support from the Chancellor, 8/10 for the emergency hospital provision, 1/10 for general preparedness, 2/10 for testing implementation, 0/10 for their ridiculous JCB/Dyson/ventilator stunt, and 2/10 for general leadership in a crisis. Corbyn might have been worse, but it is totally irrelevant and does not let this bunch of amateurs off the hook. Other than the Chancellor they look like a bunch of over promoted district councillors.
Yep.
5/10 for comms, too.
Confusing messages about almost every aspect of the pandemic.
Just contrast Merkel's clear explanation of the need to keep Rt below 1 with Johnson's ridiculous waffle comparing the virus to a mugger.
Is it entirely fair to compare someone with a doctorate in physics to someone with a 2:1 in classics?
It's absolutely fair - Classics (or rather Greats or Literae Humaniores, please) is vastly superior.
That attitude probably explains why Germany runs rings around us on just about every level.
That would be slightly more interesting if the percentages excluded don't knows. As it is it's hard to get a feel for how consumers of each outlet feel relative to one another (though that might say more about them than the outlets).
Does that chart imply 45% of the country have an opinion on whether The Guardian is covering the Coronavirus well or not? I doubt 4.5% do
isn't it the 1st or 2nd most read news site in Britain after the BBC?
EDIT: Just checked, BBC, then MailOnline the Guardian.
MailOnline is the other papaer with highest all outcomes figure there
66 million people in Britain, how many do you think read The Guardian regularly? Nearly 30 million?!
My thinking is this poll has too many overly politically engaged people answering it
I’d say I was overly engaged with news and politics, and would have to be a ‘don’t know’ as to whether The Guatdian are covering it well or not, and I have read a couple of John Harris articles
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no obvious need to do so in January. But if had UK had just done that in early March, when lots of people were close to begging the government to take action, it might have saved many lives too.
There was no need for a lockdown in January, but we could have stopped people travelling in and out of the country, with a quarantine for British people wanting to return to the UK.
I don't actually recollect anyone suggesting a need for travel restrictions and quarantine in January, so I don't see any reason to expect the government to have done so. We could have saved lots of lives by simply locking down and restricting travel as soon as the number of cases became significant in early March. There was no need to do so in January.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no basis to do that. Remember that in the early stages we were doing really well at tracking and isolating each case that occurred, and it looked at the time that that would continue to be the best approach. What people who criticise the government for not taking more drastic action earlier are missing (or are conveniently forgetting) is that the outbreak in Northern Italy wan't picked up for some considerable time. By the time the Italians realised how bad things were, it had already spread, and it was that which suddenly disrupted the track-and-isolate approach.
The fact that there was a serious virus outbreak in China was well known in January. Why didn't we stop travel from China and neighbouring countries at that time?
Italy stopped direct flights from China and it has been argued that it made matters worse by redirectling passengers through connecting flights from other countries.
The answer to that is that there should have been a coordinated approach between countries to stop travel from countries that first exhibited the virus.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.
LOL you wouldn't even have had a response yet from a Corbyn government
Irrelevant. there is not a Corbyn government. there is a Johnson/Cummings one. So far, I would give them 8/10 for the business support from the Chancellor, 8/10 for the emergency hospital provision, 1/10 for general preparedness, 2/10 for testing implementation, 0/10 for their ridiculous JCB/Dyson/ventilator stunt, and 2/10 for general leadership in a crisis. Corbyn might have been worse, but it is totally irrelevant and does not let this bunch of amateurs off the hook. Other than the Chancellor they look like a bunch of over promoted district councillors.
Yep.
5/10 for comms, too.
Confusing messages about almost every aspect of the pandemic.
Just contrast Merkel's clear explanation of the need to keep Rt below 1 with Johnson's ridiculous waffle comparing the virus to a mugger.
Is it entirely fair to compare someone with a doctorate in physics to someone with a 2:1 in classics?
It's absolutely fair - Classics (or rather Greats or Literae Humaniores, please) is vastly superior.
That attitude probably explains why Germany runs rings around us on just about every level.
Merkel is the only scientist who has been German Chancellor, Schroder and Kohl were both lawyers (though Kohl switched to history and political science). Thatcher was a chemist by undergraduate degree and initial training of course
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no obvious need to do so in January. But if had UK had just done that in early March, when lots of people were close to begging the government to take action, it might have saved many lives too.
There was no need for a lockdown in January, but we could have stopped people travelling in and out of the country, with a quarantine for British people wanting to return to the UK.
