Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
But you do see people and things they may have touched.
And its those that infect you.
Yes but. Was anyone not doing that already? And if they weren't will this now make them?
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Stay alert literally means look out for the virus. But Trump already pointed out that not only is it hidden, but it's very smart. I think Trump has the best of it here.
The problem with "stay alert" is it means different things to different people.
Does the slogan actually matter that much?
"Stay home" actually meant "Stay home unless you have to go out, or you fancy going out for a bit of air, but don't drive too far for that". It wasn't really that clear without the longer explanation. Yet most people stayed within the rules.
What matters is that the specific instructions for each phase are clear. We will see if they are later.
Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
Can't you be alert to the risks of something?
No, the risks are everywhere because of surface contact based contagion. It's impossible to "stay alert".
Genuinely wonder if Johnson might get ousted before 2024
Boris is the best Tory election winner since Thatcher, they would be as mad to get rid of him as Labour were to replace Blair with Brown in 2007.
Labour have not won a general election since and the Tories won only one majority in 25 years after they ousted Thatcher (and Major was Thatcher's preferred pick to replace her over Heseltine)
Well the evidence of the last 5 years shows the Tory party is completely mad.
Labour had little choice but to have Brown as leader following the Granita Pact, Blair did his best hanging on for ten years, hoping that Gordon would give up or make some terrible blunder, but in the end they had to give it to him.
Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
Can't you be alert to the risks of something?
No, the risks are everywhere because of surface contact based contagion. It's impossible to "stay alert".
That risk is minimised by not touching your face before washing your hands. Not being alert would be having your hand on your face all the time while you are out and about.
Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
But you do see people and things they may have touched.
And its those that infect you.
Yes but. Was anyone not doing that already? And if they weren't will this now make them?
What it tells them is to keep taking precautions and not get casual.
Which is especially important as more people return to work and more outside activities become available.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
I disagree that the UK is on that list (though there is some danger of it’s going there). Most people here want competent management of the pandemic, whatever their political orientation. And that’s probably true of most places.
My friends overseas are amazed at the bog we're apparently making of it. Laughing stock is one description.
Very few people I know are laughing about this.
I think that was a turn of phrase rather than meant to be taken literally. The fact is that the UK is being pointed to around the world as a failure in its response to Covid-19.
By who? A few leftwing papers like the New York Times that is about it.
Most countries are concerned with their own situation and anyway the US has most deaths in total and Belgium most deaths per head, not the UK
Not true but DYOR.
Missing the point again completely - what is going to damage the government is if the narrative takes hold that we are the worst performing country in Europe and that the Cabinet, by extension, have been incompetent.
If that view takes hold it won't matter a jot that Belgium has more deaths per head.
Except it is not, bar the Tories declining to 'just' 49%
The argument has barely begun yet so I would'n be quite so complacent if I were you.
Hasn't the argument been raging 24/7 in every conceivable medium for the past two months? What sort of "argument" do you want?
We only became the country with the most deaths in Europe last week. An explanation as to why we are doing so badly will increasingly dominate the discussion. It is only now that it is really beginning to dawn on people that we are not doing at all well..
On a more serious note: What is happening is a move toward ambiguous and evasive advice. Let's not beat about the bush. The point is to allow firms leeway to stop taking public money, open up, and dismiss workers who do not attend for stay-at-home reasons. Now you might well get public acceptance of that after a week or two of dialogue, but instead Dom pushed it through overnight without even a Cabinet meeting, so he is gambling that the public are more impressed than sceptical of a move toward government by decree.
Afternoon all. Seems fairly clear the government have decided to stop trying to contain this thing. How it plays out for them is simple: 1. Go back to work / restaurants / pubs will see a few hotspots of drunken revelry and far more "I'm not doing that" 2. You can't compare us with other countries" will hold until the Mail reports on French and German citizens lounging it on Greek beach holidays whilst Britain uniquely needs to quarantine people coming home 3. The elephant in the room remains as always social distancing. People will interpret the new guidelines as start living a social life. But a work life? No, public transport at 10% capacity, schools staying shut means no return to work.
This summer, with 5m enjoying the generous benevolence of Universal Credit unable to feed themselves never mind enjoy a beach holiday, the "this government is doing a shit job but Boris is a lad isn't he" polling won't be holding...
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Well said. And I know you're not a Boris loyalist.
Ultimately the divide on this very simple phrase doesn't seem to be Tory v non Tory it seems to be between people who think the public are smart and intelligent enough to manage risks themselves ... And those that don't.
Why on earth is the government apparently obsessing about slogans rather than actual practical measures?
That's a very silly comment. Communication is extremely important, and getting across key messages has rightly been a focal point of praise and criticism because of that. The stay at home slogan as you call it worked very well reinforced by policy but voluntary compliance was key.
It's also possible to think about a slogan and of other things.
Stay alert is not the greatest effort, as mr meeks notes being alert is not a major issue. I take the point about new message for new phase but I think it could wait.
Practical measures to deal with people in care homes and care home workers are, to my mind, more important than slogans.
It has been the lack of the former - and the resulting deaths, some of whom will have been avoidable - which is and will continue to be far more important than the messages sent out about not seeing Granny. Little point telling people not to do that while allowing Covid-19 infected people into such homes.
Messages which are at odds with the actual regulations risk resulting in the same confusion as at the start of lockdown. If there are going to be changes these should be announced to Parliament where proper questions can be asked.
As ever, sloganising, appearances and making Boris look good seem rather more important to this government than effective well thought through measures and proper implementation.
Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
Can't you be alert to the risks of something?
No, the risks are everywhere because of surface contact based contagion. It's impossible to "stay alert".
You don't touch things if you stay alert and you wash your hands if you stay alert.
Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
Can't you be alert to the risks of something?
No, the risks are everywhere because of surface contact based contagion. It's impossible to "stay alert".
So we may as well be shoulder to shoulder people in a crowd rather than distancing?
It's not possible to eliminate risk but then it never was. It is possible to balance risk and be alert. Just because you can't reduce the risk to zero doesn't mean you can't reduce the risk.
The government seems to be benefiting for now from patriotism. The public is clear-eyed about its failures. How this will resolve itself once the crisis is past is unclear.
