Unfortunately I think pubs will be at the back of the queue. Why? Because alcohol is involved and the drinking culture here has a reputation of 'get smashed' (at which point you forget there even is a virus) rather than that more European thing of imbibing one or two in a painfully leisurely fashion, possibly with a nibble to line the stomach and keep the exuberance in check.
I think you are right about alcohol being seen as a risk factor, although it's not just a British thing - in Paris they had to hurriedly introduce regulations to stop people drinking alcohol as they sat by the Seine.
No, not just a Brit thing - the Finns really like to get stuck in apparently - but we do have that rep and it's not completely unwarranted. Pity, because on the list of things I'm looking forward to doing asap, getting well and truly lagered up in a pub beer garden is right at the top.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
Agreed.
I know people are keen to get back to pubs (@Anabobazina) and want to do anything they can to help relatives (@Cyclefree), but the difference between gatherings at home and in a beer garden are pretty obvious.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
There's risk to everything in life. Need to balance it and let people take chances. Supermarkets and public transport probably have more risk than toilets do on their own and outdoor drinking should have been opened at the same time as outdoor anything else. We should be liberating anything outdoors.
Tell me why it's ok to have clothes shops open where people will (whether you tell them not to or not) be browsing indoors and touching the clothes ... But it's not ok to have a drink in the sunshine?
This country doesn't get much sunshine as it is and this time that is being lost will not be regained.
I don't want to get into another argument over Cummings as I think I have spent enough time on that matter but I do want to criticise the governments handling of this now.
It's too apologetic, too weak and too equivocal.
I keep hearing people get asked if others should use their judgement and there's equivocation and it looks weak and dodgy. FFS there should be no question the answer should have always been yes! A clear, unequivocal yes.
Stay at home is a guideline but of course there'll be exceptions. If your house is on fire then get out. There has to be a line drawn somewhere but that line is grey and will have grey cases either side.
What's so difficult to say to people: "yes of course, use your common sense"?
Either you accept people using their common sense - in which case that must apply to everyone - or you don't. This equivocation is weak.
If you think that Dominic Cummings applied common sense, it is another piece of evidence you don't have much sense of the common variety, or any other.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
Arrange a portaloo per x customers and encourage those who are willing to go in the bushes? Not what we are used to but dont see the big issue?
Late to this. The "kill off Cummings" campaign is clearly a get Boris next and stop Brexit plan. Media all coordinated to the last Friday launch, with follow up stories which are complete lies. Afterall, it happened weeks ago, the Guardian has been sitting on it for some time and they and the Mirror will both know that the Cummings child has issues, but they don't care about what they've unleashed.
Boris knows this and will fight it all the way.
Internet rumours are that David Frost is the next to get a coordinated media attack as he's doing too good a job on the EU negotiations. Who knows if thats true
First minister out betting. In reshuffles, most books use dead-heat rules but Starsports settle on the first one announced. Probably worth bearing in mind.
Totally illogical, but presumably No.10 will still need to decide on an order ... alphabetically in terms of surnames?
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
Couldn't she do what pubs used to do to get round the licensing hours? Just hand out a fruit pastille or a peanut or something token with each pint?
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
It's not about getting smashed. Pub gardens are communal spaces. People behave differently than they do in their own gardens, the numbers would be greater, and the risk of infecting strangers is greater.
To be clear, I personally think the rules should be relaxed to allow this, as I think the risks are manageable and the benefit in economic and social terms is worth having. But it's silly not to recognise that there is a very valid argument on the other side.
I don't want to get into another argument over Cummings as I think I have spent enough time on that matter but I do want to criticise the governments handling of this now.
It's too apologetic, too weak and too equivocal.
I keep hearing people get asked if others should use their judgement and there's equivocation and it looks weak and dodgy. FFS there should be no question the answer should have always been yes! A clear, unequivocal yes.
Stay at home is a guideline but of course there'll be exceptions. If your house is on fire then get out. There has to be a line drawn somewhere but that line is grey and will have grey cases either side.
What's so difficult to say to people: "yes of course, use your common sense"?
Either you accept people using their common sense - in which case that must apply to everyone - or you don't. This equivocation is weak.
If you think that Dominic Cummings applied common sense, it is another piece of evidence you don't have much sense of the common variety, or any other.
I've said what I've had to say on this matter. Unless there's something new to say why add more?
If I was worried for my children I would do whatever it takes to see them safe. Unapologetically.
I see Madeira is offering tourists tests on arrival. Why don't we do that, instead of quarantine?
Because if you're infected but asymptomatic you'll pass any test as "clear".
Are you sure? I thought that the test identified the existence of pathogens rather than symptoms?
If you have the virus but are asymptomatic you will most definitely NOT pass the test as "clear". You will be tested as positive. The test would be useless otherwise.
Most small (and many large) businesses already operate on the margins of viability, and will probably only be running at 20-30 per cent capacity under the Covid Safe guidance.
Theatres which can only fill every sixth seat; cosy restaurants with their capacity down from 30 covers to 8, factories whose lines can't operate without wholescale re-engineering.
Rishi Sunak is generally accepted to have played a blinder in the support offered, and is rightly finding ways of getting people back asap given the ruinous cost. But even with successful, simple messaging to make that happen, I can't see it being anything but utter economic carnage.
I agree that businesses that deal with a lot of people are going to find this difficult but they will need to adjust. So in a café if you have half the number of covers the overhead per cup of coffee sold increases. So the cost must increase too. Where possible overhead should be reduced, rents are going to have to fall, for example. Fewer staff will be required. Some will not survive the changes but none will survive a lockdown that runs through the summer and into the autumn.
That is simply unrealistic. Margins are very tight in hospitality. You simply cannot reduce overheads just like that and some of the measures talked about will require more staff not fewer. Nor can you double your prices.
1. If businesses are legally forced to operate in a manner which reduces their turnover to 20-30% of what it was before then they need to continue being supported or be given compensation, closed down and the owners can use that money to do something else entrepreneurial.
2. IMO guidance should be given. Guidance - it should not be a legal requirement. And businesses should take reasonable steps - reasonable in the context of their business. It is reasonable to have hand gel available, tables cleaned down, paper towels instead of air dryers, decent ventilation etc but not reasonable to expect venues where their whole shtick is getting people together to force them apart. Social closeness is the point of such venues. Forcing them to do the opposite is to kill them.
People should be advised but learn to take their own decisions about how they live.
