Listening to reportage of the "big return to work". Government had the rail companies increase services and prepare for more people travelling as instructed - but appears to be very quiet as it was last week. This reluctance to resume normal as instructed will be the government's big problem. The row with teachers was largely irrelevant as polls have made it clear that parents aren't going to send their sprogs in when instructed. And it will be the same with work.
As a related aside, this TfL bailout is not good for Sadiq Khan's chances of re-election. Yes fares revenue was down 90% and a decent number of drivers were sick/dying. But the reduction in service provision was branded him putting workers at risk and the massive congestion charge increase is branded as him putting workers at risk...
This "big return to work" is a myth though, surely?
The basic advice of work from home if you can, go to work if you can't, as long as it is safe, has not changed .
I have been working hard with others where I work to get as many of the second category in as possible, we did most of the groundwork by early April. Last week nothing changed. We have as many in as we safely can already, next steps are more radical such as early and late shifts or volunteers for weekend working. The "easing" of the lockdown made no material difference to us at all.
Many many people will WFH even when all this is done. Maybe not full time, but a lot more. Me for one!
The government will need money. It should clearly and obviously cancel HS2 as the last desperate plank of the case for that - "capacity" - has been surely rendered obsolete by the impending work from home revolution.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
For secondary schools its reasonably consistent between Quintile 2 through Quintile 5.
I think that there are many in Quintile 1 (certainly not all) who simply don't value education. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of truancy or opinions on education in normal circumstances, wouldn't surprise me to see such a relationship.
It's also possible that people on lower incomes have had more experience of illness and death from Covid-19, since we know that death rates in lower paid manual occupations are higher than for middle class types, and so their greater risk aversion may be more rational than you think. I have found the discussion around schooling and the inequalities exacerbated by Covid fascinating. So many Tories here and in the wider debate suddenly so concerned that the poor lack the resources to get a good education. Yet it is their policies that have made that happen. No room to study? The bedroom tax. No money for a laptop? The welfare cap and the third child tax. No broadband? Of course Labour's free broadband policy was a stupid pointless gimmick because everyone has broadband, right? Our society lacks resilience to deal with the stresses of this kind of shock, but that has been a deliberate policy choice. Spare us your crocodile tears now, and don't force the rest of our kids into an unsafe rush back to school simply because schools have become the last remaining functioning part of our threadbare welfare state.
Oh give over!
"third child tax"? There's no such thing. You can have as many children as you want without paying extra taxes for them. Just as there's no taxes on bedrooms either.
And it was the Conservative-led government that boosted educational resources to the poorest in society via the pupil premium as one of the first actions taken after a long period of Labour governance that introduced tuition fees as one of its first actions.
People can honestly disagree without not caring or having "crocodile tears"
The pupil premium (a Lib Dem policy of course) is great as far as it goes (and it doesn't go very far in the current environment where kids aren't in school). But it is part and parcel of an approach that sees schools operating in a vacuum, indeed really operating as the only effective part of the state in terms of helping poor and vulnerable kids. The Tories said kids don't need their own bedroom, but it turns out they do. The Tories said it was fine to leave families with so little money they can barely feed themselves, let alone supply things like a laptop, and then act surprised when kids can't study remotely. Ditto free broadband - just an unnecessary luxury, right? All these policies, which have added up to an unprecedented assault on the poor, have been enthusiastically embraced by many Tories on this site.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
In 2017 hundreds of thousands of people in the Midlands and North voted Conservative for the first time after 30, 40 or 50 years of voting Labour.
In 2019 many hundreds of thousands more voted Conservative for the first time after being life-long Labour voters.
Once a habit has been broken and family, neighbours and friends see the habit broken, it isn't automatically going back. People have been vocal about breaking these ties.
I get the feeling Wales is slightly behind. In 2017 many thought about it, but clung to Labour. In 2019 many made the step over (as 2017 in North and Midlands). Suspect Welsh Assembly may be indicative for next GE. Conservatives could be largest party, but not in power. Which is perfect for them in next GE.
Suspect some Remain Conservatives will be more tempted to travel to Labour, but this will be in the south and will not be in big enough numbers.
Without Scotland, which broke the Labour habit earlier and never went back, I can't see how Labour can get the most seats. Next time seems about recovering their position.
Starmer's rise in the ratings is exceeding the rise in LP polling and I think that this is a hint of the fundamental challenge. LP activists are way out of kilter with majority opinion on woke/PC issues and strongly out of kilter on many economic issues. If Keir Starmer is seen to lead a successful shift to "moderation" (which must be real and very visible) then he will have a good chance of a majority otherwise he will not and LDs or some other centre left party will start gaining support.
Usual caveats need to be squared or cubed in current situation.
The D-W test for serial correlation brings back memories of a misspent youth. Just an observation about the elections data: it is always a good idea to plot it to get an overall idea about it. And there is a glaring outlier in the longer dataset, namely the elections of 1929 and 1931, which we can see in the upper left of the graph here.
Of course that does not affect the DW calculations for the post WWII periods. But omitting those observations could have a material impact on the rejection or otherwise of the no-serial-correlation null hypothesis. A historian may be able to tell us whether the special conditions at the time would justify leaving those years out - of course the depression must have been a factor.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
For secondary schools its reasonably consistent between Quintile 2 through Quintile 5.
I think that there are many in Quintile 1 (certainly not all) who simply don't value education. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of truancy or opinions on education in normal circumstances, wouldn't surprise me to see such a relationship.
It's also possible that people on lower incomes have had more experience of illness and death from Covid-19, since we know that death rates in lower paid manual occupations are higher than for middle class types, and so their greater risk aversion may be more rational than you think. I have found the discussion around schooling and the inequalities exacerbated by Covid fascinating. So many Tories here and in the wider debate suddenly so concerned that the poor lack the resources to get a good education. Yet it is their policies that have made that happen. No room to study? The bedroom tax. No money for a laptop? The welfare cap and the third child tax. No broadband? Of course Labour's free broadband policy was a stupid pointless gimmick because everyone has broadband, right? Our society lacks resilience to deal with the stresses of this kind of shock, but that has been a deliberate policy choice. Spare us your crocodile tears now, and don't force the rest of our kids into an unsafe rush back to school simply because schools have become the last remaining functioning part of our threadbare welfare state.
Oh give over!
"third child tax"? There's no such thing. You can have as many children as you want without paying extra taxes for them. Just as there's no taxes on bedrooms either.
And it was the Conservative-led government that boosted educational resources to the poorest in society via the pupil premium as one of the first actions taken after a long period of Labour governance that introduced tuition fees as one of its first actions.
People can honestly disagree without not caring or having "crocodile tears"
The pupil premium (a Lib Dem policy of course) is great as far as it goes (and it doesn't go very far in the current environment where kids aren't in school). But it is part and parcel of an approach that sees schools operating in a vacuum, indeed really operating as the only effective part of the state in terms of helping poor and vulnerable kids. The Tories said kids don't need their own bedroom, but it turns out they do. The Tories said it was fine to leave families with so little money they can barely feed themselves, let alone supply things like a laptop, and then act surprised when kids can't study remotely. Ditto free broadband - just an unnecessary luxury, right? All these policies, which have added up to an unprecedented assault on the poor, have been enthusiastically embraced by many Tories on this site.
Children don't need their own bedroom. My own children have bunk beds and are quite happy with it, I see no reason they need their own bedroom. So I'm happy to practice as I preach.
And people do get support from more than just schools.
The problem with state-supplied broadband wasn't that it was a luxury. It was that it would be awful and mismanaged, with no competition.
Listening to reportage of the "big return to work". Government had the rail companies increase services and prepare for more people travelling as instructed - but appears to be very quiet as it was last week. This reluctance to resume normal as instructed will be the government's big problem. The row with teachers was largely irrelevant as polls have made it clear that parents aren't going to send their sprogs in when instructed. And it will be the same with work.
