Nevertheless I think all bar one can agree that although the Coalition did not assume office until 2010 they were not exempt from having to deal with the consequential costs of the 2008 bank crash.
Yes that much should be unarguable, though there are anti-austerity types who seem to think it was because the evil Tories wanted to do evil things.
Labour's ousting of Portillo in 1997 was a major shock - and whilst Labour held on comfortably in 2001 the seat reverted to Tory hands in 2005. This rather confirmed the view that it would only fall to Labour in landslide years. That changed in 2017. Hove has seen more significant demographic change , but for many years was seen as a Tory v Liberal contest.
Labour's problem up north remains that the Labour brand is so tarnished. A lot of work is needed by Starmer to wipe away the shame of Corbynism, but its much deeper than that. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely and there are too many places where Labour have ruled since the Danelaw (and the reverse it true in many southern towns). Voters eventually have enough and vote for a change which so often proves to be a disappointment. Where a "we listened, we've changed" approach can regain trust.
The acute challenge faced by Labour is that in many of these places the CLP is run by Corbynite nutters...
4865 posts 1 topic
OK. How then do you explain the absolute demolition that we suffered a year ago in the locals? Councils and seats which had been Labour for a long long time suddenly going somewhere else. Up here those of us knocking doors know the answer - Corbyn. Literally spat at us be people LLLLLLL all the way across the sheet.
He's gone now and thats good for the recovery of these seats and these councils.
Totally O/T, I don't know if people have been watching the Last Dance (documentary series of Jordan / Chicago Bulls).
No idea if it was by design, but basically every main protagonist (bar the coach, Phil Jackson), come off as absolute massive docuhebags.
Apparently, Jordan's own production company was responsible for the series, so probably not.
As I have no interest in basketball this bit from the review gives me little interest in watching the thing.
https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/the-last-dance-michael-jordan-bulls-wizards.html ...For a 10-part documentary that promised unprecedented access into Jordan’s world, that scene says it all: There is no getting to know “the real Michael Jordan.” Or, more precisely, this is who he is: an emotionally walled-off, dickish, phenomenal basketball player who doesn’t have much to give off the court. The big question I had going into The Last Dance was, “Is there anything more to Michael Jordan than basketball?” If this documentary is the final word on his legacy, the answer is: apparently not...
I have actually found it really quite compelling. The individuals are really hard to root for, often really horrible to their team-mates and there is no love lost between the management and players.
Jordan and Pippen's arrogance is beyond belief and Pippen / Rodman totally unprofessional, and thus you expect the wheels to come off, but somehow they manage to bring it together for forge moments in that sport that will probably never be repeated.
It is like totally the opposite of how you expect the world cup winning German football teams of recent times act.
According to an expert on Sky News earlier no the trial was not a dud and has been misunderstood. If I understood correctly the purpose of the animal trial is to show the vaccine is safe for a human trial (which is underway) not to show it works which is what the human trial needs to do.
Urban seats with high numbers of graduates like Enfield Southgate and Hove are now solid Labour, it is social change that is unlikely to reverse.
Did you really mean that, young HY? Gove solidly Labour?
Hove, sorry
Are you sure you don´t have any inside information on this? It would be much more fun if it were really Gove. And fun is the trademake of the Boris Johnson administration , innit? That was why the people elected him.
Predictive text. Hove and Enfield Southgate elected a Tory MP under Cameron at least once but have elected Labour MPs since Cameron left. They are unlikely to vote Tory again until a pro single market Tory leader is elected, which is at least a generation away
A prediction eh, young HY? It might be a good idea to share it with your colleagues in Hove.
They could then stand aside to leave it to the Lib Dems to take the seat from Labour. It is, after all, what used to happen in Bolton West - an arrangement set up by no less than Churchill himself. This was discussed on here the other day.
If a seat did not go Tory last December when the Tories won with a majority of 80 it is unlikely to ever go Tory again or at least not for a generation or more.
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.
It is absolutely staggering - but very revealing - that you don't bother to mention, even in passing, the government's motivation for charging people a bit more for extra rooms they no longer need.
We can rectify that.
It was to ensure that the costs of the City crash and bailout were loaded onto those with the broadest shoulders - people on benefits.
How much was being spent on a "City crash and bailout" by the Tories?
Don't be so literal, Philip.
We're talking about the consequent fiscal hole that George and David were busting a gut to fill - by slashing benefits.
Don't be so literal meaning don't use facts?
Fine you can use lies and myths like the City was being bailed out in 2010 causing the deficit of 2010 . . . But just know what you are saying is "literally" not true.
I'd rather deal with literal facts.
Now you've regressed from literal to anal.
If the Coalition were not grappling with the costs of the City crash and bailout (since it happened before they came to power) one wonders what on earth they were grappling with. Many many books will need to be rewritten.
They were grappling with the deficit. The deficit was the fact that the government was spending £4 for every £3 in taxes it took.
Of that £4 in spending per £3 in taxes, just how much do you think was the cost of the bailout?
And the deficit was one of the financial consequences of - and I take the liberty of quoting myself - the "City crash and bailout".
I see there's a theory you are a troll. Jury out on that for me. It could be a matter of obstinacy or lack of processing power.
The animal research is disappointing in one sense - it fails to provide full immunity - but encouraging in another; a less than fully effective vaccine still produces some immune response, and as importantly, doesn't exacerbate the disease.
Certainly the odds against this being the one to solve the pandemic have lengthened considerably. But it might still have some utility - and there are a very large number of other efforts ongoing.
Labour's ousting of Portillo in 1997 was a major shock - and whilst Labour held on comfortably in 2001 the seat reverted to Tory hands in 2005. This rather confirmed the view that it would only fall to Labour in landslide years. That changed in 2017. Hove has seen more significant demographic change , but for many years was seen as a Tory v Liberal contest.
Labour's problem up north remains that the Labour brand is so tarnished. A lot of work is needed by Starmer to wipe away the shame of Corbynism, but its much deeper than that. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely and there are too many places where Labour have ruled since the Danelaw (and the reverse it true in many southern towns). Voters eventually have enough and vote for a change which so often proves to be a disappointment. Where a "we listened, we've changed" approach can regain trust.
The acute challenge faced by Labour is that in many of these places the CLP is run by Corbynite nutters...
I understand that and largely agree. Worth pointing out though that some seats in the North East which have retuned Tory MPs in living memory - Sunderland South - Hartlepool - Tynemouth - did stay Labour in 2019.