I don't actually recollect anyone suggesting a need for travel restrictions and quarantine in January, so I don't see any reason to expect the government to have done so. We could have saved lots of lives by simply locking down and restricting travel as soon as the number of cases became significant in early March. There was no need to do so in January.
It's the government's job to take the lead, not wait for others to suggest ideas to them.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no basis to do that. Remember that in the early stages we were doing really well at tracking and isolating each case that occurred, and it looked at the time that that would continue to be the best approach. What people who criticise the government for not taking more drastic action earlier are missing (or are conveniently forgetting) is that the outbreak in Northern Italy wan't picked up for some considerable time. By the time the Italians realised how bad things were, it had already spread, and it was that which suddenly disrupted the track-and-isolate approach.
The fact that there was a serious virus outbreak in China was well known in January. Why didn't we stop travel from China and neighbouring countries at that time?
Italy stopped direct flights from China and it has been argued that it made matters worse by redirectling passengers through connecting flights from other countries.
The answer to that is that there should have been a coordinated approach between countries to stop travel from countries that first exhibited the virus.
You can bet your bottom dollar Heathrow was one of those 'redirection' hubs betwixt China and Italy.
That would be slightly more interesting if the percentages excluded don't knows. As it is it's hard to get a feel for how consumers of each outlet feel relative to one another (though that might say more about them than the outlets).
Does that chart imply 45% of the country have an opinion on whether The Guardian is covering the Coronavirus well or not? I doubt 4.5% do
isn't it the 1st or 2nd most read news site in Britain after the BBC?
EDIT: Just checked, BBC, then MailOnline the Guardian.
MailOnline is the other papaer with highest all outcomes figure there
66 million people in Britain, how many do you think read The Guardian regularly? Nearly 30 million?!
My thinking is this poll has too many overly politically engaged people answering it
My four year old doesn't, but then he doesn't take part in many surveys either. It doesn't surprise me that 45% of over 18s read Guardian articles.
As Alistair mentioned it's the 2nd most popular newspaper due to it's online presence. In terms of "news" as opposed to the sidebar of shame stuff in the Mail, it's almost certainly number one.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no obvious need to do so in January. But if had UK had just done that in early March, when lots of people were close to begging the government to take action, it might have saved many lives too.
There was no need for a lockdown in January, but we could have stopped people travelling in and out of the country, with a quarantine for British people wanting to return to the UK.
I don't actually recollect anyone suggesting a need for travel restrictions and quarantine in January, so I don't see any reason to expect the government to have done so. We could have saved lots of lives by simply locking down and restricting travel as soon as the number of cases became significant in early March. There was no need to do so in January.
Agreed. It was noted at the time that neighbouring countries like Taiwan and Vietnam introduced very strict travel restrictions in early February, so early March for was foreseeable. (And, of course, both have been very successful in controlling their outbreaks.)
I'd expect the Daily Mirror to be low, being an anti Tory paper in a broadly Tory country right now. But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
Edit: The graphic as shown on PB excludes the Sun and Mail o_O ! Dire for them.
The Guardian score is (relative to the other papers) a bit of a devastating blow to those who think it is an irrelevant talking to itself woke rag that is totally insignificant and doesn't reflect real people.
‘Devastating’?
Just look at C4 News. Despite a small viewership it gets approval from 32% of the public (more than the Guardian). Why? Because It is the one news channel which is clearly leftwing and Remainery, so leftwing/Remainer people loyally back it. Ditto the Guardian (no one cares about the Mirror)
Britain is still a nation tribalised and polarised by Brexit. Everything is still seen through a Brexit prism, even pandemic response. Cf the fear and loathing directed at Dom Cummings and his role
Did you see Cummings' blog post about a possible pandemic from March last year?
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
I fear a shambles is coming down the tracks that will keep Peston hyperventilating for weeks...
"The NHS must feel strongly enough about the merits of the centralised approach to accept any technical limitations, but it is unclear that consumers will agree. Contact tracing apps need to achieve critical mass; at least two thirds of the population, according to some experts."
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no obvious need to do so in January. But if had UK had just done that in early March, when lots of people were close to begging the government to take action, it might have saved many lives too.
There was no need for a lockdown in January, but we could have stopped people travelling in and out of the country, with a quarantine for British people wanting to return to the UK.
I don't actually recollect anyone suggesting a need for travel restrictions and quarantine in January, so I don't see any reason to expect the government to have done so. We could have saved lots of lives by simply locking down and restricting travel as soon as the number of cases became significant in early March. There was no need to do so in January.
Agreed. It was noted at the time that neighbouring countries like Taiwan and Vietnam introduced very strict travel restrictions in early February, so early March for was foreseeable. (And, of course, both have been very successful in controlling their outbreaks.)
