I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
Aren't the schools still open for the children of key workers but with very little take-up of the places ?
Whichever political party you support, and even recognising how difficult this must be for the Government, you cannot deny that this has been a shit show of epic proportions.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Furlough (at the moment) can by claimed by ANY UK employer who has PAYE employees. I think this needs to change soon
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
Aren't the schools still open for the children of key workers but with very little take-up of the places ?
If so that could be extended to other people.
Yes. Agreed, they should open up the scheme for construction, manufacturing and other workers who are being asked to go back to work.
The reality is there are about half a dozen reasons why Trump should be favourite, and half a dozen when it should be Biden.
If Trump loses, he will be only the second President to depart after his party had only one term in office since the Second World War. Plus, he's fighting a man with the early stages of dementia, who is accused of sexual assault. (On the positive side, I think we can reasonably assume that when he says "I don't remember", then he really means it.)
On the other hand, Trump's unpopularity is unprecedented, particularly his "disapproval" numbers.
I think Biden should be favourite. Not a massive one, but definitely favourite.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
I don’t think he could get an overall majority.
But the key target is 57 seats from the Conservatives. That would take him back past Gordon Brown, and probably make it impossible for the Tories to form a coalition arrangement with the DUP (and the Liberal Democrats won’t touch them again even under Ed Davey’s leadership).
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
That would be fine if they just said that.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
Boris Johnson literally said he has faith in the British public to use common sense.
After I said that is what we should do he said that. I repeat: after I said here he should say it, he did.
So yeah I back what he said. Because it's what I said here he should say. Why wouldn't I back that? If Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer said what you said he should say then I wouldn't have been shocked at you being pleased with that.
Anyone who can't work from home but can go to work in a covid secure environment, has their own transport to get there and doesn't have childcare issues.
Is that difficult?
Its quite amazing but that seems to apply to everyone where I work.
And it must also apply to the millions of people who have never stopped working.
Nobody I work with has had to jack it in because of any of these problems.
Our employer has adapted to social distancing where needed, managed to obtain supplies of hand sanitiser and put dispensers all over the building, and implement temperature checks on entry. Those who can work from home have been sent home, which means that those who cannot are present in the building in substantially lower numbers.
Nobody gets here on public transport. Most people don't get about on public transport in most of the country, once you discount those huge numbers of office-based commuters who are now doing WFH (and a great many of those who do make journeys short enough that they could manage them with a bicycle or even on foot.) In normal times, bus and rail commuting only accounts for a fifth of all journeys to work. It's therefore entirely possible that socially distanced public transport commuting in most or all of the country can be achieved without forcing anyone who really needs buses and trains to abandon them.
Childcare is the most intractable problem, and I think that is going to do for some workers, but frankly that's inevitable. Government can't supply adequate full-time childcare because social distancing. Some workers will be able to sort out arrangements to work part-time, but others are going to have to jack it in to stay home and look after the kids. I feel sorry for them but it cannot be helped.
I am no fan of BoZo, and I expect him to spout meaningless bullshit, but the level to which they are fucking this up is impressive in whole new ways
I think what you hate most is his popularity
Nerys...he had it in his grasp..3 weeks before lockdown if hadn't been suck a lazy sack of shit, he could have seen what needed to be done (if the useless twat could be bothered to go to a meeting) and now be riding a wave of Churchillian praise....
But he brought Brexit on us, fucked up Covid....I don't like him because he is fucking useless
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Furlough (at the moment) can by claimed by ANY UK employer who has PAYE employees. I think this needs to change soon
I was trying to clarify this here last night after Boris`s speech. I described it as the elephant in the room. The beast is still there.
I was asking whether returning to work is optional - and if one chooses not to return whether furlough payments would still be paid. I was assured by some posters that the scheme relies on the employer applying (which I knew) and that if the employee decided not to return to work the employer would likely not apply for furlough.
This must be right or the employer would be able to base furlough decisions in favour of those staff who decided not to return with the "resumed workers" being paid as normal. If this is right then why would anyone return to work, unless, I guess, he/she needed 100% rather than 80% of earnings?
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
They are all entitled to be operational except for those in the sectors on the list, e.g. pubs, gyms, restaurants etc.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
No just some passion or personality. He is too boring and dweeb you to ever beat Boris
People on the left always say what you do in your last sentence, but it never happens.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
That, and Isam's "bore off" comment neatly encapsulate the gamble Starmer is taking.
He's betting being dull will be an asset, not a liability, in 2024. He may very well be right.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
Anyone who can't work from home but can go to work in a covid secure environment, has their own transport to get there and doesn't have childcare issues.
