Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Oh yeah, that's a decent point, but I didn't get that far, and it's got nothing to do with the main issue. But on the first bit, I think he's entirely wrong: it's much more sensible for the papers to focus on the judgment of one of the Government's lead advisors than to obsess over round numbers and inappropriate international comparisons. Albeit that they may be doing it for the wrong reasons.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
Mate.
Did you notice HYUFD fails to remember that Mr Darling reduced the Unionist vote from 75% or so to 55%? Edit: the pro-indy vote was about 25% at the start of the campaign, but in fairness to Mr D I can't remember when he actually took over, so I may be unfair to him, actually. But he point that the unionist vote went down is correct.
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
He came seriously close to losing the Indyref.
I don't know what you are talking about David. Better Together was a colossus of a campaign, heroically reducing Scotland's natural 90% support for Indy down to a mere 45%. It is a blueprint for how all political campaigning should be performed.
...
Sorry, I blacked out and Duncan Hothersall took over my body there.
No won with 55% of the vote in 2014, if it had ran as crap a campaign as Remain did in 2016 it would have lost
I played a very active part in that campaign. It was awful. Darling could not really bring himself to say anything good about the UK because it was led by the Coalition. He was entirely negative in his approach, characterised by the SNP as the "too wee, too stupid" argument. They had a point. His performance in the debates against Salmond really scared me, I thought he had lost.
Only Ruth Davidson with a bit of Gordon Brown towards the end was British and genuinely proud of it. Only the good sense of the Scottish people saved the Union.
The focus on Better Together and more devolution as well as the economic warnings was effective.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
This feels comically unlikely.
Trying to hold the enquir(es) will tell us quite a lot.
On past performance, if permanent officials were involved, the obstruction of the enquiry holding process will be illuminating, just by itself.
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
I disagree. There's novel viruses regularly. If we go 'as precautionary as possible' we'd be trashing our economy all the time for no good reason.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
Mate.
Did you notice HYUFD fails to remember that Mr Darling reduced the Unionist vote from 75% or so to 55%? Edit: the pro-indy vote was about 25% at the start of the campaign, but in fairness to Mr D I can't remember when he actually took over, so I may be unfair to him, actually. But he point that the unionist vote went down is correct.
So what, Scottish Nationalism was always going to get 40%+ in reality, the SNP already got about 45% in 2011.
No in the end however defeated it as Remain was not able to defeat British Nationalism in 2016
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
Up to your usual Scottish lack of knowledge. Miliband had nothing to do with other than being the dupe to follow tweedledee and tweedledum. Their supporting the Tories against the interests of Scotland was what did for them. They have no chance of any return until they realise that they are supposed to be a Scottish party and support independence, plus change almost every donkey they currently have as MSP's.
If people want independence they will vote SNP or a new Nat party, if Scottish Labour backed independence it would just lose its Unionist vote
I’m back suffice to say diarrhea and chemo still in hospital so won’t bore everybody
Wishing you all the best, Nichomar.
Seconded.
I just had my third not-in-hospital appointment, and now have 2 visits planned for the next 8 weeks. So they are back in business to an extent, and it is all quite quiet at our place.
One of those will be moderately invasive - knitting needle in the thigh to get some bonemarrow out. Apparently it hurts slightly.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
I'm not criticising you for criticising the government. I agreed with someone else saying partisanship should be dropped and you disagreed with that.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.
Moth du Jour: Hummingbird Hawkmoth. A migrant from Europe, they are a not infrequent visitor to our gardens.
I seem to remember a story that as the troops crossed the channel on D-Day there was a noticeable migration movement of these moths going the other way. Insect migration is much less noticeable than that of birds but equally fascinating.
No idea if the data is actually useful to anyone, but lots of pretty graphs.
A german friend says that his medical line relatives are fuming about the PPE situation there. Apparently a tale of shortages, purchases of stuff that failed quality control, distribution problems...
The EU scheme is considered to be one of those ponderous programs that will arrive. One day. As opposed to someone going to Wurth directly.
The story will be the same reality the world over - however that doesn't allow you to blame the UK Government so the story the reality is ignored.
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
This feels comically unlikely.
There never has been an enquiry that was truly "open". There are always parameters in there somewhere. Eg the Iraq war enquiry with its "terms of reference"
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
Indeed. We knew that viruses spread exponentially. We knew that the Chinese had gone to extreme lengths to contain it. We knew that it was spreading rapidly in Italy. And yet Boris still dithered. It's absolutely unforgivable.
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Can I link to a memo from the government asking for the papers to lead with a massive photo of Ferguson's girlfriend rather than our Covid-19 death toll becoming the highest in Europe?
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Thanks for the good wishes. It’s striking how nothing has changed on here in two and a half weeks. I might one day feel up to writing about being behind the covid front line while not a sufferer.
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Can I link to a memo from the government asking for the papers to lead with a massive photo of Ferguson's girlfriend rather than our Covid-19 death toll becoming the highest in Europe?
Let me have a root around. I'll be back.
Thanks. Let me know when you are back.