Yeah but Taiwan is a small unconnected island in the pacific that noone visits and barely anyone lives there
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Except that the alternative would have been a Conservative leader with more gravitas. The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December. The members wanted the most Brexity candidate possible and the real irony is that I doubt Boris is much bothered by Brexit either way other than it providing him with a vehicle to the leadership.
Yeah because May did such a good job beating Corbyn and a Continuity May option like Hunt would have done well wouldn't they?
I am talking about who would have done a better job of dealing with this pandemic. You clearly don't believe anyone could have done a better job than Boris. I disagree.
In a few months time we will know how successful our government has been compared to others. I am content to wait.
The word you used were "The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December" - that was about a pandemic?
I am happy with our government and content to wait too.
If you follow the actual thread my response was to someone asserting how much worse our response would have been with Corbyn at the helm. I was pointing out that the more relevant comparison would be between Johnson and other Tory leadership contenders because it is far more likely that any winner of the Tory leadership election would be PM than Corbyn.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Except that the alternative would have been a Conservative leader with more gravitas. The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December. The members wanted the most Brexity candidate possible and the real irony is that I doubt Boris is much bothered by Brexit either way other than it providing him with a vehicle to the leadership.
Yeah because May did such a good job beating Corbyn and a Continuity May option like Hunt would have done well wouldn't they?
I am talking about who would have done a better job of dealing with this pandemic. You clearly don't believe anyone could have done a better job than Boris. I disagree.
In a few months time we will know how successful our government has been compared to others. I am content to wait.
The word you used were "The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December" - that was about a pandemic?
I am happy with our government and content to wait too.
If you follow the actual thread my response was to someone asserting how much worse our response would have been with Corbyn at the helm. I was pointing out that the more relevant comparison would be between Johnson and other Tory leadership contenders because it is far more likely that any winner of the Tory leadership election would be PM than Corbyn.
I disagree, Hunt for example would have stuck to May's Withdrawal Agreement and kept GB in a Customs Union. The Tories may again have been largest party under Hunt but I cannot see how he would have won a majority of 80 as Boris did as working class Leave voters in the North, Wales and Midlands would have voted Brexit Party not for a Hunt led Tories.
They were only prepared to vote for a Boris led Tories
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.
Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.
The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?
Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.
LOL you wouldn't even have had a response yet from a Corbyn government
Irrelevant. there is not a Corbyn government. there is a Johnson/Cummings one. So far, I would give them 8/10 for the business support from the Chancellor, 8/10 for the emergency hospital provision, 1/10 for general preparedness, 2/10 for testing implementation, 0/10 for their ridiculous JCB/Dyson/ventilator stunt, and 2/10 for general leadership in a crisis. Corbyn might have been worse, but it is totally irrelevant and does not let this bunch of amateurs off the hook. Other than the Chancellor they look like a bunch of over promoted district councillors.
Yep.
5/10 for comms, too.
Confusing messages about almost every aspect of the pandemic.
Just contrast Merkel's clear explanation of the need to keep Rt below 1 with Johnson's ridiculous waffle comparing the virus to a mugger.
Is it entirely fair to compare someone with a doctorate in physics to someone with a 2:1 in classics?
It's absolutely fair - Classics (or rather Greats or Literae Humaniores, please) is vastly superior.
That attitude probably explains why Germany runs rings around us on just about every level.
Merkel is the only scientist who has been German Chancellor, Schroder and Kohl were both lawyers (though Kohl switched to history and political science). Thatcher was a chemist by undergraduate degree and initial training of course
I was actually criticising the general attitude to science in the UK vis a vis the Germans
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
Yes, it was Poor vs Poorer.
Some posters did warn of his dull speechifying before SKS's election.
Just contrast Merkel's clear explanation of the need to keep Rt below 1 with Johnson's ridiculous waffle comparing the virus to a mugger.
Johnson's sensible "waffle" is being listened to by the British public who are following his advice to stay at home. Boris is speaking human to the men and women at home.
The sensible precautions are being followed by most of the public, just because the advice makes sense.
Boris Johnson´s waffle just gets in the way. He is never serious. So the inference might be that staying at home is unnecessary. After all, what did he do himself?
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
Yes, it was Poor vs Poorer.
Some posters did warn of his dull speechifying before SKS's election.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
I can't recall him taking part in any photo opportunities since he returned to work and if he had then that would be something to criticise.
Do you accept that at prior times before this that all previous PMs have sometimes considered something else the PM needs to do is more important at that time than PMQs and sent a deputy instead?