Quite amazing that Johnson beats Starmer by almost 30 points on who the public prefer to be in charge of handling a disease that so many have died from & that he caught, and almost killed him!
Shows how pointless the polls are doesn't it?
Not pointless. The polls are telling us something. It's just not clear what.
My guess would be that people nowadays might prefer a politician to be a celebrity as well as run the country.
Blair, Cameron, Farage, Jezza and Boris all have that. Brown, May, Farron, Ed and Starmer don't
Actually, thinking about it, I think the public have to be able to imagine modern politicians as a popular character in a contemporary TV show for them to be successful. I think Blair, Cameron, Farage, Jezza and Boris have that, and Brown, May, Farron, Ed and Starmer don't.
Afternoon all. Seems fairly clear the government have decided to stop trying to contain this thing. How it plays out for them is simple: 1. Go back to work / restaurants / pubs will see a few hotspots of drunken revelry and far more "I'm not doing that" 2. You can't compare us with other countries" will hold until the Mail reports on French and German citizens lounging it on Greek beach holidays whilst Britain uniquely needs to quarantine people coming home 3. The elephant in the room remains as always social distancing. People will interpret the new guidelines as start living a social life. But a work life? No, public transport at 10% capacity, schools staying shut means no return to work.
This summer, with 5m enjoying the generous benevolence of Universal Credit unable to feed themselves never mind enjoy a beach holiday, the "this government is doing a shit job but Boris is a lad isn't he" polling won't be holding...
If the legal advice is now saying you are able to go to work because you are alert and looking very very hard for the virus, "I'm not doing that" turns into "I'm on benefits".
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
I disagree that the UK is on that list (though there is some danger of it’s going there). Most people here want competent management of the pandemic, whatever their political orientation. And that’s probably true of most places.
In Spain, PP abstained on extending the state of emergency, Cs voted in favour alongside PSOE and Podemos, while the left wing Catalan and Basque nationalist parties joined the far right Vox in voting against.
Re furlough payments, a lot of people don't appear to realist that the employer makes the payment then claims it back, around 5 weeks were paid before it was possible to re-claim.
For a lot, I'd guess the majority of furloughed workers, there simply won't be a job to go back to. The hospitality industry covering pubs, cafes, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, venues etc is decimated at best
Sport as we all know it is finished, probably for good
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
This a far better slogan. Cuts across young and old and even Warzone kids will appreciate it.
Yes, but we all know what happened to Hicks.
Not if you rule out everything after aliens as uncanonical bullshit. IRL the three of them live happily ever after.
I'm hoping Johnson staggers out to the lectern tonight, hair a mess (nowt new there), plasma rifle barrel exploded, helmet on backwards and runs around shouting
"That's great. That's just ****ing great, man! Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man! Game's over man, game's ****ing over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Shit slogan that's going to cause confusion and an increase in the infection rate. You can't stay alert to something you can't see. It's as simple as that.
But you do see people and things they may have touched.
And its those that infect you.
Yes but. Was anyone not doing that already? And if they weren't will this now make them?
It's not "start being alert" it's "stay alert".
It's saying that even if you are no longer staying at home then stay sensible. If they're already being sensible then good . . . Continue doing what you're doing is the message!
The government seems to be benefiting for now from patriotism. The public is clear-eyed about its failures. How this will resolve itself once the crisis is past is unclear.
Quite amazing that Johnson beats Starmer by almost 30 points on who the public prefer to be in charge of handling a disease that so many have died from & that he caught, and almost killed him!
Shows how pointless the polls are doesn't it?
Not pointless. The polls are telling us something. It's just not clear what.
That the government has (for whatever reasons) a large reservoir of goodwill, and that, for now, no one really wants to contemplate the next election ?
It tells us very little about how politics might look in a year’s time, let alone four.
Its based on people who think that Boris / Conservatives / this government is 'on their side'.
They may not think they are any good but at least they are not actively malign.
Exactly. This is a deadly virus and the fact that it exists is not the government's fault. Does anyone expect any government to do exactly the right thing every time? No. As long as they appear to be doing their best and taking advice, then why would you expect that an alternative government would have done any better? Least of all one made up of people you didn't believe in a few months ago?
The only thing the government could have realistically done was shutting down a few days earlier. It remains to be seen whether that would have made any difference to the long term outcome. We simply don't know yet.
Re furlough payments, a lot of people don't appear to realist that the employer makes the payment then claims it back, around 5 weeks were paid before it was possible to re-claim.
For a lot, I'd guess the majority of furloughed workers, there simply won't be a job to go back to. The hospitality industry covering pubs, cafes, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, venues etc is decimated at best
Sport as we all know it is finished, probably for good
Exactly. And I suspect many of those who are currently furloughed are fully aware their jobs are on the line. They are not sitting around enjoying the life of Riley, they are incredibly concerned about what the future holds - as they should be.
Thing is, I don't actually remember much about the Swine flu problem. Nobody alive today is ever going to forget the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump as usually deflecting like a madman
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Oh God! Isn't the reason for the change in slogan blindingly obvious?
You can't keep telling people to "Stay [at] Home" if you want them to go back to work!
My interpretation of stay alert means that I have to stay at home. The only way you can control the virus is to stay at home. So, I am following the advice and staying at home. I presume, given the slogan, that the law will back me up on that if anyone tries to get me to do otherwise.
The wheels falling off this morning have just reinforced my view that it’s every man, woman and child for themselves now. Do what you need to protect yourself and fight to protect those economically who might otherwise be forced not to protect themselves.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Oh God! Isn't the reason for the change in slogan blindingly obvious?
You can't keep telling people to "Stay [at] Home" if you want them to go back to work!
On a political betting website, this is what we should be talking about. Instead of exploring every theoretical path of rhetoric, we should be identifying trends in what will actually happen before they are apparent to most people. It is as you say obvious that this is the start of a process where England returns to a blanket assumption that people are available for work. The consequences of that shift are more interesting that the detail of how the messaging might be valid/invalid. I'd also say they better explain the political reaction (i.e. I'd trust Nicola or Andy Burnham to put on a political bet).
Why on earth is the government apparently obsessing about slogans rather than actual practical measures?
That's a very silly comment. Communication is extremely important, and getting across key messages has rightly been a focal point of praise and criticism because of that. The stay at home slogan as you call it worked very well reinforced by policy but voluntary compliance was key.