As a related aside, this TfL bailout is not good for Sadiq Khan's chances of re-election. Yes fares revenue was down 90% and a decent number of drivers were sick/dying. But the reduction in service provision was branded him putting workers at risk and the massive congestion charge increase is branded as him putting workers at risk...
This "big return to work" is a myth though, surely?
The basic advice of work from home if you can, go to work if you can't, as long as it is safe, has not changed .
I have been working hard with others where I work to get as many of the second category in as possible, we did most of the groundwork by early April. Last week nothing changed. We have as many in as we safely can already, next steps are more radical such as early and late shifts or volunteers for weekend working. The "easing" of the lockdown made no material difference to us at all.
Many many people will WFH even when all this is done. Maybe not full time, but a lot more. Me for one!
The government will need money. It should clearly and obviously cancel HS2 as the last desperate plank of the case for that - "capacity" - has been surely rendered obsolete by the impending work from home revolution.
The current guideline are -
- WFH if possible - If not possible, travel to work on foot. cycle - If not possible, car - if not possible, public transport.
The following is from the YouGov survey the other day:
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If you oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
Thanks Fishing! Fascinating, and for me counter-intuitive (cos of FPTP). (I’d be interested to see this analysis on Scottish seats, although I appreciate that it takes a great deal of time and energy.)
But may I point out one thing you write:
- “Labour has to overturn forbiddingly huge majorities in Tory seats“
Yes, that is true. But Starmer’s real problem is that Labour has to overturn forbiddingly huge majorities in Tory seats AND in SNP seats. That is a much harder task, because the two objectives require mutual contradictory strategy and tactics. As the Liberal Democrats discovered to their cost: in the age of the internet you cannot send vastly different messages out to the electorate in different geographical areas, because anybody anywhere can read, and redistribute, your two-facedness.
If Starmer wants to be Prime Minister he needs to win Tory seats. If the SNP had won as many seats in 2017 as they had in 2015 its quite possible Corbyn would have been PM.
To get a stable, healthy, Labour majority requires Tory and SNP seats. But SNP seats are very much secondary.
Great if true, because secondary objectives nearly always get forgotten in the melee.
Starmer's rise in the ratings is exceeding the rise in LP polling and I think that this is a hint of the fundamental challenge. LP activists are way out of kilter with majority opinion on woke/PC issues and strongly out of kilter on many economic issues. If Keir Starmer is seen to lead a successful shift to "moderation" (which must be real and very visible) then he will have a good chance of a majority otherwise he will not and LDs or some other centre left party will start gaining support.
Usual caveats need to be squared or cubed in current situation.
He could do with a clause four moment. But I'm just not sure what it would look like this time.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
For secondary schools its reasonably consistent between Quintile 2 through Quintile 5.
I think that there are many in Quintile 1 (certainly not all) who simply don't value education. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of truancy or opinions on education in normal circumstances, wouldn't surprise me to see such a relationship.
It's also possible that people on lower incomes have had more experience of illness and death from Covid-19, since we know that death rates in lower paid manual occupations are higher than for middle class types, and so their greater risk aversion may be more rational than you think. I have found the discussion around schooling and the inequalities exacerbated by Covid fascinating. So many Tories here and in the wider debate suddenly so concerned that the poor lack the resources to get a good education. Yet it is their policies that have made that happen. No room to study? The bedroom tax. No money for a laptop? The welfare cap and the third child tax. No broadband? Of course Labour's free broadband policy was a stupid pointless gimmick because everyone has broadband, right? Our society lacks resilience to deal with the stresses of this kind of shock, but that has been a deliberate policy choice. Spare us your crocodile tears now, and don't force the rest of our kids into an unsafe rush back to school simply because schools have become the last remaining functioning part of our threadbare welfare state.
Oh give over!
"third child tax"? There's no such thing. You can have as many children as you want without paying extra taxes for them. Just as there's no taxes on bedrooms either.
And it was the Conservative-led government that boosted educational resources to the poorest in society via the pupil premium as one of the first actions taken after a long period of Labour governance that introduced tuition fees as one of its first actions.
People can honestly disagree without not caring or having "crocodile tears"
They can. But it jars to hear an ardent Conservative who uses and supports private schools claim that the main reason they want schools to reopen is because they are worried about educational inequalities.
I'd liken it to those people not known for lying awake at night fretting about gender or LGBT issues who bang on about how appalling Islam is in its attitude to women and homosexuality.
It might or might not be bad faith. But a degree of skepticism is in order.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
I think this week will start to give evidence. If there's an uptick in, order of seriousness, positive tests, hospitalisations, ICU bed usage then the country will have to reverse. If running at somewhere around 50-60%, as we appeared to do last week, is safe*, then we'll ease off again in a fortnight.
*not saying it is or it isn't, but if the data at the end of this week, so 10ish days post relaxing, indicates no increase in any of those three metrics, then it will be perceived so.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
@CarlottaVance Desperate news for Carlotta, it looks like the Scottish Government have hired at least 600 Contract Tracers since Carlotta swore late yesterday that ZERO had been hired. 600 hired on a Sunday night and starting work today seems pretty good going.
Good news! Only 1400 to go! Overnight training is impressive (unlikely?) too!
They likely have more but only need 600 for trials, methinks the Tory fibs yesterday were just a little inaccurate. Good old Carlaw , Miles Briggs and the septic Record as their mouthpiece. Easier to lie than have a policy of their own.
It would be interesting to get questions asked and answered on the actual flow of the hiring process. i.e.
- How many in application - How many in vetting - How many hired - How many in training - How many trained
That goes for all jurisdictions in the UK.
I would suspect that that the above numbers issue is to do with where people are in that flow.
Yes and I believe the 600 are NHS staff transferred , but we have no idea where any of the countries really are. Tories in Scotland trying to score political points against SNP when the application process does not finish till end of this week is pretty pathetic given their record in UK overall.
The D-W test for serial correlation brings back memories of a misspent youth. Just an observation about the elections data: it is always a good idea to plot it to get an overall idea about it. And there is a glaring outlier in the longer dataset, namely the elections of 1929 and 1931, which we can see in the upper left of the graph here.
Of course that does not affect the DW calculations for the post WWII periods. But omitting those observations could have a material impact on the rejection or otherwise of the no-serial-correlation null hypothesis. A historian may be able to tell us whether the special conditions at the time would justify leaving those years out - of course the depression must have been a factor.
It reminds me of the excellent link to Berkson's paradox we were treated to at the weekend.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
To be fair its not entirely unreasonable to pass something you're OK with passing like going to the pub for a pint rather than staying at home, to avoid a one in a thousand risk of death. It can be entirely reasonable and not very bad at assessing risk.
Put another way if you rated a longshot as 1000/1 but you would get a million pounds if it happened and you put £1 on it then would you do so? Its the reverse of this, not losing your life is worth a million pounds while a pint is worth maybe £3.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
No, it's not true.
Branding risk segmentation a selfish doctrine is a nonsense.
The whole point of the model is that it reconciles the varying needs of different groups for maximum group benefit.
You can critique the model, but simply dismissing it as selfish is infantile.
Starmer's rise in the ratings is exceeding the rise in LP polling and I think that this is a hint of the fundamental challenge. LP activists are way out of kilter with majority opinion on woke/PC issues and strongly out of kilter on many economic issues. If Keir Starmer is seen to lead a successful shift to "moderation" (which must be real and very visible) then he will have a good chance of a majority otherwise he will not and LDs or some other centre left party will start gaining support.
Usual caveats need to be squared or cubed in current situation.
LP activists have always been out of line with majority opinion on a whole range of issues - as indeed all political activists tend to be, it's what makes them political activists. Do you think the average working class voter in the 1960s wanted to end hanging or decriminalise homosexuality? I don't have the survey evidence to hand but I doubt it. I also doubt that most people are as exercised by "political correctness" or "wokeness" as right wing activists are.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
If you want to provide a link then go ahead, but a model is only worthwhile if it includes the risk to yourself, your friends and loved ones you may pass death onto and not just yourself.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
To be fair its not entirely unreasonable to pass something you're OK with passing like going to the pub for a pint rather than staying at home, to avoid a one in a thousand risk of death. It can be entirely reasonable and not very bad at assessing risk.