According to an expert on Sky News earlier no the trial was not a dud and has been misunderstood. If I understood correctly the purpose of the animal trial is to show the vaccine is safe for a human trial (which is underway) not to show it works which is what the human trial needs to do.
I think i follow. Designed for humans so not as effective, but you can still check some aspects of safety.
I noted a week ago that anecdotally new northern Brexiteer Tory voters were started to turn on the Government and @HYUFD told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, from his flat in Essex. It’s nice that the polling is starting to prove me right.
Which polling?
Boris’s approval ratings.
OK but VI still worse for Labour than GE 2019
Lets hope that is about to change
I don’t think anyone is really paying attention to party politics at the moment, and who can blame them.
Anecdotally nobody is saying they support Labour, the are simply criticizing the Government, and rightly so.
I make no prediction for what is going to happen, I’m merely telling @HYUFD that his precious “red wall” Tory voters, that he knows nothing about, aren’t very happy with his man’s performance.
I think you will be more in touch with red wall voters in the North than HYUFD.
I do however fear once you have voted Tory once it is easy to justify sticking with it especially if you are a Brexiteer that wants immigration limited.
Hope i am wrong and we win back all the red wall seats and more in 2024
2021 LE will give us an early indication I expect
I live in what was the red wall. I see no changes yet.
Our own red wall barely held.
i dont see Starmer wining back many voters but can see a slight increase in majority here in 2024
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
I think we should be able to turn some of the "mass" part of the testing into "fast", but we still need a working system which includes an app.
The logistical challenge of producing tens of thousands of lab results literally overnight should not be underestimated. Anything slower than that and there will be further spread. Its not the sort of thing the NHS does well, unfortunately.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Labour's ousting of Portillo in 1997 was a major shock - and whilst Labour held on comfortably in 2001 the seat reverted to Tory hands in 2005. This rather confirmed the view that it would only fall to Labour in landslide years. That changed in 2017. Hove has seen more significant demographic change , but for many years was seen as a Tory v Liberal contest.
Labour's problem up north remains that the Labour brand is so tarnished. A lot of work is needed by Starmer to wipe away the shame of Corbynism, but its much deeper than that. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely and there are too many places where Labour have ruled since the Danelaw (and the reverse it true in many southern towns). Voters eventually have enough and vote for a change which so often proves to be a disappointment. Where a "we listened, we've changed" approach can regain trust.
The acute challenge faced by Labour is that in many of these places the CLP is run by Corbynite nutters...
I understand that and largely agree. Worth pointing out though that some seats in the North East which have retuned Tory MPs in living memory - Sunderland South - Hartlepool - Tynemouth - did stay Labour in 2019.
Only because Nigel Farage split the leave vote. If he had stood down those seats and others would be Tory and Boris would be sitting with a 100+ seat majority.
The animal research is disappointing in one sense - it fails to provide full immunity - but encouraging in another; a less than fully effective vaccine still produces some immune response, and as importantly, doesn't exacerbate the disease.
Certainly the odds against this being the one to solve the pandemic have lengthened considerably. But it might still have some utility - and there are a very large number of other efforts ongoing.
I wonder what they do if it is found to be a) safe and b) partially effective. Do they still fire it into 30 million people in September?
The animal research is disappointing in one sense - it fails to provide full immunity - but encouraging in another; a less than fully effective vaccine still produces some immune response, and as importantly, doesn't exacerbate the disease.
Certainly the odds against this being the one to solve the pandemic have lengthened considerably. But it might still have some utility - and there are a very large number of other efforts ongoing.
Yeah, we have many eggs and many baskets, thankfully.
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
I think the government will have a few weeks of grace because many people will be wary of sending their kids to school, etc, and that may keep sufficient lid on things until they can sort out the contact tracing.
I think what we will find is what we saw in the Chinese data this morning. People will be freed to do more things but will be a lot less inclined than the government is hoping until they produce much, much better evidence that they are on top of this. And they are not.
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.
Where the Brexit vote came from and where it would have gone otherwise is interesting.
I suspect it varies around the country.
In some places - Hartlepool and the Yorkshire mining constituencies I think it damaged the Conservatives, in other places it might have damaged Labour.
I will say that I've never seen such an expansive campaign as what TBP did in South Yorkshire - activists infesting town centres, masses of leaflets and even cars with speakers crawling through residential areas.
BTW there's no chance Labour will win Cheltenham - they lost their deposit there in 2019:
It is not so many years ago that Labour lost its deposit in Enfield Southgate and Hove - yet both are now comfortably Labour.In 1966 Labour came within 3000 votes of taking Cheltenham - though there was no Liberal that year.
Can you be a bit more specific on when it was that 'that Labour lost its deposit in Enfield Southgate and Hove'?
Labour lost its deposit at the Enfield Southgate by election held in December 1984 following the death of Anthony Berry in the Brighton bombing outrage. Portillo was elected as the new MP. There was also a by election at Hove in November 1973 when Tim Sainsbury was first elected. In both cases the Deposit threshold was still 12.5% - rather than the 5% we have seen since the mid-1980s.
Thanks and exactly. 2 by-elections and 1 GE and on old rules. These are 36 and 46 years ago. They have no relevance to today, it's a different world.
Labour's ousting of Portillo in 1997 was a major shock - and whilst Labour held on comfortably in 2001 the seat reverted to Tory hands in 2005. This rather confirmed the view that it would only fall to Labour in landslide years. That changed in 2017. Hove has seen more significant demographic change , but for many years was seen as a Tory v Liberal contest.
White working class ex industrial and coastal town seats like Bolsover, Mansfield and Grimsby are now solidly Tory.
Urban seats with high numbers of graduates like Enfield Southgate and Gove are now solid Labour, it is social change that is unlikely to reverse
Such seats are not 'solidly' Tory on the basis of a single election win - regardless of the majority on that occasion. Only in the event of the pattern being repeated over several elections can such a judgement reasonably be made. Seats such as Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Thanet South, Dover, Stevenage, Watford ,Hemel Hempstead, Welwyn & Hatfield may have appeared 'solidly' Labour in 1997 & 2001 but were clearly not so.
The latter seats are now almost all safe Tory seats bar Watford.
The Tories got a higher voteshare amongst skilled working class C2s than upper middle class ABs at the last general election and that movement of the Tory vote in a more working class direction has been going on overall since 1997 and 2001
Small fry compared to having refused to listen when Taiwan warned about the virus back at the end of December. The WHO is completely broken and needs replacing.