It's also possible to think about a slogan and of other things.
Stay alert is not the greatest effort, as mr meeks notes being alert is not a major issue. I take the point about new message for new phase but I think it could wait.
Practical measures to deal with people in care homes and care home workers are, to my mind, more important than slogans.
It has been the lack of the former - and the resulting deaths, some of whom will have been avoidable - which is and will continue to be far more important than the messages sent out about not seeing Granny. Little point telling people not to do that while allowing Covid-19 infected people into such homes.
Messages which are at odds with the actual regulations risk resulting in the same confusion as at the start of lockdown. If there are going to be changes these should be announced to Parliament where proper questions can be asked.
As ever, sloganising, appearances and making Boris look good seem rather more important to this government than effective well thought through measures and proper implementation.
The “Stay Home” slogan is not relevant to Care Homes.
Across the British Isles Care Homes have been a disaster - England, Scotland, Wales and even small jurisdictions that have coped well overall (Man, Guernsey). There was and is a systemic issue with care homes that lies at the door of this and previous governments of all parties - “Blaming Boris” will not fix that.
And if we’re into “blaming current governments” the SNP in Edinburgh and Labour in Cardiff are as least as much to blame as the Conservatives in London.
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Oh God! Isn't the reason for the change in slogan blindingly obvious?
You can't keep telling people to "Stay [at] Home" if you want them to go back to work!
Most people I know want to keep their employment - Is there a whole slew of people with optional jobs in the country or something ?
Why on earth is the government apparently obsessing about slogans rather than actual practical measures?
Because on the latter they haven't got a clue?
Actually, on the former they've demonstrated that they haven't a clue.
They are trying to nudge people out to get the economy going, at least to some extent. How do you think they should achieve their aim?
If the government wants to get the economy going then they need to give some actual thought as to how one does that while staying 2 mtrs away from everyone else.
Because for a very large part of the British economy - the arts, entertainment, sport, heritage, tourism, hospitality of all kinds, retail and travel - this is pretty much impossible.
So is the government going to support all those sectors for the next 2 years or so until there is a vaccine?
Or see them shut down, at which point, however often people go to parks or garden centres, there won’t be much of an economy to get going, however bloody alert we’re all being?
My friends overseas are amazed at the bog we're apparently making of it. Laughing stock is one description.
Very few people I know are laughing about this.
I think that was a turn of phrase rather than meant to be taken literally. The fact is that the UK is being pointed to around the world as a failure in its response to Covid-19.
By who? A few leftwing papers like the New York Times that is about it.
Most countries are concerned with their own situation and anyway the US has most deaths in total and Belgium most deaths per head, not the UK
Not true but DYOR.
Missing the point again completely - what is going to damage the government is if the narrative takes hold that we are the worst performing country in Europe and that the Cabinet, by extension, have been incompetent.
If that view takes hold it won't matter a jot that Belgium has more deaths per head.
So what matters is if a lie takes hold?
The slogan on the bus worked pretty well for the Brexiteers.
Anyway, we do have the most deaths in Europe, you can argue that that there are other measures but it is not a lie.
Reports that Italy are under reported deaths by 50%
It is no means certain who has the highest european death toll and we are not even half way through this
It has been widely reported this week that we have the highest number of deaths in Europe but of course that could change but I think it unlikely as our numbers are pretty much the highest in Europe every day now.
Thing is when you have start arguing that other countries are lying about their stats then you are on the back foot.
I think I read that France and now the UK are the only countries that count deaths outside of hospitals such as in care homes.
Also to compare properly you have to look at deaths per million of population, ignoring microstates such as Andorra or Liechtenstein. Using this comparison Belgium, at present has the highest death rate in Europe.
But another thing you should do is wait until the epidemic subsides, because we may eventually be overtaken by countries where the death rate is increasing or being maintained whilst ours is slowing down.
When it's all over, statisticians might well find that there were several first world counties that had a worse epidemic than we did.
I don't disagree with most of that but in political terms, like the slogan on the bus, it is what people believe that matters. The media the past week has been full of the story that we have the most deaths in Europe.
In time the narrative could change again but right now the narrative is not one the government wants to hear.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
It's still likely to lead to a net transfer from say hedge fund managers to lower-paid people, even if those people are restaurant owners or theatre managers.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
Why on earth is the government apparently obsessing about slogans rather than actual practical measures?
Because on the latter they haven't got a clue?
Actually, on the former they've demonstrated that they haven't a clue.
They are trying to nudge people out to get the economy going, at least to some extent. How do you think they should achieve their aim?
If the government wants to get the economy going then they need to give some actual thought as to how one does that while staying 2 mtrs away from everyone else.
Because for a very large part of the British economy - the arts, entertainment, sport, heritage, tourism, hospitality of all kinds, retail and travel - this is pretty much impossible.
So is the government going to support all those sectors for the next 2 years or so until there is a vaccine?
Or see them shut down, at which point, however often people go to parks or garden centres, there won’t be much of an economy to get going, however bloody alert we’re all being?
The majority of the population has no idea of the economic impact of the lockdown. And it will stay that way until the furlough ends and millions realise there is no job to go back to.
The detailed messaging looks great to me, the slogan is still tripe mind.
What alternative would you suggest?
What is wrong with Stay Safe?
I don't see a difference. People here would still be obtuse saying how do you stay safe just like they're saying that about alert. It's the same principle.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
But it's the business itself that would kill people if it were allowed to function, given the existence of the virus. It's all part of profit and risk. You profit some of the time, you lose some of the time. Why should we bail these businesses out just because they [edited] would otherwise operate in an unsafe manner?
I know there are othjer reasons - but the government's closing down a business doesn't count as one, any more than closing down a E. coliu 0157 infected takeaway would justify paying compensation to the takeaway owner.
The absolute inevitability of SNP most seats is what drives Tory tactics in focusing on indepdence. What is the point in spending a lot of time developing a better policy on education when there is no chance of being the government? What they are seeking to do is consolidate enough of the Unionist vote to prevent an SNP majority and thus, hopefully, prevent a second referendum (subject to the little green helpers, of course).