Put another way if you rated a longshot as 1000/1 but you would get a million pounds if it happened and you put £1 on it then would you do so? Its the reverse of this, not losing your life is worth a million pounds while a pint is worth maybe £3.
People buy lottery tickets at much worse odds than that but what is at stake there is their £2 punt, not their lives. That is the difference that changes behaviour.
@CarlottaVance Desperate news for Carlotta, it looks like the Scottish Government have hired at least 600 Contract Tracers since Carlotta swore late yesterday that ZERO had been hired. 600 hired on a Sunday night and starting work today seems pretty good going.
Good news! Only 1400 to go! Overnight training is impressive (unlikely?) too!
They likely have more but only need 600 for trials, methinks the Tory fibs yesterday were just a little inaccurate. Good old Carlaw , Miles Briggs and the septic Record as their mouthpiece. Easier to lie than have a policy of their own.
It would be interesting to get questions asked and answered on the actual flow of the hiring process. i.e.
- How many in application - How many in vetting - How many hired - How many in training - How many trained
That goes for all jurisdictions in the UK.
I would suspect that that the above numbers issue is to do with where people are in that flow.
Yes and I believe the 600 are NHS staff transferred
So they're not new hires as you wrote earlier?
the Scottish Government have hired at least 600 Contract Tracers since Carlotta swore late yesterday that ZERO had been hired.
Starmer gives Labour a chance for the first time in 10-15 years. However small, that is progress.
that rather depends on your perspective
As a democrat, it’s progress. One party states fail.
As Blair showed us
We were better off then than now.
Only because he spent all the money at once.
The current government has spent more money than all of them. Global crises have a knack of doing that.
Boris was going to be a very big spender even before the crisis. Both here and in America the right have a knack of turning a blind eye when the spending, deficits and borrowing come from their own side.
They certainly do. Reagan was extremely feckless with the public purse. And Trump had wrecked the federal finances even before the virus seeking to bribe voters with their own cash.
So was George W Bush, since Gerald Ford the most fiscally conservative US President was Bill Clinton (though the GOP controlled Congress)
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
To be fair its not entirely unreasonable to pass something you're OK with passing like going to the pub for a pint rather than staying at home, to avoid a one in a thousand risk of death. It can be entirely reasonable and not very bad at assessing risk.
Put another way if you rated a longshot as 1000/1 but you would get a million pounds if it happened and you put £1 on it then would you do so? Its the reverse of this, not losing your life is worth a million pounds while a pint is worth maybe £3.
People buy lottery tickets at much worse odds than that but what is at stake there is their £2 punt, not their lives. That is the difference that changes behaviour.
Agreed. And its not necessarily illogical.
I like eating out but if I have a 1000/1 chance a meal might kill me then I'm happy to cook.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
No, it's not true.
Branding risk segmentation a selfish doctrine is a nonsense.
The whole point of the model is that it reconciles the varying needs of different groups for maximum group benefit.
You can critique the model, but simply dismissing it as selfish is infantile.
What model are you talking about? I haven't mentioned one.
Starmer's rise in the ratings is exceeding the rise in LP polling and I think that this is a hint of the fundamental challenge. LP activists are way out of kilter with majority opinion on woke/PC issues and strongly out of kilter on many economic issues. If Keir Starmer is seen to lead a successful shift to "moderation" (which must be real and very visible) then he will have a good chance of a majority otherwise he will not and LDs or some other centre left party will start gaining support.
Usual caveats need to be squared or cubed in current situation.
LP activists have always been out of line with majority opinion on a whole range of issues - as indeed all political activists tend to be, it's what makes them political activists. Do you think the average working class voter in the 1960s wanted to end hanging or decriminalise homosexuality? I don't have the survey evidence to hand but I doubt it. I also doubt that most people are as exercised by "political correctness" or "wokeness" as right wing activists are.
The key is going to be immigration policy. There seems to be a segment of LP activists who think any sort of immigration controls are racist
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
No, it's not true.
Branding risk segmentation a selfish doctrine is a nonsense.
The whole point of the model is that it reconciles the varying needs of different groups for maximum group benefit.
You can critique the model, but simply dismissing it as selfish is infantile.
You've still not linked to a model but it is a selfish doctrine if it only considers your risk and not the risk of others you love.
I'm not "at risk" but my dad is and my grandparents definitely are. Should I play Russian Roulette with their lives?
Starmer's rise in the ratings is exceeding the rise in LP polling and I think that this is a hint of the fundamental challenge. LP activists are way out of kilter with majority opinion on woke/PC issues and strongly out of kilter on many economic issues. If Keir Starmer is seen to lead a successful shift to "moderation" (which must be real and very visible) then he will have a good chance of a majority otherwise he will not and LDs or some other centre left party will start gaining support.
Usual caveats need to be squared or cubed in current situation.
LP activists have always been out of line with majority opinion on a whole range of issues - as indeed all political activists tend to be, it's what makes them political activists. Do you think the average working class voter in the 1960s wanted to end hanging or decriminalise homosexuality? I don't have the survey evidence to hand but I doubt it. I also doubt that most people are as exercised by "political correctness" or "wokeness" as right wing activists are.
I think they are. Non-economic political / cultural issues were the most important factors in the fall of the Red Wall. It may have been summarised as dislike of Corbyn but the dislike was based on political differences.
The government will need money. It should clearly and obviously cancel HS2 as the last desperate plank of the case for that - "capacity" - has been surely rendered obsolete by the impending work from home revolution.
Absolutely. A 40% or so long-term drop in commuting utterly demolishes the case for HS2. Lets electrify railways instead and lengthen stations. Replacing 2 car diesel trains up north with 4 car electric trains run more frequently is what we need now. Replacing diesel almost entirely under the wires with electric freight is what we need now.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
If you want to provide a link then go ahead, but a model is only worthwhile if it includes the risk to yourself, your friends and loved ones you may pass death onto and not just yourself.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
What Labour fail to comprehend is their voters in the North loathe the London centric approach. Starmer will do nothing to assuage them.
These people are pro Brexit and anti immigration, the antithesis of Starmer
Hence Home Counties and London marginal seats like Wycombe and Chingford and Woodford Green and Chipping Barnet, all Tory even in 1997 and 2001 now are easier Labour targets with smaller Tory majorities than northern Leave seats like Great Grimsby and Bishop Auckland and Penistone and Stocksbridge which only fell to the Tories last year
The latter only fell because of Corbyn. Even if one buys your Brexit hypothesis, trad Labour voters no longer need to vote Tory for that reason. Brexit obsessives will bleat about Starmer wanting to take us back in, but it will fall on deaf ears. My guess is that we will see almost all the trad Labour seats return to Labour. If the Tories do lose the next election, which I consider very possible, the Tories will be out for a generation. It will be some legacy for your mate "Boris".
Starmer will take the UK back into the single market, that means free movement which northern Leave voters will still oppose
We've known about this for what, a month? Possibly longer. Sigh.
It is all about prevalence and probability though, isn't it?
Loss of smell is common in lots of colds and also hayfever.
When transmission was happening elsewhere there wasn't much point in isolating 10 people to find 1 covid case.
But when transmission is low then maybe that is worthwhile? Especially when colds and the like must be pretty close to nil now.
I'm not a hayfever sufferer so I don't know when the main periods are - but presumably we are past the tree pollen season but before the grass pollen season at the moment?
We've known about this for what, a month? Possibly longer. Sigh.
Longer. Nearly 7 weeks: Scientists at King’s College London have been tracking symptoms via their specially-created app. By March 31, the Covid Symptom Tracker App had more than 1.8 million users sign up to log their symptoms, or lack thereof, daily.
