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?
I think government needs to be a little more proactive than that (as it ought to have been in dealing with the pandemic outbreak). ‘Finding a balance’ is too passive an approach.
There are whole sectors of the economy - retail; leisure; commercial real estate, for example - which will very likely not return in to their pre pandemic state for many years, if ever.
Relying entirely on the market to sort out the post pandemic mess risks leaving commercial wastelands across large areas of the country. Government ought to be thinking about its potential role in jump-starting things. As a small example, we are going to have empty town centres, at the same time as having a nationwide housing shortage (an amped up version of what has been there to some extent for some time). That is an opportunity.
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
Cameron is, as I recall, the only recent PM not to suffer from a major health issue while in office. Blair went into hospital over a heart scare, Brown was blind in one eye and apparently was not far off blind in the other, May had diabetes to deal with and now it's Johnson and COVID-19.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
In which universe is George Osborne a nerd and Gove not a nerd?
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
The vacuousness of the policy is precisely what we need right now. Authoritarianism has its limits and rightly so. Ours homes may be our castles but they're not our prisons.
Increasingly all week I've been seeing people on my street entertaining guests in lawn chairs two metres apart - and why on Earth not?
The new message is a polite way of saying "think for yourself and don't be an idiot".
If you want to take no risk stay at home. If you want to live your life minimise your risks. The public are already doing this with things like conga on a rope - the government is saying continue thinking for yourself and do what you can.
Quite right too. What is wrong with letting grown adults think for themselves?
Cameron is, as I recall, the only recent PM not to suffer from a major health issue while in office. Blair went into hospital over a heart scare, Brown was blind in one eye and apparently was not far off blind in the other, May had diabetes to deal with and now it's Johnson and COVID-19.
Cameron's son died, though. Of the others Brown has had sight problems since an injury playing rugby while at University and May has suffered from diabetes for several (?many) years.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
This is either a calculated return to the notion of herd immunisation that placates the press and the likes of Graham Brady, or Boris has dropped the ball.
(BBC) The UK public is being fed "number theatre" by the government instead of "genuine information", a leading statistician from the University of Cambridge told the BBC on Sunday.
David Spiegelhalter criticised the government's daily briefing, saying "seems to be co-ordinated really much more by a Number 10 communications team" rather than led by experts.
"I just wish the data was being brought together and presented by people who really knew its strengths and limitations and could treat the audience with some respect," he said.
Spiegelhalter wrote an article for the Guardian in April which has been quoted by government ministers when they argue against comparing Britain's high death rate to other nations.
But earlier this week he tweeted to ask ministers to stop citing his article.
He told the BBC's Andrew Marr: “What I was talking about was the comparisons between the bad countries in Europe such as UK, France Italy, Belgium - I was not saying we can’t make any comparisons at all.
“Clearly it is important to note that we as a group are way above Germany, Portugal, Norway, who have low mortality rates.
“What happened in this country was not inevitable," he said.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
In which universe is George Osborne a nerd and Gove not a nerd?
the old 'who would you like to have a drink with test'. I think 2017 is unique in these as having the answer 'neither'
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
In which universe is George Osborne a nerd and Gove not a nerd?
Both pretty nerdy, but I didn't mention Gove.
I would say Farage had more to do with Leave winning than Gove. The frontman for the wider public was Boris, and rabble rouser was Farage
Looking like there is a concerted opposition plan against the government underway coveing the Wales & Scotland town councils, left wing unions and Labour, using the tiny softening of the lockdown to try and create political momentum.
Given that anyone under 60 with no serious health issues should be leading a pretty normal life at the moment and the government is being extremely cautious, lets hope the opposition forces get found out.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
No, it was allowing flights to land in the UK and passengers to disembark without any checks, quarantine or tests. Lockdown would have slowed the infection rate down, but the major source of infection early on was incoming travellers and returning citizens. As I've said many times I came back to the UK on the 17th of March, waltzed directly through Heathrow, got on the tube, changed at Green Park, then Euston and got off at Hampstead without a single intervention from the government other than scanning my passport out at Heathrow through the automated gates.