We really need a proper debate about whether we are willing to live in a world without all the venues and activities which bring people close. I tried to start one the other day with my header. It really is needed. Life without many of the cultural, artistic, sporting and socialising activities we know and love is not life. It is mere existence. And it harms people in very real ways, as my family know to their cost only too well.
3. The government needs to work with the insurance industry to make the business interruption insurance policies business bought - expensively - real. Some burden-sharing between government, insurance companies and businesses is needed. But insurers have not treated their customers fairly. This has caused some anger and we need real action now not some ineffectual hand-wringing by the FCA in a few years time.
That`s an excellent post Cyclefree. You say: "IMO guidance should be given. Guidance - it should not be a legal requirement". Personally, I`d go further and say that it should be made clear that employers cannot be held liable for virus infections which are a risk to us all.
Absolutely agree. Anymore than they are not liable for cold infections or flue infections contracted by their visitors or staff.
I see Madeira is offering tourists tests on arrival. Why don't we do that, instead of quarantine?
Because if you're infected but asymptomatic you'll pass any test as "clear".
Are you sure? I thought that the test identified the existence of pathogens rather than symptoms?
If you have the virus but are asymptomatic you will most definitely NOT pass the test as "clear". You will be tested as positive. The test would be useless otherwise.
Most small (and many large) businesses already operate on the margins of viability, and will probably only be running at 20-30 per cent capacity under the Covid Safe guidance.
Theatres which can only fill every sixth seat; cosy restaurants with their capacity down from 30 covers to 8, factories whose lines can't operate without wholescale re-engineering.
Rishi Sunak is generally accepted to have played a blinder in the support offered, and is rightly finding ways of getting people back asap given the ruinous cost. But even with successful, simple messaging to make that happen, I can't see it being anything but utter economic carnage.
I agree that businesses that deal with a lot of people are going to find this difficult but they will need to adjust. So in a café if you have half the number of covers the overhead per cup of coffee sold increases. So the cost must increase too. Where possible overhead should be reduced, rents are going to have to fall, for example. Fewer staff will be required. Some will not survive the changes but none will survive a lockdown that runs through the summer and into the autumn.
That is simply unrealistic. Margins are very tight in hospitality. You simply cannot reduce overheads just like that and some of the measures talked about will require more staff not fewer. Nor can you double your prices.
1. If businesses are legally forced to operate in a manner which reduces their turnover to 20-30% of what it was before then they need to continue being supported or be given compensation, closed down and the owners can use that money to do something else entrepreneurial.
2. IMO guidance should be given. Guidance - it should not be a legal requirement. And businesses should take reasonable steps - reasonable in the context of their business. It is reasonable to have hand gel available, tables cleaned down, paper towels instead of air dryers, decent ventilation etc but not reasonable to expect venues where their whole shtick is getting people together to force them apart. Social closeness is the point of such venues. Forcing them to do the opposite is to kill them.
People should be advised but learn to take their own decisions about how they live.
We really need a proper debate about whether we are willing to live in a world without all the venues and activities which bring people close. I tried to start one the other day with my header. It really is needed. Life without many of the cultural, artistic, sporting and socialising activities we know and love is not life. It is mere existence. And it harms people in very real ways, as my family know to their cost only too well.
3. The government needs to work with the insurance industry to make the business interruption insurance policies business bought - expensively - real. Some burden-sharing between government, insurance companies and businesses is needed. But insurers have not treated their customers fairly. This has caused some anger and we need real action now not some ineffectual hand-wringing by the FCA in a few years time.
That`s an excellent post Cyclefree. You say: "IMO guidance should be given. Guidance - it should not be a legal requirement". Personally, I`d go further and say that it should be made clear that employers cannot be held liable for virus infections which are a risk to us all.
Absolutely agree. Anymore than they are not liable for cold infections or flue infections contracted by their visitors or staff.
Re: your second point: Obvious to you and me - liberals - but not obvious to many, particularly on the left. A compo culture will sprout up over this.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
That's madness. Utter madness.
Shouldn't even need to apply. Should be automatic for everyone. Insanity and the government needs to do a better job on this.
Does anyone in government have any understanding of the realities of small business life? Of margins and overheads and the very fine calculation needed every single day over every item of expenditure and every single product sold?
@NickPalmer made a very good post the other day about how the relaxations were of venues which reflected the prosperous country background of those in government: Golf, tennis, parks and garden centres. There is something in that and it adds to the “us and them” flavour of this government and its approach.
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
Couldn't she do what pubs used to do to get round the licensing hours? Just hand out a fruit pastille or a peanut or something token with each pint?
Licensing laws can be quite Draconian and enforcement quite arbitrary with punishment too. Why should she find a way around the law.
If the law is broken it should be changed. This isn't good enough.
Yer man Wings over Bath loses appeal vs Dugdale....
Heart of stone etc..
Thought you'd be gutted for your fellow Sturgeonhater?
From this case I'm joining the dots as to why he doesn't like Sturgeon..
How is it that the entire Yooniverse knows every detail about this highly libelous allegation about Sturgeon including exact dates of visits and precise locations but don't have anything like photos or videos or names?
As far as I can tell the government's "move on" line is making things worse. I think people have accepted that Dom is staying but it means the Tories have lost 3m+ voters. The whole party is now infected with it, even if Boris was to go before 2024 I don't see a route to majority government. The party has transformed itself from being on the side of the people to being the elite in about 7 days.
I actually think that Starmer now has a route to winning 100-120 seats. If he drops some of the socially lefty crazy culture war stuff like letting biological men into women's bathrooms etc... he might just be able to get a Blair style swing and end up with 320-340 seats in parliament.
None of this was possible a few days ago, the race is now completely open where it never was before, even after the bungling response to the virus.
Is this a PR balls-up of rare proportions? Yes. But you're making a lot of my case for me. In 4 years, are people who hate identity politics suddenly going to love it because of Dominic Cummings? Are they suddenly going to like sky-high taxes and socialism because of Cummings? Mass immigration because of Cummings? Political correctness because of Cummings? No, they're not.
There's no doubt that 'events' are capable of pissing voters off, perhaps even in the medium or long term (although I'm sceptical about the latter - no one gets angry about MPs' expenses now, and that was once a much bigger story than Dom).
Ultimately, if the recovery from the virus is good, then the Tories have a good chance of holding on to power. If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter what a single SpaD did or didn't do four years prior.
No you're underestimating Kier. He's not Corbyn and he's not beholden to the insane left. I think he's captured all of the party machinery at last count so he's now in a position to tell the insane left to like it or lump it. As you can see in the last few days he's clearly taking that line with them.