Some 59% of the 1.5 million people who had signed up by March 29 and tested positive reported a loss of smell and taste, compared with 18% of those who tested negative, analysis of the data showed.
Children don't need their own bedroom. My own children have bunk beds and are quite happy with it, I see no reason they need their own bedroom. So I'm happy to practice as I preach.
My children also had bunkbeds. Then my son hit puberty and likes to masturbate all the bloody time, so sharing a room with his 8 year old sister wasn't a good idea...
Thanks Fishing! Fascinating, and for me counter-intuitive (cos of FPTP). (I’d be interested to see this analysis on Scottish seats, although I appreciate that it takes a great deal of time and energy.)
But may I point out one thing you write:
- “Labour has to overturn forbiddingly huge majorities in Tory seats“
Yes, that is true. But Starmer’s real problem is that Labour has to overturn forbiddingly huge majorities in Tory seats AND in SNP seats. That is a much harder task, because the two objectives require mutual contradictory strategy and tactics. As the Liberal Democrats discovered to their cost: in the age of the internet you cannot send vastly different messages out to the electorate in different geographical areas, because anybody anywhere can read, and redistribute, your two-facedness.
If Starmer wants to be Prime Minister he needs to win Tory seats. If the SNP had won as many seats in 2017 as they had in 2015 its quite possible Corbyn would have been PM.
To get a stable, healthy, Labour majority requires Tory and SNP seats. But SNP seats are very much secondary.
Indeed, the LDs gaining Tory seats in London and the South increases Starmer's chances of becoming PM more than Labour gaining SNP seats in Scotland
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
Whilst that is true the selfish person thinks not in terms of statistics but personal risk. The risk of me getting seriously ill is 1/1000 (say) but what if I am that one? People are very bad at assessing risk and this will have the inhibiting effect we see in China.
No, it's not true.
Branding risk segmentation a selfish doctrine is a nonsense.
The whole point of the model is that it reconciles the varying needs of different groups for maximum group benefit.
You can critique the model, but simply dismissing it as selfish is infantile.
You've still not linked to a model but it is a selfish doctrine if it only considers your risk and not the risk of others you love.
I'm not "at risk" but my dad is and my grandparents definitely are. Should I play Russian Roulette with their lives?
Give me a chance! I have just posted you the links! I mentioned the model, which you branded as selfish without reading it. Simply googling Dr David Katz gets you to his site.
Lots of interesting reading on there.
The future has to be in reconciling two extremes – a notion PB struggles with.
BoZo "made clear" there would be no border in the Irish Sea. The one that's being constructed, right now...
Boris needs northern wall Leave voters more than he needs the DUP
Finally you agree that the measures will introduce a border down the Irish Sea which is of course something that Boris himself said no British Prime Minister could agree to. And then he agreed to it. Rockstar!
The government will need money. It should clearly and obviously cancel HS2 as the last desperate plank of the case for that - "capacity" - has been surely rendered obsolete by the impending work from home revolution.
Absolutely. A 40% or so long-term drop in commuting utterly demolishes the case for HS2. Lets electrify railways instead and lengthen stations. Replacing 2 car diesel trains up north with 4 car electric trains run more frequently is what we need now. Replacing diesel almost entirely under the wires with electric freight is what we need now.
Any drop in commuting doesn't impact long distance rail travel - it's a different market. How many people actually commute from Birmingham or beyond to London every day?
Children don't need their own bedroom. My own children have bunk beds and are quite happy with it, I see no reason they need their own bedroom. So I'm happy to practice as I preach.
My children also had bunkbeds. Then my son hit puberty and likes to masturbate all the bloody time, so sharing a room with his 8 year old sister wasn't a good idea...
Interesting piece. I sense the central hypothesis is neither true nor false.
Sort of related - I have always wanted to know if there is much correlation between the relative performance of a Fund Manager and their performance in the preceding period. At periods of 1 month, 1 year, 3 years and 5 years.
My personal theory on trading performance is that successful traders/institutions have winning strategy(ies), which will be eroded by others picking up the same ideas. Some can create new strategies, many can't. In addition, I think the lifespan of a successful strategy is getting shorter.
Well I was one and my best year came from exploiting a loophole which was duly closed once people cottoned on. So that is sort of an example of what you mean.
Generally, I'm dubious as to how much added value is brought by individuals in this field, as opposed to resources and randomness. Although when you are in the game you seek to propagate the opposite message (obvs).
I like 'reversion to the mean" as a recreational betting aid. I think there is much in it if you can intuit where it might apply and (just as important) where it definitely does not.
Another example of a "conference" type event that has lead to super spreading.
A single Latin dance workshop for instructors in South Korea is believed to have led to 112 cases of covid-19 after eight of the participants were found to be asymptomatic carriers of the virus.
There were 30 instructors at the workshop, with eight (asymptomatic) believed to be infected.
Children don't need their own bedroom. My own children have bunk beds and are quite happy with it, I see no reason they need their own bedroom. So I'm happy to practice as I preach.
My children also had bunkbeds. Then my son hit puberty and likes to masturbate all the bloody time, so sharing a room with his 8 year old sister wasn't a good idea...
My children aren't that old and are both of the same gender but surely the misnamed "bedroom tax" wouldn't apply there? If one child is aged 10 or more and is of a different gender to their sibling they're not expected to share a room.
What Labour fail to comprehend is their voters in the North loathe the London centric approach. Starmer will do nothing to assuage them.
These people are pro Brexit and anti immigration, the antithesis of Starmer
Hence Home Counties and London marginal seats like Wycombe and Chingford and Woodford Green and Chipping Barnet, all Tory even in 1997 and 2001 now are easier Labour targets with smaller Tory majorities than northern Leave seats like Great Grimsby and Bishop Auckland and Penistone and Stocksbridge which only fell to the Tories last year
The latter only fell because of Corbyn. Even if one buys your Brexit hypothesis, trad Labour voters no longer need to vote Tory for that reason. Brexit obsessives will bleat about Starmer wanting to take us back in, but it will fall on deaf ears. My guess is that we will see almost all the trad Labour seats return to Labour. If the Tories do lose the next election, which I consider very possible, the Tories will be out for a generation. It will be some legacy for your mate "Boris".
Once people break the habit of tribal voting, their votes are up for grabs. The collapse of the red wall means it will never go back to what it was.
Of Labour I believe that is true, I don't think that applies to Conservative tribal voting.
One can see that from postings on PB. The Conservative candidature of Steven Yaxley-Lennon wearing nothing more than waders and a blue rosette would still get the PB Tory vote.
Tardy response to what has been widely reported since early March.
Van Tam acknowledged that anosmia has been a suspected Covid-19 symptom for “a while now”,
But the government believes it is introducing the new official symptom “at the right time, when we think it’s going to make a difference moving forwards to how we pick up cases”.
Tardy response to what has been widely reported since early March.
Van Tam acknowledged that anosmia has been a suspected Covid-19 symptom for “a while now”,
But the government believes it is introducing the new official symptom “at the right time, when we think it’s going to make a difference moving forwards to how we pick up cases”.
What Labour fail to comprehend is their voters in the North loathe the London centric approach. Starmer will do nothing to assuage them.
These people are pro Brexit and anti immigration, the antithesis of Starmer
Hence Home Counties and London marginal seats like Wycombe and Chingford and Woodford Green and Chipping Barnet, all Tory even in 1997 and 2001 now are easier Labour targets with smaller Tory majorities than northern Leave seats like Great Grimsby and Bishop Auckland and Penistone and Stocksbridge which only fell to the Tories last year
The latter only fell because of Corbyn. Even if one buys your Brexit hypothesis, trad Labour voters no longer need to vote Tory for that reason. Brexit obsessives will bleat about Starmer wanting to take us back in, but it will fall on deaf ears. My guess is that we will see almost all the trad Labour seats return to Labour. If the Tories do lose the next election, which I consider very possible, the Tories will be out for a generation. It will be some legacy for your mate "Boris".