I truly believe that having Stormont agree to special arrangements is no more a border than having Holyrood agree to special arrangements for a devolved matter.
Plus I've been consistent since before Boris resigned from May's government that the principle for me was democracy. May's backstop was undemocratic - a Stormont-determined special arrangement is democratic. If NI isn't happy with the arrangements then Stormont can and should end them.
I wholly accept that you believe it. Can you look past your belief for a moment at the practicalities? Having to fill in customs declarations to move products from the UK to the UK. Having to have customs checks on said goods moving within the UK. It looks like a border, it operates like a border, practically speaking it is a border.
Can we also look at your suggestion that it is on Stormont not Johnson? Lets assume for a minute that the NI Assembly manages to sit for a change. And that it decides it is unhappy having to do customs checks to import products within the UK - how does it end these arrangements?
The UK is legally mandated to maintain an open border with the RoI. Which means that the external EU border cannot be there - it has to be somewhere. If NI says no where does the border go? We cannot have an open border with the EU if we want to diverge standards and tariffs. We have to have an open border with RoI. Which means that we either drop our plans for diverged standards and tariffs, or we have the border down the Irish Sea as announced. Sorry, the "special arrangements" down the Irish Sea as announced.
I noted a week ago that anecdotally new northern Brexiteer Tory voters were started to turn on the Government and @HYUFD told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, from his flat in Essex. It’s nice that the polling is starting to prove me right.
Which polling?
Boris’s approval ratings.
OK but VI still worse for Labour than GE 2019
Lets hope that is about to change
I don’t think anyone is really paying attention to party politics at the moment, and who can blame them.
Anecdotally nobody is saying they support Labour, the are simply criticizing the Government, and rightly so.
I make no prediction for what is going to happen, I’m merely telling @HYUFD that his precious “red wall” Tory voters, that he knows nothing about, aren’t very happy with his man’s performance.
They clearly still are overall otherwise the Tories would not be polling at a higher voteshare than they have got at any general election since 1959
So why are Boris’s approval ratings declining?
Because those who didn't vote Tory a few months ago are not backing him as much or are more willing to say negative. Not because those who did have changed.
Well the Brexit supporting Tory voters I have on Facebook are constantly posting anti Boris memes. They seem to have changed their mind, but clearly it does not fit your narrative.
Were they posting pro Boris memes before December's election?
Yes.
Interestingly one of my most pro HS2 friends thinks though infrastructure is a great idea in theory the cost is now utterly ridiculous.
Totally O/T, I don't know if people have been watching the Last Dance (documentary series of Jordan / Chicago Bulls).
No idea if it was by design, but basically every main protagonist (bar the coach, Phil Jackson), come off as absolute massive docuhebags.
Apparently, Jordan's own production company was responsible for the series, so probably not.
As I have no interest in basketball this bit from the review gives me little interest in watching the thing.
https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/the-last-dance-michael-jordan-bulls-wizards.html ...For a 10-part documentary that promised unprecedented access into Jordan’s world, that scene says it all: There is no getting to know “the real Michael Jordan.” Or, more precisely, this is who he is: an emotionally walled-off, dickish, phenomenal basketball player who doesn’t have much to give off the court. The big question I had going into The Last Dance was, “Is there anything more to Michael Jordan than basketball?” If this documentary is the final word on his legacy, the answer is: apparently not...
I have actually found it really quite compelling. The individuals are really hard to root for, often really horrible to their team-mates and there is no love lost between the management and players.
Jordan and Pippen's arrogance is beyond belief and Pippen / Rodman totally unprofessional, and thus you expect the wheels to come off, but somehow they manage to bring it together for forge moments in that sport that will probably never be repeated.
It is like totally the opposite of how you expect the world cup winning German football teams of recent times act.
I'm watching the Korean horror series Strangers from Hell. Perhaps not the ideal lockdown viewing, but strangely compelling.
Boris needs northern wall Leave voters more than he needs the DUP
He lied to both of them
No he didn't. The Irish border solution was based upon the principle of devolution which has long existed and was put up before the General Election.
Fig leaf.
If devolution is a fig leaf why did Tony Blair introduce it? Do you want it to be abolished?
Devolution isn't a fig leaf. But offering this as a valid rationale for Johnson accepting the border that he previously ruled out as unconscionable certainly is.
Its perfectly acceptable. In fact the principle that Stormont could agree to differences from GB was agreed all along.
If it was agreed all along why did Johnson say it was unacceptable?
Because May was looking to impose the backstop without Stormont getting a say or a way out of it. That was unacceptable.
Boris fixed that. He agreed a new arrangement and Stormont can vote to end those arrangements if they're not happy with them.
Any other question?
Only the same one -
Why did Johnson he would 'never never never' accept a border in the Irish Sea?
Because he wouldn't accept it.
Instead he got a border between the UK as a whole and the EU, but with special devolved arrangements for NI that Stormont can end if they don't like it.
He said he would never accept it. There were no caveats. Indeed he got a standing ovation for the strength and resolution of his rhetoric on this issue. Which is exactly what it proved to be.
You need to accept this in your heart and mind even if you can't do so in an internet conversation with me.
He didn't accept it. It never happened.
Trying to pretend devolved arrangements are a border is absurd.
If you truly believe that Boris Johnson did not go back on a 'no ifs no buts' commitment that under him there would be no border in the Irish Sea, this makes you a rather special sort of person. I doubt there are more than a dozen like you in the whole country.
The original internet definition of a troll was someone who came onto chatrooms, such as they were then, and then subtly tried to subvert them by arguing known illogicalities so everyone was diverted from the key arguments and ideally trying to get the existing chatroom members to turn on each other, the overall aim being to bring the chatroom into disarray.
I really do think that @Philip_Thompson is doing this. Because no one could be that dense in what are otherwise fairly straightforward, easy-to-grasp issues.
Yes, I think I've been tango'd. Much time consumed for nil return. And here's me a busy man - it's toenails 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...
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.
It is absolutely staggering - but very revealing - that you don't bother to mention, even in passing, the government's motivation for charging people a bit more for extra rooms they no longer need.
We can rectify that.
It was to ensure that the costs of the City crash and bailout were loaded onto those with the broadest shoulders - people on benefits.
How much was being spent on a "City crash and bailout" by the Tories?
Don't be so literal, Philip.
We're talking about the consequent fiscal hole that George and David were busting a gut to fill - by slashing benefits.