As I said, if Kier moves to the centre on social issues he has a shot at a Blair style swing and a working majority. If he doesn't then it's going to be a very tough race but I think he's still more likely to win if Boris is still there.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
It's spelled 'SIR KEIRA KNIGHTLY' , and yes, that is my copyright
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
We can all now congregate outside. There is a widespread "ah fuck it" mentality which I'm sure is exactly what the government wanted. We have a long spell of warm and dry weather. So yes, lets have the pubs reopen their outdoor areas. No sitting / standing inside. Come in for the loo or to order but back out you go. Most beachfront places I go to in Spain operate like that literally removing inside tables half the time.
Think about it. Pub beer garden. Sun. A pint. A dirty burger. Chat with actual physical friends instead of virtual ones. Utter utter bliss. With the weather this nice and the demand so pent up it gives the industry a fighting chance to get itself set up to survive on a sunny / outdoors only model with furlough covering the rest
Late to this. The "kill off Cummings" campaign is clearly a get Boris next and stop Brexit plan. Media all coordinated to the last Friday launch, with follow up stories which are complete lies. Afterall, it happened weeks ago, the Guardian has been sitting on it for some time and they and the Mirror will both know that the Cummings child has issues, but they don't care about what they've unleashed.
Boris knows this and will fight it all the way.
Internet rumours are that David Frost is the next to get a coordinated media attack as he's doing too good a job on the EU negotiations. Who knows if thats true
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
Oh - do most people have separate ladies and men’s loos in their homes?
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Hmm. I wondered if the logic lies in the need to track and trace, in the absence of a decent app. I'd remember who came to visit me at home, but wouldn't have a clue who was in the table next to me in the local pub, or even always what times I had been a week before. But if the t&t scheme was using things like credit/debit card data anyway, that difference isn't so strong.
Pubs and restaurants will know who has booked tables on particular days and at what times. That provides pretty good information if needed.
I don't want to get into another argument over Cummings as I think I have spent enough time on that matter but I do want to criticise the governments handling of this now.
It's too apologetic, too weak and too equivocal.
I keep hearing people get asked if others should use their judgement and there's equivocation and it looks weak and dodgy. FFS there should be no question the answer should have always been yes! A clear, unequivocal yes.
Stay at home is a guideline but of course there'll be exceptions. If your house is on fire then get out. There has to be a line drawn somewhere but that line is grey and will have grey cases either side.
What's so difficult to say to people: "yes of course, use your common sense"?
Either you accept people using their common sense - in which case that must apply to everyone - or you don't. This equivocation is weak.
If you think that Dominic Cummings applied common sense, it is another piece of evidence you don't have much sense of the common variety, or any other.
I've said what I've had to say on this matter. Unless there's something new to say why add more?
If I was worried for my children I would do whatever it takes to see them safe. Unapologetically.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Hmm. I wondered if the logic lies in the need to track and trace, in the absence of a decent app. I'd remember who came to visit me at home, but wouldn't have a clue who was in the table next to me in the local pub, or even always what times I had been a week before. But if the t&t scheme was using things like credit/debit card data anyway, that difference isn't so strong.
I don’t believe there is any logic to any of this now.
The pub trade’s best hope is to get Dominic Cummings to come to a pub for the sake of his eyesight or wife or because it’s the only place he can write his blogs or something.
Regarding licencing there's been blanket changes to licencing laws in the past. Eg to permit trade outside of usual hours during the Japanese World Cup IIRC.
There should be a blanket change to permit off trade. As well as a blanket change in lockdown to permit outdoors trade. It simply isn't good enough to ignore these issues. Companies that rely on the summer won't survive this year if they lose all of the summer and there's no need to lose all of it.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
Oh - do most people have separate ladies and men’s loos in their homes?
No. However, many private houses have more than one lav, and even if they dont (like mine, for example) people's toilets are not used by as many people as would be in a shared space like a pub or restaurant.
As far as I can tell the government's "move on" line is making things worse. I think people have accepted that Dom is staying but it means the Tories have lost 3m+ voters. The whole party is now infected with it, even if Boris was to go before 2024 I don't see a route to majority government. The party has transformed itself from being on the side of the people to being the elite in about 7 days.
I actually think that Starmer now has a route to winning 100-120 seats. If he drops some of the socially lefty crazy culture war stuff like letting biological men into women's bathrooms etc... he might just be able to get a Blair style swing and end up with 320-340 seats in parliament.
None of this was possible a few days ago, the race is now completely open where it never was before, even after the bungling response to the virus.
Is this a PR balls-up of rare proportions? Yes. But you're making a lot of my case for me. In 4 years, are people who hate identity politics suddenly going to love it because of Dominic Cummings? Are they suddenly going to like sky-high taxes and socialism because of Cummings? Mass immigration because of Cummings? Political correctness because of Cummings? No, they're not.
There's no doubt that 'events' are capable of pissing voters off, perhaps even in the medium or long term (although I'm sceptical about the latter - no one gets angry about MPs' expenses now, and that was once a much bigger story than Dom).
Ultimately, if the recovery from the virus is good, then the Tories have a good chance of holding on to power. If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter what a single SpaD did or didn't do four years prior.
No you're underestimating Kier. He's not Corbyn and he's not beholden to the insane left. I think he's captured all of the party machinery at last count so he's now in a position to tell the insane left to like it or lump it. As you can see in the last few days he's clearly taking that line with them.
As I said, if Kier moves to the centre on social issues he has a shot at a Blair style swing and a working majority. If he doesn't then it's going to be a very tough race but I think he's still more likely to win if Boris is still there.
I am a Labour Party member and my very strong sense is that you are right. The "project" - if we can term it that - is over. I happen not to be overjoyed about this if it leads, as I fear it will, to a certain blandness on policy and a reluctance to push the equality agenda, but of course I will still be voting Labour. So, retain me and my ilk, plus win a ton of floaters and apoliticals - with the obvious caveat of the next election being yonks away, this IMO spells PM Starmer. This slightly dull but highly competent and palpably decent man is going to get his picture on the Downing St staircase. The big question is, will he be next to Boris Johnson or will there be another picture hanging there between them?
His stance on the equality agenda could be a key to his success. I'd like him to be strong on pride for Labours history in liberalising the right to be different and not be penalised for it, firm that he will advance equality by legislating where needed, but also be clear that that should be done in a way that genuinely advances human dignity and that his support will not be forthcoming for measures that do not meet that test - and there are aspects of transgender and other campaigns at the more militant end that do not meet that test. He should also be clear that equality is for everyone - where egregious injustices are done against men or the WWC they should be seen for what they are, and neither diminished nor overegged because of who they are done to. Equal treatment for all inequalities based on how bad they are.