Starmer will take the UK back into the single market, that means free movement which northern Leave voters will still oppose
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
If you want to provide a link then go ahead, but a model is only worthwhile if it includes the risk to yourself, your friends and loved ones you may pass death onto and not just yourself.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
He's created a strawman at one extreme to create his compromise between.
You lockdown long enough to bring the virus numbers under sufficient control that track, trace and isolate can keep it under control.
That's much better than Katz's approach because (1) you avoid risk of transmission between risk groups and (2) once the virus is under control you don't have to keep high-risk populations isolated.
In a way it's a non-argument. We lack the PPE and organisation to implement Katz's segmentation approach and we lack the contact tracing organisation for my preferred approach.
So we'll end up with an outcome worse than either.
It's a good question. Coming out of the lockdown way behind the timetable followed by just about every other European country will be the equivalent of shouting from the rooftops that our government really messed up its response. For a government anxious to maintain the fiction that international comparisons can't be drawn, its a very clear comparison and one that (unlike abstract statistics) really impacts on peoples lives.
So, regardless of the economic impact, the government is under immense political pressure to come out of lockdown as early as it dare. They may be lucky, but taking risks for political reasons is not acceptable. Yet we have a PM who is clearly a chancer. That's why we have every reason to be sceptical as to whether to believe them when they claim that (for example) schools can safely go back, at least until they are transparent in publishing the full scientific evidence they are acting on and in sufficient detail for it to be subject to peer review by scientists not under pressure to give the answers that ministers want to hear.
Children don't need their own bedroom. My own children have bunk beds and are quite happy with it, I see no reason they need their own bedroom. So I'm happy to practice as I preach.
My children also had bunkbeds. Then my son hit puberty and likes to masturbate all the bloody time, so sharing a room with his 8 year old sister wasn't a good idea...
My children aren't that old and are both of the same gender but surely the misnamed "bedroom tax" wouldn't apply there? If one child is aged 10 or more and is of a different gender to their sibling they're not expected to share a room.
No the issue with the Bedroom Tax was that in so many places there literally were no alternative homes to move into. "You have a Spare Bedroom". OK find me a 2 bed house then. "There are only 3 bed houses available. Your fault, you will pay". And that the rules were as usual with recent Tory welfare policies arbitrary and cruel - your child just died? Pay the tax. You have children who don't live with you but need a bedroom for you to have access? Pay the tax. You sleep in separate rooms cos your partner is chronically sick and has lots of medical equipment? Pay the tax.
Starmer gives Labour a chance for the first time in 10-15 years. However small, that is progress.
that rather depends on your perspective
As a democrat, it’s progress. One party states fail.
As Blair showed us
We were better off then than now.
Only because he spent all the money at once.
The current government has spent more money than all of them. Global crises have a knack of doing that.
Boris was going to be a very big spender even before the crisis. Both here and in America the right have a knack of turning a blind eye when the spending, deficits and borrowing come from their own side.
They certainly do. Reagan was extremely feckless with the public purse. And Trump had wrecked the federal finances even before the virus seeking to bribe voters with their own cash.
So was George W Bush, since Gerald Ford the most fiscally conservative US President was Bill Clinton (though the GOP controlled Congress)
Thanks Fishing! Fascinating, and for me counter-intuitive (cos of FPTP). (I’d be interested to see this analysis on Scottish seats, although I appreciate that it takes a great deal of time and energy.)
But may I point out one thing you write:
- “Labour has to overturn forbiddingly huge majorities in Tory seats“
Yes, that is true. But Starmer’s real problem is that Labour has to overturn forbiddingly huge majorities in Tory seats AND in SNP seats. That is a much harder task, because the two objectives require mutual contradictory strategy and tactics. As the Liberal Democrats discovered to their cost: in the age of the internet you cannot send vastly different messages out to the electorate in different geographical areas, because anybody anywhere can read, and redistribute, your two-facedness.
If Starmer wants to be Prime Minister he needs to win Tory seats. If the SNP had won as many seats in 2017 as they had in 2015 its quite possible Corbyn would have been PM.
To get a stable, healthy, Labour majority requires Tory and SNP seats. But SNP seats are very much secondary.
Indeed, the LDs gaining Tory seats in London and the South increases Starmer's chances of becoming PM more than Labour gaining SNP seats in Scotland
Scotland is dead in the water to Labour.
Labour needs a reduction in Conservative seats which needs resurgent LDs. It would be sensible if the high profile former ChangeUK Lib Dems upped their game after the pandemic is over and were shoehorned into seats where they could challenge the Tories
It's a good question. Coming out of the lockdown way behind the timetable followed by just about every other European country will be the equivalent of shouting from the rooftops that our government really messed up its response. For a government anxious to maintain the fiction that international comparisons can't be drawn, its a very clear comparison and one that (unlike abstract statistics) really impacts on peoples lives.
So, regardless of the economic impact, the government is under immense political pressure to come out of lockdown as early as it dare. They may be lucky, but taking risks for political reasons is not acceptable. Yet we have a PM who is clearly a chancer. That's why we have every reason to be sceptical as to whether to believe them when they claim that (for example) schools can safely go back, at least until they are transparent in publishing the full scientific evidence they are acting on and in sufficient detail for it to be subject to peer review by scientists not under pressure to give the answers that ministers want to hear.
Pubs reopen early. Loads not viable due to lack of customers as people perceive it's not safe. Dan Hodges asks "Have the British people lost their bottle" in another furious Telegraph column.
The big unknown or the next election is, what will happen to the Brexit Party vote?
Most of it seems to have come from Labour. If that is so, it cost them a great many seats - e.g. Blyth Valley, Durham North West, Delyn. So if it goes back, they should have a decent shout of regaining many of them.
However, another way of looking at it is that in 38 seats, the Brexit Party vote was larger than the Labour majority. So if Nigel Farage had not been a dimwitted egomaniac, the Tories might have picked up Doncaster North, Normanton, Alyn and Deeside, Torfaen, both seats in Newport and all seats in Coventry if Leave voters had coalesced around them. So if that Brexit vote shifted to the Tories, Starmer’s task is even harder.
Therefore, I am reluctant to make firm predictions about the next election. Starmer could win, or force a draw, but he needs the dice to fall correctly. We could see considerable churn in both votes and seats - I could see Labour gaining Cheltenham (repeat Cheltenham) and falling further in Wales, for example, under his leadership.
Look at the drop in the Labour vote in the NE Seats... in many it is the same as the Brexit Party share, letting the Tories win by standing still.
Anyway, Boris turned a 6 seat deficit into an 80 seat majority in 6 months, so it shouldn't be beyond STArmer to win a majority in 4 years time, especially with the Covid crisis elevating all opposition leaders ratings at the moment
Children don't need their own bedroom. My own children have bunk beds and are quite happy with it, I see no reason they need their own bedroom. So I'm happy to practice as I preach.
My children also had bunkbeds. Then my son hit puberty and likes to masturbate all the bloody time, so sharing a room with his 8 year old sister wasn't a good idea...
My children aren't that old and are both of the same gender but surely the misnamed "bedroom tax" wouldn't apply there? If one child is aged 10 or more and is of a different gender to their sibling they're not expected to share a room.
No the issue with the Bedroom Tax was that in so many places there literally were no alternative homes to move into. "You have a Spare Bedroom". OK find me a 2 bed house then. "There are only 3 bed houses available. Your fault, you will pay". And that the rules were as usual with recent Tory welfare policies arbitrary and cruel - your child just died? Pay the tax. You have children who don't live with you but need a bedroom for you to have access? Pay the tax. You sleep in separate rooms cos your partner is chronically sick and has lots of medical equipment? Pay the tax.
What tax?