Is that difficult?
Its quite amazing but that seems to apply to everyone where I work.
And it must also apply to the millions of people who have never stopped working.
Nobody I work with has had to jack it in because of any of these problems.
Our employer has adapted to social distancing where needed, managed to obtain supplies of hand sanitiser and put dispensers all over the building, and implement temperature checks on entry. Those who can work from home have been sent home, which means that those who cannot are present in the building in substantially lower numbers.
Nobody gets here on public transport. Most people don't get about on public transport in most of the country, once you discount those huge numbers of office-based commuters who are now doing WFH (and a great many of those who do make journeys short enough that they could manage them with a bicycle or even on foot.) In normal times, bus and rail commuting only accounts for a fifth of all journeys to work. It's therefore entirely possible that socially distanced public transport commuting in most or all of the country can be achieved without forcing anyone who really needs buses and trains to abandon them.
Childcare is the most intractable problem, and I think that is going to do for some workers, but frankly that's inevitable. Government can't supply adequate full-time childcare because social distancing. Some workers will be able to sort out arrangements to work part-time, but others are going to have to jack it in to stay home and look after the kids. I feel sorry for them but it cannot be helped.
Great post, it shows what is happening now in the real world. People who are working have adapted as have their employers. Some people on furlough or those on 100% wages sitting at home are looking for any reason to not go back to work.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
But that doesn’t make sense because surely Key Workers are the most at risk at present anyway? If they were going to spread it via schools, that would have happened already...
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
I cannot tell you how toxic history will judge Boris Johnson...there will be books, films, docudramas trying to understand how this fucking lunacy took hold of the Tory party and fucked us all up.....
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
I cannot tell you how toxic history will judge Boris Johnson...there will be books, films, docudramas trying to understand how this fucking lunacy took hold of the Tory party and fucked us all up.....
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
They are all entitled to be operational except for those in the sectors on the list, e.g. pubs, gyms, restaurants etc.
Good point but where's the incentive for the employer to re-open? horrible economic conditions, costly regulations on social distancing....particularly small businesses .I suppose there are some tax holidays on offer.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
They are all entitled to be operational except for those in the sectors on the list, e.g. pubs, gyms, restaurants etc.
Still eligible to furlough employees if they're not needed due to this crisis. And it's ok to furlough some (eg those that can't get in) while paying others. What's not ok is furloughing people but getting them to still work.
So now the PM is contradicting the PM? Fantastic. They haven't got a Fucking Clue what they're doing and that's obvious to all but the smallest and most partisan of brain.
Too many people in this country aren't happy to take No as an answer.
The more explicit answer would have been as follows:
* Childcare and schools may or may not be opening for a long time, and even if they do the children will only return part-time until this is all over, because (a) social distancing and (b) a lot of the nurseries probably won't survive financially * Consequently, a parent will be stuck at home babysitting the kids for at least part of every week for the duration * Therefore, if parents can't fit their work around their childcare commitments then they will have to give up work. This will create a lot of households with only one breadwinner where there were previously two, and a lot more living off Universal Credit for the duration
He won't say that because it's too grim. But it's true. The furlough scheme won't be around to keep these working parents in a wage forever, and employers won't keep paying them to sit at home after that just because they plead kiddycare.
The parents will end up losing their jobs. Other people who don't have the same responsibilities will take them on instead.
I don't think they also want to say that until a vaccine is found, this will be the new normal. Instead trying to focus on some potential goodies in a couple of months.
I think a lot of people probably still think another month or two and be back to how things were. But the reality is, this could be all our new normals for the next 2 years.
Oh absolutely. A vaccine and/or effective treatment that radically cuts mortality may be further away than that, if it comes at all.
I don't expect us to be living with these restrictions forever. People won't wear it. Eventually the Government will be compelled to try to control rather than crush the epidemic and go for the dreaded herd immunity. But we're very likely to be stuck with social distancing for a long, long time.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
So any employee can say "I`m not coming back to work because I don`t feel safe" and that employee still gets furlough payments when employee B goes back to work. This is where I started last night and was shot down in flames by posters.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
The government has told some they must shut down. Everyone else the employer decides - even if not ordered to shut down they are able to if they think that is what is appropriate.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
They are all entitled to be operational except for those in the sectors on the list, e.g. pubs, gyms, restaurants etc.
Still eligible to furlough employees if they're not needed due to this crisis. And it's ok to furlough some (eg those that can't get in) while paying others. What's not ok is furloughing people but getting them to still work.