For those who think Kier needs a clause 4 type battle, this is where it probably lies and being tough on militancy and playing the tough on PC gone mad part whilst doing lots on equality is something that could very much suit him personally.
There is a line to walk. Strong on equality but do not fetishize it. Respect public opinion but do not pander to it. Be woke but not "woke" (if I can put it like that). But this is waffle really. It comes down to specifics. That's the test of where people really are on this. Everyone supports the notion of equality under the law.
If you still see it totally in those terms you are just highlighting your political ineptitude. The papers have been reporting it in the way they have because of the reaction of their readers. Go look at comments on Mail online.
I've looked at the comments on the latest Mail article and they're very positive towards Cummings and very anti media. So maybe the opinion of their readers have changed or maybe as has been stated people are growing tired of a story that interests the media a lot more than it interests a lot of the public.
Big story yes, 6 days in the news nope. Likewise Telegraph readers very positive towards Dom staying on their comments. As I have argued before the chance for a scalp has more likely than not passed. Pippa Crear didn't quite do enough.
Are you sure you're reading the same Mail Online as I am?
Are not the Mail and the Mail Online run separately?
They are but I am not aware of two separate websites.
Not sure what you you're looking at but the 2 biggest articles 'Tory Civil War' and about 'Emily Maitilis' certainly are not anti Cummings comment wise. Perhaps you had not looked at top rated comments.
Taken from the latest article “Boris Johnson Faces a Grilling Today...” which is more recent than the two you cite -
Late to this. The "kill off Cummings" campaign is clearly a get Boris next and stop Brexit plan. Media all coordinated to the last Friday launch, with follow up stories which are complete lies. Afterall, it happened weeks ago, the Guardian has been sitting on it for some time and they and the Mirror will both know that the Cummings child has issues, but they don't care about what they've unleashed.
Boris knows this and will fight it all the way.
Internet rumours are that David Frost is the next to get a coordinated media attack as he's doing too good a job on the EU negotiations. Who knows if thats true
Yes, Good. Except that (a) Brexit is in the past. You can't stop something thats already happened, (b) some of the leading voices are those most pro-Brexit - Hartley-Brewer, Baker, the Mail, the Telegraph, and (c) Boris "fighting this all the way" is the story, not what Cummings did.
The government had an easy out. Dom - "I'm sorry that I broke the rules. I acted on instinct out of panic and fear for my child. I will voluntarily speak to Durham Police and accept any sanction they impose. Its important that the government aren't seen to be above the rules, we all know how critical these rules are, I got it wrong, I'm sorry". Followed by smoke blown up his arse by the Mail and the Sun. He'd still be in a job, the calls for his resignation would be "he's submitted himself to the law don't judge the man", he disappears into the undergrowth, the story moves on.
Simple. Except that Dom can't say sorry. Its not in his nature. And Johnson cannot bear to be without him for some reason. And so we have this circus.
Its not about Brexit. Its not about conspiracy. Its about hypocrisy and arrogance combined with incompetence.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
Oh - do most people have separate ladies and men’s loos in their homes?
No. However, many private houses have more than one lav, and even if they dont (like mine, for example) people's toilets are not used by as many people as would be in a shared space like a pub or restaurant.
There are ways round this. Like hiring a Portaloo.
These just sound like excuses not to help a sector that will otherwise die and which employs a hell of a lot of jobs in areas which don’t have many alternatives.
If you still see it totally in those terms you are just highlighting your political ineptitude. The papers have been reporting it in the way they have because of the reaction of their readers. Go look at comments on Mail online.
I've looked at the comments on the latest Mail article and they're very positive towards Cummings and very anti media. So maybe the opinion of their readers have changed or maybe as has been stated people are growing tired of a story that interests the media a lot more than it interests a lot of the public.
Big story yes, 6 days in the news nope. Likewise Telegraph readers very positive towards Dom staying on their comments. As I have argued before the chance for a scalp has more likely than not passed. Pippa Crear didn't quite do enough.
Are you sure you're reading the same Mail Online as I am?
Are not the Mail and the Mail Online run separately?
They are but I am not aware of two separate websites.
Not sure what you you're looking at but the 2 biggest articles 'Tory Civil War' and about 'Emily Maitilis' certainly are not anti Cummings comment wise. Perhaps you had not looked at top rated comments.
Taken from the latest article “Boris Johnson Faces a Grilling Today...” which is more recent than the two you cite -
You didn't bother reading the second comment in that snapshot, did you?
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
Couldn't she do what pubs used to do to get round the licensing hours? Just hand out a fruit pastille or a peanut or something token with each pint?
Licensing laws can be quite Draconian and enforcement quite arbitrary with punishment too. Why should she find a way around the law.
If the law is broken it should be changed. This isn't good enough.
I agree, but "should" and "will" are two different things.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Surely it is the shared toilet facilities that is the problem? The more people you have in one place, the more mixing there is going to be. In a garden you are at least limiting contacts to a single group.
There is definitely a difference.
Oh - do most people have separate ladies and men’s loos in their homes?
No. However, many private houses have more than one lav, and even if they dont (like mine, for example) people's toilets are not used by as many people as would be in a shared space like a pub or restaurant.
There are ways round this. Like hiring a Portaloo.
These just sound like excuses not to help a sector that will otherwise die and which employs a hell of a lot of jobs in areas which don’t have many alternatives.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Mortimer is a nice chap, but he is a young fogey that really doesn't get the pub thing. At all.
He criticised me several times for contending that they are the backbone of Britain – core to our national heritage – and argued that they could be replaced by dinner parties.
So, I wouldn't waste your pixels on him on this particular debate.
If you still see it totally in those terms you are just highlighting your political ineptitude. The papers have been reporting it in the way they have because of the reaction of their readers. Go look at comments on Mail online.
I've looked at the comments on the latest Mail article and they're very positive towards Cummings and very anti media. So maybe the opinion of their readers have changed or maybe as has been stated people are growing tired of a story that interests the media a lot more than it interests a lot of the public.
Big story yes, 6 days in the news nope. Likewise Telegraph readers very positive towards Dom staying on their comments. As I have argued before the chance for a scalp has more likely than not passed. Pippa Crear didn't quite do enough.
Are you sure you're reading the same Mail Online as I am?
Are not the Mail and the Mail Online run separately?