Again feat toll being highest in Europe is nonsense unless you look per capita (Belgium are worse) or like for like with accurate stats (Italy and Spain are worse)
BT announce it has cancelled it dividends for 2020 and 2021
The widescale cancellation of company dividends is going to cause havoc in the pension industry and beyond
There is justification for being critical of the government and errors have been made.
However, no amount of anger at HMG or Boris is going to change the place we are at and Boris has 4 years in front of him before facing the electorate
The newspapers are all over the place but it is clear the right leaning ones want an immediate lifting of lockdown and back to normal in a few weeks, in some way like Trump
Others are more cautious with every justification, and Andy Burnham on Sky this morning was very mature when interviewed by Burley saying the north are two weeks behind London, and like Nicola Sturgeon, cautions against early release of lockdown. He also rebuked Burley over the testing numbers saying he was grateful the 100,000 target had effectively seen a huge increase in tests
The Turkey gown debacle is a result of ministers making a silly premature announcement but to be fair it is good they have impounded them. Of course Burley had the answer that the consignment should have been approved before the aircraft took off from Turkey.
So Burley expects each consigment of PPE coming into the UK needs prior certification by UK authorities before loading and takeoff. Really
I like Burnham and he is a loss to the national labour party and Nicola is also doing well. The less said about Drakeford in Wales though the better
I hope Boris's announcement shows respect for those who urge caution but also moves a little way to easing the lockdown. He has a difficult balancing act
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
She broke the law by travelling across London without a reasonable excuse While you're not supposed to have friends round either, I think the regulations are framed such that it is the person going out who is breaking them, and the police have no right to investigate on private premises.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
I'm not criticising you for criticising the government. I agreed with someone else saying partisanship should be dropped and you disagreed with that.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.
I seem to recall that one of the reasons many Tories 'didn't like' Aneurin Bevan was that he 'led' the Opposition to Churchill during the war, not being afraid to criticise when he thought it appropriate.
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.
International flights from any region with cases when SARS 1 was going round ? Yes.
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Oh yeah, that's a decent point, but I didn't get that far, and it's got nothing to do with the main issue. But on the first bit, I think he's entirely wrong: it's much more sensible for the papers to focus on the judgment of one of the Government's lead advisors than to obsess over round numbers and inappropriate international comparisons. Albeit that they may be doing it for the wrong reasons.
So "100k" (aka 83k) tests on a particular day merits an orgy of positive coverage but going top of the league table on deaths on a particular day merits but a shrug? This sounds to me like highly selective "obsessing over round numbers".
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.
International flights from any region with cases when SARS 1 was going round ? Yes.
We live in a globalised world. The damage that would cause would outweigh the benefits by an order of magnitude.
Plus what do we do with the potentially millions of Britons abroad?
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.
Not looking good for you Malc then, as Sturgeon is dithering even more than May did
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
So you think we should have closed the economy down for SARS? Or H1N1 or bird flu? Novel virus is not the criteria, nor is there any absolutes.
If bird flu ever mutates to become easily transmittable between humans without a reduction in its mortality rate the lockdown that ensues will make the current one look like a combination of Cheltenham, Glastonbury and the Olympics combined.
No the world is looking at their own countries and thinking what to do next. The UK has a very weird narcissistic view of itself, the rest of the world dont spend 70% of time on their own country, 20% thinking about us and 10% thinking about the rest of the world.
If people are looking at other countries they are probably looking at US, China, South Korea and Germany for very different reasons.
The Times really hasn't moved on from the Fog in Channel days, has it?
This is one of these one-way valves, where it’s fine for the Prime Minister preposterously to claim that “there will be many people looking now at our apparent success”.
All countries should be trying to learn from other countries successes and failures. We learned the consequences of a collapsing health service from Italy and reacted accordingly. We didn't learn from the devastation of care homes in both Spain and Italy. I think its also legitimate for countries to take some pride in their own achievements, whether that is the ventilator machines built by F1 here or the remarkable successes of SK and Germany. But the idea of British exceptionalism and that others look to us especially for guidance is ridiculous, whoever it comes from.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
Yet to see you ever post anything that was not ra ra ra for Boris and government, you are unable to look at it with an open mind as you are so in thrall to the current Tory government and Boris Johnson in particular.
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
Indeed. We knew that viruses spread exponentially. We knew that the Chinese had gone to extreme lengths to contain it. We knew that it was spreading rapidly in Italy. And yet Boris still dithered. It's absolutely unforgivable.
Timing was everything - this virus will still be with us in a years time. The only thing that matters is that the NHS is never overloaded as that leads to serious deaths.
I suspect when we look back at things in 2-4 years time the real disastrous decisions haven't been made yet.
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
I'm not criticising you for criticising the government. I agreed with someone else saying partisanship should be dropped and you disagreed with that.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.
Fair enough.
I don’t always read all the threads so missed your argument with @HYUFD on this.
I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Is there any evidence to the claim the government wanted them to write that?
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
Spot on. He's pissed off that the entire media aren't a bunch of extreme leftist partisans in his own mould.
Because that would be, like, freedom, or something...