The furlough scheme won't last forever. That's the point at which the mass sackings will be initiated. They may be on a slightly smaller scale if the Government doesn't stuff this up and it therefore manages to unshutter some businesses before it is forced to abandon furlough. But the mass sackings are coming eventually.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
I cannot tell you how toxic history will judge Boris Johnson...there will be books, films, docudramas trying to understand how this fucking lunacy took hold of the Tory party and fucked us all up.....
I think that may be slightly hyperbolic.
I cannot believe the Tory party, full of seemingly sensible people, has become so utterly useless. Every which way now is shocking. Labour was bad with Corbyn...so this uselessness shit is infectious.....but at least Corbyn never got his hands on power...
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
That would be fine if they just said that.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
Boris Johnson literally said he has faith in the British public to use common sense.
After I said that is what we should do he said that. I repeat: after I said here he should say it, he did.
So yeah I back what he said. Because it's what I said here he should say. Why wouldn't I back that? If Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer said what you said he should say then I wouldn't have been shocked at you being pleased with that.
As often with the PM it is smoke and mirrors. He says we should use common sense. But we either have to act illogically ignoring common sense, or use common sense and break the law because of his legislation.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
But that doesn’t make sense because surely Key Workers are the most at risk at present anyway? If they were going to spread it via schools, that would have happened already...
Most doesn't mean exclusively. And there's a difference between 5 children and their parents mingling and 50 to 100 say.
Plus the government have said they will reopen schools as soon as it is safe to do so.
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
That would be fine if they just said that.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
Boris Johnson literally said he has faith in the British public to use common sense.
After I said that is what we should do he said that. I repeat: after I said here he should say it, he did.
So yeah I back what he said. Because it's what I said here he should say. Why wouldn't I back that? If Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer said what you said he should say then I wouldn't have been shocked at you being pleased with that.
As often with the PM it is smoke and mirrors. He says we should use common sense. But we either have to act illogically ignoring common sense, or use common sense and break the law because of his legislation.
We’re still yet to see the new statutory instrument right?
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
I don’t think he could get an overall majority.
But the key target is 57 seats from the Conservatives. That would take him back past Gordon Brown, and probably make it impossible for the Tories to form a coalition arrangement with the DUP (and the Liberal Democrats won’t touch them again even under Ed Davey’s leadership).
I think he has a reasonable chance at that.
He will need SNP support who will demand another referendum (if they haven't held another by then) but without Scotland an anti-Tory majority will be even harder to achieve.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
So any employee can say "I`m not coming back to work because I don`t feel safe" and that employee still gets furlough payments when employee B goes back to work. This is where I started last night and was shot down in flames by posters.
There are variable factors such as how many workers the employer will need at present.
Ultimately someone who will not or is unable to work will be higher up the redundancy list than those who do.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
So any employee can say "I`m not coming back to work because I don`t feel safe" and that employee still gets furlough payments when employee B goes back to work. This is where I started last night and was shot down in flames by posters.
That budget deficit in my imagination just got a bit bigger.
The government is going to be aghast in a few weeks time at how revenues have totally collapsed whilst spending has soared.
If R heads back to one at the same time they are in a world of sh8t.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
At the moment he can stroll around on the halfway line and watch the opposing centre half hoof it into his own net.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
So any employee can say "I`m not coming back to work because I don`t feel safe" and that employee still gets furlough payments when employee B goes back to work. This is where I started last night and was shot down in flames by posters.
If the employer agrees yes. Employers can refuse furlough but given the fact furlough doesn't cost them and the risk of constructive/unfair dismissal if the employee was genuine and could prove it and the employer refused to be reasonable ... Then it makes sense for both employees and employers to be reasonable.
Conversations should be had and decisions made on a case by case basis.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
I confess that was my assumption - but the disincentives for both employer and employee to go back to work are so large that I'm not sure how much it matters anyway.
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
They are all entitled to be operational except for those in the sectors on the list, e.g. pubs, gyms, restaurants etc.
Good point but where's the incentive for the employer to re-open? horrible economic conditions, costly regulations on social distancing....particularly small businesses .I suppose there are some tax holidays on offer.
Not much point opening up your shop right now when the government has done a brilliant job for the last 8 weeks of telling you that you will drop down dead in the street if you step outside, and twitter has done an even better job of telling businesses that if they dare open up they are LITERALLY MURDERING people and we should all sit on our arses at home until we're all unemployed and broke.
If I were a business with a physical presence, I wouldn't open up now, or for a long time. I would, however, be looking at handing out the redundancies before the furlough scheme runs out.
Just skip them if you find them so annoying. I am interested in what a lot of them have to say.