Whilst I understand the logic of that it is a mistake. Scotland has not had an actual policy choice since 2007. In that 13 years we have had the truly disastrous Curriculum for Excellence imposed in our schools with the inevitable consequences in our PISA ranking, we have the insane position of still offering free University education to EU citizens at a time when funded places for Scots are being restricted, we have had the shambolic and ongoing embarrassment that is Police Scotland, we have had an ever more centralised and unaccountable concentration of power in the likes of the Care Commission, stripping local government of powers and budget, I really could go on and on. As someone actively interested in politics I genuinely don't know what the Tories or Labour are proposing in relation to these failures. It's not good enough. Scotland needs a proper choice.
Which is part of why I back Scottish independence as the best thing for Scotland.
It is only once the independence issue is over and done with that Scotland can get mature, grown up politics back.
I am British. I would be stripped of my national identity if that were to happen. I will do all I can to stop it.
Good man. I feel the same way.
I am English but love Scotland - I lived there for six years as a child - and feel it's part of our UK.
I would be so upset if it left. It's the emotional connections that mean so much to me.
British identity is already dead. The country is possessed by an English nationalism that regards all other identities as invalid.
Please dont tell me my identity is dead. Its extremely childish to tell people how in effect that what they feel is not real, as a means of delegitimising a particular view.
That the identity may not be strong enough with enough people to preserve the union may be true but that's not the same thing.
Yet you are happy that the people of Scotland are denied a vote jsut so you can retain your Britishness.
No, I think there should be another vote, I don't think it can reasonably be denied and have said so ever since an election was called in 2017 after A50 was triggered on the basis that I felt the period of negotiation justified pausing any such vote plans, but if a GE was acceptable in that time then a SINDY ref was too, if the Scottish people wanted it.
I don't want to lose my Britishness, but I've never suggested that desire should deny a vote to Scotland.
Well fine but the Tories won a majority in 2019 with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
While Starmer has said he would grant indyref2 if the SNP won a majority and he was PM, Boris has made clear he will not grant indyref2 whatever the circumstances based on the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014.
So whatever happens at Holyrood next year Westminster will not grant any indyref2 until at least after the next UK general election
You are probably right there won't be one until after then, and legally that is acceptable. Part of me will even be slightly relieved not to face that prospect sooner, tinged with concern it will aggravate theissue. I was merely refuting malc's assumption that since I don't want to lose my identity I must therefore be 'happy' to deny a vote to Scotland, which is nonsense based on the common assumption that everyone who holds one view must hold the most extreme additional views of others who hold it. It certainly wasn't based on anything I have ever said
People will not wait that long. It is not up to a balloon in Westminster whether we can vote or not.
You can vote Malc but for it to be legal in law it needs Westminster approval.
You do not like that but then I do not like the ECJ ruling over us but at present we have no choice
I would expect the Westminster government to accept the validity of a referendum if the SNP wins a majority in 2021 and do not accept HYUFD view Boris will prevent it
However, as I have said before and never waivered, I do not believe an independence vote will be won, especially because of covid, but let us see
It has yet to be tested whether it is legal G. Who decided UK having referendum on EU was legal , did they have to ask EU for permission. Just because Westminster have made that assumption does not make it legal. Under UN and International law the people of a country have the inalienable right to vote on self determination , ask all the former colonies of the UK if they had to ask permission. 2021 will be an SNP landslide and will hopefully be based on independence, but either way will ensure some kind of referendum is held with or without our lords and masters in Westminster. You cannot keep colonies prisoner long term.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia illegal referendums can be ignored, hence Sturgeon has correctly said no indyref2 without Westminster consent
You half wit that is written in the constitution and is a completely different thing. Scotland is part of a union , as you join a union voluntarily you can leave the same way , a la England leaving the EU, whose permission did they need. Take your head out of your arse and look at things properly rather than just posting as Lord Haw Haw.
The only thing the government could have realistically done was shutting down a few days earlier. It remains to be seen whether that would have made any difference to the long term outcome. We simply don't know yet.
They could have also taken proper advice on the app
Google and apple were telling them it wouldn't work so was just about every technical reporting. Instead they allowed civil servants and a big data company into producing something not fit for purpose
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Oh God! Isn't the reason for the change in slogan blindingly obvious?
You can't keep telling people to "Stay [at] Home" if you want them to go back to work!
Most people I know want to keep their employment - Is there a whole slew of people with optional jobs in the country or something ?
There are people who want to get paid but take no risks while being dependent upon other people taking risks.
The absolute inevitability of SNP most seats is what drives Tory tactics in focusing on indepdence. What is the point in spending a lot of time developing a better policy on education when there is no chance of being the government? What they are seeking to do is consolidate enough of the Unionist vote to prevent an SNP majority and thus, hopefully, prevent a second referendum (subject to the little green helpers, of course).
Whilst I understand the logic of that it is a mistake. Scotland has not had an actual policy choice since 2007. In that 13 years we have had the truly disastrous Curriculum for Excellence imposed in our schools with the inevitable consequences in our PISA ranking, we have the insane position of still offering free University education to EU citizens at a time when funded places for Scots are being restricted, we have had the shambolic and ongoing embarrassment that is Police Scotland, we have had an ever more centralised and unaccountable concentration of power in the likes of the Care Commission, stripping local government of powers and budget, I really could go on and on. As someone actively interested in politics I genuinely don't know what the Tories or Labour are proposing in relation to these failures. It's not good enough. Scotland needs a proper choice.
Which is part of why I back Scottish independence as the best thing for Scotland.
It is only once the independence issue is over and done with that Scotland can get mature, grown up politics back.
I am British. I would be stripped of my national identity if that were to happen. I will do all I can to stop it.
Good man. I feel the same way.
I am English but love Scotland - I lived there for six years as a child - and feel it's part of our UK.
I would be so upset if it left. It's the emotional connections that mean so much to me.
I feel the opposite, being owned and controlled by England is a disgrace.
You are not. You are fully equal with me in every way.
There's just fewer of you, that's all.
Look, a few hundred million EU citizens are waving at you.
It does make me laugh at how people keep comparing the EU and the UK as if they are exactly the same thing.
