Countering Starmer is difficult? Nah. Look at all these rich veins of electoral material:
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
It is completely illogical, you stand in a queue at tescos two metres in front of and two metres behind people you don't know. The reason that have said this is to try and stop "socially distanced" family parties in parks
Starmer is no Corbynite but he is no Blairite either, economically he is close to Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown so he can be attacked on potential tax rises he will introduce on wealth and higher earners.
He has also not ruled out keeping free movement and returning to the single market so can be attacked on that in Leave voting areas in the North and Midlands too
I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.
That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
The UK could have a clean break Brexit at the end of this year and if COVID 19 ends (perhaps due to a vaccine early next year) then the UK will almost certainly follow that clean break Brexit with growth next year following the baseline of the economic stats set this year I think. Do you think that's right?
I think so. People will point out the "clean break" Brexit doesn't help (and they'd be right: a WTO Brexit doesn't next to an FTA) but no-one will notice as the baseline is so poor.
Covid-19 gives cover for the hardest of Brexits.
Which hopefully helps us in the negotiations. The UK can go for the hardest of Brecits if th EU messes us around - and the EU has other things to worry about, so we're holding the cards. Whether we're willing to use them we will see.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
Parks don't typically require you to go through someone's living room to enter.
They've effectively said you can do what you want using common sense. If you're happy with the risk in visiting someone in their garden then nothing will happen to you if you go ahead (as far as I can tell). They're just trying to nudge people to start resuming their normal daily lives in a cautious manner. It's impossible to prescribe for every possible individual circumstance, which is what some people seem to want.
As we're still debating the advice I'll repost what went onto the end of the previous thread:
Which advice do I stick to? Raab on his first Monday interview? Raab on his second? Raab on his third? It definitely isn't Raab on his 4th interview of Monday morning as they pulled him because every interview he gave that morning contradicted the previous one.
Or how about listening to the PM. Do we listen to the advice of Sunday's broadcast? Of Monday's documents? Of Monday's press conference. He contradicted himself FFS.
How can anyone insist that people obey the advice when the advice keeps changing? From one minister to the next? Or when they are really tired from one interview to the next. This is why we need simple clear and unambiguous policies.
This is about two very simple things: stopping people from dying and maintaining the rule of law. The police say the new regulations are unenforceable. The ministers contradict each other openly. We have councils openly stating they will not allow floods of people to travel into their town whether they are allowed or not. And a transport secretary unwilling to use public transport state whilst his government forces people with no other options to use it if they do so then they will be stopped.
Go to work / don't go to work. Go outside / don't go outside. See 1 / 2 / 0 parents outside / not in a garden
How you seek out the advice, and there is plenty available on the government website, or you just do not like Boris and do not want to listen, is upto you but unless you want to live in China you need to take some responsibility yourself
We must all remember nothing is Boris' fault, not even Sunday's omni-shambles. We can blame that on the scientists, Whitty and Vallance, oh wait...they were not party to the Sunday night broadcast. The first they knew of the contents was when they watched it with the rest of us.
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
You think lockdown will be ended in June? Optimistic!
We're going to see a VE Day spike, and we're going to see a cities spike. It doesn't matter that "83% don't go to work on public transport" nationally when 83% DO use public transport in cities. In those cities people mandated to go back to work are fucked. Go to work. Don't use public transport. But most of you will have to use public transport. If you catch it then its Your Fault for not following the clear advice not to use the only means of transport to get you to work.
Masks? Don't be daft. They don;t do anything so no-one needs to wear a mask. Oh ok they do do something. You should wear a mask. But can't force you as people will start buying masks and we can't buy enough for doctors and care home workers. So its Your Risk if you travel the only way you can to a job we're forcing you back to.
Good old British Common Sense. Is easy to type when its Other People (looking at you Grant Shapps) doing the "suicide run"
It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...
I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.
That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
Meanwhile, Labour's under-the-radar social media campaigning will continue to provide two messages: one for Jeremy Corbyn and his friends, and one for everyone else.
It's a little disingenous to pretend like the Conservatives are the only ones playing the micro-targeting game, like there's something wrong with it. A bit like how Trump was evil in 2016 for perfecting a bunch of strategies Obama developed in 2008 and 2012.
Even if what you say is true, and we have yet to hear a full account of last year's election, it amounts to whataboutery. We know the Conservatives were doing this, although not the precise details, and we know it worked. That's why Boris is Prime Minister now.
That's not why Boris is PM.
Boris is PM because Corbyn was a dangerous fantasist and because Labour blocked a soft Brexit in May's deal.
Off topic and apologies if this has already been covered but I see that more details are emerging about the NHSX app.
As has previously been discussed, the big difference between this and the Google/Apple approach is that, when you are infected, the NHSX app uploads your contacts data to a central database and the central system alerts the people you've been in contact with. Contrary to what some people have said on here in the past, information about who you have been in contact with is not uploaded to the central database unless you become infected.
The Google/Apple approach, on the other hand, simply records the fact you are infected and never uploads any information about who you have been in contact with. The app periodically downloads the information about anyone in their region who has tested positive, so anyone you have been in contact with will get that information and receive an alert (provided they are in the same region).
The other big difference is that the NHSX app appears to use fixed IDs for users whereas the Google/Apple approach regularly changes your ID. So, when you notify the Google/Apple app that you are infected, it uploads the IDs you've used in the last 14 days.
According to John Newton, director of health improvement for Public Health England, the NHSX approach will give them a big dataset to which they can apply machine learning and AI to refine the risk assessment, hence improving the advice given to users of the app. Jonathan Van-Tam supports this approach as it will allow us to, "learn, for example, that 30 minutes’ exposure at close quarters to a case at day one of symptoms is equivalent to two hours’ exposure at one-and-a-half days before symptoms began or three days after symptoms began when the virus load is starting to decline."
The Apple/Google approach reduces privacy concerns but won't produce this kind of data. The question for us as users is whether the advantages of the NHSX approach outweigh the privacy concerns.
I note that NHSX has now released the code for the Android and iOS apps along with the design documentation. I see the Android app is written in Kotlin and the iOS app in Swift.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
No.
It is to do with visiting those like us who are in 12 week lockdown
I do not see how Starmer shifts Labour's big structural problem, which is the loss of its WWC support in the North and Midlands, and the loss of Scotland and, increasingly, Wales. He is another North London middle class lawyer representing an inner London seat and several of his DPP decisions are not exactly the type to endear him to these lost voters. I can see him strengthening Labour's position in well heeled / mixed urban areas with socially conscious voters who were scared of Corbyn's tax policies and Labour will probably pick up seats in the commuter belt but the risk is he accelerates declines in some of the more WWC areas.