What gets me is the weirdly patronising assumption that the rest of us have no idea where to find that endless stream of spaff and bilge if we wanted it. We get it, Twitter's full of ever so 'witty' memes and wry comments that .... oh, sorry, I passed out for a moment there from boredom just thinking about it.
Not particularly impressed with Mr Starmer's talk.
It's a slightly smooth barrack room lawyer demanding the exact lengths of indeterminate pieces of string.
And palpably trying to lay the groundwork for an Attlee 1945, land fit for heroes kinda outcome.
But he is right to hold off from mauling Johnson for the time being. It will take a good year from here to determine whewther Joihnson has screwed up or not. If he has, best to save the mauling for then. If not, an attack now will look ungracious.
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
That would be fine if they just said that.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
Boris Johnson literally said he has faith in the British public to use common sense.
After I said that is what we should do he said that. I repeat: after I said here he should say it, he did.
So yeah I back what he said. Because it's what I said here he should say. Why wouldn't I back that? If Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer said what you said he should say then I wouldn't have been shocked at you being pleased with that.
As often with the PM it is smoke and mirrors. He says we should use common sense. But we either have to act illogically ignoring common sense, or use common sense and break the law because of his legislation.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
I cannot tell you how toxic history will judge Boris Johnson...there will be books, films, docudramas trying to understand how this fucking lunacy took hold of the Tory party and fucked us all up.....
I think that may be slightly hyperbolic.
I cannot believe the Tory party, full of seemingly sensible people, has become so utterly useless. Every which way now is shocking. Labour was bad with Corbyn...so this uselessness shit is infectious.....but at least Corbyn never got his hands on power...
For over a decade our politicians have been poor with a fundamental unwillingness to do proper preparation and an inattention to detail.
But I see the same problems across most of the establishment.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
Which is completely ridiculous, why is it safe to have paid childcare but not schools? It's completely stupid.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
The behavioural scientists who the Tory incompetents were (allegedly) listening to before the lock down...why it was too early on all (bullshit).....
Well you need to ask those same folk how many of our countrymen will send their kids to school in June in some kind of test experiment...
Even you Phillip...even you must now come to realise that this Govt is absolutely fucking rubbish on every conceivable aspect....
Putting aside the shit comms, my take is that the government and the advisors knows things are really bad and will be for years to come.
I would guess that they sampling they are doing is showing that only a small % of the population have actually had this thing, and thus a second wave is inevitable. All these restrictions are here to stay, and that they aren't confident on a vaccine available for the whole public for year+ (maybe not even then).
And in the meantime, the economy is shot, and when the second wave comes we will be back to lockdown again.
And that is why all these questions about is it tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next week are getting a bit of don't know....Because in fact it will be radical permanent alterations of the whole way people work (perhaps never working again), forever, not just some masks, gloves and screens for employees for a few weeks.
Anyhoo, I am no longer a member of the Tory party, after 23 years, my membership of the party expired yesterday.
I can't see me rejoining soon, which makes me immensely sad.
Edit - Feck, I was a member of the Tory party for 4 times as long as I was married.
Sorry to see you go.
I've gone the other way, I was in the party from just before Cameron was elected (and voted for him it's why I joined) through to the party elected a leader who found it appropriate to send GO HOME vans to minority areas. I feel I've got my party back as Boris is more like Cameron than May ever was.
Putting aside the shit comms, my take is that the government and the advisors knows things are really bad and will be for years to come.
I would guess that they sampling they are doing is showing that only a small % of the population have actually had this thing, and thus a second wave is inevitable. All these restrictions are here to stay, and that they aren't confident on a vaccine available for the whole public for year+ (maybe not even then).
And in the meantime, the economy is shot, and when the second wave comes we will be back to lockdown again.
And that is why all these questions about is it tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next week are getting a bit of don't know....Because in fact it will be radical permanent alterations of the whole way people work (perhaps never working again), forever, not just some masks, gloves and screens for employees for a few weeks.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
So any employee can say "I`m not coming back to work because I don`t feel safe" and that employee still gets furlough payments when employee B goes back to work. This is where I started last night and was shot down in flames by posters.
No. *IF* the working environment is made safe then the employer is entitled to expect the employee to come back and resume work. Tender feelings don't come into it.
I would expect and hope that exceptions would be made for shielded people, but "I'm afraid of the virus" is an insufficient excuse for avoidance by the general population. Especially when so many people who are entitled to feel afraid of the virus, such as hospital workers, have kept going throughout all of this.
There is zero incentive for employers to indulge this kind of avoidance by very risk averse employees, by allowing them to stay on furlough when they are needed back at work and when the workplace has been adapted to conform to the regulations. These employees can legitimately be sacked and replaced.