They are but I am not aware of two separate websites.
Not sure what you you're looking at but the 2 biggest articles 'Tory Civil War' and about 'Emily Maitilis' certainly are not anti Cummings comment wise. Perhaps you had not looked at top rated comments.
Taken from the latest article “Boris Johnson Faces a Grilling Today...” which is more recent than the two you cite -
You didn't bother reading the second comment in that snapshot, did you?
Jesus wept...you didn't bother reading Brom's post that said the comments are "very positive" when the top rated posts are not? Work harder on your troll skills and please stop winking at me.
We don't need to debate whether the story has cut through or what people think. The coverage is still wall to wall, still largely negative and the polling backs it up where even Tory voters conclude he lied repeatedly. Hence the Tory MPs now wanting shut of him in growing numbers.
He isn't going anywhere. Dom doesn't quit. Dom can't be sacked. A massive dead cat effort is needed, perhaps Tory activists need to wheel out more infographics about the real story here, namely that Diane Abbott is stupid.
If you still see it totally in those terms you are just highlighting your political ineptitude. The papers have been reporting it in the way they have because of the reaction of their readers. Go look at comments on Mail online.
I've looked at the comments on the latest Mail article and they're very positive towards Cummings and very anti media. So maybe the opinion of their readers have changed or maybe as has been stated people are growing tired of a story that interests the media a lot more than it interests a lot of the public.
Big story yes, 6 days in the news nope. Likewise Telegraph readers very positive towards Dom staying on their comments. As I have argued before the chance for a scalp has more likely than not passed. Pippa Crear didn't quite do enough.
Are you sure you're reading the same Mail Online as I am?
Are not the Mail and the Mail Online run separately?
They are but I am not aware of two separate websites.
Not sure what you you're looking at but the 2 biggest articles 'Tory Civil War' and about 'Emily Maitilis' certainly are not anti Cummings comment wise. Perhaps you had not looked at top rated comments.
Taken from the latest article “Boris Johnson Faces a Grilling Today...” which is more recent than the two you cite -
You didn't bother reading the second comment in that snapshot, did you?
Jesus wept...you didn't bother reading Brom's post that said the comments are "very positive" when the top rated posts are not? Work harder on your troll skills and please stop winking at me.
That's a laugh, not a wink, you dummy. And the second-highest-rated comment - which you so ineptly included in your snapshot - torpedoes your own case!
Massive numbers of moths last night for May - like the height of summer. Best of a large bunch was this stunning fresh-out-the-box Lime Hawkmoth. Big as your hand (well, my hand anyway)
HMG is publishing lots of docs today. Old science reports, future VAT notices, something about MOTs. Not quite a dead cat (those initials again!) so much as lots of kittens to distract reporters.
The more relevant quote - as attributed to Benjamin Jowett - is 'Never retreat! Never explain! Get it done, and let them howl!'
Wonderful to see Boris following the Master's dictum.
The trouble is that Dom did try to explain. That explanation made things worse, because the view of the people is that it was, in some important places, a stupid explanation.
On pubs - I can get cheaper booze from the supermarket and better food from a restaurant or my own kitchen. Yet I still find myself in the pub with friends a few times a week. Odd.
The more relevant quote - as attributed to Benjamin Jowett - is 'Never retreat! Never explain! Get it done, and let them howl!'
Wonderful to see Boris following the Master's dictum.
The trouble is that Dom did try to explain. That explanation made things worse, because the view of the people is that it was, in some important places, a stupid explanation.
Cummings won Brexit partly on use of social media. Now he is a laughing stock on it.
I am not really sure he did. He is credited as such, and no doubt it is POSSIBLE he may have influenced, though by no means certain. I think the reason was more to do with years of disinformation form the mainstream press.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if you dig into Cummings background even in a perfunctory way, you can see he is rather like many people who have become famous on the new media platforms - very good at what he does, because he tells us he is! Famous for being famous. He actually has very little actual substance - rather like his boss and the lightweight acolytes. He has no media background like the people that have carried out his function in the past, and as far as I can see no corporate training or qualifications in PR or communications. He is a super-SPAD and no more than that. Johnson has been suckered into believing he is good because "Dom" tells him it is so.
Regarding the USA,I've always felt the UK readily absorbs the worst bits but fails to successfully adopt the best bits.
Ammendments 1, 2, and 4 would be a good start.
The right to bear arms, eh? What this country really needs is overweight incels with assault rifles turning up at places of government.
I remember a 'classical liberal' that used to post on here who claimed that UK gun laws actually made us more unsafe than the USA and got very excited at the idea of 3D printed guns. He certainly added to the entertainment value of the place.
You only have to look at one of those groups of anti-lockdown knuckle-draggers to realise that allowing them to have guns is really not the smartest idea in the world.
Yes the sainted Nicola is completely blameless.. I should think she has been far too busy worrying about what Alex is going to say.. squeaky bum time...
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
We can all now congregate outside. There is a widespread "ah fuck it" mentality which I'm sure is exactly what the government wanted. We have a long spell of warm and dry weather. So yes, lets have the pubs reopen their outdoor areas. No sitting / standing inside. Come in for the loo or to order but back out you go. Most beachfront places I go to in Spain operate like that literally removing inside tables half the time.
Think about it. Pub beer garden. Sun. A pint. A dirty burger. Chat with actual physical friends instead of virtual ones. Utter utter bliss. With the weather this nice and the demand so pent up it gives the industry a fighting chance to get itself set up to survive on a sunny / outdoors only model with furlough covering the rest
Just been out for a coffe and sandwich overlooking the marina a lot of locals out chatting 2 m apart tables wiped down and alcohol washed between each customer. It’s only metal table and chairs that need it. All perfectly civilized insides may open next week at 50% capacity, table service only and 2m apart. The only rule being broken is that people are not sticking to the one table one household rule which may have been relaxed already. The UK problems is will some sectors of society play by the rules or turn it into a free for all.
Regarding licencing there's been blanket changes to licencing laws in the past. Eg to permit trade outside of usual hours during the Japanese World Cup IIRC.
There should be a blanket change to permit off trade. As well as a blanket change in lockdown to permit outdoors trade. It simply isn't good enough to ignore these issues. Companies that rely on the summer won't survive this year if they lose all of the summer and there's no need to lose all of it.
Just end lockdown. The NHS isn't going to collapse.
Regarding licencing there's been blanket changes to licencing laws in the past. Eg to permit trade outside of usual hours during the Japanese World Cup IIRC.