There's no tax. Tax is taking money off you that you earn, not paying you less. Paying people less in benefits is less in benefits its not a tax.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
If you want to provide a link then go ahead, but a model is only worthwhile if it includes the risk to yourself, your friends and loved ones you may pass death onto and not just yourself.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
With respect I don't think that either of those links say what you think that they do. The first is a chart showing how high risk categories should be treated. The second is an argument for looking at this more holistically in terms of reducing overall harm, a position I agree with which is why I am anxious that the lockdown be loosened but not let rip.
The points that @philip_Thompson and I were making is not about regulation but about behaviour. His point, with which I agree, is that those who have vulnerable relatives do not think only about their own risk but the risk to others they come into contact with. My point is that fear itself is a not always rational inhibition on behaviour whatever the rules of lock down say at any point in time and that fear of this virus will have material economic consequences even if the government removed all controls tomorrow.
I don't see anything in your links that even touches on those points.
Any drop in commuting doesn't impact long distance rail travel - [HS2 is] a different market. How many people actually commute from Birmingham or beyond to London every day?
I thought the HS2 spin now was that it was about "network capacity"?
Starmer will take the UK back into the single market, that means free movement which northern Leave voters will still oppose
I think you are fighting the last war.
He is and its funny, but there is a kernal of truth however out-dated. People don't like the other. Foreigners are definitely the other (or in my town the aged parochioal bigots don't like the people who live on the opposite bank of the Tees). "Free Movement" is the socially acceptable alternative to "I don't like foreigners" - no longer racist as the foreigners these days are usually white Eastern European, but still stupid.
HYUFD thinks that Northerners are Stupid. Some are obviously, but instead of saying "free movement" he could take a step back and ask WHY. They don't like the Other because things are tough and someone has to get the blame. We have left the EU. We will impose restrictions on movement (though not when people are infected with the virus aparently). And life for these voters will remain shit because foreigners aren't the reason it is shit. And at that point northerners will go " 'ang on" and patronising southerners like HYUFD won't be able to keep making the same argument without being laughed at by northerners.
Any drop in commuting doesn't impact long distance rail travel - [HS2 is] a different market. How many people actually commute from Birmingham or beyond to London every day?
I thought the HS2 spin now was that it was about "network capacity"?
It always was about network capacity unless you were talking to the general public who were told it was about speed.
The more people see bars and restaurants opening up all over Europe isn't it just going to reinforce the belief that the UK has handled this worse than most of the rest of Europe?
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
If you want to provide a link then go ahead, but a model is only worthwhile if it includes the risk to yourself, your friends and loved ones you may pass death onto and not just yourself.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
With respect I don't think that either of those links say what you think that they do. The first is a chart showing how high risk categories should be treated. The second is an argument for looking at this more holistically in terms of reducing overall harm, a position I agree with which is why I am anxious that the lockdown be loosened but not let rip.
The points that @philip_Thompson and I were making is not about regulation but about behaviour. His point, with which I agree, is that those who have vulnerable relatives do not think only about their own risk but the risk to others they come into contact with. My point is that fear itself is a not always rational inhibition on behaviour whatever the rules of lock down say at any point in time and that fear of this virus will have material economic consequences even if the government removed all controls tomorrow.
I don't see anything in your links that even touches on those points.
Yes, I agree with that.
However, I wasn't arguing about that. I was arguing for a risk segmentation approach – and that such an approach is not selfish. If you agree with me, great.
My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.
Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.
I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?
He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.
And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.
Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.
If you are an entirely self-centred individual who doesn't meet or care about other people, sure.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
A very harsh post, not like you at all.
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
And I've explained several times (as have others) the risk is not just about getting the virus but passing it on to others.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
No. That’s not right.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
If you want to provide a link then go ahead, but a model is only worthwhile if it includes the risk to yourself, your friends and loved ones you may pass death onto and not just yourself.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
OK so lets be practical. Category 2 here - healthcare providers etc - how many people do they make up? How many people work in healthcare or related sectors that help the vulnerable?
As I've said for a while we can't just separate the vulnerable because the vulnerable rely upon the healthy. There are 1.5 million people who work in the NHS and 1.5 million people who work in social care, so that's 3 million people immediately. That's close to 10% of the UK's workforce. Not everyone will be on front line necessarily but its also not counting other first responders. Throw in their relatives they live with and it will be even more.
If you think we can let the virus run wild within the rest of the population without exposing those people its just unbelievable nonsense.
What Labour fail to comprehend is their voters in the North loathe the London centric approach. Starmer will do nothing to assuage them.
These people are pro Brexit and anti immigration, the antithesis of Starmer
Hence Home Counties and London marginal seats like Wycombe and Chingford and Woodford Green and Chipping Barnet, all Tory even in 1997 and 2001 now are easier Labour targets with smaller Tory majorities than northern Leave seats like Great Grimsby and Bishop Auckland and Penistone and Stocksbridge which only fell to the Tories last year
The latter only fell because of Corbyn. Even if one buys your Brexit hypothesis, trad Labour voters no longer need to vote Tory for that reason. Brexit obsessives will bleat about Starmer wanting to take us back in, but it will fall on deaf ears. My guess is that we will see almost all the trad Labour seats return to Labour. If the Tories do lose the next election, which I consider very possible, the Tories will be out for a generation. It will be some legacy for your mate "Boris".
Starmer will take the UK back into the single market, that means free movement which northern Leave voters will still oppose
I am not sure he will. After the post-pandemic crash and post- no deal crash the single market, and all its trappings will not be so unappealing, particularly if it is packaged and labelled as something else.
Any drop in commuting doesn't impact long distance rail travel - [HS2 is] a different market. How many people actually commute from Birmingham or beyond to London every day?
I thought the HS2 spin now was that it was about "network capacity"?
It always was about network capacity unless you were talking to the general public who were told it was about speed.
It is/was about both - to increase the capacity (and frequency) and shorten the journey for passenger traffic.
Any drop in commuting doesn't impact long distance rail travel - [HS2 is] a different market. How many people actually commute from Birmingham or beyond to London every day?
I thought the HS2 spin now was that it was about "network capacity"?
It always was about network capacity unless you were talking to the general public who were told it was about speed.
The point being that the WCML can be used for more commuter trains once HS2 is open.
My brother-in-law works for Network Rail and the only thing that makes me think his job isn't at risk is that the government can't start cutting funding and resources for the existing network whilst carrying on with HS2.
It's a good question. Coming out of the lockdown way behind the timetable followed by just about every other European country will be the equivalent of shouting from the rooftops that our government really messed up its response. For a government anxious to maintain the fiction that international comparisons can't be drawn, its a very clear comparison and one that (unlike abstract statistics) really impacts on peoples lives.
So, regardless of the economic impact, the government is under immense political pressure to come out of lockdown as early as it dare. They may be lucky, but taking risks for political reasons is not acceptable. Yet we have a PM who is clearly a chancer. That's why we have every reason to be sceptical as to whether to believe them when they claim that (for example) schools can safely go back, at least until they are transparent in publishing the full scientific evidence they are acting on and in sufficient detail for it to be subject to peer review by scientists not under pressure to give the answers that ministers want to hear.
Pubs reopen early. Loads not viable due to lack of customers as people perceive it's not safe. Dan Hodges asks "Have the British people lost their bottle" in another furious Telegraph column.
I think if pubs with beer gardens reopen down here they will be busy. Maybe it's different up north where the weather is crap, dunno.
Starmer will take the UK back into the single market, that means free movement which northern Leave voters will still oppose
I think you are fighting the last war.
He is and its funny, but there is a kernal of truth however out-dated. People don't like the other. Foreigners are definitely the other (or in my town the aged parochioal bigots don't like the people who live on the opposite bank of the Tees). "Free Movement" is the socially acceptable alternative to "I don't like foreigners" - no longer racist as the foreigners these days are usually white Eastern European, but still stupid.