If hypothetically the PM were able to have the energy to attend and give 100% to a COBR meeting or PMQs would you accept that COBR might at this time be the more important choice?
An interesting choice given Boris's record of attendance at such meetings. Why do you assume it is impossible to schedule a meeting and PMQs so that they don't clash.
If he cannot manage PMQs or if he can only manage one meeting he's not fit enough to be PM. He should get better and then do the job properly. If he remains incapable for a long time then the issue of whether he should remain PM arises. But we are not there yet. So I hope he uses his paternity leave to get better properly. And when he's back I would want him not to avoid responding to questions in Parliament.
Its not about meeting clashes, meetings don't just take as long as they take - the PM (quite rightly) can spend hours before and after on preparations and follow-up. If the PM normally spends 8-12 hours a day working but this week is capable of 4 hours then should that 4 hours be spent on 3 hours of preparations for PMQ followed by PMQ or should it be spent on the UK's coronavirus response?
Absolutely long-term if he was incapable of doing it he shouldn't be PM but short-term if it comes to a choice like that it is not unreasonable to act accordingly.
Interestingly it seems he's decided not to take paternity leave right now and will take it later this year as he wants to concentrate on the coronavirus response. That's fair enough and does him credit.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
Takes all sorts. Personally, if someone is recovering from illness I’d give them the easier tasks first. My girlfriend had a C-Section last November, so I made sure she didn’t have to lift anything, and when she did she started on things that were light before moving on to heavier objects.
Lifting heavy objects is not essential to being a mother. Presumably she holds your baby.
I have always told my staff to come back to work when they are properly better. Unimportant stuff does not need doing. The important stuff does. That's what they're paid for.
A baby is quite a heavy object for someone who’s recently had a C-Section to lift. She couldn’t drive for two months, so I did the driving. When she could drive, she started with small journeys rather than lengthy ones. This all seems so obvious. People who are recovering from serious illnesses l/big operations start back to work with lighter workloads whether they’re Adolf Hitler or Mother Theresa
A mother cannot simply take time off to recover after a difficult birth. Motherhood is not a job like any other. All you are saying re your girlfriend is sensible.
But in a professional job my view is that people should return when fit and concentrate on the key and important parts of the job. Not come back half ill and dabble at it.
I would rather Boris had taken more time off then returned than be given guff that he is raring to go and then find that he is not up to it. Paternity leave has come at the right time for him.
I fear a shambles is coming down the tracks that will keep Peston hyperventilating for weeks...
"The NHS must feel strongly enough about the merits of the centralised approach to accept any technical limitations, but it is unclear that consumers will agree. Contact tracing apps need to achieve critical mass; at least two thirds of the population, according to some experts."
I am less concerned about the centralisation of the data from a privacy point of view. The decentralised approach is inferior from the point of view of contact tracing.
However, we are deciding to ignore the APIs written by two of the biggest, well funded and technically advanced companies in the world, who wrote the OS for these phones. No offence to the people writing apps for the NHS, but they aren't in the same league in terms of expertise or knowledge about the inner workings.
Also, the NHS version is using a GCHQ hack to make the iPhone version work, so we are relying on Apple deciding not to be arseholes and fixing the loophole. And we all know Apple hate the spooks being able to do anything with their phones.
Searched the threads last night and found this post that I missed last night, I'm assuming this is what upset you Dougseal. Missed it with the change of thread last night.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.
This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?
Yes I am suggesting that.
Then you are an ignorant arsehole with no sense of empathy. You have no idea that the pain many people without children go through and then to be told, constantly, that we are somehow further emotionally defective by shits like you just rubs their noses in it. You have kids. Good for you. Wallow in your self righteousness and your sense of superiority.
I'm not self-righteous, I have no sense of superiority and I never once said that anyone is emotionally defective. That is all on you not me, you're putting words in my mouth I never said.
Of course anyone who doesn't have children can care for others whether it be pets, nieces or nephews, brothers or sisters etc - but caring for a child, looking after them every day etc as they grow up is simply different to a relationship with a sibling you grew up with or someone you see every now and then.
And so on the topic of inheritance which is what we were talking about parents will care more to pass on something to their children than non-parents will who can't pass anything to their children because they don't have any. That's not a defect its just what it is! And caring to pass something on to a sibling or niece or nephew is different to passing something on to your child - again it just is what it is. That's not defective.
PS you can be a parent without biologically having a child of your own genes. Anyone who adopts a child etc is a parent. Similarly someone who fathers a child biologically but never has anything to do with them is not a parent. Being a parent is not about genetics.