There should be a blanket change to permit off trade. As well as a blanket change in lockdown to permit outdoors trade. It simply isn't good enough to ignore these issues. Companies that rely on the summer won't survive this year if they lose all of the summer and there's no need to lose all of it.
Just end lockdown. The NHS isn't going to collapse.
The more relevant quote - as attributed to Benjamin Jowett - is 'Never retreat! Never explain! Get it done, and let them howl!'
Wonderful to see Boris following the Master's dictum.
The trouble is that Dom did try to explain. That explanation made things worse, because the view of the people is that it was, in some important places, a stupid explanation.
Only some?
The trip up to Durham in the first place - there are wrinkles that don't quite hang right, and he shouldn't have done it, but just about forgiveable.
The "family day out to test my eyes" is the bit that's cutting through most (e.g. today's Star) because of it's four-year-old-with-hand-in-the-cookie-jar absurdity.
On pubs - I can get cheaper booze from the supermarket and better food from a restaurant or my own kitchen. Yet I still find myself in the pub with friends a few times a week. Odd.
Deep thought: People are talking like Kier Starmer not calling for Cummings to resign is a sign of cunning tactical genius, but maybe it means Kier Starmer knows that someone important on the Labour side broke the lockdown.
You are not the first person to suggest this on this forum.
Let us imagine the alternate history version of this crisis but with Seamus and Corbyn in charge.
morning of the story breaking Corbyn has demanded an emergency session of parliament to demand Dominic Cummings is sacked. We haven't had the Barnard Castle stuff revealed yet. Immediately every Tory MP rallies round the flag. This is a partisan hitjob. Twitter is filled with Right wing talking heads decrying the Labour party. The Barnard Castle stuff then comes out and is dismissed due to slight imperfections in the witnesses recollection of events. This is all over by Monday.
Starmer is following the Napoleonic maxim to perfection. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake. Corbyn would be all over this like a cheap suit.
Also, Starmer has called for Cummnigs to be sacked - but only have a suitably long amount of time and in a low key way (saying he would have sacked him)
I think Starmer is handling it pretty well, but in danger of overdoing the restraint. In your alternate hgistory, I disagree. Corbyn would be ignoring Cummings (he virtually never attacks individuals, even the obvious ones) but demanding a special session to examine the impact of easing lockdown on low-paid workers. Cummings would get away with it for that reason, rather than that Corbyn was zeroing in on him.
Not that it matters now!
Starmer should focus on two things now:-
1. The lockdown easing measures and, in particular, whether they are being applied fairly. Or intelligently. See what I have already said about the absurdity of opening indoor shops before outside venues. Or allowing people to congregate in gardens but not go to a pub with a garden. Plus why the 2-metre advice (it’s not a rule) when most of Europe has it down to 1 metre.
2. Sunak’s plans to stop furlough, particularly the rumoured idea of asking businesses legally prevented from opening to pay 20% of wages and NI when they don’t have any income.
Completely agree with both points. Allowing outside venues for pubs and restaurants and meeting up under strict guidelines would make people far happier with continuing social distancing, and looks to be significantly safer than small indoor shops.
One sensible step might be a relaxation of licensing laws, that would allow an existing licensee to set up a temporary bar in a nearby park, field or car park, using a van, tent or market stall structure. Anyone who’s walked up the hill from Twickenham station to the stadium on a match day will know what I mean
My daughter has applied to vary her licence so that she can sell alcohol as an off licence and the authorities insisted that it can only be with food. Why? No good reason given.
It is absurd. The authorities are deliberately making it hard for such businesses to have a fighting chance to survive.
And to answer @Richard_Nabavi’s point: people who drink alcohol in their garden can get just as smashed as easily as in a pub. There is no logical or scientific rationale for allowing people to meet and drink in their gardens and not allowing them to meet and drink in a pub or restaurant garden. None.
Good luck to your daughter, hopefully she can eventually persuade the authorities to hear her case, if it looks like she’ll otherwise miss the summer season. Sadly, the hospitality industry is going to join aviation as the last industry back on its feet.
If we are not going to be allowed to loiter indoors, and it’s looking like a good summer, then surely the least we can do is allow a beer tent to set up in everyone’s local park?
Does it have to be hot food, make the cheapest possible cold or hot item possible and include it in price of the drinks.
As far as I can tell the government's "move on" line is making things worse. I think people have accepted that Dom is staying but it means the Tories have lost 3m+ voters. The whole party is now infected with it, even if Boris was to go before 2024 I don't see a route to majority government. The party has transformed itself from being on the side of the people to being the elite in about 7 days.
I actually think that Starmer now has a route to winning 100-120 seats. If he drops some of the socially lefty crazy culture war stuff like letting biological men into women's bathrooms etc... he might just be able to get a Blair style swing and end up with 320-340 seats in parliament.
None of this was possible a few days ago, the race is now completely open where it never was before, even after the bungling response to the virus.
Is this a PR balls-up of rare proportions? Yes. But you're making a lot of my case for me. In 4 years, are people who hate identity politics suddenly going to love it because of Dominic Cummings? Are they suddenly going to like sky-high taxes and socialism because of Cummings? Mass immigration because of Cummings? Political correctness because of Cummings? No, they're not.
There's no doubt that 'events' are capable of pissing voters off, perhaps even in the medium or long term (although I'm sceptical about the latter - no one gets angry about MPs' expenses now, and that was once a much bigger story than Dom).
Ultimately, if the recovery from the virus is good, then the Tories have a good chance of holding on to power. If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter what a single SpaD did or didn't do four years prior.
No you're underestimating Kier. He's not Corbyn and he's not beholden to the insane left. I think he's captured all of the party machinery at last count so he's now in a position to tell the insane left to like it or lump it. As you can see in the last few days he's clearly taking that line with them.
As I said, if Kier moves to the centre on social issues he has a shot at a Blair style swing and a working majority. If he doesn't then it's going to be a very tough race but I think he's still more likely to win if Boris is still there.
I don't underestimate Keir at all. He's definitely swinging to the centre on political culture, and making superficial noises about a similar swing on some cultural issues. Though he hasn't made any significant shift on the economy, and I don't ultimately believe he will.
He's doing this intelligently so far, but there are pitfalls even for him.
First, Labour politics is a crusade of moral fervour and 'passion' for many activists and voters - if you can't get the thrill of an extreme platform and hating the Tories openly, then a lot of the fun goes out of politics for these people, and they may despise him as much they did Miliband for being milquetoast.