There might be the odd isolated case where an employer only needs some of their staff back for the time being, and so lets the foot-draggers off the hook, but ultimately if they won't come back then they will get the push.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
Which is completely ridiculous, why is it safe to have paid childcare but not schools? It's completely stupid.
My guess would be volume. Paid childcare is a few children and a few parents like schools are ATM. An open school is hundreds of children and hundreds of parents.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
Which is completely ridiculous, why is it safe to have paid childcare but not schools? It's completely stupid.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
At the moment he can stroll around on the halfway line and watch the opposing centre half hoof it into his own net.
There's certainly a bit of Carlton Palmer about Boris but he's still aiming at Starmer's goal and while most will go wide some will go in.
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
That would be fine if they just said that.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
Boris Johnson literally said he has faith in the British public to use common sense.
After I said that is what we should do he said that. I repeat: after I said here he should say it, he did.
So yeah I back what he said. Because it's what I said here he should say. Why wouldn't I back that? If Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer said what you said he should say then I wouldn't have been shocked at you being pleased with that.
As often with the PM it is smoke and mirrors. He says we should use common sense. But we either have to act illogically ignoring common sense, or use common sense and break the law because of his legislation.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
I cannot tell you how toxic history will judge Boris Johnson...there will be books, films, docudramas trying to understand how this fucking lunacy took hold of the Tory party and fucked us all up.....
I think that may be slightly hyperbolic.
I cannot believe the Tory party, full of seemingly sensible people, has become so utterly useless. Every which way now is shocking. Labour was bad with Corbyn...so this uselessness shit is infectious.....but at least Corbyn never got his hands on power...
For over a decade our politicians have been poor with a fundamental unwillingness to do proper preparation and an inattention to detail.
But I see the same problems across most of the establishment.
Gary Neville....I should hate him because I'm a true Manc...but he said defenders cannot defend...they haven't got the dedication now to do what you need to do and learn over time and hours of practice to defend properly.....they have lost the craft....
You are probably right....
I set this malaise back to Blair to be honest....maybe 24 hour news too, but politics sadly just attracts people who are gloryhunters who otherwise could try Big Brother....
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
Which is completely ridiculous, why is it safe to have paid childcare but not schools? It's completely stupid.
My guess would be volume. Paid childcare is a few children and a few parents like schools are ATM. An open school is hundreds of children and hundreds of parents.
But I'm not saying open the fully, just for the children of workers who are expected to go back.
Anyhoo, I am no longer a member of the Tory party, after 23 years, my membership of the party expired yesterday.
I can't see me rejoining soon, which makes me immensely sad.
Edit - Feck, I was a member of the Tory party for 4 times as long as I was married.
The Conservative party left you, it will come back one day
No, it hasn’t. I’m broadly on the same wing of the party as TSE and I’m perfectly content with this government’s overall record. I respect his decision to leave and hope he will rejoin at some point but in my view the party is still firmly rooted in its traditional centre-right outlook.
Anyhoo, I am no longer a member of the Tory party, after 23 years, my membership of the party expired yesterday.
I can't see me rejoining soon, which makes me immensely sad.
Edit - Feck, I was a member of the Tory party for 4 times as long as I was married.
The Conservative party left you, it will come back one day
No, it hasn’t. I’m broadly on the same wing of the party as TSE and I’m perfectly content with this government’s overall record. I respect his decision to leave and hope he will rejoin at some point but in my view the party is still firmly rooted in its traditional centre-right outlook.
And no matter we'll still have our lunches in London, not even a pandemic will stop that.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
At the moment he can stroll around on the halfway line and watch the opposing centre half hoof it into his own net.
There's certainly a bit of Carlton Palmer about Boris but he's still aiming at Starmer's goal and while most will go wide some will go in.
I cannot believe we both used football analogies at the same time.....who would have bet on that one....
Anyhoo, I am no longer a member of the Tory party, after 23 years, my membership of the party expired yesterday.
I can't see me rejoining soon, which makes me immensely sad.
Edit - Feck, I was a member of the Tory party for 4 times as long as I was married.
The Conservative party left you, it will come back one day
No, it hasn’t. I’m broadly on the same wing of the party as TSE and I’m perfectly content with this government’s overall record. I respect his decision to leave and hope he will rejoin at some point but in my view the party is still firmly rooted in its traditional centre-right outlook.
And no matter we'll still have our lunches in London, not even a pandemic will stop that.
Of course, of course, certain things are immutable.