Don't be so literal meaning don't use facts?
Fine you can use lies and myths like the City was being bailed out in 2010 causing the deficit of 2010 . . . But just know what you are saying is "literally" not true.
I'd rather deal with literal facts.
Now you've regressed from literal to anal.
If the Coalition were not grappling with the costs of the City crash and bailout (since it happened before they came to power) one wonders what on earth they were grappling with. Many many books will need to be rewritten.
They were grappling with the deficit. The deficit was the fact that the government was spending £4 for every £3 in taxes it took.
Of that £4 in spending per £3 in taxes, just how much do you think was the cost of the bailout?
And the deficit was one of the financial consequences of - and I take the liberty of quoting myself - the "City crash and bailout".
I see there's a theory you are a troll. Jury out on that for me. It could be a matter of obstinacy or lack of processing power.
But that's not true!!!
You need to understand the difference between deficit and debt.
In 2008 money spent on bailing out banks is part of 2008's deficit. Then it is spent, gone, done. By 2010 it is part of debt and any interest is part of the deficit but the 2008 expenditure is categorically NOT part of the 2010 deficit besides it's impact on interest payments.
I noted a week ago that anecdotally new northern Brexiteer Tory voters were started to turn on the Government and @HYUFD told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, from his flat in Essex. It’s nice that the polling is starting to prove me right.
Wrong, the Tories had a comfortable 15% poll lead last weekend and Boris still leads Starmer as preferred PM
And what relevance does this have? As usual you just repute the point you thought I made, rather than what point I actually made. I said the polls were “starting to turn”, which they are. Boris’s approval rating is starting to decline. Keir Starmer has nothing to do with this.
They aren't to any significant degree, the latest poll gives a 1.5% swing to the Tories since GE 2019
But a month or so ago, such polls were implying a 7% swing to the Tories.As it is, the polls are still almost certainly flattering them simply as a result of normal politics having been frozen out.
That's not an issue exclusive to the WHO. The US, UK, EU, UN etc etc do not recognise the ROC.
But, at least within health in general, and in relation to epidemiology in particular, the world practice has been to accept the reality that bugs do not respect borders and that global health security requires all parties to participate regardless of politics.
MECIDS is a disease surveillance group of Israel, Palestine and Jordan that has continued to function through wars, intifada and other military or political machinations. Because it needs to, regardless of politics.
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
I think the government will have a few weeks of grace because many people will be wary of sending their kids to school, etc, and that may keep sufficient lid on things until they can sort out the contact tracing.
I think what we will find is what we saw in the Chinese data this morning. People will be freed to do more things but will be a lot less inclined than the government is hoping until they produce much, much better evidence that they are on top of this. And they are not.
I think a big effect will be in changed behaviour unwinding very slowly, if at all. Air travel is probably as permanently changed (or more) by this than 9/11.
If the Oxford vaccine reduces the severity of the disease to say that of the common cold that's probably "good enough" till a full immune vaccine comes out.
Nevertheless I think all bar one can agree that although the Coalition did not assume office until 2010 they were not exempt from having to deal with the consequential costs of the 2008 bank crash.
Yes that much should be unarguable, though there are anti-austerity types who seem to think it was because the evil Tories wanted to do evil things.
Not me. The books had to be straightened. My beef is with the how not the why.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
If the Oxford vaccine reduces the severity of the disease to say that of the common cold that's probably "good enough" till a full immune vaccine comes out.
Would suck if the combination of the two killed you.
According to an expert on Sky News earlier no the trial was not a dud and has been misunderstood. If I understood correctly the purpose of the animal trial is to show the vaccine is safe for a human trial (which is underway) not to show it works which is what the human trial needs to do.
Yes....the purpose of the first stage was to see if it is safe to inflict on humans, not to see if it vaccines animals....
Labour's ousting of Portillo in 1997 was a major shock - and whilst Labour held on comfortably in 2001 the seat reverted to Tory hands in 2005. This rather confirmed the view that it would only fall to Labour in landslide years. That changed in 2017. Hove has seen more significant demographic change , but for many years was seen as a Tory v Liberal contest.
Labour's problem up north remains that the Labour brand is so tarnished. A lot of work is needed by Starmer to wipe away the shame of Corbynism, but its much deeper than that. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely and there are too many places where Labour have ruled since the Danelaw (and the reverse it true in many southern towns). Voters eventually have enough and vote for a change which so often proves to be a disappointment. Where a "we listened, we've changed" approach can regain trust.
The acute challenge faced by Labour is that in many of these places the CLP is run by Corbynite nutters...
I understand that and largely agree. Worth pointing out though that some seats in the North East which have retuned Tory MPs in living memory - Sunderland South - Hartlepool - Tynemouth - did stay Labour in 2019.
Thanks to the Brexit Party splitting the leave vote
If the Oxford vaccine reduces the severity of the disease to say that of the common cold that's probably "good enough" till a full immune vaccine comes out.
Even a vaccine that reduced the incidence of severe symptoms/death by half and transmission by the same amount would make a huge difference.
That's not an issue exclusive to the WHO. The US, UK, EU, UN etc etc do not recognise the ROC.
But, at least within health in general, and in relation to epidemiology in particular, the world practice has been to accept the reality that bugs do not respect borders and that global health security requires all parties to participate regardless of politics.
MECIDS is a disease surveillance group of Israel, Palestine and Jordan that has continued to function through wars, intifada and other military or political machinations. Because it needs to, regardless of politics.
I noted a week ago that anecdotally new northern Brexiteer Tory voters were started to turn on the Government and @HYUFD told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, from his flat in Essex. It’s nice that the polling is starting to prove me right.
Which polling?
Corbyn's satisfaction rating in Sept 2019 hit a record low of -60%. Starmer is already on +24%. I think it's fairly safe to conclude that right across the board people prefer Starmer to Corbyn.
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
I think the government will have a few weeks of grace because many people will be wary of sending their kids to school, etc, and that may keep sufficient lid on things until they can sort out the contact tracing.
I think what we will find is what we saw in the Chinese data this morning. People will be freed to do more things but will be a lot less inclined than the government is hoping until they produce much, much better evidence that they are on top of this. And they are not.
I think a big effect will be in changed behaviour unwinding very slowly, if at all. Air travel is probably as permanently changed (or more) by this than 9/11.
My guess is multiple times 9/11 for air travel. The chances of some terrorist ending up on your flight was always vanishingly small and once they took his aftershave off him he was relatively harmless anyway. The probability of being quarantined if you go anywhere, catching something at the airport or on the plane, etc is much higher. I really cannot see myself flying for several years.