Second - although this is more a pitfall for Labour values than its electoral prospects - if he becomes Blair then he _deserves_ to beat the Tories and win power. Many Conservatives will genuinely not be afraid to vote for him, nor will Lib Dems and others. A Labour Party that's not dangerous would be a massive win for the country.
I'm not yet convinced he'll get there, wish to get there, or be allowed to get there. But we'll see.
Calling BluestBlue - someone has logged on with your name and posted sensible and insightful non partisan analysis!
Relatively speaking, yes. But note the message. Labour can win an election if they drop those pesky Labour values. That, to me, does not sound like somebody who wants to meet in the middle and kick a ball about. It sounds like somebody still very much in the trenches.
I disagree. The point about the emotional side of Labour activists is very important. The passion, moralising and certainty that drives many to join Labour to bring about change, is a turn off for many voters, even if they quite like some or many of the policies.
Hating the Tories and showing it with passion is a pathetic position for a major party in a mostly 2 party country.
I dislike the PM and this govt very much, but I couldnt dream of hating someone just because they voted for it. And even if I could I would know with certainty it isnt a good way to convince them to change their minds.
Radical policies are needed for the country, the coming decade is not going to be bland because of the rate of technical change and international turbulence. They will be needed whoever is in power.
The important thing is that the policies are based on core Labour values and the biggest of these is the redistribution of wealth and power in favour of those who have little of either. That should be radical enough for anybody.
Activists are a different breed. You need passion to put in the time and people are more likely to feel passionate about a policy platform they feel will really change the country rather than tinkering around within narrow centrist parameters.
Does the passion of some Labour activists spill over into hating the Tories? You bet it does. Not great. But I'm not sure how it can ever be much different. Parties need activists and when you're very strongly for one side it tends to mean you are very anti the other. It works both ways. Look at some of the more strident PB Tories. They hate Labour and 'hate' is the word.
On pubs - I can get cheaper booze from the supermarket and better food from a restaurant or my own kitchen. Yet I still find myself in the pub with friends a few times a week. Odd.
Depends if you like real ale and are fortunate to have a pub that is recognised by CAMRA. No botted beer (though they can be very good) will equal a well maintained pint from a good publican
Regarding licencing there's been blanket changes to licencing laws in the past. Eg to permit trade outside of usual hours during the Japanese World Cup IIRC.
There should be a blanket change to permit off trade. As well as a blanket change in lockdown to permit outdoors trade. It simply isn't good enough to ignore these issues. Companies that rely on the summer won't survive this year if they lose all of the summer and there's no need to lose all of it.
Just end lockdown. The NHS isn't going to collapse.
Plenty of pubs serving take away beer - one beside a park near me is doing a roaring trade.
Regarding licencing there's been blanket changes to licencing laws in the past. Eg to permit trade outside of usual hours during the Japanese World Cup IIRC.
There should be a blanket change to permit off trade. As well as a blanket change in lockdown to permit outdoors trade. It simply isn't good enough to ignore these issues. Companies that rely on the summer won't survive this year if they lose all of the summer and there's no need to lose all of it.
Just end lockdown. The NHS isn't going to collapse.
He came down with symptoms after returning to Manchester, before the general lockdown was imposed and was not expecting to fall ill, unlike Cummings, or already ill.
Pathetic attempt at a smear.
Smearing a man who was very ill - just look at the names of those posting it and desperately trying to promote it. Tells you all you need to know.
Same type of people that were trying to ramp up the Dorries doctored-video smear against Starmer. It only stopped when she had to delete it and scarper with her tail between her legs.
Mr. T, some of those so incensed by that were content to cheer on the doctored content about Boris Johnson claiming we should take the virus on the chin, when he'd said the exact opposite.
They seem to be largely blaming the company that runs it on my reading. It sounds hellish for residents and staff.
'Soon after a nationwide lockdown went into effect in March, a new deputy manager arrived from Kent, in southeastern England. HC-One has said she isolated before starting work. But that was before she made the 650-mile journey to the island, the employees and HC-One said. She eventually became sick and stopped working, the company said. Feeling unprotected by management, employees cleaned the home obsessively and enforced their own distancing rules. When residents were startled, as they often were, aides held their hands and stroked them. Sometimes employees broke down crying.
“People were petrified,” one of the employees said.
For HC-One, the nursing home business has been lucrative, as the company paid more than 50 million pounds, or nearly $61 million, in dividends from 2017 to 2019.'
'...HC-One warned that its “ability to continue as a going concern” was in jeopardy. But nursing home finances are difficult to trace. The HC-One group includes 62 companies, 19 of them registered offshore, and its parent company is based in the Cayman Islands. “It’s money before care all the time,” Ms. Harris said. “The staff they did have worked so hard, but they’ve been let down.”'
Usual Tory tax dodgers maximising profits at expense of people's granny, lies right at Boris's door.
First minister out betting. In reshuffles, most books use dead-heat rules but Starsports settle on the first one announced. Probably worth bearing in mind.
Totally illogical, but presumably No.10 will still need to decide on an order ... alphabetically in terms of surnames?
You'd need to check the memoirs. Given some ministers might decline proposed moves, maybe PMs start at the top and work down.
As far as I can tell the government's "move on" line is making things worse. I think people have accepted that Dom is staying but it means the Tories have lost 3m+ voters. The whole party is now infected with it, even if Boris was to go before 2024 I don't see a route to majority government. The party has transformed itself from being on the side of the people to being the elite in about 7 days.
I actually think that Starmer now has a route to winning 100-120 seats. If he drops some of the socially lefty crazy culture war stuff like letting biological men into women's bathrooms etc... he might just be able to get a Blair style swing and end up with 320-340 seats in parliament.
None of this was possible a few days ago, the race is now completely open where it never was before, even after the bungling response to the virus.
Is this a PR balls-up of rare proportions? Yes. But you're making a lot of my case for me. In 4 years, are people who hate identity politics suddenly going to love it because of Dominic Cummings? Are they suddenly going to like sky-high taxes and socialism because of Cummings? Mass immigration because of Cummings? Political correctness because of Cummings? No, they're not.
There's no doubt that 'events' are capable of pissing voters off, perhaps even in the medium or long term (although I'm sceptical about the latter - no one gets angry about MPs' expenses now, and that was once a much bigger story than Dom).
Ultimately, if the recovery from the virus is good, then the Tories have a good chance of holding on to power. If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter what a single SpaD did or didn't do four years prior.
No you're underestimating Kier. He's not Corbyn and he's not beholden to the insane left. I think he's captured all of the party machinery at last count so he's now in a position to tell the insane left to like it or lump it. As you can see in the last few days he's clearly taking that line with them.