Thanks for the good wishes. It’s striking how nothing has changed on here in two and a half weeks. I might one day feel up to writing about being behind the covid front line while not a sufferer.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
She broke the law by travelling across London without a reasonable excuse While you're not supposed to have friends round either, I think the regulations are framed such that it is the person going out who is breaking them, and the police have no right to investigate on private premises.
Not sure why, in this day and age, she should be protected. Get involved with a public figure, in a manner that effects their job - you will be publicised, at some point.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
That is not a team. It is a position on the political spectrum. One can claim that a member of a political party is in a team, but not someone who simply has a consistent political point of view.
Should've locked down sooner, letting Cheltenham go ahead was a mistake (and many said so at the time).
Do think individual responsibility isn't contracted out to the state, though. Nobody forced people to attend, just as those who've decided to flout the lockdown now are doing so of their own volition.
Letting Cheltenham go ahead is not really a separate issue from the timing of lockdown.
If you were going to stop Cheltenham (60k or so), you'd definitely want to have stopped people using the tube (5m or so).
In any case, at that point there was an acceptance that most people were going to get this. If you are going to have to lockdown to 'flatten the curve', you probably want at least some cases outside of London or a one size fits all policy becomes difficult. I wonder if the same logic applied to Liverpool?
Now we've apparently pivoted to suppression, it does look like the wrong decision, but only in the context of the new policy.
I too am supportive. The fact that the NHS has held up under the strain is a massive plus for the government.
However, if people are dying unnecessarily because of government errors regarding PPE, testing and timing the lockdown to perfection, all need calling out and reviewing to see if and why things did or did not go wrong.
P Tories are bemoaning criticism as partisan, yet when the government wilfully massaged the testing figures, it was a case that Matt had stuck one on the hapless Starmer. Boris, too, yesterday with one eye on his popularity trumped Starmer's excellent PMQ performance by hinting at an end to lockdown. Loads of stupid games are being played by all sides at a time when they shouldn't.
And don't get me started on Hancock slapping down Allin Khan
This is the bearpit where politically interested people gather to talk politics. Democracy hasn't been suspended and neither have comment, opinion, analysis and scrutiny.
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
I also accept it was initially a fast developing situation and I will accept genuine mistakes made in the heat of the moment - avoidable with hindsight maybe but that's often the case.
If we had a non-Conservative Government in power now, it would have its defenders and its detractors - that's the nature of the political beast.
Agreed. Winning a GE just before the biggest catastrophe the modern world has witnessed would be a poisoned chalice for any government.
I can accept many of the errors as necessary judgement calls that with a little more time might have been called differently. It is the one upmanship I can't abide, and when it goes wrong, lies and subterfuge are used to cover up a genuine error. That probably works both ways, however Hancock's devilish state at Starmer during PMQs suggests he is taking it personally and doesn't like it. That could be seen as sinister, although it could also be that he knows he is the fall guy for the after-Covid political post mortem.
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Well, part of the problem with story-by-chewing-up-press-releases is that you are still writing a story based on the press release. However much you chew. Hence the New Labour realisation of press control - simply embed some nice chewy stories in the press releases and the press will play good dog.
I'm reading the Campbell diaries atm. Seems so long ago now.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
Up to your usual Scottish lack of knowledge. Miliband had nothing to do with other than being the dupe to follow tweedledee and tweedledum. Their supporting the Tories against the interests of Scotland was what did for them. They have no chance of any return until they realise that they are supposed to be a Scottish party and support independence, plus change almost every donkey they currently have as MSP's.
If people want independence they will vote SNP or a new Nat party, if Scottish Labour backed independence it would just lose its Unionist vote
Starmer trying to square the circle with talk of "federalism", whatever that means.
He's not cut through yet but it will be interesting to see if he has any impact on SLABs fortunes. Miliband and Corbyn were almost purpose-built to repel Scottish voters, but a serious politician like Sir Keir may appeal to that grain of old-style moral purpose that you find with some strains of progressive opinion, if Indy ever goes off the boil. However, wouldn't hang my hat on it, certainly so long as SLAB are lumbered with Richard Leonard.
What on earth does that mean. The entire country is under the same conditions, there is no "behind or ahead" internally with this virus.
In terms of where we are on the curve. There are now fewer people in hospital with Covid in London than the North West.
Hmm that's potentially possible if the most susceptible have actively got the virus ahead of the general population or there's a colossal iceberg (So London is close to herd immunity).
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Oh yeah, that's a decent point, but I didn't get that far, and it's got nothing to do with the main issue. But on the first bit, I think he's entirely wrong: it's much more sensible for the papers to focus on the judgment of one of the Government's lead advisors than to obsess over round numbers and inappropriate international comparisons. Albeit that they may be doing it for the wrong reasons.
So "100k" (aka 83k) tests on a particular day merits an orgy of positive coverage but going top of the league table on deaths on a particular day merits but a shrug? This sounds to me like highly selective "obsessing over round numbers".
Fairly sure I never said that about the testing? I'm happy to agree that the focus on the testing numbers was ludicrous. Hancock and his team deserve some credit for hitting a target that looked almost impossible a few weeks before, but that's about it.
I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
He came seriously close to losing the Indyref.