Yet another halfwit, they are both voluntary unions. What part of that can you not understand.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
There is that (and I would not disagree), but where and when do you draw the line ? For example, there is little or no assistance for commercial real estate, which has undoubtedly been very hard hit by government restrictions. Or alternatively, what happens to the leisure businesses (eg pubs and nightclubs) which might nit be able to operate on a commercial basis for the next year or more ?
This a far better slogan. Cuts across young and old and even Warzone kids will appreciate it.
Yes, but we all know what happened to Hicks.
Not if you rule out everything after aliens as uncanonical bullshit. IRL the three of them live happily ever after.
I'm hoping Johnson staggers out to the lectern tonight, hair a mess (nowt new there), plasma rifle barrel exploded, helmet on backwards and runs around shouting
"That's great. That's just ****ing great, man! Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man! Game's over man, game's ****ing over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Maybe we could build a campfire, sing a couple of songs, huh?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
But it's the business itself that would kill people if it were allowed to function, given the existence of the virus. It's all part of profit and risk. You profit some of the time, you lose some of the time. Why should we bail these businesses out just because they [edited] would otherwise operate in an unsafe manner?
I know there are othjer reasons - but the government's closing down a business doesn't count as one, any more than closing down a E. coliu 0157 infected takeaway would justify paying compensation to the takeaway owner.
So you think a business forced to close, through no fault of its own, should not be compensated?
And she is going to keep this up until the last business folds, is she? The absolute last thing Scotland needs is another competitive disadvantage. Her tax rates are bad enough.
David, majority of Scots pay less tax than in England, only those over 33K pay a smidgen more. It was so inconsequential I did not even notice it and as it helps the low paid it is a good thing , very un-Tory of course but great for the low paid.
I'm hoping Johnson staggers out to the lectern tonight, hair a mess (nowt new there), plasma rifle barrel exploded, helmet on backwards and runs around shouting
"That's great. That's just ****ing great, man! Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man! Game's over man, game's ****ing over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
I'm hoping our large annual exhibiton is cancelled actually - the only reason we have to go there is because we'd stick out like a sore thumb from our competitors if we weren't. The underlying demand for the product is still there. I can pm you more details if you'd like.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
There is that (and I would not disagree), but where and when do you draw the line ? For example, there is little or no assistance for commercial real estate, which has undoubtedly been very hard hit by government restrictions. Or alternatively, what happens to the leisure businesses (eg pubs and nightclubs) which might nit be able to operate on a commercial basis for the next year or more ?
I just find it strange that people want the govt to furlough workers but not compensate business owners. Tens of thousands face bankruptcy through no fault of their own. Walk down any High Street, count the cafes, pubs, restaurants, independent shops, not to mention cinemas, theatres and sports clubs. Throw in the breweries etc, the 3rd or 4th largest employer in the country wiped out for absolutely doing nothing wrong.
The absolute inevitability of SNP most seats is what drives Tory tactics in focusing on indepdence. What is the point in spending a lot of time developing a better policy on education when there is no chance of being the government? What they are seeking to do is consolidate enough of the Unionist vote to prevent an SNP majority and thus, hopefully, prevent a second referendum (subject to the little green helpers, of course).
Whilst I understand the logic of that it is a mistake. Scotland has not had an actual policy choice since 2007. In that 13 years we have had the truly disastrous Curriculum for Excellence imposed in our schools with the inevitable consequences in our PISA ranking, we have the insane position of still offering free University education to EU citizens at a time when funded places for Scots are being restricted, we have had the shambolic and ongoing embarrassment that is Police Scotland, we have had an ever more centralised and unaccountable concentration of power in the likes of the Care Commission, stripping local government of powers and budget, I really could go on and on. As someone actively interested in politics I genuinely don't know what the Tories or Labour are proposing in relation to these failures. It's not good enough. Scotland needs a proper choice.
Which is part of why I back Scottish independence as the best thing for Scotland.
It is only once the independence issue is over and done with that Scotland can get mature, grown up politics back.
I am British. I would be stripped of my national identity if that were to happen. I will do all I can to stop it.
Good man. I feel the same way.
I am English but love Scotland - I lived there for six years as a child - and feel it's part of our UK.
I would be so upset if it left. It's the emotional connections that mean so much to me.
I feel the opposite, being owned and controlled by England is a disgrace.
You are not. You are fully equal with me in every way.
There's just fewer of you, that's all.
Look, a few hundred million EU citizens are waving at you.
It does make me laugh at how people keep comparing the EU and the UK as if they are exactly the same thing.
Yet another halfwit, they are both voluntary unions. What part of that can you not understand.
What part of “fiscal transfers” do you not understand?
This a far better slogan. Cuts across young and old and even Warzone kids will appreciate it.
Yes, but we all know what happened to Hicks.
Not if you rule out everything after aliens as uncanonical bullshit. IRL the three of them live happily ever after.
I'm hoping Johnson staggers out to the lectern tonight, hair a mess (nowt new there), plasma rifle barrel exploded, helmet on backwards and runs around shouting
"That's great. That's just ****ing great, man! Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man! Game's over man, game's ****ing over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Maybe we could build a campfire, sing a couple of songs, huh?
Just looking at Johnson's six rules, it looks to me like that is an invitation to end lockdown completely in England. I hope the English Police Forces have been told to back off.
Of course that doesn't help us in here in Wales. If Johnson is following the science how come Scotland and Wales are interpreting it so badly?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
But it's the business itself that would kill people if it were allowed to function, given the existence of the virus. It's all part of profit and risk. You profit some of the time, you lose some of the time. Why should we bail these businesses out just because they [edited] would otherwise operate in an unsafe manner?
I know there are othjer reasons - but the government's closing down a business doesn't count as one, any more than closing down a E. coliu 0157 infected takeaway would justify paying compensation to the takeaway owner.
So you think a business forced to close, through no fault of its own, should not be compensated?
It might very well be good public policy to support a business in the present situation, such as by making loans or grants to it and its employees.
But I struggle to see why the business should inherently be compensated for being unable to operate with the safety of its staff and customers. That seems a fundamental public principle, irrespective of the circumstances of the virus situation.
This a far better slogan. Cuts across young and old and even Warzone kids will appreciate it.
Yes, but we all know what happened to Hicks.
Not if you rule out everything after aliens as uncanonical bullshit. IRL the three of them live happily ever after.