Good lord , just seen Sir Keirs response on the news. So stiff and dull. He will never be PM
What do you expect him to do? Do a few jokes and magical tricks....
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
The problem is that Starmer isn't competent enough to score in political open goals as opposition leader.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
Starmer will make a difference.
He is more competent and credible than any Labour leader since, well, Blair.
He's better than Brown (less of a jerk), better than Milliband (slightly less of a geek) and better than Corbyn (goes without saying).
Now, will he win a General Election? Probably not.
But I would expect that he will do no worse than Milliband.
It would be quite something to have an owner of a club pirating their own product.
The UAE aka Sheik Mansour also own Arabsat so it’s already happening.
Arabsat isn't the owner of the piracy platform though. The Saudi royals are. It's like saying sky should be responsible for people getting dodgy satellite receivers because they are using sky dishes to get the signal.
Putting aside the shit comms, my take is that the government and the advisors knows things are really bad and will be for years to come.
I would guess that they sampling they are doing is showing that only a small % of the population have actually had this thing, and thus a second wave is inevitable. All these restrictions are here to stay, and that they aren't confident on a vaccine available for the whole public for year+ (maybe not even then).
And in the meantime, the economy is shot, and when the second wave comes we will be back to lockdown again.
And that is why all these questions about is it tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next week are getting a bit of don't know....Because in fact it will be radical permanent alterations of the whole way people work (perhaps never working again), forever, not just some masks, gloves and screens for employees for a few weeks.
I hope you are wrong but fear you are not. I was pondering how we are going to cope with an economy on life-support for 5 years, time to open a nice bottle of red methinks. Sometimes being 70 has its benefits!
Putting aside the shit comms, my take is that the government and the advisors knows things are really bad and will be for years to come.
I would guess that they sampling they are doing is showing that only a small % of the population have actually had this thing, and thus a second wave is inevitable. All these restrictions are here to stay, and that they aren't confident on a vaccine available for the whole public for year+ (maybe not even then).
And in the meantime, the economy is shot, and when the second wave comes we will be back to lockdown again.
And that is why all these questions about is it tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next week are getting a bit of don't know....Because in fact it will be radical permanent alterations of the whole way people work (perhaps never working again), forever, not just some masks, gloves and screens for employees for a few weeks.
This will not go on forever. People won't wear it. A second attempt at a strict lockdown won't work. A sufficient percentage of the population will have lost faith in the measure and will go around openly flouting it. We're not a police state: the authorities don't have the numbers to check disobedience in excess of a certain level.
Either we get a grip on the disease and manage it until vaccination and/or treatment options neutralise it, or the pandemic will run its course and we'll get to the other side by the herd immunity route.
The economy will be anywhere between crippled and pulverised by then, but the conditions will then exist for a recovery. A fifth or a quarter of the population is not going to spend its entire lifetime scraping by on benefits.
Ina few weeks time the government is going to be wondering why so few workers have gone back to work, are going back to work or will be going back to work in the future.
They'll be wondering why so few businesses are starting up again as the spending soars ever higher.
Every time I read the news, the size of what I imagine our budget deficit to be in say six months time just grows. From grand canyon to wide Sargasso sea.
What Johnson has shut down he will have the devil's own job opening up again. And that is why long lockdown is a gargantuan mistake.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Yes!
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
So any employee can say "I`m not coming back to work because I don`t feel safe" and that employee still gets furlough payments when employee B goes back to work. This is where I started last night and was shot down in flames by posters.
If the employer agrees yes. Employers can refuse furlough but given the fact furlough doesn't cost them and the risk of constructive/unfair dismissal if the employee was genuine and could prove it and the employer refused to be reasonable ... Then it makes sense for both employees and employers to be reasonable.
Conversations should be had and decisions made on a case by case basis.
It would be quite something to have an owner of a club pirating their own product.
The UAE aka Sheik Mansour also own Arabsat so it’s already happening.
Arabsat isn't the owner of the piracy platform though. The Saudi royals are. It's like saying sky should be responsible for people getting dodgy satellite receivers because they are using sky dishes to get the signal.
But the Saudi Royals aren’t buying Newcastle United. Saudi’s Public Investment Fund is, a completely separate legal entity.
Anyhoo, I am no longer a member of the Tory party, after 23 years, my membership of the party expired yesterday.
I can't see me rejoining soon, which makes me immensely sad.
Edit - Feck, I was a member of the Tory party for 4 times as long as I was married.
The Conservative party left you, it will come back one day
No, it hasn’t. I’m broadly on the same wing of the party as TSE and I’m perfectly content with this government’s overall record. I respect his decision to leave and hope he will rejoin at some point but in my view the party is still firmly rooted in its traditional centre-right outlook.