That’s not what you said. Don’t backtrack. You suggested, by your own admission, that people with kids care more than those without. You are a man who cannot envisage anything beyond his own experience and openly suggested people without that experience are less able to “care”. Have you ever stood in a hospital while your dreams of children literally, quite literally, died in your arms? You, tosser that you are, suggest that that tragedy makes such people less likely to care. You have no empathy and such lack of empathy is highly suggestive of psychopathy. You are, as I said, an arsehole.
Its called context. Care to pass something on the subject of inheritance tax that we were talking about yes absolutely.
If you misread what I wrote then I'm sorry it offended you. Of course non-parents can care about other things other people, I never said otherwise. Of course people who have undergone tragedy can care about that.
And again anyone who adopts or otherwise looks after a child that isn't biologically theirs is a parent. But in the context you asked my answer was and remains yes.
You made an explicit statement. It has nothing to do with context. I now understand why you hated Theresa May so much. You really are a nasty nasty man.
You are being nasty and making personal insults and statements not me.
It had everything to do with context. Everything has to do with context. The context was a discussion about Inheritance Tax. I will quote again the exact words used.
NickP: "As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better."
eadric: "You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that. "
DougSeal: "Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?" [my note here - Nick's point was on IHT]
Philip_Thompson: "Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any." [my note here - again about passing on to kids, IHT discussion]
DougSeal: "This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?" [my note here - even here you're still talking about the context of IHT]
We're not talking about generic caring. We're talking about passing on something via inheritance and especially to one's children. That is the conversation. If you read more to it - despite even you saying it was about IHT then that is on you not me.
And when you calm down and realise you're wrong feel free to apologise at your leisure for calling me names repeatedly. I've never called you a name. Oh and maybe apologise for thinking I was trying a zinger when I said I'm sorry [for a typo] because my children were distracting me and I made a typo. That was no zinger its literally true.
I'm not going to get involved in the personal spat here, but a person's opinions and interests about where their money goes after they die should not be down-weighted because then have no childern.
Absolutely I have never judged anyone for how they want to spend their money.
This tangent came from Nick's desire to see inheritance tax which is a desire to spend other people's money.
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
Yes, it was Poor vs Poorer.
Some posters did warn of his dull speechifying before SKS's election.
As I have said before SKS's best hope is he is Hollande to Boris' Sarkozy.
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
Yes, it was Poor vs Poorer.
Some posters did warn of his dull speechifying before SKS's election.
It wasn't so much that; rather he seemed underprepared.
LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!
Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.
Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.
The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.
Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.
Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.
If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?
He should concentrate on the key parts of the job, of which PMQs is one, and not bother with photo opportunities and the like.
That sort of staged return. Not the sort which allows him to do the easy stuff and avoid the important parts.
And if he is unable to do the job then there is an obvious solution. Being PM is not a sine cure or reward. Not at any time but especially not now.
I can't recall him taking part in any photo opportunities since he returned to work and if he had then that would be something to criticise.
Do you accept that at prior times before this that all previous PMs have sometimes considered something else the PM needs to do is more important at that time than PMQs and sent a deputy instead?
If hypothetically the PM were able to have the energy to attend and give 100% to a COBR meeting or PMQs would you accept that COBR might at this time be the more important choice?
An interesting choice given Boris's record of attendance at such meetings. Why do you assume it is impossible to schedule a meeting and PMQs so that they don't clash.
If he cannot manage PMQs or if he can only manage one meeting he's not fit enough to be PM. He should get better and then do the job properly. If he remains incapable for a long time then the issue of whether he should remain PM arises. But we are not there yet. So I hope he uses his paternity leave to get better properly. And when he's back I would want him not to avoid responding to questions in Parliament.
The new baby plus having being sick presents him with a golden opportunity to dodge the bits of the job he finds tedious and/or hard yet retain his iron grip on the levers of power. This is what "staged return" really means in this context. Not that the return is to be in stages but rather that it will be "staged" (presented) as a drawn out gradual affair. I can see him prolonging this highly satisfactory (for him) situation for as long as possible. Perhaps for weeks. PM with just the good stuff. Some videos. Some set pieces. Perhaps an article or two. No tough inquisitions. No detailed reading of dense materials. I think he will make the most of it. From everything I glean of his character and personality it would be surprising if he did not.
If the UK had seen Hong Kong and in January had gone "Right - lockdown - now. No flights in or out. Returnees in 14 day quarantine" - it might have saved many lives. But can you imagine the squeals from the media chatterati, deprived of their skiing trips? "For what? We haven't got any Covid...."