If the Oxford vaccine reduces the severity of the disease to say that of the common cold that's probably "good enough" till a full immune vaccine comes out.
Would suck if the combination of the two killed you.
Come on Rob, even I have to find some causes for optimism in this pandemic
Boris needs northern wall Leave voters more than he needs the DUP
He lied to both of them
No he didn't. The Irish border solution was based upon the principle of devolution which has long existed and was put up before the General Election.
Fig leaf.
If devolution is a fig leaf why did Tony Blair introduce it? Do you want it to be abolished?
Devolution isn't a fig leaf. But offering this as a valid rationale for Johnson accepting the border that he previously ruled out as unconscionable certainly is.
Its perfectly acceptable. In fact the principle that Stormont could agree to differences from GB was agreed all along.
If it was agreed all along why did Johnson say it was unacceptable?
Because May was looking to impose the backstop without Stormont getting a say or a way out of it. That was unacceptable.
Boris fixed that. He agreed a new arrangement and Stormont can vote to end those arrangements if they're not happy with them.
Any other question?
Only the same one -
Why did Johnson he would 'never never never' accept a border in the Irish Sea?
Because he wouldn't accept it.
Instead he got a border between the UK as a whole and the EU, but with special devolved arrangements for NI that Stormont can end if they don't like it.
He said he would never accept it. There were no caveats. Indeed he got a standing ovation for the strength and resolution of his rhetoric on this issue. Which is exactly what it proved to be.
You need to accept this in your heart and mind even if you can't do so in an internet conversation with me.
He didn't accept it. It never happened.
Trying to pretend devolved arrangements are a border is absurd.
If you truly believe that Boris Johnson did not go back on a 'no ifs no buts' commitment that under him there would be no border in the Irish Sea, this makes you a rather special sort of person. I doubt there are more than a dozen like you in the whole country.
The original internet definition of a troll was someone who came onto chatrooms, such as they were then, and then subtly tried to subvert them by arguing known illogicalities so everyone was diverted from the key arguments and ideally trying to get the existing chatroom members to turn on each other, the overall aim being to bring the chatroom into disarray.
I really do think that @Philip_Thompson is doing this. Because no one could be that dense in what are otherwise fairly straightforward, easy-to-grasp issues.
Yes, I think I've been tango'd. Much time consumed for nil return. And here's me a busy man - it's toenails day.
Hats off to him.
I think he is 100% sincere because I do not believe anybody could put that much effort in unless fuelled by burning conviction.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
Labour's ousting of Portillo in 1997 was a major shock - and whilst Labour held on comfortably in 2001 the seat reverted to Tory hands in 2005. This rather confirmed the view that it would only fall to Labour in landslide years. That changed in 2017. Hove has seen more significant demographic change , but for many years was seen as a Tory v Liberal contest.
Labour's problem up north remains that the Labour brand is so tarnished. A lot of work is needed by Starmer to wipe away the shame of Corbynism, but its much deeper than that. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely and there are too many places where Labour have ruled since the Danelaw (and the reverse it true in many southern towns). Voters eventually have enough and vote for a change which so often proves to be a disappointment. Where a "we listened, we've changed" approach can regain trust.
The acute challenge faced by Labour is that in many of these places the CLP is run by Corbynite nutters...
I understand that and largely agree. Worth pointing out though that some seats in the North East which have retuned Tory MPs in living memory - Sunderland South - Hartlepool - Tynemouth - did stay Labour in 2019.
Thanks to the Brexit Party splitting the leave vote
But a lot who voted Brexit Party or Ukip would still never vote Tory - a point which caught out the commentariat in 2017 when it was assumed that the withdrawal of Ukip candidates would significantly benefit the Tories. Many who had voted Ukip in 2015 went back to Labour in the absence of a Ukip candidate.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
I largely agree except your gran likely relies upon many in the community and if they get sick they can pass it to her and kill her. It doesn't have to be you passing it on direct.
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
I think the government will have a few weeks of grace because many people will be wary of sending their kids to school, etc, and that may keep sufficient lid on things until they can sort out the contact tracing.
I think what we will find is what we saw in the Chinese data this morning. People will be freed to do more things but will be a lot less inclined than the government is hoping until they produce much, much better evidence that they are on top of this. And they are not.
I think a big effect will be in changed behaviour unwinding very slowly, if at all. Air travel is probably as permanently changed (or more) by this than 9/11.
My guess is multiple times 9/11 for air travel. The chances of some terrorist ending up on your flight was always vanishingly small and once they took his aftershave off him he was relatively harmless anyway. The probability of being quarantined if you go anywhere, catching something at the airport or on the plane, etc is much higher. I really cannot see myself flying for several years.
Quite probably. Anecdote stuff, but I know several people who are planning UK holidays, who would have previously scorned the suggestion.
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.
It is absolutely staggering - but very revealing - that you don't bother to mention, even in passing, the government's motivation for charging people a bit more for extra rooms they no longer need.
We can rectify that.
It was to ensure that the costs of the City crash and bailout were loaded onto those with the broadest shoulders - people on benefits.
How much was being spent on a "City crash and bailout" by the Tories?
Don't be so literal, Philip.
We're talking about the consequent fiscal hole that George and David were busting a gut to fill - by slashing benefits.
Don't be so literal meaning don't use facts?
Fine you can use lies and myths like the City was being bailed out in 2010 causing the deficit of 2010 . . . But just know what you are saying is "literally" not true.
I'd rather deal with literal facts.
Now you've regressed from literal to anal.
If the Coalition were not grappling with the costs of the City crash and bailout (since it happened before they came to power) one wonders what on earth they were grappling with. Many many books will need to be rewritten.
They were grappling with the deficit. The deficit was the fact that the government was spending £4 for every £3 in taxes it took.
Of that £4 in spending per £3 in taxes, just how much do you think was the cost of the bailout?
And the deficit was one of the financial consequences of - and I take the liberty of quoting myself - the "City crash and bailout".
I see there's a theory you are a troll. Jury out on that for me. It could be a matter of obstinacy or lack of processing power.
But that's not true!!!
You need to understand the difference between deficit and debt.
In 2008 money spent on bailing out banks is part of 2008's deficit. Then it is spent, gone, done. By 2010 it is part of debt and any interest is part of the deficit but the 2008 expenditure is categorically NOT part of the 2010 deficit besides it's impact on interest payments.