John O...look back at the last 4 years....forget Corbyn...what would it take you to see how absolutely atrocious our Govt has been?
We are now looking into the abyss...the break up of the union, an uncontrolled pandemic, and the ongoing torture of Brexit....
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
It's not an oversight. They want to reopen schools as soon as they deem it safe to do so. But the schools at the moment are only looking after children of critical key workers who have no alternative. Imagine if someone who's not a key worker goes to the school and spreads the infection shutting the school down ... That would mean all those key workers who had no alternative now can't be at work on the frontline where they are needed.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
The problem is that no childcare is a huge block for a very large number of workers.
Of course it is. Which is why reopening schools is a priority. Plus paid childcare is now permitted again after today's announcements. That was in the details which have been surprisingly overlooked.
Which is completely ridiculous, why is it safe to have paid childcare but not schools? It's completely stupid.
My guess would be volume. Paid childcare is a few children and a few parents like schools are ATM. An open school is hundreds of children and hundreds of parents.
But I'm not saying open the fully, just for the children of workers who are expected to go back.
That would be a smarter intermediate step instead of picking years of kids and bringing them back first.
I am Convinced Starmer will be a massive flop and am willing to take bets against him succeeding on that basis. So anyone interested let me know some suggestions. I will work on some tempting offers and publish them later this evening
Comments
They are still making shit up as they go along...
If so that could be extended to other people.
Good header.
The reality is there are about half a dozen reasons why Trump should be favourite, and half a dozen when it should be Biden.
If Trump loses, he will be only the second President to depart after his party had only one term in office since the Second World War. Plus, he's fighting a man with the early stages of dementia, who is accused of sexual assault. (On the positive side, I think we can reasonably assume that when he says "I don't remember", then he really means it.)
On the other hand, Trump's unpopularity is unprecedented, particularly his "disapproval" numbers.
I think Biden should be favourite. Not a massive one, but definitely favourite.
But the key target is 57 seats from the Conservatives. That would take him back past Gordon Brown, and probably make it impossible for the Tories to form a coalition arrangement with the DUP (and the Liberal Democrats won’t touch them again even under Ed Davey’s leadership).
I think he has a reasonable chance at that.
That's not why I don't like them
I think within 12 months we'll desperate to see some competence running the country because for the lat 4 years we have really been governed by clowns...
My missus heard 10 seconds and went 'oh god Bore off'
After I said that is what we should do he said that. I repeat: after I said here he should say it, he did.
So yeah I back what he said. Because it's what I said here he should say. Why wouldn't I back that? If Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer said what you said he should say then I wouldn't have been shocked at you being pleased with that.
That’s showing serious balls, Scott...
Our employer has adapted to social distancing where needed, managed to obtain supplies of hand sanitiser and put dispensers all over the building, and implement temperature checks on entry. Those who can work from home have been sent home, which means that those who cannot are present in the building in substantially lower numbers.
Nobody gets here on public transport. Most people don't get about on public transport in most of the country, once you discount those huge numbers of office-based commuters who are now doing WFH (and a great many of those who do make journeys short enough that they could manage them with a bicycle or even on foot.) In normal times, bus and rail commuting only accounts for a fifth of all journeys to work. It's therefore entirely possible that socially distanced public transport commuting in most or all of the country can be achieved without forcing anyone who really needs buses and trains to abandon them.
Childcare is the most intractable problem, and I think that is going to do for some workers, but frankly that's inevitable. Government can't supply adequate full-time childcare because social distancing. Some workers will be able to sort out arrangements to work part-time, but others are going to have to jack it in to stay home and look after the kids. I feel sorry for them but it cannot be helped.
But he brought Brexit on us, fucked up Covid....I don't like him because he is fucking useless
I was asking whether returning to work is optional - and if one chooses not to return whether furlough payments would still be paid. I was assured by some posters that the scheme relies on the employer applying (which I knew) and that if the employee decided not to return to work the employer would likely not apply for furlough.
This must be right or the employer would be able to base furlough decisions in favour of those staff who decided not to return with the "resumed workers" being paid as normal. If this is right then why would anyone return to work, unless, I guess, he/she needed 100% rather than 80% of earnings?
And who decides which firms are 'operational?' the employer or the government?
People on the left always say what you do in your last sentence, but it never happens.
So not much likelihood of competency if he had to make the difficult decisions when the pressure was on.
He's betting being dull will be an asset, not a liability, in 2024. He may very well be right.
Yes schools need to open ASAP. That's always been the case.