There was no obvious need to do so in January. But if had UK had just done that in early March, when lots of people were close to begging the government to take action, it might have saved many lives too.
There was no need for a lockdown in January, but we could have stopped people travelling in and out of the country, with a quarantine for British people wanting to return to the UK.
I don't actually recollect anyone suggesting a need for travel restrictions and quarantine in January, so I don't see any reason to expect the government to have done so. We could have saved lots of lives by simply locking down and restricting travel as soon as the number of cases became significant in early March. There was no need to do so in January.
Agreed. It was noted at the time that neighbouring countries like Taiwan and Vietnam introduced very strict travel restrictions in early February, so early March for was foreseeable. (And, of course, both have been very successful in controlling their outbreaks.)
In Denmark we introduced lockdown on the 11th March and were heavily criticised by Sweden, Germany the EU etc for it - I think a lot of people are adapting their memory to support a narrative - the only thing I still don't get is why the UK didn't follow everyone else and basically introduce a very restricted set of reasons for people to come into the UK - I find that baffling.
I'm I the only one that had a horrible thought when reading this question?
Which was?
We won't be needing quite so many...
Ah.
I think even in a post Covid world people will still get old and frail and require care. Unless we all start looking after our elderly relatives ourselves rather than farming them out to strangers.
1.6 million Brits have returned from abroad since Covid began - almost all on commercial flights - in the last month 200,000 from Spain and 50,000 from Australia. 19,000 Cruise ship Brits have returned home.
Air traffic passenger numbers in the UK are now down 99% since this time last year - bloke on R4
Yes, on reflection he’s right. It looks like they’ve beaten it without entirely shagging their economy (tho they will still take a hit because of their export dependency)
Even more interesting, maybe, is their ICU performance. They haven’t reached capacity, despite having even fewer beds per capita, at the start, than the UK
In theory their laxer approach should have seen hospitals rammed as bad as Lombardy or Madrid. If not worse.
This is the most confusing aspect of all of this. Italy crashed, Spain crashed, NYC crashed, Paris crashed. We didn't, despite lower capacity (Ferguson said two hospitals in London hit absolute max for a day or two, but that was it), and Sweden despite having even lower than UK have managed fine.
I haven't heard anybody give a good reason why. There is no evidence of Boris the Butcher ripping away CPAP masks or ventilators from fit oldies, in the way the Italians had to do. But we have had deaths in the same range as a country / city, whose healthcare system had crashed.
I'd expect the Daily Mirror to be low, being an anti Tory paper in a broadly Tory country right now. But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
Edit: The graphic as shown on PB excludes the Sun and Mail o_O ! Dire for them.
The Guardian score is (relative to the other papers) a bit of a devastating blow to those who think it is an irrelevant talking to itself woke rag that is totally insignificant and doesn't reflect real people.
‘Devastating’?
Just look at C4 News. Despite a small viewership it gets approval from 32% of the public (more than the Guardian). Why? Because It is the one news channel which is clearly leftwing and Remainery, so leftwing/Remainer people loyally back it. Ditto the Guardian (no one cares about the Mirror)
Britain is still a nation tribalised and polarised by Brexit. Everything is still seen through a Brexit prism, even pandemic response. Cf the fear and loathing directed at Dom Cummings and his role
Did you see Cummings' blog post about a possible pandemic from March last year?
I'd expect the Daily Mirror to be low, being an anti Tory paper in a broadly Tory country right now. But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
Edit: The graphic as shown on PB excludes the Sun and Mail o_O ! Dire for them.
The Guardian score is (relative to the other papers) a bit of a devastating blow to those who think it is an irrelevant talking to itself woke rag that is totally insignificant and doesn't reflect real people.
‘Devastating’?
Just look at C4 News. Despite a small viewership it gets approval from 32% of the public (more than the Guardian). Why? Because It is the one news channel which is clearly leftwing and Remainery, so leftwing/Remainer people loyally back it. Ditto the Guardian (no one cares about the Mirror)
Britain is still a nation tribalised and polarised by Brexit. Everything is still seen through a Brexit prism, even pandemic response. Cf the fear and loathing directed at Dom Cummings and his role
Did you see Cummings' blog post about a possible pandemic from March last year?
Perhaps he should have been in on the SAGE meetings earlier. I've been revising my opinion of him rapidly on this one since it emerged he was pushing for a harder lockdown.
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
Yes, it was Poor vs Poorer.
Some posters did warn of his dull speechifying before SKS's election.
As I have said before SKS's best hope is he is Hollande to Boris' Sarkozy.
Hollande was also deathly dull
Attlee was not an inspiring House of Commons performer - though a very good Chairman.