I'm hoping Johnson staggers out to the lectern tonight, hair a mess (nowt new there), plasma rifle barrel exploded, helmet on backwards and runs around shouting
"That's great. That's just ****ing great, man! Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man! Game's over man, game's ****ing over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Maybe we could build a campfire, sing a couple of songs, huh?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
Except that it is the Corona Virus that has made some businesses inoperable, because people no longer want to flock together.
Of course, you could argue that the general uselessness of the government has made the situation worse, but that would probably be very hard to prove to a sufficiently high standard, so the government gets off the hook again. As Tories always seem to do.
When has the nerdier option won in recent British elections?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
I guess Labour need it to be AN Other vs Starmer. Rishi has had a lot more tv exposure than Sir Keir though.
The absolute inevitability of SNP most seats is what drives Tory tactics in focusing on indepdence. What is the point in spending a lot of time developing a better policy on education when there is no chance of being the government? What they are seeking to do is consolidate enough of the Unionist vote to prevent an SNP majority and thus, hopefully, prevent a second referendum (subject to the little green helpers, of course).
Whilst I understand the logic of that it is a mistake. Scotland has not had an actual policy choice since 2007. In that 13 years we have had the truly disastrous Curriculum for Excellence imposed in our schools with the inevitable consequences in our PISA ranking, we have the insane position of still offering free University education to EU citizens at a time when funded places for Scots are being restricted, we have had the shambolic and ongoing embarrassment that is Police Scotland, we have had an ever more centralised and unaccountable concentration of power in the likes of the Care Commission, stripping local government of powers and budget, I really could go on and on. As someone actively interested in politics I genuinely don't know what the Tories or Labour are proposing in relation to these failures. It's not good enough. Scotland needs a proper choice.
Which is part of why I back Scottish independence as the best thing for Scotland.
It is only once the independence issue is over and done with that Scotland can get mature, grown up politics back.
I am British. I would be stripped of my national identity if that were to happen. I will do all I can to stop it.
Good man. I feel the same way.
I am English but love Scotland - I lived there for six years as a child - and feel it's part of our UK.
I would be so upset if it left. It's the emotional connections that mean so much to me.
I feel the opposite, being owned and controlled by England is a disgrace.
You are not. You are fully equal with me in every way.
There's just fewer of you, that's all.
Look, a few hundred million EU citizens are waving at you.
It does make me laugh at how people keep comparing the EU and the UK as if they are exactly the same thing.
Yet another halfwit, they are both voluntary unions. What part of that can you not understand.
What part of “fiscal transfers” do you not understand?
You talking about us giving all our money to London at gunpoint and getting a minimal share back and the rest squandered on their pet projects. Think you will find I know as much about fiscal transfer robbery as your goodself.
The detailed messaging looks great to me, the slogan is still tripe mind.
What alternative would you suggest?
What is wrong with Stay Safe?
I don't see a difference. People here would still be obtuse saying how do you stay safe just like they're saying that about alert. It's the same principle.
Well Ive mostly supported the govt and their communication through this crisis and think the slogan is rubbish and nonsensical. I would not be saying that if they went with Stay Safe which they were using midweek and somehow has been jettisoned.
I dont think the slogan matters that much anyway, but if its being discussed its rubbish.
The absolute inevitability of SNP most seats is what drives Tory tactics in focusing on indepdence. What is the point in spending a lot of time developing a better policy on education when there is no chance of being the government? What they are seeking to do is consolidate enough of the Unionist vote to prevent an SNP majority and thus, hopefully, prevent a second referendum (subject to the little green helpers, of course).
Whilst I understand the logic of that it is a mistake. Scotland has not had an actual policy choice since 2007. In that 13 years we have had the truly disastrous Curriculum for Excellence imposed in our schools with the inevitable consequences in our PISA ranking, we have the insane position of still offering free University education to EU citizens at a time when funded places for Scots are being restricted, we have had the shambolic and ongoing embarrassment that is Police Scotland, we have had an ever more centralised and unaccountable concentration of power in the likes of the Care Commission, stripping local government of powers and budget, I really could go on and on. As someone actively interested in politics I genuinely don't know what the Tories or Labour are proposing in relation to these failures. It's not good enough. Scotland needs a proper choice.
Which is part of why I back Scottish independence as the best thing for Scotland.
It is only once the independence issue is over and done with that Scotland can get mature, grown up politics back.
I am British. I would be stripped of my national identity if that were to happen. I will do all I can to stop it.
Good man. I feel the same way.
I am English but love Scotland - I lived there for six years as a child - and feel it's part of our UK.
I would be so upset if it left. It's the emotional connections that mean so much to me.
I feel the opposite, being owned and controlled by England is a disgrace.
You are not. You are fully equal with me in every way.
There's just fewer of you, that's all.
Look, a few hundred million EU citizens are waving at you.
It does make me laugh at how people keep comparing the EU and the UK as if they are exactly the same thing.
Yet another halfwit, they are both voluntary unions. What part of that can you not understand.
What part of “fiscal transfers” do you not understand?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
However, 'stay at home' has to be changed at some time and frankly 'stay alert' seems to me to be a sensible change in the narrative
Most people will understand that 'staying alert' is very much something they will want to do and in particular on social - distancing and general contact with others
Listening to Mark Drakesford today any differences seem to be in the margins and of course those on here attacking Boris give a free pass to the devolved first ministers who sit alongside Boris in Cobra
Boris and the government have made mistakes and I cannot understand why he has allowed the 'gossip' in the media to continue for so long when he could have addressed the nation days earlier. He needs a new 'comms' team as the present one is abject
Actually we do have an advantage in so far as other countries are now easing their restrictions and their experiences will be useful for us to learn from
I spent most of yesterday in our garden in the beautiful weather and rarely read PB and it was frankly refreshing, especially when I read the polarised comments from a few on here today who seem to be driven by other motives than the one most people crave for; overcoming covid 19
Big_G: the public have shown that they're really good at following clear advice. Stay at home? OK, we'll stay at home. They are understandably less good at following fuzzy advice, and "Stay alert" could mean almost anything It worries me in a non-partisan sense that Boris's natural atyle is to emphasise stirring rhetoric and uplifting banter rather than boring precision. Perhaps he'll surprise me, though.