I should have been halted had a swab taken and been told to either stay home until my results or provided 2 nights at one of the many surrounding empty hotels while my test was being processed. If it was negative, go home, if not don't pass go.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
Yes, I am talking about modern life, where celebrity carries more weight than brains, reality tv is more popular than thoughtful drama etc. I think it's sad, but that is the electorate
The problem is the nerds are members of political parties, so often choose the nerdier option to present to the public. I say Jess Phillips is the only celebrity type Labour have, and should have been leader vs Boris
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
If Biden beats Trump then I feel intrinsically Starmer could beat Johnson (by which I mean, become PM).
Calm down you are comparing apples with oranges. Trump could still win in November and things go horribly wrong for Johnson. I hope Johnson gets everything right for all our sakes, today's developments do not however inspire.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
In which universe is George Osborne a nerd and Gove not a nerd?
the old 'who would you like to have a drink with test'. I think 2017 is unique in these as having the answer 'neither'
1997 and 2001; wouldn't mind having a drink with either. Probably couldn't drink as much as Hague, of course. I've always thought Boris was the sort of chap you could have a drink with but he'd mysteriously vanish just before it was his round.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
In which universe is George Osborne a nerd and Gove not a nerd?
Both pretty nerdy, but I didn't mention Gove.
I would say Farage had more to do with Leave winning than Gove. The frontman for the wider public was Boris, and rabble rouser was Farage
Gove was central to the referendum campaign.
He fronted up more debates and media appearances than Farage, and was responsible for the more seminal moments of the campaign, the experts moment as a prime example.
Plus Osborne was front and centre for the 2010 and 2015 campaigns (Long term economic plan and all that jazz), so 2010 and 2015 can we chalked as a victory for the nerds.
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
No, it was allowing flights to land in the UK and passengers to disembark without any checks, quarantine or tests. Lockdown would have slowed the infection rate down, but the major source of infection early on was incoming travellers and returning citizens. As I've said many times I came back to the UK on the 17th of March, waltzed directly through Heathrow, got on the tube, changed at Green Park, then Euston and got off at Hampstead without a single intervention from the government other than scanning my passport out at Heathrow through the automated gates.
I should have been halted had a swab taken and been told to either stay home until my results or provided 2 nights at one of the many surrounding empty hotels while my test was being processed. If it was negative, go home, if not don't pass go.
Hard to rate the different mistakes. Very probably, for example, locking down even a week earlier could have cut the number of cases by three quarters, which would have made the subsequent management considerably easier.
More accurate to say that the single biggest mistake was been cautiously reactive, rather than proactive. The Treasury apart, that seems still to be the case.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Modern life is sop different from that of the last century. Thats why I started with Blair. He was the first showman to win
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Modern life is sop different from that of the last century. Thats why I started with Blair. He was the first showman to win
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
You can make an argument in 2010 that the country wasn't particularly impressed with either offer.
Although having said that, 97 seats turnover is impressive.
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
No, it was allowing flights to land in the UK and passengers to disembark without any checks, quarantine or tests. Lockdown would have slowed the infection rate down, but the major source of infection early on was incoming travellers and returning citizens. As I've said many times I came back to the UK on the 17th of March, waltzed directly through Heathrow, got on the tube, changed at Green Park, then Euston and got off at Hampstead without a single intervention from the government other than scanning my passport out at Heathrow through the automated gates.
I should have been halted had a swab taken and been told to either stay home until my results or provided 2 nights at one of the many surrounding empty hotels while my test was being processed. If it was negative, go home, if not don't pass go.
Hard to rate the different mistakes. Very probably, for example, locking down even a week earlier could have cut the number of cases by three quarters, which would have made the subsequent management considerably easier.
More accurate to say that the single biggest mistake was been cautiously reactive, rather than proactive. The Treasury apart, that seems still to be the case.
The late lockdown could be a drop in the ocean compared to this new idea of replacing 'stay at home' with 'stay alert'. The more I think about it, the more I realise this isn't a schoolboy error but a cynical calculation.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
2016 - Dominic Cummings - Nerd extraordinaire - won. It's why remainers have had a bee in their bonnet about him ever since.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rathe him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died from it, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
In which universe is George Osborne a nerd and Gove not a nerd?
Both pretty nerdy, but I didn't mention Gove.
I would say Farage had more to do with Leave winning than Gove. The frontman for the wider public was Boris, and rabble rouser was Farage
Gove was central to the referendum campaign.
He fronted up more debates and media appearances than Farage, and was responsible for the more seminal moments of the campaign, the experts moment as a prime example.