I don't know what you are talking about David. Better Together was a colossus of a campaign, heroically reducing Scotland's natural 90% support for Indy down to a mere 45%. It is a blueprint for how all political campaigning should be performed.
...
Sorry, I blacked out and Duncan Hothersall took over my body there.
No won with 55% of the vote in 2014, if it had ran as crap a campaign as Remain did in 2016 it would have lost
I played a very active part in that campaign. It was awful. Darling could not really bring himself to say anything good about the UK because it was led by the Coalition. He was entirely negative in his approach, characterised by the SNP as the "too wee, too stupid" argument. They had a point. His performance in the debates against Salmond really scared me, I thought he had lost.
Only Ruth Davidson with a bit of Gordon Brown towards the end was British and genuinely proud of it. Only the good sense of the Scottish people saved the Union.
The focus on Better Together and more devolution as well as the economic warnings was effective.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
In referendum terms 55% to 45% is a solid win
David , you surely mean the lies about more devolution , and federation etc as well as the economic lies and scaremongering. Darling was a poor liar compared to Davidson and Brown
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Generally I don’t write puff pieces praising governments. You can get that kind of stuff elsewhere if it floats your boat. I have generally assumed most come on here for something a little more demanding. You write them if you want.
its been a busy few days with work so not had much chance to even look at PB let alone post. But just wanted to say what a fantastic thread header Cyclefree wrote for the previous thread. Extremely well presented and informative.
PB at its best.
I agree. Just read it. Very good. As was Alastair's WW2 one.
Thank you both.
I hope the government reads, understands and follows!
We will see.
Did I detect just a touch of special pleading for your daughter in there?
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Well, part of the problem with story-by-chewing-up-press-releases is that you are still writing a story based on the press release. However much you chew. Hence the New Labour realisation of press control - simply embed some nice chewy stories in the press releases and the press will play good dog.
I'm reading the Campbell diaries atm. Seems so long ago now.
On the topic of digging into stories, technicalities etc. WMDs and Iraq - what if someone had asked the question, that seemed obvious to me at the time, about the 45 minute thing...
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.
Not looking good for you Malc then, as Sturgeon is dithering even more than May did
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.
She most certainly is, she is not a conservative, libertarian or socialist, she is a Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams style social democrat
That's not the credit card bill, that's your newly reduced wage from which you still need to pay the same outgoings as you had prior to the "holiday".
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.
When he announces nothing of the sort I wonder what their front pages will be on Monday?
That'd require Boris to go against a compliant press
But he *isn't* announcing what they say. What the press are doing is announcing to the proles that they can basically sack this off and do what they like. Which they will. We're back to herd immunity for the desperate/don't care group and terrified lock down for the ill / vulnerable.
I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.
Thanks for the good wishes. It’s striking how nothing has changed on here in two and a half weeks. I might one day feel up to writing about being behind the covid front line while not a sufferer.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I was lucky that I managed through contacts to have had set up for my wife 24/7 care cover just as the sh.. hit three fan
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.
Scotland's in a curious place. SNP seem to be completely dominant, like ANC in S Africa. Nicola miles ahead personally.
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.
I think that there has been too much emphasis on we did what seemed right on the evidence we had at the time and not enough on well, if we knew what we know now... On that I agree.
Nonsense, it's a novel virus, to not go as precautionary as possible was always wildly irresponsible.
Indeed. We knew that viruses spread exponentially. We knew that the Chinese had gone to extreme lengths to contain it. We knew that it was spreading rapidly in Italy. And yet Boris still dithered. It's absolutely unforgivable.
Timing was everything - this virus will still be with us in a years time. The only thing that matters is that the NHS is never overloaded as that leads to serious deaths.
I suspect when we look back at things in 2-4 years time the real disastrous decisions haven't been made yet.
It looks like we avoided overloading the NHS partly by telling people to stay at home until it was too late to save them. This has also led to serious deaths.
Yes, the virus will still be with us in a year's time, but there is a good chance that we'll have learned to deal with it better by then. The initial disastrous decision was not to stamp on exponential growth at the start in order to give ourselves more time to determine strategy. This could well be compounded by additional disastrous decisions in the future, such as easing lockdown too soon and losing control of the spread again. We'll see.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
He came seriously close to losing the Indyref.
I don't know what you are talking about David. Better Together was a colossus of a campaign, heroically reducing Scotland's natural 90% support for Indy down to a mere 45%. It is a blueprint for how all political campaigning should be performed.
...
Sorry, I blacked out and Duncan Hothersall took over my body there.
No won with 55% of the vote in 2014, if it had ran as crap a campaign as Remain did in 2016 it would have lost
I played a very active part in that campaign. It was awful. Darling could not really bring himself to say anything good about the UK because it was led by the Coalition. He was entirely negative in his approach, characterised by the SNP as the "too wee, too stupid" argument. They had a point. His performance in the debates against Salmond really scared me, I thought he had lost.
Only Ruth Davidson with a bit of Gordon Brown towards the end was British and genuinely proud of it. Only the good sense of the Scottish people saved the Union.