Just caught up with PMQs, Starmer TERRIBLE. He sounds like the worlds most self important QC opening a case in the Chancery Division knowing that the case is listed for 10 weeks and the judge is a mate of his from Chambers who won't stop him going on and on and bloody on till lunchtime on day 4 of the trial.
SKS open goal with Panorama highlighting the many PPE failings.
Misses
Its a throw in
I did worry that about Starmer (and I he's clearly a very intelligent principled guy) is that he's just dull. No ones going to go over the top for him, he's not going to get anyone every fired up and inspired.
He also seems to lack the 'common touch' of emotion and connectivity. He just doesn't 'move' you.
Yes, on reflection he’s right. It looks like they’ve beaten it without entirely shagging their economy (tho they will still take a hit because of their export dependency)
Even more interesting, maybe, is their ICU performance. They haven’t reached capacity, despite having even fewer beds per capita, at the start, than the UK
In theory their laxer approach should have seen hospitals rammed as bad as Lombardy or Madrid. If not worse.
This is the most confusing aspect of all of this. Italy crashed, Spain crashed, NYC crashed, Paris crashed. We didn't, despite lower capacity (Ferguson said two hospitals in London hit absolute max for a day or two, but that was it), and Sweden despite having even lower than UK have managed fine.
I haven't heard anybody give a good reason why. There is no evidence of Boris the Butcher ripping away CPAP masks or ventilators from fit oldies, in the way the Italians had to do. But we have had deaths in the same range as a country / city, whose healthcare system had crashed.
Seriously who cares?
Sweden is surely showing us there was and is another way, why are we pursuing this insane lockdown policy any further? Every day that goes by its kills our economy more.
Yes, on reflection he’s right. It looks like they’ve beaten it without entirely shagging their economy (tho they will still take a hit because of their export dependency)
Even more interesting, maybe, is their ICU performance. They haven’t reached capacity, despite having even fewer beds per capita, at the start, than the UK
In theory their laxer approach should have seen hospitals rammed as bad as Lombardy or Madrid. If not worse.
Does not seem to compute. If Sweden has lower ICU capacity but higher Covid-19 incidence than us, why has their health system not struggled to cope?
Yes, on reflection he’s right. It looks like they’ve beaten it without entirely shagging their economy (tho they will still take a hit because of their export dependency)
Even more interesting, maybe, is their ICU performance. They haven’t reached capacity, despite having even fewer beds per capita, at the start, than the UK
In theory their laxer approach should have seen hospitals rammed as bad as Lombardy or Madrid. If not worse.
Does not seem to make sense. If Sweden has lower ICU capacity but higher Covid-19 incidence than us, why has their health system not struggled to cope?
Yes, on reflection he’s right. It looks like they’ve beaten it without entirely shagging their economy (tho they will still take a hit because of their export dependency)
Even more interesting, maybe, is their ICU performance. They haven’t reached capacity, despite having even fewer beds per capita, at the start, than the UK
In theory their laxer approach should have seen hospitals rammed as bad as Lombardy or Madrid. If not worse.
This is the most confusing aspect of all of this. Italy crashed, Spain crashed, NYC crashed, Paris crashed. We didn't, despite lower capacity (Ferguson said two hospitals in London hit absolute max for a day or two, but that was it), and Sweden despite having even lower than UK have managed fine.
I haven't heard anybody give a good reason why. There is no evidence of Boris the Butcher ripping away CPAP masks or ventilators from fit oldies, in the way the Italians had to do. But we have had deaths in the same range as a country / city, whose healthcare system had crashed.
Seriously who cares?
Anyone in their right mind, considering a second wave is probably coming along in a few months.
Comments
But look at the pro Brexit Telegraph's ratings.
Edit: The graphic as shown on PB excludes the Sun and Mail o_O ! Dire for them.
Because we're in a crisis and the PM needs to concentrate on the important parts of the job. Not fluff.
Paper’s reach is too small and atomised to me measured in this way, although would be interesting to see Mail Online vs Guardian as the main two “free” sites.
And I was wrong, because a classicist is obviously better placed to understand the mathematics of epidemiology than someone with training in physics and chemistry.
My misguided attempt to defend Boris was fatally flawed. He's fair game on this issue.
Malcolmg, aside, this is the kind of bampottery that we have to put up with in Scotland. And this guy is a current MP and former Cabinet Secretary for Justice at Holyrood!!
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kenny-macaskill-says-dark-forces-involved-trial-alex-salmond-2553066?itm_source=parsely-api
Spineless cowards like Raab and Co are trying to shift all of the responsibility for one of the biggest decisions this country has had to make since the war onto them.
advisers advise, governments decide. But not if you listen to Raab.