Demographically we are becoming like the US, skilled white working class and lower middle class voters and voters in rural areas and small towns vote Tory/GOP, the poorest voters and ethnic minorities in big cities vote Labour/Democrat.
As in the US it is now suburban higher earning voters who are the key swing voters
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
This is probably a fantasy but..
Given the whole world is in the same boat couldn't there be a Bretton-Woods type conference (maybe with the IMF in attendance) next year where the whole world agrees at once to wipe out a chunk of the 2020 debts, and start afresh with a clean-ish slate again? Or at least agreed targeted debt relief and write-downs over the decade to 2030?
I'm not sure what the economic consequences of this would be. It's probably a trick you could only pull once.
I made that point on here a few weeks ago, and I'm more convinced than ever that that will be the eventual outcome of the crisis. Why would the entire world voluntarily walk into a decade+ of global depression, poverty, social crisis, and war when we can all just get together and push a few buttons on a computer?
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
You think lockdown will be ended in June? Optimistic!
We're going to see a VE Day spike, and we're going to see a cities spike. It doesn't matter that "83% don't go to work on public transport" nationally when 83% DO use public transport in cities. In those cities people mandated to go back to work are fucked. Go to work. Don't use public transport. But most of you will have to use public transport. If you catch it then its Your Fault for not following the clear advice not to use the only means of transport to get you to work.
Masks? Don't be daft. They don;t do anything so no-one needs to wear a mask. Oh ok they do do something. You should wear a mask. But can't force you as people will start buying masks and we can't buy enough for doctors and care home workers. So its Your Risk if you travel the only way you can to a job we're forcing you back to.
Good old British Common Sense. Is easy to type when its Other People (looking at you Grant Shapps) doing the "suicide run"
[Citation Needed] please on the claim that 83% DO use public transport in cities, especially when many of those in cities are capable of working from home.
I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.
More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.
Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
A journalist pointed out that Sunak has also set a precedent.
every time there's a recession or a sector is under pressure, the left will be calling for furloughs.
I
I read somewhere (here?) that Germany often has a weaker version of furlough available to firms in tough times. So maybe no bad thing depending on its structure (the current version would be too generous imo during a typical recession).
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
No.
It is to do with visiting those like us who are in 12 week lockdown
Not all relatives are in 12 week lockdown, it could be a 35 year old wanting to visit their twin sister in her back garden.
As we're still debating the advice I'll repost what went onto the end of the previous thread:
Which advice do I stick to? Raab on his first Monday interview? Raab on his second? Raab on his third? It definitely isn't Raab on his 4th interview of Monday morning as they pulled him because every interview he gave that morning contradicted the previous one.
Or how about listening to the PM. Do we listen to the advice of Sunday's broadcast? Of Monday's documents? Of Monday's press conference. He contradicted himself FFS.
How can anyone insist that people obey the advice when the advice keeps changing? From one minister to the next? Or when they are really tired from one interview to the next. This is why we need simple clear and unambiguous policies.
This is about two very simple things: stopping people from dying and maintaining the rule of law. The police say the new regulations are unenforceable. The ministers contradict each other openly. We have councils openly stating they will not allow floods of people to travel into their town whether they are allowed or not. And a transport secretary unwilling to use public transport state whilst his government forces people with no other options to use it if they do so then they will be stopped.
Go to work / don't go to work. Go outside / don't go outside. See 1 / 2 / 0 parents outside / not in a garden
Of course the police shouldn't be involved in enforcement (or commenting on the rules) . Just as they don't enforce health and safety regulations or issue parking tickets.
Unfortunately England doesn't have an equivalent of the Ordnungsamt, so not sure who can do it
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
You think lockdown will be ended in June? Optimistic!
We're going to see a VE Day spike, and we're going to see a cities spike. It doesn't matter that "83% don't go to work on public transport" nationally when 83% DO use public transport in cities. In those cities people mandated to go back to work are fucked. Go to work. Don't use public transport. But most of you will have to use public transport. If you catch it then its Your Fault for not following the clear advice not to use the only means of transport to get you to work.
Masks? Don't be daft. They don;t do anything so no-one needs to wear a mask. Oh ok they do do something. You should wear a mask. But can't force you as people will start buying masks and we can't buy enough for doctors and care home workers. So its Your Risk if you travel the only way you can to a job we're forcing you back to.
Good old British Common Sense. Is easy to type when its Other People (looking at you Grant Shapps) doing the "suicide run"
We are certainly likely to see a post-Sunday broadcast spike, after which half the nation only heard 'unlock, unlock' and duly did so.
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
You think lockdown will be ended in June? Optimistic!
We're going to see a VE Day spike, and we're going to see a cities spike. It doesn't matter that "83% don't go to work on public transport" nationally when 83% DO use public transport in cities. In those cities people mandated to go back to work are fucked. Go to work. Don't use public transport. But most of you will have to use public transport. If you catch it then its Your Fault for not following the clear advice not to use the only means of transport to get you to work.
Masks? Don't be daft. They don;t do anything so no-one needs to wear a mask. Oh ok they do do something. You should wear a mask. But can't force you as people will start buying masks and we can't buy enough for doctors and care home workers. So its Your Risk if you travel the only way you can to a job we're forcing you back to.
Good old British Common Sense. Is easy to type when its Other People (looking at you Grant Shapps) doing the "suicide run"
I do not know if lockdown will end but it may
However, I am not going to persuade you to take personal responsibility
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
Parks don't typically require you to go through someone's living room to enter.
They've effectively said you can do what you want using common sense. If you're happy with the risk in visiting someone in their garden then nothing will happen to you if you go ahead (as far as I can tell). They're just trying to nudge people to start resuming their normal daily lives in a cautious manner. It's impossible to prescribe for every possible individual circumstance, which is what some people seem to want.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
Parks don't typically require you to go through someone's living room to enter.
They've effectively said you can do what you want using common sense. If you're happy with the risk in visiting someone in their garden then nothing will happen to you if you go ahead (as far as I can tell). They're just trying to nudge people to start resuming their normal daily lives in a cautious manner. It's impossible to prescribe for every possible individual circumstance, which is what some people seem to want.
Their are neighbours out there reporting people to the police for meeting a relative in a garden (agree the police are very unlikely to be interested), but its just nonsense.
Lots of gardens have access without going through the house, not just detached/semi detached but most old terraced ones have a path at the back direct to the gardens.
If the logical advice is you cant have relatives inside your house but you can meet in the open air that would be fine.