The focus on Better Together and more devolution as well as the economic warnings was effective.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
In referendum terms 55% to 45% is a solid win
David , you surely mean the lies about more devolution , and federation etc as well as the economic lies and scaremongering. Darling was a poor liar compared to Davidson and Brown
I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.
No restriction on frequency of exercise, length of exercise, location of exercise. Just because as I put it "a gobshite cabinet minister" said it doesn't make it the rules. The rule of law is the rules. With the emphasis on law.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Generally I don’t write puff pieces praising governments. You can get that kind of stuff elsewhere if it floats your boat. I have generally assumed most come on here for something a little more demanding. You write them if you want.
Darling on R4. A reminder of a time when Labour had proper front rank politicians.
No politician did more to lose Labour its Scottish seats.
Why? Gordon Brown's Labour easily won most seats in Scotland in 2010 and Darling led the winning No campaign in 2014.
It was only under Ed Miliband Labour lost its Scottish MPs
Up to your usual Scottish lack of knowledge. Miliband had nothing to do with other than being the dupe to follow tweedledee and tweedledum. Their supporting the Tories against the interests of Scotland was what did for them. They have no chance of any return until they realise that they are supposed to be a Scottish party and support independence, plus change almost every donkey they currently have as MSP's.
If people want independence they will vote SNP or a new Nat party, if Scottish Labour backed independence it would just lose its Unionist vote
Starmer trying to square the circle with talk of "federalism", whatever that means.
He's not cut through yet but it will be interesting to see if he has any impact on SLABs fortunes. Miliband and Corbyn were almost purpose-built to repel Scottish voters, but a serious politician like Sir Keir may appeal to that grain of old-style moral purpose that you find with some strains of progressive opinion, if Indy ever goes off the boil. However, wouldn't hang my hat on it, certainly so long as SLAB are lumbered with Richard Leonard.
We had some interesting - and informative - chats on federalism here in 2013-4 in the runup to indyref 1. IIRC we generally agreed that short of bringing back the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy or some similar way of breaking up England, or giving the Scots (etc) an effective veto on what the English wanted, it was impossible to federalise the UK in any meaningful way. I've lost track of the number of SLAB pols and their UK equivalents who talk about Federalism as the solution but I've not seen one clear statement of how you would get those changes through. I'd say it is even less likely after Brexit.
I've just followed up my covid test as it is now 6 days since I had it and the email said that in some circumstances it might take up to 5 days. It's easy to get through but some of the virtual call centre staff are very new and don't know what they're doing. The first was working her first shift and didn't know how to address the system to find out about tests that had previously taken place. The second said she needed my barcode number which is on a piece of paper you find in the test kit, so I scurried off to find it in the recycling. The third then used my personal data to raise a query without needing the barcode number! However she said it was taking up to 10 days in some cases as there is a backlog due to the number of tests sent out at the end of last week.
Anecdote comparison with the situation in Germany (Berlin). A friend had flu symptoms on Sunday and Monday. There was good reason for her to get tested before this weekend, so she went to have a test on Monday. She got the result in under 24 hours. Thankfully negative. She does not have any fast-track status such as working in a hospital.
Not getting test result within 5 days is just crazy, the whole "test as much as possible" strategy is undervalued by slow processing of results.
I wonder how many readers of the Sun will have the impression that the rules have been relaxed already.
In a way they have. "Exercise once a day only" only existed in Michael Gove's head. "You can now go out more than once a day!" will be a marvellous loosening considering that you could always do so.
Advice and rules is a distinction without a difference. Just like the government advising customers not to go to businesses. The government and media have said all along only exercise once a day outside - to the point that people are routinely joking about it - the fact that it was technically not illegal to exercise twice is moot.
People are quite rightly trying to follow the rules including the advice. If those change that's meaningful.
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.
Scotland's in a curious place. SNP seem to be completely dominant, like ANC in S Africa. Nicola miles ahead personally.
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.
Competent or just not as incompetent as the other parties who by any measure seem completely incompetent?
30 May for the diary. My memory of 1997 was finally knowing what multiple orgasm felt like.
I know this might be an unfashionable view, but I think you might be in for another one at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to show his professionalism and Johnson has 4 years to show his rank amateurism, which the public will become increasingly tired of. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but the Tory party needs a very large dose of disinfectant, as does the Republican Party in the US.
Starmer is no Blair, when Blair took over in 1994 he had a double digit lead, Starmer is over 10 points behind. Even John Smith was ahead when he took over in 1992.
At best he will scrape in with the LDs, he will not get a majority for Labour
Scotland is a big problem for Labour. However, four years of Starmer appearing as Rumpole of the Bailey and Boris appearing like Bertie Wooster could change that.
Scotland voting SNP but also being in the UK has it all ways, so it will take an earthquake to undo. Besides, lots of people who would vote for Starmer won't vote for the party as long as it is full of dim extremists.
Big issues on that will come to a head soon, next election at latest is SNP's last chance, if they do not make it about independence and tell Boris where to stuff his NO then there will be carnage.
Scotland's in a curious place. SNP seem to be completely dominant, like ANC in S Africa. Nicola miles ahead personally.
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.
Agree. All politics is about travelling hopefully rather than arriving, so the SNP can carry this on for a long time yet, with some votes from most opinion groups.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.