In a few months time we will know how successful our government has been compared to others. I am content to wait.
Surely that's inconceivable? We were told not long ago that 50,000 was ridiculous.
I am happy with our government and content to wait too.
Stuff like this doesn't help of course.
https://twitter.com/JulienHoez/status/1255448288687521794?s=20
If he cannot manage PMQs or if he can only manage one meeting he's not fit enough to be PM. He should get better and then do the job properly. If he remains incapable for a long time then the issue of whether he should remain PM arises. But we are not there yet. So I hope he uses his paternity leave to get better properly. And when he's back I would want him not to avoid responding to questions in Parliament.
Thats why this 'staged return to work' business is unconvincing.
Trump is also far closer to Putin and Kim Jong Un than the GOP elite is comfortable with
I have always told my staff to come back to work when they are properly better. Unimportant stuff does not need doing. The important stuff does. That's what they're paid for.
EDIT: Just checked, BBC, then MailOnline the Guardian.
MailOnline is the other papaer with highest all outcomes figure there
I was half joking when I thought people would actually tweet that Boris induced the baby to avoid being questioned... but no, predictable as ever.
My thinking is this poll has too many overly politically engaged people answering it
I’d say I was overly engaged with news and politics, and would have to be a ‘don’t know’ as to whether The Guatdian are covering it well or not, and I have read a couple of John Harris articles
As Alistair mentioned it's the 2nd most popular newspaper due to it's online presence. In terms of "news" as opposed to the sidebar of shame stuff in the Mail, it's almost certainly number one.
It was noted at the time that neighbouring countries like Taiwan and Vietnam introduced very strict travel restrictions in early February, so early March for was foreseeable.
(And, of course, both have been very successful in controlling their outbreaks.)
https://dominiccummings.com/2019/03/04/the-most-secure-bio-labs-routinely-make-errors-that-could-cause-a-global-pandemic-are-about-to-re-start-experiments-on-pathogens-engineered-to-make-them-mammalian-airborne-transmissible/
"The NHS must feel strongly enough about the merits of the centralised approach to accept any technical limitations, but it is unclear that consumers will agree. Contact tracing apps need to achieve critical mass; at least two thirds of the population, according to some experts."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/27/nhs-going-alone-contact-tracing-decision-may-backfire/
They were only prepared to vote for a Boris led Tories
Boris Johnson´s waffle just gets in the way. He is never serious. So the inference might be that staying at home is unnecessary. After all, what did he do himself?
Absolutely long-term if he was incapable of doing it he shouldn't be PM but short-term if it comes to a choice like that it is not unreasonable to act accordingly.
Interestingly it seems he's decided not to take paternity leave right now and will take it later this year as he wants to concentrate on the coronavirus response. That's fair enough and does him credit.
But in a professional job my view is that people should return when fit and concentrate on the key and important parts of the job. Not come back half ill and dabble at it.
I would rather Boris had taken more time off then returned than be given guff that he is raring to go and then find that he is not up to it. Paternity leave has come at the right time for him.
https://twitter.com/nickfshort/status/1255473181277802498?s=20
However, we are deciding to ignore the APIs written by two of the biggest, well funded and technically advanced companies in the world, who wrote the OS for these phones. No offence to the people writing apps for the NHS, but they aren't in the same league in terms of expertise or knowledge about the inner workings.
Also, the NHS version is using a GCHQ hack to make the iPhone version work, so we are relying on Apple deciding not to be arseholes and fixing the loophole. And we all know Apple hate the spooks being able to do anything with their phones.
Misses
Its a throw in
This tangent came from Nick's desire to see inheritance tax which is a desire to spend other people's money.
Hollande was also deathly dull
I think even in a post Covid world people will still get old and frail and require care. Unless we all start looking after our elderly relatives ourselves rather than farming them out to strangers.
I haven't heard anybody give a good reason why. There is no evidence of Boris the Butcher ripping away CPAP masks or ventilators from fit oldies, in the way the Italians had to do. But we have had deaths in the same range as a country / city, whose healthcare system had crashed.
Equally strange was the refusal of Chinese requests for the US to help them with improving safety procedures at their lab in Wuhan.
Though in reality it seems extremely likely that this virus did not emerge from a lab.
He also seems to lack the 'common touch' of emotion and connectivity. He just doesn't 'move' you.
Sweden is surely showing us there was and is another way, why are we pursuing this insane lockdown policy any further? Every day that goes by its kills our economy more.