I agree about the advantage of being late to the party so we can see how others are getting on. But we need to use that advatange to clear good effect.
'Stay at home' isn't so good for those of us who have to go to work.
Whereas staying alert is relevant advice when it comes to keeping distance from other people and touching things.
All of my friends who have gone to work throughout this, including a cleaning friend have been very supportive of the stay home message actually I've found.
Stay Home is fine when you want people to stay home but once large numbers of people are no longer doing that then it loses its relevance.
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
Oh God! Isn't the reason for the change in slogan blindingly obvious?
You can't keep telling people to "Stay [at] Home" if you want them to go back to work!
Most people I know want to keep their employment - Is there a whole slew of people with optional jobs in the country or something ?
There are people who want to get paid but take no risks while being dependent upon other people taking risks.
This is not an entirely unfair point. There are no shortage of people too terrified to go back to work who also think they should be supported by the furlough scheme until this is all over.
There are also no shortage of people who work in non-shuttered sectors - manufacturing, agriculture, grocery retail, the NHS - who are required to keep going out to work all through this.
We must cough up our taxes to keep the rest of the country on life support. It is not unreasonable to ask us to do so, given the circumstances. It is, however, unreasonable to ask us to keep propping up millions of non-workers forever. An effective treatment or a vaccine could be a year away, a decade away, or it might never happen.
The Government's unenviable job is to try to find a balance between the interest of the remaining taxpayers (and the wider economy) and those of the terrified. Inevitably this will involve progressively unshuttering sectors of the economy and reducing support to make it more painful for terrified workers to sit at home indefinitely. This raises all kinds of awkward questions (will the demand exist to prop the re-opened businesses, especially where they need to implement the 2m rule? What happens to employees who have been told to shield?) But what alternative is there?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
Surely it is the right that wants free money forever in the shape of government subsidies for their non-functioning businesses.
I think if the government makes a business non functioning it has to provide compensation.
But it's the business itself that would kill people if it were allowed to function, given the existence of the virus. It's all part of profit and risk. You profit some of the time, you lose some of the time. Why should we bail these businesses out just because they [edited] would otherwise operate in an unsafe manner?
I know there are othjer reasons - but the government's closing down a business doesn't count as one, any more than closing down a E. coliu 0157 infected takeaway would justify paying compensation to the takeaway owner.
So you think a business forced to close, through no fault of its own, should not be compensated?
It might very well be good public policy to support a business in the present situation, such as by making loans or grants to it and its employees.
But I struggle to see why the business should inherently be compensated for being unable to operate with the safety of its staff and customers. That seems a fundamental public principle, irrespective of the circumstances of the virus situation.
Mmmmmh, if you close a business you effectively take responsibility for it in the same way as opening a business. Therefore the obligation is upon you to pay all overheads.
That is not happening and will force tens of thousands into insolvency. Expect massive social unrest
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
I'm hoping our large annual exhibiton is cancelled actually - the only reason we have to go there is because we'd stick out like a sore thumb from our competitors if we weren't. The underlying demand for the product is still there. I can pm you more details if you'd like.
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
Tell the sales team about Zoom?
If you're on Zoom you're not selling.
A friend works in sales at a Tier 1 bank. The management said that they were fried without direct contact.
They have made it work on the basis of we-are-f%^ked-if-we-don't
Short list of countries where the virus is a left/right issue: UK, USA, Brazil, Spain. The left wants free money forever, the right wants workers to take a risk. Anyone who can add to this list is welcome, especially examples where it goes in the opposite direction!
For all the Gov'ts faults the work advice here is a happy(ish) medium ground. Head to work unless you can work from home, in which case do. If your work is prohibited by law (For public health reasons e.g. a cinema worker) obviously you can't and that's what the furlough scheme is for.
I am not sure that's right. A lot of people "can" work from home, but would probably do it a lot more productively in an office environment. Sales people, for example, are not typically lone wolves, but part of a team in which individuals bounce off each other and managers closely and constantly monitor what is going on. That is all doable from home, but it is much, much tougher. So what does a business that relies on its sales teans to generate the cash it needs to keep paying the salaries and the bills do with the latest government advice?
Tell the sales team about Zoom?
Indeed. My better half works in finance rather than sales and they use Teams, but the principle is the same.
Much office based working will never be coming back in any event. I would imagine that many, perhaps most, workers who are entirely office based will be WFH the whole time from now on, or getting together once a week, or a fortnight, or a month for team building days, brainstorming sessions and such like.
I'll make a prediction, before too long the Wetherspoons chap will announce that his chain is closing with the loss of thousands of jobs and large empty premises in every town. WH Smiths won't be long either.
Then people will begin to realise what is happening.
33 yesterday - which is the lowest first day since March IIIRC
I think it's fairly clear that England now has pretty good control on community transmission and hospitals deaths, but not in care homes. I'd like to see a by death date breakdown of carehome deaths, is there anywhere that information is available?
Thing is, I don't actually remember much about the Swine flu problem. Nobody alive today is ever going to forget the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump as usually deflecting like a madman
The other problem with his defence is that he didn't ban people from China, he banned *Chinese* people from China. US citizens, or permanent residents, or their families, were still able to breeze through without testing or screening or anything else.
Comments
Was anyone not doing that already? And if they weren't will this now make them?
Ultimately everyone is going to have make their own individual decisions and will have to adapt their actions to their own level of activity.
And to do that in maximum safety they will have to stay alert.
"Stay home" actually meant "Stay home unless you have to go out, or you fancy going out for a bit of air, but don't drive too far for that". It wasn't really that clear without the longer explanation. Yet most people stayed within the rules.
What matters is that the specific instructions for each phase are clear. We will see if they are later.
Which is especially important as more people return to work and more outside activities become available.
Most people here want competent management of the pandemic, whatever their political orientation. And that’s probably true of most places.
1. Go back to work / restaurants / pubs will see a few hotspots of drunken revelry and far more "I'm not doing that"
2. You can't compare us with other countries" will hold until the Mail reports on French and German citizens lounging it on Greek beach holidays whilst Britain uniquely needs to quarantine people coming home
3. The elephant in the room remains as always social distancing. People will interpret the new guidelines as start living a social life. But a work life? No, public transport at 10% capacity, schools staying shut means no return to work.