She most certainly is, she is not a conservative, libertarian or socialist, she is a Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams style social democrat
When celebrating VE Day tomorrow we might remember the second-worst consequence of WW2, after the Nazis and their unspeakable horrors, was the suffocating atmosphere of social conformity the British had to endure in order to defeat them. This was not finally dispelled until the 1960s, and even then we had a continuing culture clash between the young, who craved every sort of freedom, and their parents, who had built their sense of identity around the uniformity of wartime.
Some comments here have, correctly, mentioned the impossibility of relying on the police to enforce lockdown. But a greater danger lies in the social breakdown between conformists and libertarians fighting a war of attrition over every aspect of "social distancing" that they have chosen to enforce or reject. Particularly as this will cut across other deep divisions of age, class, race etc.
its been a busy few days with work so not had much chance to even look at PB let alone post. But just wanted to say what a fantastic thread header Cyclefree wrote for the previous thread. Extremely well presented and informative.
PB at its best.
I agree. Just read it. Very good. As was Alastair's WW2 one.
Thank you both.
I hope the government reads, understands and follows!
We will see.
Did I detect just a touch of special pleading for your daughter in there?
Yes. Unashamedly so. Watching her trying to build up and maintain the business and her concern for her employees and the effect this is having on her and others in her situation in this area has given me an insight I did not have before. At least not at such a visceral level. I am, frankly, desperately worried. If it is not viable - and I don’t see how it will be for a while yet - its closure will have a terrible effect on lots of people, directly and indirectly, and there are not many alternatives available.
And do not forget my sons either. Or me, come to that. My work is not really feasible if people cannot meet. The entire Cyclefree family could very soon be permanently unemployed unless we can get jobs with the NHS which will likely soon be the only employer left in the country.
That's not the credit card bill, that's your newly reduced wage from which you still need to pay the same outgoings as you had prior to the "holiday".
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.
Bank of England actually pretty upbeat, saying we will make up the lost ground in 2 years. This implies they consider the effect almost entirely cyclical, which, if true, would be fantastic news.
Moth du Jour: Hummingbird Hawkmoth. A migrant from Europe, they are a not infrequent visitor to our gardens.
I seem to remember a story that as the troops crossed the channel on D-Day there was a noticeable migration movement of these moths going the other way. Insect migration is much less noticeable than that of birds but equally fascinating.
Bird migration I can get my head round. Insect migration - not so much. The Painted Lady is remarkable: it marches north, with fast developing waves of eggs --> larvae --> adults and then when the weather starts to turn in the far north, it does the same heading south. Coastal radar stations record them in their millions both ways.
Thinking of possible bunny rabbits that Johnson may have to pull out of his hat, I note that HMG are continuing to report test numbers from Pillar 4 - the high-quality population survey serology testing at Porton Down - but without saying anything about the results in terms of the overall prevalence of infection.
Perhaps he will get to announce that they've discovered infection has been much more widespread than thought, the fatality rate is consequently much lower and lockdown was, with the benefit of hindsight, a mistake.
Probably shouldn't get my hopes up, but I can only suppress my optimism for so long.
No. We should not be suspending party politics or criticism of the government just because the PM wants to do his Churchill impersonation act. We didn’t do this in war-time. We shouldn’t do it now.
Actually in war-time we did set aside party political differences and seek the best for the country. Both in WWII and in more recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan parties have tried to do the right thing for the country and not just think about party first.
There is absolutely room to criticise mistakes, there was then and there is now. But the criticism of the government should be because there is something appropriate to criticise not because the government is led by a party or politician that you dislike.
That is simply not true.
During WW2 we changed Prime Minister twice, there were by-elections and votes of no confidence in Parliament.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while soldiers may have been supported, party politics continued and there was very severe criticism of what the government was doing, sometimes from its own members and supporters.
My criticism of the government is based on what it has done or is failing to do. Over testing, over PPE, over care homes, over its confused messaging and over its initial economic help.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult situation and that it may well be trying its best. But it does not get a free pass from criticism just because this makes its supporters feel uncomfortable. Some of the criticism also needs to be levelled at previous governments who it appears failed to implement the lessons learned from its pandemic exercises (Hunt and May, for instance).
I never said give a free pass did I? I said criticise where its appropriate because there is something to criticise.
Criticising (or defending) with spin because "my team right or wrong" helps nobody.
I don’t have a “team”. I have set out the basis of my criticisms / suggestions in posts and headers. You appear to be on Boris’s side no matter what. Perhaps I have got this wrong?
You do have a team, you are a centre left social democrat.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
At a push I'd describe myself as a centre-left social democrat, but Cyclefree is nothing of the sort.
She most certainly is, she is not a conservative, libertarian or socialist, she is a Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams style social democrat
Wait, no, I tried reading it and gave up after he complained that we don't have a functioning free press, on the basis that they won't all write what he wants them to write.
I think his point is more that they seem to write what the government wants them to write. The best bit of the article for me was - regarding the Ferguson thing - his saying how tacky and inappropriate it was to splash the WOMAN'S face all over the front pages. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding that completely outrageous.