Differentiating between parks and gardens just isnt logical.
It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...
Agree, must be lots of material from his time as DPP.
Give him airtime I'd say. If my charisma vs Nerd theory is correct, he is too dull to beat Boris or Rishi
Rishi is a nerd also
Rishi is a charismatic nerd. SKS needs to go to drama school, or get drama school to come to him as Mrs Thatcher did, for some coaching. He has four years to nail it.
Countering Starmer is difficult? Nah. Look at all these rich veins of electoral material:
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
About right I think. Except that the time could come - maybe is already here - when anyone who could offer boring, even sleep inducing, competence will be a good bet. Boring competence is what SKS exudes and I think he intends to make it his USP. So I think the focus will need to on party (the lunatics behind him, currently invisible behind Zoom), and policy, if by then anyone can think of any.
Poland closed its borders to foreigners in March to stop the spread of the coronavirus and has extended the restriction four times since then. Polish citizens, diplomats, foreigners with the legal right to live in Poland and foreign professional drivers can enter Poland at selected checkpoints.
And yet here, an island, we can't work out a way to do this.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
No, the advice now is you can picnic or sunbathe in the park!
It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...
Agree, must be lots of material from his time as DPP.
If we couldn't make historical support for IRA terrorism stick against Corbyn, I hold out limited hope that the public will be terribly interested in Starmer screwing up a murder trial more than a decade ago (by the time of the next election).
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
No, the advice now is you can picnic or sunbathe in the park!
And yes a differentiation between friends and family would be illogical. A maximum number of people would be logical.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
No, the advice now is you can picnic or sunbathe in the park!
With your own household while keeping socially distant from others yes.
That's not going to other people's houses! And people need sunshine and vitamin D.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
The health ministry in Brazil on Tuesday reported 881 fatalities from the disease in 24 hours, taking its total to 12,400 and making it the world’s sixth worst-affected country for deaths, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University. Brazil’s total of 177,589 confirmed cases is the seventh highest in the world.
Along with Mexico, they are two countries that tick all the boxes for having terrible outbreaks that they won't be able to manage
I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.
More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.
Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
It could end in the kind of currency crisis that will make our gloating about being outside the Euro look like hubris.
It would be about 20x worse within the Euro. Tbh, if the UK was in the Euro in 2008 then the Euro would already have broken, there just wasn't enough money in the bloc to bail out the UK.
I am not overtly concerned about continuity Corbyn Sir Keith the Brexit blocking lawyer.
He may have his 15 mins in the sun as the tail of Covid works its way round the u-bend but when the worst is over we will need optimism and fresh thinking around the economy.
Not blah blah from a "forensic" bore endlessly waffling about the latest woke fad, social justice and faux "consensus".
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
No, the advice now is you can picnic or sunbathe in the park!
An Outrageous suggestion that Philip doesn't know the advice. Its perfectly clear.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
Parks don't typically require you to go through someone's living room to enter.
They've effectively said you can do what you want using common sense. If you're happy with the risk in visiting someone in their garden then nothing will happen to you if you go ahead (as far as I can tell). They're just trying to nudge people to start resuming their normal daily lives in a cautious manner. It's impossible to prescribe for every possible individual circumstance, which is what some people seem to want.
Alright, let's try this: If it starts raining while you're in a park, you won't be tempted to decamp to the living room rather than getting in your car and going home.
They're clearly different. They're also clearly not hugely different. But it's probably not enough to be quite as indignant as you seem to be that the advice is different.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
My advice would be not to drive after one then.
Wow you're more conflicted and self-hating than @kinabalu. How can we take someone seriously who doesn't take his own advice to himself??
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
No, the advice now is you can picnic or sunbathe in the park!
With your own household while keeping socially distant from others yes.
That's not going to other people's houses! And people need sunshine and vitamin D.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
Alright, let's try this: If it starts raining while you're in a park, you won't be tempted to decamp to the living room rather than getting in your car and going home.
They're clearly different. They're also clearly not hugely different. But it's probably not enough to be quite as indignant as you seem to be that the advice is different.
Well d'uh, I'd ask a passing alien if I could borrow their umbrella.
It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...
Agree, must be lots of material from his time as DPP.
If we couldn't make historical support for IRA terrorism stick against Corbyn, I hold out limited hope that the public will be terribly interested in Starmer screwing up a murder trial more than a decade ago (by the time of the next election).
There is another issue covered by his time at the DPP (2008-2013) that will be of interest.
The health ministry in Brazil on Tuesday reported 881 fatalities from the disease in 24 hours, taking its total to 12,400 and making it the world’s sixth worst-affected country for deaths, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University. Brazil’s total of 177,589 confirmed cases is the seventh highest in the world.
Along with Mexico, they are two countries that tick all the boxes for having terrible outbreaks that they won't be able to manage
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
This is probably a fantasy but..
Given the whole world is in the same boat couldn't there be a Bretton-Woods type conference (maybe with the IMF in attendance) next year where the whole world agrees at once to wipe out a chunk of the 2020 debts, and start afresh with a clean-ish slate again? Or at least agreed targeted debt relief and write-downs over the decade to 2030?
I'm not sure what the economic consequences of this would be. It's probably a trick you could only pull once.
I made that point on here a few weeks ago, and I'm more convinced than ever that that will be the eventual outcome of the crisis. Why would the entire world voluntarily walk into a decade+ of global depression, poverty, social crisis, and war when we can all just get together and push a few buttons on a computer?
It's the biggest no-brainer in world history.
I think from that point on, states would have to live within their means, or at least no worse than they were pre-COVID-19.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
My advice would be not to drive after one then.
Wow you're more conflicted and self-hating than @kinabalu. How can we take someone seriously who doesn't take his own advice to himself??
I take my advice under advisement.
Advice is something to listen to and balance with other factors, not a rule to adhere to 100% of the time. Are you struggling with that?
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality
However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either
Do back gardens not have open air?
Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons
However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
Parks don't typically require you to go through someone's living room to enter.
They've effectively said you can do what you want using common sense. If you're happy with the risk in visiting someone in their garden then nothing will happen to you if you go ahead (as far as I can tell). They're just trying to nudge people to start resuming their normal daily lives in a cautious manner. It's impossible to prescribe for every possible individual circumstance, which is what some people seem to want.
Alright, let's try this: If it starts raining while you're in a park, you won't be tempted to decamp to the living room rather than getting in your car and going home.
They're clearly different. They're also clearly not hugely different. But it's probably not enough to be quite as indignant as you seem to be that the advice is different.