Do you understand?
The "City crash and bailout". Wonder why I included that word "crash" in there? Was it to encompass the wider event and consequences such as the fall in tax revenues and ballooning government deficit? Hmm, I think we should be told.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
I largely agree except your gran likely relies upon many in the community and if they get sick they can pass it to her and kill her. It doesn't have to be you passing it on direct.
Then those people are likewise careful not to go to the pub before seeing your gran. And of course are tested if they need to see your gran as a matter of imperative.
I do say though @TOPPING I really like your drugs analogy. The issue I think though is we know prohibition doesn't work and it will still get through. So we should legalise.
However containment unlike prohibition can work. It's worked in New Zealand and elsewhere. So if we can squish this down to containable levels (and we are close) we can probably get back to more of a normal than if we ease off now.
Either we need to treat this virus like Singapore treats drugs or like the Netherlands does. There's no point being half-hearted.
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.
It is absolutely staggering - but very revealing - that you don't bother to mention, even in passing, the government's motivation for charging people a bit more for extra rooms they no longer need.
We can rectify that.
It was to ensure that the costs of the City crash and bailout were loaded onto those with the broadest shoulders - people on benefits.
How much was being spent on a "City crash and bailout" by the Tories?
Don't be so literal, Philip.
We're talking about the consequent fiscal hole that George and David were busting a gut to fill - by slashing benefits.
Don't be so literal meaning don't use facts?
Fine you can use lies and myths like the City was being bailed out in 2010 causing the deficit of 2010 . . . But just know what you are saying is "literally" not true.
I'd rather deal with literal facts.
Now you've regressed from literal to anal.
If the Coalition were not grappling with the costs of the City crash and bailout (since it happened before they came to power) one wonders what on earth they were grappling with. Many many books will need to be rewritten.
They were grappling with the deficit. The deficit was the fact that the government was spending £4 for every £3 in taxes it took.
Of that £4 in spending per £3 in taxes, just how much do you think was the cost of the bailout?
And the deficit was one of the financial consequences of - and I take the liberty of quoting myself - the "City crash and bailout".
I see there's a theory you are a troll. Jury out on that for me. It could be a matter of obstinacy or lack of processing power.
But that's not true!!!
You need to understand the difference between deficit and debt.
In 2008 money spent on bailing out banks is part of 2008's deficit. Then it is spent, gone, done. By 2010 it is part of debt and any interest is part of the deficit but the 2008 expenditure is categorically NOT part of the 2010 deficit besides it's impact on interest payments.
Do you understand?
The "City crash and bailout". Wonder why I included that word "crash" in there? Was it to encompass the wider event and consequences such as the fall in tax revenues and ballooning government deficit? Hmm, I think we should be told.
Indeed but by 2010 the crash was over yet the deficit remained. Why do you think?
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
At some juncture the government will have to accept what it has run away from for months. We have to live with the virus, and accept more deaths if need be.
The alternative is social and economic disintegration. It always was.
We can confidently now say that NHS England daily deaths are below 200 now. A reduction of about 80% from the peak.
The government has got to communicate this to the public in a better fashion than it has to date.
We are close to getting this meaningfully close to zero. Communication then would be great. I think another couple of weeks now could almost eliminate this or lifting off now could see it plateau here. And eliminating it (or as good as nearly) would see confidence return much, much faster.
Boris needs northern wall Leave voters more than he needs the DUP
He lied to both of them
No he didn't. The Irish border solution was based upon the principle of devolution which has long existed and was put up before the General Election.
Fig leaf.
If devolution is a fig leaf why did Tony Blair introduce it? Do you want it to be abolished?
Devolution isn't a fig leaf. But offering this as a valid rationale for Johnson accepting the border that he previously ruled out as unconscionable certainly is.
Its perfectly acceptable. In fact the principle that Stormont could agree to differences from GB was agreed all along.
If it was agreed all along why did Johnson say it was unacceptable?
Because May was looking to impose the backstop without Stormont getting a say or a way out of it. That was unacceptable.
Boris fixed that. He agreed a new arrangement and Stormont can vote to end those arrangements if they're not happy with them.
Any other question?
Only the same one -
Why did Johnson he would 'never never never' accept a border in the Irish Sea?
Because he wouldn't accept it.
Instead he got a border between the UK as a whole and the EU, but with special devolved arrangements for NI that Stormont can end if they don't like it.
He said he would never accept it. There were no caveats. Indeed he got a standing ovation for the strength and resolution of his rhetoric on this issue. Which is exactly what it proved to be.
You need to accept this in your heart and mind even if you can't do so in an internet conversation with me.
He didn't accept it. It never happened.
Trying to pretend devolved arrangements are a border is absurd.
If you truly believe that Boris Johnson did not go back on a 'no ifs no buts' commitment that under him there would be no border in the Irish Sea, this makes you a rather special sort of person. I doubt there are more than a dozen like you in the whole country.
The original internet definition of a troll was someone who came onto chatrooms, such as they were then, and then subtly tried to subvert them by arguing known illogicalities so everyone was diverted from the key arguments and ideally trying to get the existing chatroom members to turn on each other, the overall aim being to bring the chatroom into disarray.
I really do think that @Philip_Thompson is doing this. Because no one could be that dense in what are otherwise fairly straightforward, easy-to-grasp issues.
Yes, I think I've been tango'd. Much time consumed for nil return. And here's me a busy man - it's toenails day.
Hats off to him.
I think he is 100% sincere because I do not believe anybody could put that much effort in unless fuelled by burning conviction.
That is a point. Ah well. Whatever. All part of the rich tapestry that makes PB what it is - a total fucking waste of 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.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
As a grandfather and husband of a grandmother I'm sure she wouldn't be happy if either of our grandsons gave her a beery hug. Hell, she wasn't happy 50+ years ago if I did! And she normally thoroughly enjoyed my hugs. She isn't happy though that they are stuck at home, although as the elder is a working teacher, he isn't. And she wants the younger to go out, learn to drive, tell us bowdlerised tales of what he's got up to etc.
I thought the reopening was meant to be tied into track and trace. It looks like the Gov't is pushing ahead with the whole reopening plan before track and trace is sorted though ?
That is what I have been complaining about for the last week. 3 conditions: mass testing: tickish; fast testing: nope; a working app for tracing: nope. One condition out of 3. A rise in the number of cases is almost inevitable. And what do we do then?