Well, part of the problem with story-by-chewing-up-press-releases is that you are still writing a story based on the press release. However much you chew. Hence the New Labour realisation of press control - simply embed some nice chewy stories in the press releases and the press will play good dog.
I'm reading the Campbell diaries atm. Seems so long ago now.
On the topic of digging into stories, technicalities etc. WMDs and Iraq - what if someone had asked the question, that seemed obvious to me at the time, about the 45 minute thing...
"What is it that they can deploy, in 45 minutes?"
My vague recollection is that it was something to do with the flight time of a missile from Iraq to our sovereign bases on Cyprus. It really is astonishing that Alastair Campbell did not go to jail for the dodgy dossier. Even more astonishing than the idea that anyone should listen to a word he has said since.
That's not the credit card bill, that's your newly reduced wage from which you still need to pay the same outgoings as you had prior to the "holiday".
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.
Bank of England actually pretty upbeat, saying we will make up the lost ground in 2 years. This implies they consider the effect almost entirely cyclical, which, if true, would be fantastic news.
That does seem rather optimistic. I suspect many sectors will take a long time to recover.
I too am supportive. The fact that the NHS has held up under the strain is a massive plus for the government.
However, if people are dying unnecessarily because of government errors regarding PPE, testing and timing the lockdown to perfection, all need calling out and reviewing to see if and why things did or did not go wrong.
P Tories are bemoaning criticism as partisan, yet when the government wilfully massaged the testing figures, it was a case that Matt had stuck one on the hapless Starmer. Boris, too, yesterday with one eye on his popularity trumped Starmer's excellent PMQ performance by hinting at an end to lockdown. Loads of stupid games are being played by all sides at a time when they shouldn't.
And don't get me started on Hancock slapping down Allin Khan
This is the bearpit where politically interested people gather to talk politics. Democracy hasn't been suspended and neither have comment, opinion, analysis and scrutiny.
I expect there to be a full and open enquiry about what has happened in due time and IF there is clear evidence Government action or inaction deliberately caused unnecessary suffering and death I would expect Ministers to accept responsibility and resign.
I also accept it was initially a fast developing situation and I will accept genuine mistakes made in the heat of the moment - avoidable with hindsight maybe but that's often the case.
If we had a non-Conservative Government in power now, it would have its defenders and its detractors - that's the nature of the political beast.
Agreed. Winning a GE just before the biggest catastrophe the modern world has witnessed would be a poisoned chalice for any government.
I can accept many of the errors as necessary judgement calls that with a little more time might have been called differently. It is the one upmanship I can't abide, and when it goes wrong, lies and subterfuge are used to cover up a genuine error. That probably works both ways, however Hancock's devilish state at Starmer during PMQs suggests he is taking it personally and doesn't like it. That could be seen as sinister, although it could also be that he knows he is the fall guy for the after-Covid political post mortem.
Comments
And anyway his whole thesis is nonsense since he's spinning the claim that the UK's death toll is higher than Italy's when we know that is factually incorrect given Italy's death toll isn't trying to include the care home deaths of which we know there have been a lot.
So he's complaining the press aren't lying. What a shame.
In contrast Remain had nothing but economic warnings with no real concessions from the EU.
In referendum terms 55% to 45% is a solid win
On past performance, if permanent officials were involved, the obstruction of the enquiry holding process will be illuminating, just by itself.
Balance is key in anything.
No in the end however defeated it as Remain was not able to defeat British Nationalism in 2016
I just had my third not-in-hospital appointment, and now have 2 visits planned for the next 8 weeks. So they are back in business to an extent, and it is all quite quiet at our place.
One of those will be moderately invasive - knitting needle in the thigh to get some bonemarrow out. Apparently it hurts slightly.
Incidentally I also said defending the government no matter what is no more appropriate. I've criticised the government where I found it appropriate to do so. Dropping partisanship cuts both ways.
Specifically I criticised the lack of support to business after the government advised people not to use them but no support came. I said how could companies pay wages etc if the government is driving business away from them? I said that its not a free market and made an analogy to how the government pays for compulsory purchase orders if they take a businesses land away normally - and that taking away customers is comparable. I got into an argument on this site with HYUFD who was claiming the loan scheme was sufficient and I said that was absurd - you probably didn't notice that as I was agreeing with you and its easier to notice when people disagree. Thankfully since then the furlough scheme etc were announced.
If the furlough scheme is withdrawn before orders banning/advising customers not to attend businesses is lifted then I would criticise that too.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/is-it-time-to-let-winston-churchill-go-ldmbbx3wf
OGH should be getting contributions from the Times to PB.
Let me have a root around. I'll be back.
When was the last time you did a thread or post praising the Tory government?
Again feat toll being highest in Europe is nonsense unless you look per capita (Belgium are worse) or like for like with accurate stats (Italy and Spain are worse)
The widescale cancellation of company dividends is going to cause havoc in the pension industry and beyond
There is justification for being critical of the government and errors have been made.