Im just pointing out that the advice is not logical (as Rochdale points its not even consistent from interview to interview). Others are arguing the opposite without success.
I dont think its that big a deal, but the claims that this is somehow the govt letting us use our common sense backed up by logical rules is so incorrect it should be challenged.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
The European Union’s borders must reopen fast as coronavirus transmissions ease, with air passengers wearing masks, the bloc’s executive was to say on Wednesday (May 13) in efforts to salvage the ravaged tourism sector for the lucrative summer season.
Europe’s museums, castles, beaches and plazas have been empty since an almost continent-wide lockdown from mid-March, but the EU wants to revive what is possible of travel for the June-August season worth 150 billion euros (S$230 billion).
Draft proposals seen by Reuters say the bloc’s executive, the European Commission, will on Wednesday urge a return to “unrestricted free movement”, though that push will stop if there is a major second wave of infections.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
This is probably a fantasy but..
Given the whole world is in the same boat couldn't there be a Bretton-Woods type conference (maybe with the IMF in attendance) next year where the whole world agrees at once to wipe out a chunk of the 2020 debts, and start afresh with a clean-ish slate again? Or at least agreed targeted debt relief and write-downs over the decade to 2030?
I'm not sure what the economic consequences of this would be. It's probably a trick you could only pull once.
I made that point on here a few weeks ago, and I'm more convinced than ever that that will be the eventual outcome of the crisis. Why would the entire world voluntarily walk into a decade+ of global depression, poverty, social crisis, and war when we can all just get together and push a few buttons on a computer?
It's the biggest no-brainer in world history.
I think from that point on, states would have to live within their means, or at least no worse than they were pre-COVID-19.
I can't see the capitalist states like the US and the UK agreeing to that. Even after all the bailouts we are doing, we would still be one of the stronger economic countries. To borrow a phrase from somewhere, "turkeys don't vote for Christmas".
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
For many, 'Garden' is not an option.
It is not an option for me either. It doesnt make it logical.
The European Union’s borders must reopen fast as coronavirus transmissions ease, with air passengers wearing masks, the bloc’s executive was to say on Wednesday (May 13) in efforts to salvage the ravaged tourism sector for the lucrative summer season.
Europe’s museums, castles, beaches and plazas have been empty since an almost continent-wide lockdown from mid-March, but the EU wants to revive what is possible of travel for the June-August season worth 150 billion euros (S$230 billion).
Draft proposals seen by Reuters say the bloc’s executive, the European Commission, will on Wednesday urge a return to “unrestricted free movement”, though that push will stop if there is a major second wave of infections.
On topic with respect to any political analysis based on the past or on playing forward the pre-corona world, its all out of date. Its like asking what the 1950s political events would be based on the parties and societal norms of the 1930s. People keep mentioning Brexit as if deliverance of it is the main thing that the people in red wall seats are concerned by...
On the great parks vs gardens debate, remember Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
My advice would be not to drive after one then.
Wow you're more conflicted and self-hating than @kinabalu. How can we take someone seriously who doesn't take his own advice to himself??
I take my advice under advisement.
Advice is something to listen to and balance with other factors, not a rule to adhere to 100% of the time. Are you struggling with that?
I try to stick to my own advice.
It's exquisite that in a discussion, about the difficulty of advice especially the government's advice, you say that you give yourself advice you stick to it sometimes but also you ignore it.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
I don't disagree, but it's early days. I think the markets will be tolerant of the extreme measures this year, but they'll want to see that a huge deficit is not becoming a structural addiction in years to come.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
For many, 'Garden' is not an option.
It is not an option for me either. It doesnt make it logical.
The advice isn't about getting a clean set of logic without grey areas that nobody can't find counter what-ifs about. Nor should it be.
The advice is the advice based upon what is safest now. Whatever advice you give there will always be 101 possible what ifs related to it.
There is a reasonably clear set of guidance which is a starting point and you need to think for yourself from that.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
My advice would be not to drive after one then.
Wow you're more conflicted and self-hating than @kinabalu. How can we take someone seriously who doesn't take his own advice to himself??
I take my advice under advisement.
Advice is something to listen to and balance with other factors, not a rule to adhere to 100% of the time. Are you struggling with that?
I try to stick to my own advice.
Haha, that is a narcissistic statement that is worthy of The Donald himself. Do you find yourself sitting by the fireside of an evening pontificating to yourself and sometimes disagreeing ? Self-advice sounds like masturbation for the self-obsessed.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
One thing that would have been helpful is if Citizens Advice and the regulators hadn't decimated the UK PPI industry over the last 15 years. It might have been a drop in the ocean, all things considered, but it would have ensured much-needed certainty for thousands of households all over the country where someone was at risk of redundancy.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
This is probably a fantasy but..
Given the whole world is in the same boat couldn't there be a Bretton-Woods type conference (maybe with the IMF in attendance) next year where the whole world agrees at once to wipe out a chunk of the 2020 debts, and start afresh with a clean-ish slate again? Or at least agreed targeted debt relief and write-downs over the decade to 2030?
I'm not sure what the economic consequences of this would be. It's probably a trick you could only pull once.
I made that point on here a few weeks ago, and I'm more convinced than ever that that will be the eventual outcome of the crisis. Why would the entire world voluntarily walk into a decade+ of global depression, poverty, social crisis, and war when we can all just get together and push a few buttons on a computer?
It's the biggest no-brainer in world history.
I think from that point on, states would have to live within their means, or at least no worse than they were pre-COVID-19.
I can't see the capitalist states like the US and the UK agreeing to that. Even after all the bailouts we are doing, we would still be one of the stronger economic countries. To borrow a phrase from somewhere, "turkeys don't vote for Christmas".
Does it follow that governments of capitalist orientated countries wouldn't fancy abolishing their own debt?
And I'm not sure we are that capitalist. The questions to Sunak's statement the other day were quite depressing. All the focus is on making sure nobody feels any pain. I didn't hear one MP ask "do we have a long-term plan for paying for all of this?"
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
It is quite probable that the furlough scheme is far cheaper than the cost of the economic damage. It is apparently costs £14Bn per month.
@Luckyguy1983 just bought some masks from that shopping channel. We’ll see what they are like.
Glad you found it helpful - I must admit (and should have done so before) that I haven't invested in any masks myself. But my Mum has ordered stuff from that site before, so at least I know they do actually deliver things and are legit in that regard. Hope they work out - got to be better than a scarf alone?
I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.
More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.
Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
Financial markets turn on mood as much as data so that's interesting to hear.
I've been wondering about the difference between lockdown being am interregnum and a threshold.