HYUFD thinks that Northerners are Stupid. Some are obviously, but instead of saying "free movement" he could take a step back and ask WHY. They don't like the Other because things are tough and someone has to get the blame. We have left the EU. We will impose restrictions on movement (though not when people are infected with the virus aparently). And life for these voters will remain shit because foreigners aren't the reason it is shit. And at that point northerners will go " 'ang on" and patronising southerners like HYUFD won't be able to keep making the same argument without being laughed at by northerners.
It was downward pressure on their wages and pressure on housing and public services from uncontrolled low skilled immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe, which led white working class northerners to vote Leave and for Boris
Any drop in commuting doesn't impact long distance rail travel - [HS2 is] a different market. How many people actually commute from Birmingham or beyond to London every day?
I thought the HS2 spin now was that it was about "network capacity"?
Of course a drop in commuting affects long distance rail travel. HS2 started off as a West Coast Main Line (south) bypass. The 4 track railway between Euston and Rugby is desperately full because of the combination of medium speed (110-125mph) expresses, regular stop commuter trains and slow speed freight trains. The idea is that as you can't remove the commuter trains and the alternate routes don't exist for freight, instead you take medium speed expresses and make them high speed (200mph) thus freeing up capacity.
If you have fewer people commuting from Milton Keynes to London or Northampton to London then you need fewer expresses to those places. If you have fewer people commuting from Tring and Leighton Buzzard to London you need fewer stopping services to those places. Which suddenly means you can make it all fit on the existing 4 track railway.
It's a good question. Coming out of the lockdown way behind the timetable followed by just about every other European country will be the equivalent of shouting from the rooftops that our government really messed up its response. For a government anxious to maintain the fiction that international comparisons can't be drawn, its a very clear comparison and one that (unlike abstract statistics) really impacts on peoples lives.
So, regardless of the economic impact, the government is under immense political pressure to come out of lockdown as early as it dare. They may be lucky, but taking risks for political reasons is not acceptable. Yet we have a PM who is clearly a chancer. That's why we have every reason to be sceptical as to whether to believe them when they claim that (for example) schools can safely go back, at least until they are transparent in publishing the full scientific evidence they are acting on and in sufficient detail for it to be subject to peer review by scientists not under pressure to give the answers that ministers want to hear.
Pubs reopen early. Loads not viable due to lack of customers as people perceive it's not safe. Dan Hodges asks "Have the British people lost their bottle" in another furious Telegraph column.
I think if pubs with beer gardens reopen down here they will be busy. Maybe it's different up north where the weather is crap, dunno.
@Fishing re the graph I posted earlier related to the Con share of the vote. Reading your header again I notice that your calculations relate to the Con share of seats. Apologies for the lapse.
It's a good question. Coming out of the lockdown way behind the timetable followed by just about every other European country will be the equivalent of shouting from the rooftops that our government really messed up its response. For a government anxious to maintain the fiction that international comparisons can't be drawn, its a very clear comparison and one that (unlike abstract statistics) really impacts on peoples lives.
So, regardless of the economic impact, the government is under immense political pressure to come out of lockdown as early as it dare. They may be lucky, but taking risks for political reasons is not acceptable. Yet we have a PM who is clearly a chancer. That's why we have every reason to be sceptical as to whether to believe them when they claim that (for example) schools can safely go back, at least until they are transparent in publishing the full scientific evidence they are acting on and in sufficient detail for it to be subject to peer review by scientists not under pressure to give the answers that ministers want to hear.
Pubs reopen early. Loads not viable due to lack of customers as people perceive it's not safe. Dan Hodges asks "Have the British people lost their bottle" in another furious Telegraph column.
A point so bloody obvious it is surprising it needs to be made so often. There are, quite clearly a minority of folk desperate to be down the pub, in restaurants or at the cinema. And a larger number thinking not likely any time soon. Therefore re--open and a number will soon re-close. More importantly, people have got out of the habit. After the first night of sitting there downing pints in a semi-desrted atmosphere, absent most of the people you want to see. How many will react by wanting another such night? This is a great unknown.
Starmer will take the UK back into the single market, that means free movement which northern Leave voters will still oppose
I think you are fighting the last war.
He is and its funny, but there is a kernal of truth however out-dated. People don't like the other. Foreigners are definitely the other (or in my town the aged parochioal bigots don't like the people who live on the opposite bank of the Tees). "Free Movement" is the socially acceptable alternative to "I don't like foreigners" - no longer racist as the foreigners these days are usually white Eastern European, but still stupid.
HYUFD thinks that Northerners are Stupid. Some are obviously, but instead of saying "free movement" he could take a step back and ask WHY. They don't like the Other because things are tough and someone has to get the blame. We have left the EU. We will impose restrictions on movement (though not when people are infected with the virus aparently). And life for these voters will remain shit because foreigners aren't the reason it is shit. And at that point northerners will go " 'ang on" and patronising southerners like HYUFD won't be able to keep making the same argument without being laughed at by northerners.
It was downward pressure on their wages and pressure on housing and public services from uncontrolled low skilled immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe, which led white working class northerners to vote Leave and for Boris
Not quite - it was the perception that uncontrolled low skilled immigration from Eastern Europeans was reducing wages that resulted in northerners voting Leave.
In the vast majority of areas with high leave votes, immigrants are a smaller proportion of the population than elsewhere.
Comments
The basic advice of work from home if you can, go to work if you can't, as long as it is safe, has not changed .
I have been working hard with others where I work to get as many of the second category in as possible, we did most of the groundwork by early April. Last week nothing changed. We have as many in as we safely can already, next steps are more radical such as early and late shifts or volunteers for weekend working. The "easing" of the lockdown made no material difference to us at all.
Many many people will WFH even when all this is done. Maybe not full time, but a lot more. Me for one!
The government will need money. It should clearly and obviously cancel HS2 as the last desperate plank of the case for that - "capacity" - has been surely rendered obsolete by the impending work from home revolution.
The Tories said kids don't need their own bedroom, but it turns out they do. The Tories said it was fine to leave families with so little money they can barely feed themselves, let alone supply things like a laptop, and then act surprised when kids can't study remotely. Ditto free broadband - just an unnecessary luxury, right? All these policies, which have added up to an unprecedented assault on the poor, have been enthusiastically embraced by many Tories on this site.
Most people I know worry about others as much if not more than themselves.
In 2017 hundreds of thousands of people in the Midlands and North voted Conservative for the first time after 30, 40 or 50 years of voting Labour.
In 2019 many hundreds of thousands more voted Conservative for the first time after being life-long Labour voters.
Once a habit has been broken and family, neighbours and friends see the habit broken, it isn't automatically going back. People have been vocal about breaking these ties.
I get the feeling Wales is slightly behind. In 2017 many thought about it, but clung to Labour. In 2019 many made the step over (as 2017 in North and Midlands). Suspect Welsh Assembly may be indicative for next GE. Conservatives could be largest party, but not in power. Which is perfect for them in next GE.
Suspect some Remain Conservatives will be more tempted to travel to Labour, but this will be in the south and will not be in big enough numbers.
Without Scotland, which broke the Labour habit earlier and never went back, I can't see how Labour can get the most seats. Next time seems about recovering their position.
Usual caveats need to be squared or cubed in current situation.
The plan is to open pubs on 1 July.
Can’t he read?
Of course that does not affect the DW calculations for the post WWII periods. But omitting those observations could have a material impact on the rejection or otherwise of the no-serial-correlation null hypothesis. A historian may be able to tell us whether the special conditions at the time would justify leaving those years out - of course the depression must have been a factor.
And people do get support from more than just schools.
The problem with state-supplied broadband wasn't that it was a luxury. It was that it would be awful and mismanaged, with no competition.
Just following the science, right?
- WFH if possible
- If not possible, travel to work on foot. cycle
- If not possible, car
- if not possible, public transport.
The following is from the YouGov survey the other day:
I’ve explained several times the risk segmentation model advocated by Dr David Katz.
If you oppose it, fine, but don’t immediately assume those that favour it are being selfish.
I'd liken it to those people not known for lying awake at night fretting about gender or LGBT issues who bang on about how appalling Islam is in its attitude to women and homosexuality.