At some juncture the government will have to accept what it has run away from for months. We have to live with the virus, and accept more deaths if need be.
The alternative is social and economic disintegration. It always was.
We don't have to live with this virus. New Zealand isn't living with this virus so why do we have to?
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
I largely agree except your gran likely relies upon many in the community and if they get sick they can pass it to her and kill her. It doesn't have to be you passing it on direct.
Then those people are likewise careful not to go to the pub before seeing your gran. And of course are tested if they need to see your gran as a matter of imperative.
What if you need a couple of stiff ones down the pub before seeing your gran?
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants. Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group. At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
Who are Redfield and Wilton? Their twitter account has 17 followers and only started in April. Are they some polling company that has renamed themselves?
We can confidently now say that NHS England daily deaths are below 200 now. A reduction of about 80% from the peak.
The government has got to communicate this to the public in a better fashion than it has to date.
We are close to getting this meaningfully close to zero. Communication then would be great. I think another couple of weeks now could almost eliminate this or lifting off now could see it plateau here. And eliminating it (or as good as nearly) would see confidence return much, much faster.
Confidence should be returning fast already. People have a poor perception of risk. I`ve always thought that this is endemic, as Foxy now thinks too. I suspect that the level will "stick" soon - stubbornly refusing to fall close to nil - due (predominantly) to health and care professional transmitting it. An unavoidable "background prevalance" if you like.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
As a grandfather and husband of a grandmother I'm sure she wouldn't be happy if either of our grandsons gave her a beery hug. Hell, she wasn't happy 50+ years ago if I did! And she normally thoroughly enjoyed my hugs. She isn't happy though that they are stuck at home, although as the elder is a working teacher, he isn't. And she wants the younger to go out, learn to drive, tell us bowdlerised tales of what he's got up to etc.
Is the way I look at it. My concern is that if we wait, as per @Philip_Thompson's suggestion, which certainly has merit, we might get out of the habit of any kind of normal plus every week is damaging the economy and peoples' mental health.
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of Emglish care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
They've been unfortunate perhaps. And the 62% have been fortunate perhaps.
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
In a pandemic only approx one third affected must indicate reasons other than luck
The reason is they're incredibly vulnerable and can't be shielded.
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants. Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group. At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
A bit premature, methinks!
All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.
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.
Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
As a grandfather and husband of a grandmother I'm sure she wouldn't be happy if either of our grandsons gave her a beery hug. Hell, she wasn't happy 50+ years ago if I did! And she normally thoroughly enjoyed my hugs. She isn't happy though that they are stuck at home, although as the elder is a working teacher, he isn't. And she wants the younger to go out, learn to drive, tell us bowdlerised tales of what he's got up to etc.
Is the way I look at it. My concern is that if we wait, as per @Philip_Thompson's suggestion, which certainly has merit, we might get out of the habit of any kind of normal plus every week is damaging the economy and peoples' mental health.
I agree but i think a swifter return to normal (NZ style) will aid people's mental health and the economy more than a rapid return to a new normal of this being prevalent.
We can confidently now say that NHS England daily deaths are below 200 now. A reduction of about 80% from the peak.
The government has got to communicate this to the public in a better fashion than it has to date.
We are close to getting this meaningfully close to zero. Communication then would be great. I think another couple of weeks now could almost eliminate this or lifting off now could see it plateau here. And eliminating it (or as good as nearly) would see confidence return much, much faster.
Confidence should be returning fast already. People have a poor perception of risk. I`ve always thought that this is endemic, as Foxy now thinks too. I suspect that the level will "stick" soon - stubbornly refusing to fall close to nil - due (predominantly) to health and care professional transmitting it. An unavoidable "background prevalance" if you like.
Healthcare professionals will possibly get closer to herd immunity long before anyone else though.
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of Emglish care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
They've been unfortunate perhaps. And the 62% have been fortunate perhaps.
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
In a pandemic only approx one third affected must indicate reasons other than luck
The reason is they're incredibly vulnerable and can't be shielded.
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
Actually the nursing home my sons mother is in with dementia banned all visitors in early march and are covid free
Letters telling people they should self-isolate from their families are still being sent incorrectly to people who don’t need to - weeks after the Welsh Government apologised for sending thousands of them to homes across Wales.
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of Emglish care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
They've been unfortunate perhaps. And the 62% have been fortunate perhaps.
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
In a pandemic only approx one third affected must indicate reasons other than luck
The reason is they're incredibly vulnerable and can't be shielded.
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
Actually the nursing home my sons mother is in with dementia banned all visitors in early march and are covid free
All visitors including staff? Or just friends and family?
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants. Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group. At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
A bit premature, methinks!
All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.
A limited emergency use would be better than nothing.
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of Emglish care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
They've been unfortunate perhaps. And the 62% have been fortunate perhaps.
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
In a pandemic only approx one third affected must indicate reasons other than luck
The reason is they're incredibly vulnerable and can't be shielded.
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
Actually the nursing home my sons mother is in with dementia banned all visitors in early march and are covid free
All visitors including staff? Or just friends and family?
You need to count staff as visitors as they are.
Of course staff continue to look after the residents but no one else is allowed near the home.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has been criticised for posing for photos with strangers despite telling people to keep their distance to reduce the spread of coronavirus.
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants. Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group. At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
A bit premature, methinks!
All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.
A limited emergency use would be better than nothing.
I would guess limited emergency use IN THE US. Unless they are willing to share early and have other people start the mass production of it.
Edit:
Moderna aims for a billion COVID-19 shots a year with Lonza manufacturing tie-up
• Technology transfer expected to begin in June 2020
• First batches of mRNA-1273 expected to be manufactured at Lonza U.S. in July 2020
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of Emglish care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
They've been unfortunate perhaps. And the 62% have been fortunate perhaps.
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
In a pandemic only approx one third affected must indicate reasons other than luck
The reason is they're incredibly vulnerable and can't be shielded.
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
Actually the nursing home my sons mother is in with dementia banned all visitors in early march and are covid free
All visitors including staff? Or just friends and family?
You need to count staff as visitors as they are.
Of course staff continue to look after the residents but no one else is allowed near the home.
Indeed. That's true nationally.
It only takes one asymptomatic staff member to pass it on. If none of the staff are asymptomatic it won't get in if all other precautions are followed but just one asymptomatic carrier can start an outbreak.
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of English care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
And I would say I wonder how many of the populace have been given the impression all care homes have had covid
38% is a staggering figure, no other institution is going to be anywhere near that. I mean care homes were always going to be high but 38% is mind blowingly high. To me it is anyway.