I had hoped that it would be an interregnum. We would squash the virus and use contact tracing and quarantine to keep it squashed while most everything went back to normal. That seems to be the model furlough is good for. Keep everything on ice temporarily and then resume.
The government's plan makes it look more like a threshold to a new, socially-distanced normality. Lots of types of leisure activity are dead for the foreseeable then and it might be better to find ways to help people to move to new employment in new leisure industries for that new normal, rather than to keep them doing nothing waiting for a return to before that never comes.
On topic with respect to any political analysis based on the past or on playing forward the pre-corona world, its all out of date. Its like asking what the 1950s political events would be based on the parties and societal norms of the 1930s. People keep mentioning Brexit as if deliverance of it is the main thing that the people in red wall seats are concerned by...
Brexit matters not because the fact of Brexit matters, which was last year's debate (and the years before that) but because the nature of it may screw over its erstwhile supporters. As both Dominic Cummings and Arron Banks remarked, a lot of Brexit voters were not really voting on Brexit, which is why Take Back Control was effective, and the correlation with austerity. Covid-19 might be a good way to bury bad Brexit news, whether for voters or for the three ERG hold-outs who actually care.
But the government made it clear mask wearing is only advised. At no point have they ever said this is to be enforced. Now, I think this is dumb, but that is what they said.
So they are complaining they can't enforce something that the government haven't asked to be enforced....PC Plod a bit thick?
Its like them complaining they can't enforce the banning of pineapple on pizza. I mean we all know that should be banned and it is advised not to do so, but we don't expect Pc Plod to be round Dominoes telling them to stop selling them.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
One thing that would have been helpful is if Citizens Advice and the regulators hadn't decimated the UK PPI industry over the last 15 years. It might have been a drop in the ocean, all things considered, but it would have ensured much-needed certainty for thousands of households all over the country where someone was at risk of redundancy.
The problem with that is that you would end up with collapsed insurance companies, not payout.
Before the economic aid was announced, there were calls for the government to amend the shutdowns so that insurance would be triggered for companies. It would have had the same result.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
For many, 'Garden' is not an option.
It is not an option for me either. It doesnt make it logical.
The advice isn't about getting a clean set of logic without grey areas that nobody can't find counter what-ifs about. Nor should it be.
The advice is the advice based upon what is safest now. Whatever advice you give there will always be 101 possible what ifs related to it.
There is a reasonably clear set of guidance which is a starting point and you need to think for yourself from that.
Thats much closer to what I can agree with, than stating the guidance is logical.
My point was when the advice is not well thought out, and as it would seem from Raabs interviews, based on the minister of the days initial reactions, it detracts from the impact of the advice, rather than improves it.
Sometimes the minister should simply say things like "I will get back to you on that" or "That is something the public need to consider based on their own particular circumstances". Instead they say the first thing that comes in their mind to a scenario they have given zero thought.
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
My advice would be not to drive after one then.
Wow you're more conflicted and self-hating than @kinabalu. How can we take someone seriously who doesn't take his own advice to himself??
I take my advice under advisement.
Advice is something to listen to and balance with other factors, not a rule to adhere to 100% of the time. Are you struggling with that?
I try to stick to my own advice.
It's exquisite that in a discussion, about the difficulty of advice especially the government's advice, you say that you give yourself advice you stick to it sometimes but also you ignore it.
You need to generate better advice.
QED as they say.
No! Actually it proves my point!
My point is it's something to consider and balance with common sense. Not ignore 100% as meaningless, nor follow rigidly 100% of the time.
Advice is a guideline. No more, no less. If advice changes behaviour can change, but you can think for yourself and not be a brain-dead automaton in the mean time.
Whats the alternative? No body works for a year or two?
Eventually people are going to have to go back to work and we are just going to have to live with the risk. It's a matter of managing the risk, and enduring the crisis, its not able to be solved.
They’re still not wearing masks. Christ. It beggars belief
It’s because people like Casino think wearing masks is “twattish” and “makes you look like a nob”.
How good do you look, and how twattish do you feel, when the selfish lack of mask wearing has put you in hospital and you are drowning in your own body fluids?
As I explained last night I would not wear a mask as it effects my copd
However, I would if I went on public transport or indeed in hospital, but I will not go on public transport anyway
Notwithstanding I am surprised at the perceived low use on TFL
Haha, that is a narcissistic statement that is worthy of The Donald himself. Do you find yourself sitting by the fireside of an evening pontificating to yourself and sometimes disagreeing ? Self-advice sounds like masturbation for the self-obsessed.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
For many, 'Garden' is not an option.
It is not an option for me either. It doesnt make it logical.
The advice isn't about getting a clean set of logic without grey areas that nobody can't find counter what-ifs about. Nor should it be.
The advice is the advice based upon what is safest now. Whatever advice you give there will always be 101 possible what ifs related to it.
There is a reasonably clear set of guidance which is a starting point and you need to think for yourself from that.
Thats much closer to what I can agree with, than stating the guidance is logical.
My point was when the advice is not well thought out, and as it would seem from Raabs interviews, based on the minister of the days initial reactions, it detracts from the impact of the advice, rather than improves it.
Sometimes the minister should simply say things like "I will get back to you on that" or "That is something the public need to consider based on their own particular circumstances". Instead they say the first thing that comes in their mind to a scenario they have given zero thought.
The advice is reasonably thought through, the 101 bizarre "what about ..." garbage the media comes up with and puts the ministers on the spot may not be.
I agree that saying the public should use common sense should be the reply rather than making it up. I'm not a fan of Raab.
I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.
Largely true and the 2024 GE is going to be fought mainly on the economy of the country after 4 years of a pandemic and Brexit. Not the most promising territory I wouldn't have thought. It's going to take more than a few jolly platitudes from breezy Boris.
Starmer is here or there to the extent that he is seen as an acceptable alternative PM. Boris had a get-out-of-jail-free card with Corbyn as a majority of the electorate wouldn't have had him at any price. Starmer is already on the way to being viewed as an acceptable PM.
I don't disagree with this or the same point made by @Scott_P above. If Boris' Government has a terrible record on Covid-19, and especially the recovery, it will harm them. They are afforded a little cover by the fact that the opposition parties have come down firmly on the 'more lockdown is better' side of the argument.