Plus Osborne was front and centre for the 2010 and 2015 campaigns (Long term economic plan and all that jazz), so 2010 and 2015 can we chalked as a victory for the nerds.
No, it was Cameron vs Brown and Cameron vs Miliband, and the smooth operator won.
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
No, it was allowing flights to land in the UK and passengers to disembark without any checks, quarantine or tests. Lockdown would have slowed the infection rate down, but the major source of infection early on was incoming travellers and returning citizens. As I've said many times I came back to the UK on the 17th of March, waltzed directly through Heathrow, got on the tube, changed at Green Park, then Euston and got off at Hampstead without a single intervention from the government other than scanning my passport out at Heathrow through the automated gates.
I should have been halted had a swab taken and been told to either stay home until my results or provided 2 nights at one of the many surrounding empty hotels while my test was being processed. If it was negative, go home, if not don't pass go.
Hard to rate the different mistakes. Very probably, for example, locking down even a week earlier could have cut the number of cases by three quarters, which would have made the subsequent management considerably easier.
More accurate to say that the single biggest mistake was been cautiously reactive, rather than proactive. The Treasury apart, that seems still to be the case.
The late lockdown could be a drop in the ocean compared to this new idea of replacing 'stay at home' with 'stay alert'. The more I think about the more I realise this isn't a schoolboy error but a cynical calculation.
I think probably the Government has tacitly accepted the public are starting to ignore the lockdown and is trying to think ahead. The problem with that is if/when this leads to disaster we're going to need a far more stringent lockdown next time around.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
2016 - Dominic Cummings - Nerd extraordinaire - won. It's why remainers have had a bee in their bonnet about him ever since.
The public have no idea who he is or what he looks like.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
2016 - Dominic Cummings - Nerd extraordinaire - won. It's why remainers have had a bee in their bonnet about him ever since.
In what planet was Osborne front and centre in 2010? He was literally caricatured as the shadowy unseen figure for that election. He was totally hidden away.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Sorry Foxy that doesn't fit the PB Tory frame.
The whole point of my comparisons are that they reflect contemporary culture not that of the public in 1945 etc!
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.
People will adapt.
Teams is excellent for internal company meetings. We are using it extensively. But you cannot manage a sales force as effectively with it as you can by having them in an office environment. If that is going to change, so be it. My point was that the government could be clearer about it.
Sorry, I didn't read back through the entire thread so was talking a little at cross-purposes. I was thinking about both how we cope as best we can for the time being, and how businesses are likely to want to work in the future (which, when this is all over, will be more a commercial matter for them than it will be an issue for Government.)
Even in those cases where there is thought to be some commercial value to gathering employees together in an office the whole time, this may very well be outweighed by the disadvantages. Offices cost a fortune to lease and to maintain, and it commonly costs a fortune (and a whole load of time and stress) for employees to commute to them as well. Which means that businesses that insist on full-time office-based working may find that they have to pay a premium over and above the rest of the market to attract the staff that they want. After all, if you're an experienced salesperson in a specialist sector, looking at two potential employers who are both offering to pay you £45,000pa, then which job are you going to go for - the WFH position, or the one that requires you to haul out of bed at the crack of dawn and spend a fifth of your waking hours going back and forth on shitty trains, and cough up £5,000 for a season ticket for the privilege?
When my husband stopped working in London and started working a five-minute walk away it had a transformative effect upon his health and our household finances, even though the new job paid a bit less than the previous one. Millions of other commuters will have been discovering similar benefits for themselves since March.
At the end of all this, I see no reason why any business should want to make people who can work from home come into an office full-time unless it is absolutely essential that they should do so. Commuting is basically a dirty, unhealthy, bad habit like smoking - and the lockdown has been the equivalent of chaining all the smokers to their radiators for months on end so that they're forced to go cold turkey. Bad habits can be very hard to shift, but once they're broken people don't typically want to take them up again.
My view on Johnson is that if the economy is doing well and in general the Government is reasonably well perceived, he will win again (probably with a reduced majority but still, he will win).
If that is not the case, the public will - I hope, to me it seems logical - choose what is hopefully a credible alternative.
One thing is for sure, 13 years in power starts to take a toll on any party. Johnson got away with being fresh and new in 2019 (and did a very good job on distancing himself from the previous 9 years) but that will not be the case in 2024.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
LOL at 1992
Also, do we all remember that made up Obama sizzle/steak story from 2009? Do we?