It might or might not be bad faith. But a degree of skepticism is in order.
*not saying it is or it isn't, but if the data at the end of this week, so 10ish days post relaxing, indicates no increase in any of those three metrics, then it will be perceived so.
Continuing to bang on about the risk to the individual without considering the risk to others is like saying its perfectly safe to drive at 60 mph past a school because the car will protect you if you hit a child.
Read up on Dr David Katz’ four-group risk segmentation model. Genuinely, I think you will see the merits of it.
Put another way if you rated a longshot as 1000/1 but you would get a million pounds if it happened and you put £1 on it then would you do so? Its the reverse of this, not losing your life is worth a million pounds while a pint is worth maybe £3.
Branding risk segmentation a selfish doctrine is a nonsense.
The whole point of the model is that it reconciles the varying needs of different groups for maximum group benefit.
You can critique the model, but simply dismissing it as selfish is infantile.
I also doubt that most people are as exercised by "political correctness" or "wokeness" as right wing activists are.
If a risk you take kills someone else, perhaps someone you love, then are you OK with that because you don't care about that someone else?
the Scottish Government have hired at least 600 Contract Tracers since Carlotta swore late yesterday that ZERO had been hired.
So, any advance on ZERO hires?
I like eating out but if I have a 1000/1 chance a meal might kill me then I'm happy to cook.
I'm not "at risk" but my dad is and my grandparents definitely are. Should I play Russian Roulette with their lives?
And a blog here on reconciling extremes – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/price-beer-several-dead-grandparents-david/
Loss of smell is common in lots of colds and also hayfever.
When transmission was happening elsewhere there wasn't much point in isolating 10 people to find 1 covid case.
But when transmission is low then maybe that is worthwhile? Especially when colds and the like must be pretty close to nil now.
I'm not a hayfever sufferer so I don't know when the main periods are - but presumably we are past the tree pollen season but before the grass pollen season at the moment?
Scientists at King’s College London have been tracking symptoms via their specially-created app. By March 31, the Covid Symptom Tracker App had more than 1.8 million users sign up to log their symptoms, or lack thereof, daily.
Some 59% of the 1.5 million people who had signed up by March 29 and tested positive reported a loss of smell and taste, compared with 18% of those who tested negative, analysis of the data showed.
https://guernseypress.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/01/loss-of-smell-taste-could-be-strongest-symptom-of-covid-19-say-uk-researchers/
The Health trackers in Guernsey also added this to their testing eligibility criteria promptly.
Lots of interesting reading on there.
The future has to be in reconciling two extremes – a notion PB struggles with.
I was under the impression he dealt solely in vague generalities.
Generally, I'm dubious as to how much added value is brought by individuals in this field, as opposed to resources and randomness. Although when you are in the game you seek to propagate the opposite message (obvs).
I like 'reversion to the mean" as a recreational betting aid. I think there is much in it if you can intuit where it might apply and (just as important) where it definitely does not.
A single Latin dance workshop for instructors in South Korea is believed to have led to 112 cases of covid-19 after eight of the participants were found to be asymptomatic carriers of the virus.
There were 30 instructors at the workshop, with eight (asymptomatic) believed to be infected.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8330301/112-coronavirus-cases-linked-fitness-class-South-Korea-asymptomatic-instructors.html
One can see that from postings on PB. The Conservative candidature of Steven Yaxley-Lennon wearing nothing more than waders and a blue rosette would still get the PB Tory vote.
But the government believes it is introducing the new official symptom “at the right time, when we think it’s going to make a difference moving forwards to how we pick up cases”.
You lockdown long enough to bring the virus numbers under sufficient control that track, trace and isolate can keep it under control.
That's much better than Katz's approach because (1) you avoid risk of transmission between risk groups and (2) once the virus is under control you don't have to keep high-risk populations isolated.
In a way it's a non-argument. We lack the PPE and organisation to implement Katz's segmentation approach and we lack the contact tracing organisation for my preferred approach.
So we'll end up with an outcome worse than either.
So, regardless of the economic impact, the government is under immense political pressure to come out of lockdown as early as it dare. They may be lucky, but taking risks for political reasons is not acceptable. Yet we have a PM who is clearly a chancer. That's why we have every reason to be sceptical as to whether to believe them when they claim that (for example) schools can safely go back, at least until they are transparent in publishing the full scientific evidence they are acting on and in sufficient detail for it to be subject to peer review by scientists not under pressure to give the answers that ministers want to hear.
But seriously, I do sense that these types often just tweet something out without thinking too deeply about it.
Labour needs a reduction in Conservative seats which needs resurgent LDs. It would be sensible if the high profile former ChangeUK Lib Dems upped their game after the pandemic is over and were shoehorned into seats where they could challenge the Tories
Dan Hodges asks "Have the British people lost their bottle" in another furious Telegraph column.
Anyway, Boris turned a 6 seat deficit into an 80 seat majority in 6 months, so it shouldn't be beyond STArmer to win a majority in 4 years time, especially with the Covid crisis elevating all opposition leaders ratings at the moment
There's no tax. Tax is taking money off you that you earn, not paying you less. Paying people less in benefits is less in benefits its not a tax.
The points that @philip_Thompson and I were making is not about regulation but about behaviour. His point, with which I agree, is that those who have vulnerable relatives do not think only about their own risk but the risk to others they come into contact with. My point is that fear itself is a not always rational inhibition on behaviour whatever the rules of lock down say at any point in time and that fear of this virus will have material economic consequences even if the government removed all controls tomorrow.
I don't see anything in your links that even touches on those points.
HYUFD thinks that Northerners are Stupid. Some are obviously, but instead of saying "free movement" he could take a step back and ask WHY. They don't like the Other because things are tough and someone has to get the blame. We have left the EU. We will impose restrictions on movement (though not when people are infected with the virus aparently). And life for these voters will remain shit because foreigners aren't the reason it is shit. And at that point northerners will go " 'ang on" and patronising southerners like HYUFD won't be able to keep making the same argument without being laughed at by northerners.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1262325134158938112
Everything else is rear view mirror stuff.
However, I wasn't arguing about that. I was arguing for a risk segmentation approach – and that such an approach is not selfish. If you agree with me, great.
As I've said for a while we can't just separate the vulnerable because the vulnerable rely upon the healthy. There are 1.5 million people who work in the NHS and 1.5 million people who work in social care, so that's 3 million people immediately. That's close to 10% of the UK's workforce. Not everyone will be on front line necessarily but its also not counting other first responders. Throw in their relatives they live with and it will be even more.
If you think we can let the virus run wild within the rest of the population without exposing those people its just unbelievable nonsense.
On topic. Your conclusion is in line with how we use the term 'landslide'. It refers to the absolute result rather than the delta from last time.
Thus, 2001, the second Blair landslide is called that even though barely anything changed. Labour actually lost a couple of seats.
Likewise it was not a Tory landslide in 2010 despite them winning a shedload of seats.
NB: The current usage feels wrong to me since 'landslide" evokes violent movement.
My brother-in-law works for Network Rail and the only thing that makes me think his job isn't at risk is that the government can't start cutting funding and resources for the existing network whilst carrying on with HS2.
I think if pubs with beer gardens reopen down here they will be busy. Maybe it's different up north where the weather is crap, dunno.
If you have fewer people commuting from Milton Keynes to London or Northampton to London then you need fewer expresses to those places. If you have fewer people commuting from Tring and Leighton Buzzard to London you need fewer stopping services to those places. Which suddenly means you can make it all fit on the existing 4 track railway.
And a larger number thinking not likely any time soon.
Therefore re--open and a number will soon re-close.
More importantly, people have got out of the habit. After the first night of sitting there downing pints in a semi-desrted atmosphere, absent most of the people you want to see. How many will react by wanting another such night?
This is a great unknown.
In the vast majority of areas with high leave votes, immigrants are a smaller proportion of the population than elsewhere.