OT, just watched last week's PMQ at long last. Johnson was hopeless and Starmer pulled him apart. If that happens every week and it gets coverage most people are going to wake up to the fact that it might not be a good idea to have a low on detail game show host as a PM. The Tories are going to find it difficult to undermine Starmer IMO, unless they find something that sticks that is currently unknown. A lot of PB Johnson fanbois on here have tried to suggest he is boring, which is hardly going to shift the needle much, even if it were true. One on here yesterday tried to suggest that "being forensic" was a bad thing. Maybe he ought to look at the forensic ability of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Both would have run rings around The Clown. Johnson's advisors are going to have to do a lot better, and Johnson himself would be well advised to start looking at using some heavyweights to support him rather than surrounding himself with hopeless sycophants.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
One thing that would have been helpful is if Citizens Advice and the regulators hadn't decimated the UK PPI industry over the last 15 years. It might have been a drop in the ocean, all things considered, but it would have ensured much-needed certainty for thousands of households all over the country where someone was at risk of redundancy.
Rambling anecdata: I was one of the few whose PPI was used to pay the mortgage after I was made redundant. (The aftertiming gods don't allow me to say how I eventually paid it off.) When it blew up as a scandal, I did get a couple of calls from the BS looking to legally cover their, erm, bases, that started by asking for personal information and passwords.
And that still goes on. Companies train consumers to fall for fraud by the way they ask for information. Even banks.
@Luckyguy1983 just bought some masks from that shopping channel. We’ll see what they are like.
Glad you found it helpful - I must admit (and should have done so before) that I haven't invested in any masks myself. But my Mum has ordered stuff from that site before, so at least I know they do actually deliver things and are legit in that regard. Hope they work out - got to be better than a scarf alone?
my local scotmid on leith walk in edinburgh was punting reusable masks when i popped in today.
Theres quite a few pages on the internet suggesting that you can reuse airline eye shades as face masks as well.......
I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.
You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.
Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!
The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.
To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.
The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.
He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.
And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.
Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.
I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.
I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.
I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.
The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.
The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?
The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
The advice is to go to the park for exercise and you can meet someone there.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
It's difficult to think clearly after a shandy, that said.
My advice would be not to drive after one then.
Wow you're more conflicted and self-hating than @kinabalu. How can we take someone seriously who doesn't take his own advice to himself??
I take my advice under advisement.
Advice is something to listen to and balance with other factors, not a rule to adhere to 100% of the time. Are you struggling with that?
I try to stick to my own advice.
Haha, that is a narcissistic statement that is worthy of The Donald himself. Do you find yourself sitting by the fireside of an evening pontificating to yourself and sometimes disagreeing ? Self-advice sounds like masturbation for the self-obsessed.
You seem a bit obsessed with me, like there's some sort of weird online sexual chemistry. Like a little boy in a playground pulling the pigtails of a girl he likes. This is a few times now you reply to a post of mine ignoring the context and just go full throttle. I'm flattered with your interest you're showing but I'm not interested myself.
Topping and I were having a conversation about advice. If you want to get into a constructive conversation please engage constructively.
It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...
Agree, must be lots of material from his time as DPP.
If we couldn't make historical support for IRA terrorism stick against Corbyn, I hold out limited hope that the public will be terribly interested in Starmer screwing up a murder trial more than a decade ago (by the time of the next election).
There is another issue covered by his time at the DPP (2008-2013) that will be of interest.
Sure - but this stuff is a minor point compared with the physical impossibility of polishing a Miliband/Brown/Starmer.
@Luckyguy1983 just bought some masks from that shopping channel. We’ll see what they are like.
Glad you found it helpful - I must admit (and should have done so before) that I haven't invested in any masks myself. But my Mum has ordered stuff from that site before, so at least I know they do actually deliver things and are legit in that regard. Hope they work out - got to be better than a scarf alone?
my local scotmid on leith walk in edinburgh was punting reusable masks when i popped in today.
Theres quite a few pages on the internet suggesting that you can reuse airline eye shades as face masks as well.......
Yes. As I said, I'm rather dubious of PPE panic. This stuff is not rocket science to produce.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
One thing that would have been helpful is if Citizens Advice and the regulators hadn't decimated the UK PPI industry over the last 15 years. It might have been a drop in the ocean, all things considered, but it would have ensured much-needed certainty for thousands of households all over the country where someone was at risk of redundancy.
The problem with that is that you would end up with collapsed insurance companies, not payout.
Before the economic aid was announced, there were calls for the government to amend the shutdowns so that insurance would be triggered for companies. It would have had the same result.
The two big providers in the UK are part of gargantuan well-capitalised organisations, and can well absorb the shock.
Interestingly (or not), I used to work on capital planning for one of them, including modelling pandemic (and other) shocks. Looking back, one of the mistakes we made was assuming limited economic disruption from a pandemic, other than due to short-term general costs due to people being sick. Still, we did look at economic crash followed by pandemic, just to see if it broke us at the 1 in 1000 year level. That was a while ago, and prior to some M&A activity, but I reckon they'd still be OK.
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
For many, 'Garden' is not an option.
It is not an option for me either. It doesnt make it logical.
The advice isn't about getting a clean set of logic without grey areas that nobody can't find counter what-ifs about. Nor should it be.
The advice is the advice based upon what is safest now. Whatever advice you give there will always be 101 possible what ifs related to it.
There is a reasonably clear set of guidance which is a starting point and you need to think for yourself from that.
Thats much closer to what I can agree with, than stating the guidance is logical.
My point was when the advice is not well thought out, and as it would seem from Raabs interviews, based on the minister of the days initial reactions, it detracts from the impact of the advice, rather than improves it.
Sometimes the minister should simply say things like "I will get back to you on that" or "That is something the public need to consider based on their own particular circumstances". Instead they say the first thing that comes in their mind to a scenario they have given zero thought.
The advice is reasonably thought through, the 101 bizarre "what about ..." garbage the media comes up with and puts the ministers on the spot may not be.
I agree that saying the public should use common sense should be the reply rather than making it up. I'm not a fan of Raab.
Boris and Dominic Cumming's Number 10 power grab is the enemy here. Ministers are excluded from discussions, and not even given advanced copies or briefings on announcements -- presumably so they cannot leak them -- which means of course they are unprepared for any specific question from Piers Morgan, Philip Schofield or Agnes from Auchtermuchty.
The 'minister' now kicked out of Labour is "Former Derby North MP and City Council Leader | Now focusing on building a grassroots, anti-imperialist working class movement"
Ive been in favour of outdoors since the start because of sunshine and vitamin D yes. But you can meet one person at the park and sunbathe. Whilst there you will come across lots of people within a few metres of you, it is just clearly riskier for yourselves and society than meeting the same person in your back garden and sunbathing.
For many, 'Garden' is not an option.
It is not an option for me either. It doesnt make it logical.