In what planet was Osborne front and centre in 2010? He was literally caricatured as the shadowy unseen figure for that election. He was totally hidden away.
I think they were talking about him in the context of 2016, not 2010.
The biggest mistake in my view is that we seemed to understand we needed to lock down but yet we waited another week to do it, when we could already see what was happening in Italy.
No, it was allowing flights to land in the UK and passengers to disembark without any checks, quarantine or tests. Lockdown would have slowed the infection rate down, but the major source of infection early on was incoming travellers and returning citizens. As I've said many times I came back to the UK on the 17th of March, waltzed directly through Heathrow, got on the tube, changed at Green Park, then Euston and got off at Hampstead without a single intervention from the government other than scanning my passport out at Heathrow through the automated gates.
I should have been halted had a swab taken and been told to either stay home until my results or provided 2 nights at one of the many surrounding empty hotels while my test was being processed. If it was negative, go home, if not don't pass go.
Hard to rate the different mistakes. Very probably, for example, locking down even a week earlier could have cut the number of cases by three quarters, which would have made the subsequent management considerably easier.
More accurate to say that the single biggest mistake was been cautiously reactive, rather than proactive. The Treasury apart, that seems still to be the case.
The late lockdown could be a drop in the ocean compared to this new idea of replacing 'stay at home' with 'stay alert'. The more I think about it, the more I realise this isn't a schoolboy error but a cynical calculation.
The meat of the change is in "Do not meet others, even friends or family. You can spread the virus even if you don’t have symptoms" being replaced by "Limiting contact with other people." On a personal note I am delighted about this, having a GF who lives about a mile away, but overall it looks like a terrible idea because "limiting" can mean anything, as in "I will limit social contact to my 150 closest friends".
An interesting thread as always from Antifrank (as he was). I'm not surprised the pro-Government lobby on here isn't keen to talk about the split in the Government and the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
The "as you were" group around Johnson and Hancock are clearly in charge currently but there is a growing "open up" faction led by Sunak and some other Ministers with support from the backbenches that is terrified of the economic and political impact of covid-19 and sees getting the economy re-started as the priority because they see a political price to be paid for the economic legacy especially if growth doesn't rebound as the BoE forecasts (or hopes).
It goes further and cuts to the core of conservatism - is it about the State taking responsibility for public health and accepting the restriction of individual freedom for the good of society as a whole or is it about individuals having personal responsibility for their own heath and in theory that of others and trusting them to act in a proper and responsible manner?
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.
People will adapt.
Teams is excellent for internal company meetings. We are using it extensively. But you cannot manage a sales force as effectively with it as you can by having them in an office environment. If that is going to change, so be it. My point was that the government could be clearer about it.
Sorry, I didn't read back through the entire thread so was talking a little at cross-purposes. I was thinking about both how we cope as best we can for the time being, and how businesses are likely to want to work in the future (which, when this is all over, will be more a commercial matter for them than it will be an issue for Government.)
Even in those cases where there is thought to be some commercial value to gathering employees together in an office the whole time, this may very well be outweighed by the disadvantages. Offices cost a fortune to lease and to maintain, and it commonly costs a fortune (and a whole load of time and stress) for employees to commute to them as well. Which means that businesses that insist on full-time office-based working may find that they have to pay a premium over and above the rest of the market to attract the staff that they want. After all, if you're an experienced salesperson in a specialist sector, looking at two potential employers who are both offering to pay you £45,000pa, then which job are you going to go for - the WFH position, or the one that requires you to haul out of bed at the crack of dawn and spend a fifth of your waking hours going back and forth on shitty trains, and cough up £5,000 for a season ticket for the privilege?
When my husband stopped working in London and started working a five-minute walk away it had a transformative effect upon his health and our household finances, even though the new job paid a bit less than the previous one. Millions of other commuters will have been discovering similar benefits for themselves since March.
At the end of all this, I see no reason why any business should want to make people who can work from home come into an office full-time unless it is absolutely essential that they should do so. Commuting is basically a dirty, unhealthy, bad habit like smoking - and the lockdown has been the equivalent of chaining all the smokers to their radiators for months on end so that they're forced to go cold turkey. Bad habits can be very hard to shift, but once they're broken people don't typically want to take them up again.