This summer, with 5m enjoying the generous benevolence of Universal Credit unable to feed themselves never mind enjoy a beach holiday, the "this government is doing a shit job but Boris is a lad isn't he" polling won't be holding...
Ultimately the divide on this very simple phrase doesn't seem to be Tory v non Tory it seems to be between people who think the public are smart and intelligent enough to manage risks themselves ... And those that don't.
It has been the lack of the former - and the resulting deaths, some of whom will have been avoidable - which is and will continue to be far more important than the messages sent out about not seeing Granny. Little point telling people not to do that while allowing Covid-19 infected people into such homes.
Messages which are at odds with the actual regulations risk resulting in the same confusion as at the start of lockdown. If there are going to be changes these should be announced to Parliament where proper questions can be asked.
As ever, sloganising, appearances and making Boris look good seem rather more important to this government than effective well thought through measures and proper implementation.
It's not possible to eliminate risk but then it never was. It is possible to balance risk and be alert. Just because you can't reduce the risk to zero doesn't mean you can't reduce the risk.
Labour should probably have picked Jess Phillips
For a lot, I'd guess the majority of furloughed workers, there simply won't be a job to go back to. The hospitality industry covering pubs, cafes, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, venues etc is decimated at best
Sport as we all know it is finished, probably for good
"That's great. That's just ****ing great, man! Now what the **** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man! Game's over man, game's ****ing over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
It’s a good slogan.
It's saying that even if you are no longer staying at home then stay sensible. If they're already being sensible then good . . . Continue doing what you're doing is the message!
The only thing the government could have realistically done was shutting down a few days earlier. It remains to be seen whether that would have made any difference to the long term outcome. We simply don't know yet.
Thing is, I don't actually remember much about the Swine flu problem. Nobody alive today is ever going to forget the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump as usually deflecting like a madman
You can't keep telling people to "Stay [at] Home" if you want them to go back to work!
The wheels falling off this morning have just reinforced my view that it’s every man, woman and child for themselves now. Do what you need to protect yourself and fight to protect those economically who might otherwise be forced not to protect themselves.
https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1259461243376734209?s=21
https://twitter.com/geoff_shenton/status/1259007239903379458?s=20
Across the British Isles Care Homes have been a disaster - England, Scotland, Wales and even small jurisdictions that have coped well overall (Man, Guernsey). There was and is a systemic issue with care homes that lies at the door of this and previous governments of all parties - “Blaming Boris” will not fix that.
And if we’re into “blaming current governments” the SNP in Edinburgh and Labour in Cardiff are as least as much to blame as the Conservatives in London.
Is there a whole slew of people with optional jobs in the country or something ?
Because for a very large part of the British economy - the arts, entertainment, sport, heritage, tourism, hospitality of all kinds, retail and travel - this is pretty much impossible.
So is the government going to support all those sectors for the next 2 years or so until there is a vaccine?
Or see them shut down, at which point, however often people go to parks or garden centres, there won’t be much of an economy to get going, however bloody alert we’re all being?
But it hardly answers the question: "So, I can open my shop then?"
In time the narrative could change again but right now the narrative is not one the government wants to hear.
"Well nobody tell me this was going to happen"
I know there are othjer reasons - but the government's closing down a business doesn't count as one, any more than closing down a E. coliu 0157 infected takeaway would justify paying compensation to the takeaway owner.
People who have to stay alert don't mind being told to stay alert.
People who want to stay home prefer being told to stay home.
Google and apple were telling them it wouldn't work so was just about every technical reporting. Instead they allowed civil servants and a big data company into producing something not fit for purpose
For example, there is little or no assistance for commercial real estate, which has undoubtedly been very hard hit by government restrictions.
Or alternatively, what happens to the leisure businesses (eg pubs and nightclubs) which might nit be able to operate on a commercial basis for the next year or more ?
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Been nice knowing some of you!
Of course that doesn't help us in here in Wales. If Johnson is following the science how come Scotland and Wales are interpreting it so badly?
But I struggle to see why the business should inherently be compensated for being unable to operate with the safety of its staff and customers. That seems a fundamental public principle, irrespective of the circumstances of the virus situation.
33 yesterday - which is the lowest first day since March IIIRC
Of course, you could argue that the general uselessness of the government has made the situation worse, but that would probably be very hard to prove to a sufficiently high standard, so the government gets off the hook again. As Tories always seem to do.
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost
2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost
2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost
2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost
2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost
2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost
2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead
2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost
2024 Boris vs Starmer...
I guess Labour need it to be AN Other vs Starmer. Rishi has had a lot more tv exposure than Sir Keir though.
Charisma is wot wins it
I dont think the slogan matters that much anyway, but if its being discussed its rubbish.
I just ignore him.
There are also no shortage of people who work in non-shuttered sectors - manufacturing, agriculture, grocery retail, the NHS - who are required to keep going out to work all through this.
We must cough up our taxes to keep the rest of the country on life support. It is not unreasonable to ask us to do so, given the circumstances. It is, however, unreasonable to ask us to keep propping up millions of non-workers forever. An effective treatment or a vaccine could be a year away, a decade away, or it might never happen.
The Government's unenviable job is to try to find a balance between the interest of the remaining taxpayers (and the wider economy) and those of the terrified. Inevitably this will involve progressively unshuttering sectors of the economy and reducing support to make it more painful for terrified workers to sit at home indefinitely. This raises all kinds of awkward questions (will the demand exist to prop the re-opened businesses, especially where they need to implement the 2m rule? What happens to employees who have been told to shield?) But what alternative is there?
That is not happening and will force tens of thousands into insolvency. Expect massive social unrest
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1259253500464304129
They have made it work on the basis of we-are-f%^ked-if-we-don't
Probably upset senior management... but hey....
Much office based working will never be coming back in any event. I would imagine that many, perhaps most, workers who are entirely office based will be WFH the whole time from now on, or getting together once a week, or a fortnight, or a month for team building days, brainstorming sessions and such like.
People will adapt.
Then people will begin to realise what is happening.
If you really want to take zero risks don't take part.
If you really want to live your life then a two metres apart conga is safer than a normal one.
It's fudge and compromise and trusting people to use their own frigging common sense.