The advice isn't about getting a clean set of logic without grey areas that nobody can't find counter what-ifs about. Nor should it be.
The advice is the advice based upon what is safest now. Whatever advice you give there will always be 101 possible what ifs related to it.
There is a reasonably clear set of guidance which is a starting point and you need to think for yourself from that.
Thats much closer to what I can agree with, than stating the guidance is logical.
My point was when the advice is not well thought out, and as it would seem from Raabs interviews, based on the minister of the days initial reactions, it detracts from the impact of the advice, rather than improves it.
Sometimes the minister should simply say things like "I will get back to you on that" or "That is something the public need to consider based on their own particular circumstances". Instead they say the first thing that comes in their mind to a scenario they have given zero thought.
The advice is reasonably thought through, the 101 bizarre "what about ..." garbage the media comes up with and puts the ministers on the spot may not be.
I agree that saying the public should use common sense should be the reply rather than making it up. I'm not a fan of Raab.
Boris and Dominic Cumming's Number 10 power grab is the enemy here. Ministers are excluded from discussions, and not even given advanced copies or briefings on announcements -- presumably so they cannot leak them -- which means of course they are unprepared for any specific question from Piers Morgan, Philip Schofield or Agnes from Auchtermuchty.
Without that grab, the Con party was rubbish - see Mrs Mays regime for details.
Raab, Hancock etc would not have fared any better than May.
Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
To some degree, yes but I think people are starting to look at the cost of an open ended measure and wonder what Sunak is playing at by guaranteeing high level of income for people who aren't going to get a job in their current industry without a vaccine. I think if the vaccine comes good in September all of this is forgotten and the pubs ar open by the end of October for people with immunity certificates. If it doesn't does Sunak really cut the scheme and put people on UC just before Christmas? The indefinite nature of our scheme is definitely worrying a lot of people right now. We seriously need to think about a wholly contributory unemployment insurance scheme like Switzerland or Germany.
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
It is quite probable that the furlough scheme is far cheaper than the cost of the economic damage. It is apparently costs £14Bn per month.
Yes, and the fact that Sunak has signalled the scheme wil continue until at least October it's being taken as a sign that the government doesn't expect an economic recovery at any point this year.
People have been following his rules at the expense of their own health and wellbeing because they thought it would save lives - now it doesn't appear the First Minister knows what they are
Comments
1. Cultural. Starmer is the archetypal metropolitan elite Remainer, and his beliefs on a host of cultural issues are diametrically-opposed to electorally-important swathes of the country. He also wants to give all EU citizens the right to vote in General Elections, diluting the franchise enjoyed by existing citizens and granting the left a permanent electoral boost. Weaponise as usual.
2. Economics. Starmer hasn't specifically withdrawn a single one of Corbyn's loony policies, and will find it very difficult within his party to move away from the addiction to outright theft that motivates all their other actions. Contrary to what some on here believe, an economic crisis will make people _more_ desperate to hang on to their assets, not less. Attack, attack, attack.
3. Personal. Starmer is a boring charisma vacuum, a Mogadon Man. He's a sleeping aid, not a Prime Minister. Attack, attack, a ... snooze.
4. Party. The utter lunatics who tried desperately to propel Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott into power are all still snarling and gnashing away behind Mr. Boring. The far left, the communists, the anti-patriots, the Britain-haters, there'll all still there - put Starmer into power, and you put them into power. This may be Labour's most dangerous aspect.
So devising a political attack strategy is really not hard at all. I could do it in my sleep ... after listening to Sir Keith talk for a few minutes
He has also not ruled out keeping free movement and returning to the single market so can be attacked on that in Leave voting areas in the North and Midlands too
They've effectively said you can do what you want using common sense. If you're happy with the risk in visiting someone in their garden then nothing will happen to you if you go ahead (as far as I can tell). They're just trying to nudge people to start resuming their normal daily lives in a cautious manner. It's impossible to prescribe for every possible individual circumstance, which is what some people seem to want.
We're going to see a VE Day spike, and we're going to see a cities spike. It doesn't matter that "83% don't go to work on public transport" nationally when 83% DO use public transport in cities. In those cities people mandated to go back to work are fucked. Go to work. Don't use public transport. But most of you will have to use public transport. If you catch it then its Your Fault for not following the clear advice not to use the only means of transport to get you to work.
Masks? Don't be daft. They don;t do anything so no-one needs to wear a mask. Oh ok they do do something. You should wear a mask. But can't force you as people will start buying masks and we can't buy enough for doctors and care home workers. So its Your Risk if you travel the only way you can to a job we're forcing you back to.
Good old British Common Sense. Is easy to type when its Other People (looking at you Grant Shapps) doing the "suicide run"
Boris is PM because Corbyn was a dangerous fantasist and because Labour blocked a soft Brexit in May's deal.
As has previously been discussed, the big difference between this and the Google/Apple approach is that, when you are infected, the NHSX app uploads your contacts data to a central database and the central system alerts the people you've been in contact with. Contrary to what some people have said on here in the past, information about who you have been in contact with is not uploaded to the central database unless you become infected.
The Google/Apple approach, on the other hand, simply records the fact you are infected and never uploads any information about who you have been in contact with. The app periodically downloads the information about anyone in their region who has tested positive, so anyone you have been in contact with will get that information and receive an alert (provided they are in the same region).
The other big difference is that the NHSX app appears to use fixed IDs for users whereas the Google/Apple approach regularly changes your ID. So, when you notify the Google/Apple app that you are infected, it uploads the IDs you've used in the last 14 days.
According to John Newton, director of health improvement for Public Health England, the NHSX approach will give them a big dataset to which they can apply machine learning and AI to refine the risk assessment, hence improving the advice given to users of the app. Jonathan Van-Tam supports this approach as it will allow us to, "learn, for example, that 30 minutes’ exposure at close quarters to a case at day one of symptoms is equivalent to two hours’ exposure at one-and-a-half days before symptoms began or three days after symptoms began when the virus load is starting to decline."
The Apple/Google approach reduces privacy concerns but won't produce this kind of data. The question for us as users is whether the advantages of the NHSX approach outweigh the privacy concerns.
I note that NHSX has now released the code for the Android and iOS apps along with the design documentation. I see the Android app is written in Kotlin and the iOS app in Swift.
It is to do with visiting those like us who are in 12 week lockdown
As in the US it is now suburban higher earning voters who are the key swing voters
It's the biggest no-brainer in world history.