That is quite possibly correct. It implies the need for some massive policy and economic shifts.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
LOL at 1992
Also, do we all remember that made up Obama sizzle/steak story from 2009? Do we?
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
The Riot Compensation Act 2016 and its predecessors could be seen as a useful analogy (govt pays for riot damages, presumably because they are difficult to insure and because they arise from a failure of the govt to maintain public order).
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
In what planet was Osborne front and centre in 2010? He was literally caricatured as the shadowy unseen figure for that election. He was totally hidden away.
I think they were talking about him in the context of 2016, not 2010.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
Yes, I am talking about modern life, where celebrity carries more weight than brains, reality tv is more popular than thoughtful drama etc. I think it's sad, but that is the electorate
The problem is the nerds are members of political parties, so often choose the nerdier option to present to the public. I say Jess Phillips is the only celebrity type Labour have, and should have been leader vs Boris
There will not be much reality TV for a while. I take your point about celebrity and nerdishness, and there definitely seems to be something in it, but culture changes as times change. And times are clearly changing.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
2016 - Dominic Cummings - Nerd extraordinaire - won. It's why remainers have had a bee in their bonnet about him ever since.
The public have no idea who he is or what he looks like.
Incorrect. They think he looks like Benedict Cumberbatch.
NHS England. 884 peak deaths 8/4 now look to be around 240.
Still consistent with daily drop of 4.5% to 5.0% - if that continues it'll fall 3x by 1/June. Maybe the rate of decline will slow as the lockdown frays at the edges, but there's been almost no sign of that so far (beyond anecdata).
Doesn't include care homes of course, which will presumably make up a larger and larger % of daily deaths from now on. Hopefully the large drop in infections outside will help bring them under control too.
Today's reported figure only has deaths from last 9 days. Reporting has been speeded up, perhaps?
No, weekend reporting.
Double whammy this weekend, with a bank holiday Friday preceding a weekend.
The irony for the government is this low figure is what will be used to compare how well or badly the changes in the lockdown have had.
Possibly, the date of death statistics are what we need to be using, the government should move to that report as wel change the lockdown measures. It actually paints the proper picture that the deaths are massively down in the community and hospitals but not care homes. The latter can have special measures and not prevent opening up the economy by some small amount every couple of weeks.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
Well put, I have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. My view is that Boris instinct is to get things back to "normal" asap, but the so called experts and polls saying keep the lockdown are hampering what he'd really like to do.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
It's curious that the argument is advanced that Scotland is 2 - 3 weeks behind England (which is quite likely the case) yet may have had an even worse crisis in Care Homes.
I look forward to those arguing that "England should have learned from Italy, it had a 2 - 3 week head start" advancing the same argument for Scotland vis a vis England.
Comments
Both Boris Johnson and the Time Lords have a Lord President of the Council.
There are whole sectors of the economy - retail; leisure; commercial real estate, for example - which will very likely not return in to their pre pandemic state for many years, if ever.
Relying entirely on the market to sort out the post pandemic mess risks leaving commercial wastelands across large areas of the country. Government ought to be thinking about its potential role in jump-starting things.
As a small example, we are going to have empty town centres, at the same time as having a nationwide housing shortage (an amped up version of what has been there to some extent for some time). That is an opportunity.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/10/greeks-marvel-at-britains-covid-chaos-as-their-lockdown-lifts-after-150-deaths
"Greeks are preparing beaches and hotels for a tourist season they hope will begin in July as restrictions gradually unwind."
Hmmm.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
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...
Increasingly all week I've been seeing people on my street entertaining guests in lawn chairs two metres apart - and why on Earth not?
The new message is a polite way of saying "think for yourself and don't be an idiot".
If you want to take no risk stay at home. If you want to live your life minimise your risks. The public are already doing this with things like conga on a rope - the government is saying continue thinking for yourself and do what you can.
Quite right too. What is wrong with letting grown adults think for themselves?
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
But vaccine is a pretty good typo/autocorrect collaboration.
David Spiegelhalter criticised the government's daily briefing, saying "seems to be co-ordinated really much more by a Number 10 communications team" rather than led by experts.
"I just wish the data was being brought together and presented by people who really knew its strengths and limitations and could treat the audience with some respect," he said.