62% of care homes in England have been covid free and 38% experienced covid outbreaks
I pose the question
If 62% of Emglish care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
They've been unfortunate perhaps. And the 62% have been fortunate perhaps.
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
In a pandemic only approx one third affected must indicate reasons other than luck
The reason is they're incredibly vulnerable and can't be shielded.
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
Actually the nursing home my sons mother is in with dementia banned all visitors in early march and are covid free
All visitors including staff? Or just friends and family?
You need to count staff as visitors as they are.
We ran round this yesterday IIRC. First of all, homes near DGH's are more likely to have patients transferred to them. Secondly homes in urban areas are more likely, in my experience, to have staff doing a shift at two or more homes in any given week. Thirdly homes near DGH's are likely to have staff from DGH moonlighting.
@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.
You really are a disingenuous arse. There have not been 600 “hired”. The 600 are the STD tracers already in place ready to be reassigned
Health Secretary Jeane Freeman tells the BBC that 2,000 workers will be ready to start contact tracing on 1 June.
She explains that the testing, which is being piloted in three health boards, is a test of the technology.
She says there already 600 contact tracers ready to work. These are teams who already do the work for sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis.
Malcolmg is the Nat equivalent of HYUFD. Nicola could tell him the moon was made of cheese an he would ask her what variety. I always find it very odd that someone who is so critical of everyone else could be so gullible when it comes to messages from their own side.
You really are a totally thick numpty. You do not obviously read my posts , jog on you sad thicko.
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants. Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group. At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
A bit premature, methinks!
All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.
A limited emergency use would be better than nothing.
I would guess limited emergency use IN THE US. Unless they are willing to share early and have other people start the mass production of it.
Edit:
Moderna aims for a billion COVID-19 shots a year with Lonza manufacturing tie-up
• Technology transfer expected to begin in June 2020
• First batches of mRNA-1273 expected to be manufactured at Lonza U.S. in July 2020
Comments
At a critical moment, the WTO loses its leader
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/05/18/commentary/world-commentary/critical-moment-wto-loses-leader/
He's gone now and thats good for the recovery of these seats and these councils.
Jordan and Pippen's arrogance is beyond belief and Pippen / Rodman totally unprofessional, and thus you expect the wheels to come off, but somehow they manage to bring it together for forge moments in that sport that will probably never be repeated.
It is like totally the opposite of how you expect the world cup winning German football teams of recent times act.
However I do not support pacts
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1262361817373958145?s=20
I see there's a theory you are a troll. Jury out on that for me. It could be a matter of obstinacy or lack of processing power.
The animal research is disappointing in one sense - it fails to provide full immunity - but encouraging in another; a less than fully effective vaccine still produces some immune response, and as importantly, doesn't exacerbate the disease.
Certainly the odds against this being the one to solve the pandemic have lengthened considerably. But it might still have some utility - and there are a very large number of other efforts ongoing.
i dont see Starmer wining back many voters but can see a slight increase in majority here in 2024
Go to the pub, kill gran.
Not a great look.
The Tories got a higher voteshare amongst skilled working class C2s than upper middle class ABs at the last general election and that movement of the Tory vote in a more working class direction has been going on overall since 1997 and 2001
Can we also look at your suggestion that it is on Stormont not Johnson? Lets assume for a minute that the NI Assembly manages to sit for a change. And that it decides it is unhappy having to do customs checks to import products within the UK - how does it end these arrangements?
The UK is legally mandated to maintain an open border with the RoI. Which means that the external EU border cannot be there - it has to be somewhere. If NI says no where does the border go? We cannot have an open border with the EU if we want to diverge standards and tariffs. We have to have an open border with RoI. Which means that we either drop our plans for diverged standards and tariffs, or we have the border down the Irish Sea as announced. Sorry, the "special arrangements" down the Irish Sea as announced.
Perhaps not the ideal lockdown viewing, but strangely compelling.
Hats off to him.
You need to understand the difference between deficit and debt.
In 2008 money spent on bailing out banks is part of 2008's deficit. Then it is spent, gone, done. By 2010 it is part of debt and any interest is part of the deficit but the 2008 expenditure is categorically NOT part of the 2010 deficit besides it's impact on interest payments.
Do you understand?
MECIDS is a disease surveillance group of Israel, Palestine and Jordan that has continued to function through wars, intifada and other military or political machinations. Because it needs to, regardless of politics.
Oh.
The chances of reform look slim, though...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/18/china-announces-2-billion-in-virus-help-at-who-assembly-264939
...China will provide $2 billion over two years to fight the coronavirus pandemic, President Xi Jinping said Monday, rallying around the World Health Organization and its efforts even as the Trump administration has slashed funding for the U.N. health agency....
No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.
Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?
The government has got to communicate this to the public in a better fashion than it has to date.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1262378323105263629?s=19
However containment unlike prohibition can work. It's worked in New Zealand and elsewhere. So if we can squish this down to containable levels (and we are close) we can probably get back to more of a normal than if we ease off now.
Either we need to treat this virus like Singapore treats drugs or like the Netherlands does. There's no point being half-hearted.
The alternative is social and economic disintegration. It always was.
She isn't happy though that they are stuck at home, although as the elder is a working teacher, he isn't. And she wants the younger to go out, learn to drive, tell us bowdlerised tales of what he's got up to etc.
I pose the question
If 62% of English care homes have not experieced covid outbreak what on earth have the 32% who have been doing ( or more likely not doing)
And I would say I wonder how many of the populace have been given the impression all care homes have had covid
Care homes have dozens of staff going in or out daily. It only takes one asymptomatic carrier going in and a breakout can occur.
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
A bit premature, methinks!
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants.
Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group.
At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
How many visitors have you had inside your home every day recently? Care home residents get dozens of visitors every single day - and that's just the employees.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/people-still-getting-letters-mistake-18259124
You need to count staff as visitors as they are.
Edit:
Moderna aims for a billion COVID-19 shots a year with Lonza manufacturing tie-up
• Technology transfer expected to begin in June 2020
• First batches of mRNA-1273 expected to be manufactured at Lonza U.S. in July 2020
https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/moderna-aims-for-a-billion-covid-19-shots-a-year-lonza-manufacturing-tie-up
It only takes one asymptomatic staff member to pass it on. If none of the staff are asymptomatic it won't get in if all other precautions are followed but just one asymptomatic carrier can start an outbreak.