However, no amount of anger at HMG or Boris is going to change the place we are at and Boris has 4 years in front of him before facing the electorate
The newspapers are all over the place but it is clear the right leaning ones want an immediate lifting of lockdown and back to normal in a few weeks, in some way like Trump
Others are more cautious with every justification, and Andy Burnham on Sky this morning was very mature when interviewed by Burley saying the north are two weeks behind London, and like Nicola Sturgeon, cautions against early release of lockdown. He also rebuked Burley over the testing numbers saying he was grateful the 100,000 target had effectively seen a huge increase in tests
The Turkey gown debacle is a result of ministers making a silly premature announcement but to be fair it is good they have impounded them. Of course Burley had the answer that the consignment should have been approved before the aircraft took off from Turkey.
So Burley expects each consigment of PPE coming into the UK needs prior certification by UK authorities before loading and takeoff. Really
I like Burnham and he is a loss to the national labour party and Nicola is also doing well. The less said about Drakeford in Wales though the better
I hope Boris's announcement shows respect for those who urge caution but also moves a little way to easing the lockdown. He has a difficult balancing act
While you're not supposed to have friends round either, I think the regulations are framed such that it is the person going out who is breaking them, and the police have no right to investigate on private premises.
Yes.
Plus what do we do with the potentially millions of Britons abroad?
I suspect when we look back at things in 2-4 years time the real disastrous decisions haven't been made yet.
I don’t always read all the threads so missed your argument with @HYUFD on this.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery
Because that would be, like, freedom, or something...
If you were going to stop Cheltenham (60k or so), you'd definitely want to have stopped people using the tube (5m or so).
In any case, at that point there was an acceptance that most people were going to get this. If you are going to have to lockdown to 'flatten the curve', you probably want at least some cases outside of London or a one size fits all policy becomes difficult. I wonder if the same logic applied to Liverpool?
Now we've apparently pivoted to suppression, it does look like the wrong decision, but only in the context of the new policy.
I can accept many of the errors as necessary judgement calls that with a little more time might have been called differently. It is the one upmanship I can't abide, and when it goes wrong, lies and subterfuge are used to cover up a genuine error. That probably works both ways, however Hancock's devilish state at Starmer during PMQs suggests he is taking it personally and doesn't like it. That could be seen as sinister, although it could also be that he knows he is the fall guy for the after-Covid political post mortem.
He's not cut through yet but it will be interesting to see if he has any impact on SLABs fortunes. Miliband and Corbyn were almost purpose-built to repel Scottish voters, but a serious politician like Sir Keir may appeal to that grain of old-style moral purpose that you find with some strains of progressive opinion, if Indy ever goes off the boil. However, wouldn't hang my hat on it, certainly so long as SLAB are lumbered with Richard Leonard.
Still I must be one of the few on here (let alone from the centre left social democrats - ha!) who has praised Priti Patel in a thread header. See here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/30/reflections-part-one/.
Did I detect just a touch of special pleading for your daughter in there?
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1258284755327606785
"What is it that they can deploy, in 45 minutes?"
The credit card bill is the nasty surprise that lands on your doormat a month after you return from said holiday, just after you've discovered pay day has been and gone and you have £100 left to pay for 3 weeks of food and petrol.
And yet, Indy, their core policy, is becoming ever less plausible as time goes on and Brexit becomes entrenched. Covid-19 is a further hammer blow.
I think the view of many Scots is pragmatic. Happy to vote SNP as they seem competent and can extract best deal from Westminster. But sniffy about independence because of devastating economic cost.
Yes, the virus will still be with us in a year's time, but there is a good chance that we'll have learned to deal with it better by then. The initial disastrous decision was not to stamp on exponential growth at the start in order to give ourselves more time to determine strategy. This could well be compounded by additional disastrous decisions in the future, such as easing lockdown too soon and losing control of the spread again. We'll see.
No restriction on frequency of exercise, length of exercise, location of exercise. Just because as I put it "a gobshite cabinet minister" said it doesn't make it the rules. The rule of law is the rules. With the emphasis on law.
Was this a change coming in anyway, or something that's been updated due to the pandemic?
The letter is dated 6 April but only arrived today.
Not getting test result within 5 days is just crazy, the whole "test as much as possible" strategy is undervalued by slow processing of results.
People are quite rightly trying to follow the rules including the advice. If those change that's meaningful.
Some comments here have, correctly, mentioned the impossibility of relying on the police to enforce lockdown. But a greater danger lies in the social breakdown between conformists and libertarians fighting a war of attrition over every aspect of "social distancing" that they have chosen to enforce or reject. Particularly as this will cut across other deep divisions of age, class, race etc.
And do not forget my sons either. Or me, come to that. My work is not really feasible if people cannot meet. The entire Cyclefree family could very soon be permanently unemployed unless we can get jobs with the NHS which will likely soon be the only employer left in the country.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2003/03/frass-flies
Some detail here: https://butterfly-conservation.org/news-and-blog/painted-lady-migration-secrets-revealed
Perhaps he will get to announce that they've discovered infection has been much more widespread than thought, the fatality rate is consequently much lower and lockdown was, with the benefit of hindsight, a mistake.
Probably shouldn't get my hopes up, but I can only suppress my optimism for so long.
And don’t understand me either.