Spiegelhalter wrote an article for the Guardian in April which has been quoted by government ministers when they argue against comparing Britain's high death rate to other nations.
But earlier this week he tweeted to ask ministers to stop citing his article.
He told the BBC's Andrew Marr: “What I was talking about was the comparisons between the bad countries in Europe such as UK, France Italy, Belgium - I was not saying we can’t make any comparisons at all.
“Clearly it is important to note that we as a group are way above Germany, Portugal, Norway, who have low mortality rates.
“What happened in this country was not inevitable," he said.
I would say Farage had more to do with Leave winning than Gove. The frontman for the wider public was Boris, and rabble rouser was Farage
Given that anyone under 60 with no serious health issues should be leading a pretty normal life at the moment and the government is being extremely cautious, lets hope the opposition forces get found out.
I should have been halted had a swab taken and been told to either stay home until my results or provided 2 nights at one of the many surrounding empty hotels while my test was being processed. If it was negative, go home, if not don't pass go.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
https://twitter.com/Iainmackay8/status/1259415094829727745?s=20
The problem is the nerds are members of political parties, so often choose the nerdier option to present to the public. I say Jess Phillips is the only celebrity type Labour have, and should have been leader vs Boris
2024 will be another "who is less unpopular" contest IMHO.
He fronted up more debates and media appearances than Farage, and was responsible for the more seminal moments of the campaign, the experts moment as a prime example.
Plus Osborne was front and centre for the 2010 and 2015 campaigns (Long term economic plan and all that jazz), so 2010 and 2015 can we chalked as a victory for the nerds.
Very probably, for example, locking down even a week earlier could have cut the number of cases by three quarters, which would have made the subsequent management considerably easier.
More accurate to say that the single biggest mistake was been cautiously reactive, rather than proactive. The Treasury apart, that seems still to be the case.
Up to a point, Lord Copper......there's a nonagenarian in Windsor who might take issue with that....
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
Although having said that, 97 seats turnover is impressive.
We pay for it. In all manner of ways.
NHS England. 884 peak deaths 8/4 now look to be around 240.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1259477893828227072/photo/1
Politically Johnson is/was more liberal but then he seems to change his spots on a whim, so who knows.
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
My view on Johnson is that if the economy is doing well and in general the Government is reasonably well perceived, he will win again (probably with a reduced majority but still, he will win).
If that is not the case, the public will - I hope, to me it seems logical - choose what is hopefully a credible alternative.
One thing is for sure, 13 years in power starts to take a toll on any party. Johnson got away with being fresh and new in 2019 (and did a very good job on distancing himself from the previous 9 years) but that will not be the case in 2024.
Also, do we all remember that made up Obama sizzle/steak story from 2009? Do we?
Let's all have a chuckle now.
And here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/05/06/the-pandemic-costs-who-bears-the-risk/.
An interesting thread as always from Antifrank (as he was). I'm not surprised the pro-Government lobby on here isn't keen to talk about the split in the Government and the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
The "as you were" group around Johnson and Hancock are clearly in charge currently but there is a growing "open up" faction led by Sunak and some other Ministers with support from the backbenches that is terrified of the economic and political impact of covid-19 and sees getting the economy re-started as the priority because they see a political price to be paid for the economic legacy especially if growth doesn't rebound as the BoE forecasts (or hopes).
It goes further and cuts to the core of conservatism - is it about the State taking responsibility for public health and accepting the restriction of individual freedom for the good of society as a whole or is it about individuals having personal responsibility for their own heath and in theory that of others and trusting them to act in a proper and responsible manner?
It implies the need for some massive policy and economic shifts.
Popularity, rather like the weather, can change very quickly.
The irony for the government is this low figure is what will be used to compare how well or badly the changes in the lockdown have had.
Our great great great great great grandkids.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Still consistent with daily drop of 4.5% to 5.0% - if that continues it'll fall 3x by 1/June. Maybe the rate of decline will slow as the lockdown frays at the edges, but there's been almost no sign of that so far (beyond anecdata).
Doesn't include care homes of course, which will presumably make up a larger and larger % of daily deaths from now on. Hopefully the large drop in infections outside will help bring them under control too.
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
y = 941.37e-0.051x
R² = 0.9829
Hancock just seems awful
I look forward to those arguing that "England should have learned from Italy, it had a 2 - 3 week head start" advancing the same argument for Scotland vis a vis England.