Unfortunately England doesn't have an equivalent of the Ordnungsamt, so not sure who can do it
However, I am not going to persuade you to take personal responsibility
So there we are
Lots of gardens have access without going through the house, not just detached/semi detached but most old terraced ones have a path at the back direct to the gardens.
If the logical advice is you cant have relatives inside your house but you can meet in the open air that would be fine.
Differentiating between parks and gardens just isnt logical.
And yet here, an island, we can't work out a way to do this.
Advising it is safe to go to visit family in their garden and the next thing people will be whinging about is why family, why not friends? Why not have a Summer Barbecue with all your mates so long as you're socially distancing. Etc, etc, etc
Short of "stay at home and never leave" or "go back to normal" there's never going to be an area without grey areas around it.
There is always a cut off in any advice and there will always be grey areas around it. Think for your bloody self, and don't be a dingbat! Is that so difficult?
Gerry Adams' historic convictions for attempting to escape from the Maze Prison in the 1970s have been overturned by the UK's highest court after it ruled that his detention was unlawful.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/13/gerry-adams-wins-supreme-court-appeal-1970s-maze-prison-escape/
That's not going to other people's houses! And people need sunshine and vitamin D.
Along with Mexico, they are two countries that tick all the boxes for having terrible outbreaks that they won't be able to manage
He may have his 15 mins in the sun as the tail of Covid works its way round the u-bend but when the worst is over we will need optimism and fresh thinking around the economy.
Not blah blah from a "forensic" bore endlessly waffling about the latest woke fad, social justice and faux "consensus".
The Corbinite issue with her is I assume her "background".
Advice is something to listen to and balance with other factors, not a rule to adhere to 100% of the time. Are you struggling with that?
I try to stick to my own advice.
Europe’s museums, castles, beaches and plazas have been empty since an almost continent-wide lockdown from mid-March, but the EU wants to revive what is possible of travel for the June-August season worth 150 billion euros (S$230 billion).
Draft proposals seen by Reuters say the bloc’s executive, the European Commission, will on Wednesday urge a return to “unrestricted free movement”, though that push will stop if there is a major second wave of infections.
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/airlines-will-not-need-to-spare-middle-seat-to-restart-travel-eu
The other factor is that it doesn't look like the UK is in the position to ease lockdown measures enough to get the majority of the economy back on track. We have an undefined track and trace strategy, an app that probably doesn't work, the infection rate isn't coming down fast enough and the government aren't willing to take the big step of saying under 50s can just go for it as long as they don't come into contact with over 70s.
All of these things are feeding into a sense that the UK government is no longer in control of the crisis and will be extremely dependent on the patience of bond houses, which I sense is already beginning to wear.
https://twitter.com/gavinstpier/status/1260516215497375745?s=20
You need to generate better advice.
QED as they say.
The advice is the advice based upon what is safest now. Whatever advice you give there will always be 101 possible what ifs related to it.
There is a reasonably clear set of guidance which is a starting point and you need to think for yourself from that.
And I'm not sure we are that capitalist. The questions to Sunak's statement the other day were quite depressing. All the focus is on making sure nobody feels any pain. I didn't hear one MP ask "do we have a long-term plan for paying for all of this?"
I've been wondering about the difference between lockdown being am interregnum and a threshold.
I had hoped that it would be an interregnum. We would squash the virus and use contact tracing and quarantine to keep it squashed while most everything went back to normal. That seems to be the model furlough is good for. Keep everything on ice temporarily and then resume.
The government's plan makes it look more like a threshold to a new, socially-distanced normality. Lots of types of leisure activity are dead for the foreseeable then and it might be better to find ways to help people to move to new employment in new leisure industries for that new normal, rather than to keep them doing nothing waiting for a return to before that never comes.
I'm still hoping for the former, though.
So they are complaining they can't enforce something that the government haven't asked to be enforced....PC Plod a bit thick?
Its like them complaining they can't enforce the banning of pineapple on pizza. I mean we all know that should be banned and it is advised not to do so, but we don't expect Pc Plod to be round Dominoes telling them to stop selling them.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/more-or-less-behind-the-stats/id267300884?i=1000471187873
Before the economic aid was announced, there were calls for the government to amend the shutdowns so that insurance would be triggered for companies. It would have had the same result.
My point was when the advice is not well thought out, and as it would seem from Raabs interviews, based on the minister of the days initial reactions, it detracts from the impact of the advice, rather than improves it.
Sometimes the minister should simply say things like "I will get back to you on that" or "That is something the public need to consider based on their own particular circumstances". Instead they say the first thing that comes in their mind to a scenario they have given zero thought.
My point is it's something to consider and balance with common sense. Not ignore 100% as meaningless, nor follow rigidly 100% of the time.
Advice is a guideline. No more, no less. If advice changes behaviour can change, but you can think for yourself and not be a brain-dead automaton in the mean time.
However, I would if I went on public transport or indeed in hospital, but I will not go on public transport anyway
Notwithstanding I am surprised at the perceived low use on TFL
I agree that saying the public should use common sense should be the reply rather than making it up. I'm not a fan of Raab.
And that still goes on. Companies train consumers to fall for fraud by the way they ask for information. Even banks.
Theres quite a few pages on the internet suggesting that you can reuse airline eye shades as face masks as well.......
Topping and I were having a conversation about advice. If you want to get into a constructive conversation please engage constructively.
Been tried before - didn't work.
Here's the link I shared again if anyone is desperate. DYOR, I have not purchased masks from them and cannot vouch for the quality of protection. They usually make cheap jewelry: https://www.tjc.co.uk/everyday-essentials/?q=Protective mask&srule=relevance&promo_name=Homepage&promo_id=’13May20'&promo_creative=FaceMask&promo_position=BLOCK1C
Interestingly (or not), I used to work on capital planning for one of them, including modelling pandemic (and other) shocks. Looking back, one of the mistakes we made was assuming limited economic disruption from a pandemic, other than due to short-term general costs due to people being sick. Still, we did look at economic crash followed by pandemic, just to see if it broke us at the 1 in 1000 year level. That was a while ago, and prior to some M&A activity, but I reckon they'd still be OK.
https://twitter.com/K_Niemietz/status/1260512894334242822?s=20
The 'minister' now kicked out of Labour is "Former Derby North MP and City Council Leader | Now focusing on building a grassroots, anti-imperialist working class movement"
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1260520324619272192?s=20
Raab, Hancock etc would not have fared any better than May.
People have been following his rules at the expense of their own health and wellbeing because they thought it would save lives - now it doesn't appear the First Minister knows what they are
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/wales-first-minister-made-massive-18235813
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/coronavirus-updates.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#link-60abe7dc