It's a slightly smooth barrack room lawyer demanding the exact lengths of indeterminate pieces of string.
An employer can have some employees on wages and some on furlough. It is not and never has been all or nothing.
I don't expect us to be living with these restrictions forever. People won't wear it. Eventually the Government will be compelled to try to control rather than crush the epidemic and go for the dreaded herd immunity. But we're very likely to be stuck with social distancing for a long, long time.
Plus the government have said they will reopen schools as soon as it is safe to do so.
I can't see me rejoining soon, which makes me immensely sad.
Edit - Feck, I was a member of the Tory party for 4 times as long as I was married.
Ultimately someone who will not or is unable to work will be higher up the redundancy list than those who do.
The government is going to be aghast in a few weeks time at how revenues have totally collapsed whilst spending has soared.
If R heads back to one at the same time they are in a world of sh8t.
Conversations should be had and decisions made on a case by case basis.
If I were a business with a physical presence, I wouldn't open up now, or for a long time. I would, however, be looking at handing out the redundancies before the furlough scheme runs out.
But he is right to hold off from mauling Johnson for the time being. It will take a good year from here to determine whewther Joihnson has screwed up or not. If he has, best to save the mauling for then. If not, an attack now will look ungracious.
But I see the same problems across most of the establishment.
The behavioural scientists who the Tory incompetents were (allegedly) listening to before the lock down...why it was too early on all (bullshit).....
Well you need to ask those same folk how many of our countrymen will send their kids to school in June in some kind of test experiment...
Even you Phillip...even you must now come to realise that this Govt is absolutely fucking rubbish on every conceivable aspect....
I would guess that they sampling they are doing is showing that only a small % of the population have actually had this thing, and thus a second wave is inevitable. All these restrictions are here to stay, and that they aren't confident on a vaccine available for the whole public for year+ (maybe not even then).
And in the meantime, the economy is shot, and when the second wave comes we will be back to lockdown again.
And that is why all these questions about is it tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next week are getting a bit of don't know....Because in fact it will be radical permanent alterations of the whole way people work (perhaps never working again), forever, not just some masks, gloves and screens for employees for a few weeks.
I've gone the other way, I was in the party from just before Cameron was elected (and voted for him it's why I joined) through to the party elected a leader who found it appropriate to send GO HOME vans to minority areas. I feel I've got my party back as Boris is more like Cameron than May ever was.
New legal documents raise fresh questions over Newcastle takeover deal
Questions over Saudi government’s link to BeoutQ platform
Delay expected to Premier League verdict over £300m deal
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/11/new-legal-documents-raise-fresh-questions-over-newcastle-takeover-deal-saudi-arabia-premier-league
Arabsat is owned by 21 different Arab states including Qatar. Just more paper nonsense.
I would expect and hope that exceptions would be made for shielded people, but "I'm afraid of the virus" is an insufficient excuse for avoidance by the general population. Especially when so many people who are entitled to feel afraid of the virus, such as hospital workers, have kept going throughout all of this.
There is zero incentive for employers to indulge this kind of avoidance by very risk averse employees, by allowing them to stay on furlough when they are needed back at work and when the workplace has been adapted to conform to the regulations. These employees can legitimately be sacked and replaced.
There might be the odd isolated case where an employer only needs some of their staff back for the time being, and so lets the foot-draggers off the hook, but ultimately if they won't come back then they will get the push.
Gary Neville....I should hate him because I'm a true Manc...but he said defenders cannot defend...they haven't got the dedication now to do what you need to do and learn over time and hours of practice to defend properly.....they have lost the craft....
You are probably right....
I set this malaise back to Blair to be honest....maybe 24 hour news too, but politics sadly just attracts people who are gloryhunters who otherwise could try Big Brother....
He is more competent and credible than any Labour leader since, well, Blair.
He's better than Brown (less of a jerk), better than Milliband (slightly less of a geek) and better than Corbyn (goes without saying).
Now, will he win a General Election? Probably not.
But I would expect that he will do no worse than Milliband.
Either we get a grip on the disease and manage it until vaccination and/or treatment options neutralise it, or the pandemic will run its course and we'll get to the other side by the herd immunity route.
The economy will be anywhere between crippled and pulverised by then, but the conditions will then exist for a recovery. A fifth or a quarter of the population is not going to spend its entire lifetime scraping by on benefits.
We are now looking into the abyss...the break up of the union, an uncontrolled pandemic, and the ongoing torture of Brexit....
All, with good governance, avoidable.....
Pro tip - don't flounce off and join the Yellow Pox. Not to be recommended
This is a betting site, they used to say