As I said, if Kier moves to the centre on social issues he has a shot at a Blair style swing and a working majority. If he doesn't then it's going to be a very tough race but I think he's still more likely to win if Boris is still there.
I don't underestimate Keir at all. He's definitely swinging to the centre on political culture, and making superficial noises about a similar swing on some cultural issues. Though he hasn't made any significant shift on the economy, and I don't ultimately believe he will.
He's doing this intelligently so far, but there are pitfalls even for him.
First, Labour politics is a crusade of moral fervour and 'passion' for many activists and voters - if you can't get the thrill of an extreme platform and hating the Tories openly, then a lot of the fun goes out of politics for these people, and they may despise him as much they did Miliband for being milquetoast.
Second - although this is more a pitfall for Labour values than its electoral prospects - if he becomes Blair then he _deserves_ to beat the Tories and win power. Many Conservatives will genuinely not be afraid to vote for him, nor will Lib Dems and others. A Labour Party that's not dangerous would be a massive win for the country.
I'm not yet convinced he'll get there, wish to get there, or be allowed to get there. But we'll see.
Calling BluestBlue - someone has logged on with your name and posted sensible and insightful non partisan analysis!
Relatively speaking, yes. But note the message. Labour can win an election if they drop those pesky Labour values. That, to me, does not sound like somebody who wants to meet in the middle and kick a ball about. It sounds like somebody still very much in the trenches.
I disagree. The point about the emotional side of Labour activists is very important. The passion, moralising and certainty that drives many to join Labour to bring about change, is a turn off for many voters, even if they quite like some or many of the policies.
Hating the Tories and showing it with passion is a pathetic position for a major party in a mostly 2 party country.
I dislike the PM and this govt very much, but I couldnt dream of hating someone just because they voted for it. And even if I could I would know with certainty it isnt a good way to convince them to change their minds.
Radical policies are needed for the country, the coming decade is not going to be bland because of the rate of technical change and international turbulence. They will be needed whoever is in power.
The important thing is that the policies are based on core Labour values and the biggest of these is the redistribution of wealth and power in favour of those who have little of either. That should be radical enough for anybody.
Activists are a different breed. You need passion to put in the time and people are more likely to feel passionate about a policy platform they feel will really change the country rather than tinkering around within narrow centrist parameters.
Does the passion of some Labour activists spill over into hating the Tories? You bet it does. Not great. But I'm not sure how it can ever be much different. Parties need activists and when you're very strongly for one side it tends to mean you are very anti the other. It works both ways. Look at some of the more strident PB Tories. They hate Labour and 'hate' is the word.
My experience of the Tory version of activists is that a very large proportion are weirdos. Obsessed by politics to the exclusion of everything else. Unfortunately for both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party the more sane centrists have had enough and realised there are better things to do than stuff envelopes. The dregs have therefore become more concentrated, and unrepresentative. The most stupid thing our parties did was to remove the election of leaders from MPs (who are properly representative of all shades) and put it in the hands of said dregs. This is what has led to the appointment of Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson as the two main leaders at the last election. A choice between a political version of dumb and dumber.
They seem to be largely blaming the company that runs it on my reading. It sounds hellish for residents and staff.
'Soon after a nationwide lockdown went into effect in March, a new deputy manager arrived from Kent, in southeastern England. HC-One has said she isolated before starting work. But that was before she made the 650-mile journey to the island, the employees and HC-One said. She eventually became sick and stopped working, the company said. Feeling unprotected by management, employees cleaned the home obsessively and enforced their own distancing rules. When residents were startled, as they often were, aides held their hands and stroked them. Sometimes employees broke down crying.
“People were petrified,” one of the employees said.
For HC-One, the nursing home business has been lucrative, as the company paid more than 50 million pounds, or nearly $61 million, in dividends from 2017 to 2019.'
'...HC-One warned that its “ability to continue as a going concern” was in jeopardy. But nursing home finances are difficult to trace. The HC-One group includes 62 companies, 19 of them registered offshore, and its parent company is based in the Cayman Islands. “It’s money before care all the time,” Ms. Harris said. “The staff they did have worked so hard, but they’ve been let down.”'
Usual Tory tax dodgers maximising profits at expense of people's granny, lies right at Boris's door.
Oversight of care homes is a devolved matter malc.
Late to this. The "kill off Cummings" campaign is clearly a get Boris next and stop Brexit plan. Media all coordinated to the last Friday launch, with follow up stories which are complete lies. Afterall, it happened weeks ago, the Guardian has been sitting on it for some time and they and the Mirror will both know that the Cummings child has issues, but they don't care about what they've unleashed.
Boris knows this and will fight it all the way.
Internet rumours are that David Frost is the next to get a coordinated media attack as he's doing too good a job on the EU negotiations. Who knows if thats true
LOL, that would be a first though it is impossible to do any worse than previous debacles. As long as he has not given away everything it will be an improvement.
Christ, they're all at it. Either the marketplace of right wing, grifter ideas is getting seriously overcrowded or there's an inexhaustible appetite for this pish. Depressingly it may be the latter.
Comments
Nuke that planet from orbit.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1265602091378192387?s=20
I know people are keen to get back to pubs (@Anabobazina) and want to do anything they can to help relatives (@Cyclefree), but the difference between gatherings at home and in a beer garden are pretty obvious.
Tell me why it's ok to have clothes shops open where people will (whether you tell them not to or not) be browsing indoors and touching the clothes ... But it's not ok to have a drink in the sunshine?
This country doesn't get much sunshine as it is and this time that is being lost will not be regained.
Boris knows this and will fight it all the way.
Internet rumours are that David Frost is the next to get a coordinated media attack as he's doing too good a job on the EU negotiations. Who knows if thats true
To be clear, I personally think the rules should be relaxed to allow this, as I think the risks are manageable and the benefit in economic and social terms is worth having. But it's silly not to recognise that there is a very valid argument on the other side.
If I was worried for my children I would do whatever it takes to see them safe. Unapologetically.
@NickPalmer made a very good post the other day about how the relaxations were of venues which reflected the prosperous country background of those in government: Golf, tennis, parks and garden centres. There is something in that and it adds to the “us and them” flavour of this government and its approach.
If the law is broken it should be changed. This isn't good enough.
Think about it. Pub beer garden. Sun. A pint. A dirty burger. Chat with actual physical friends instead of virtual ones. Utter utter bliss. With the weather this nice and the demand so pent up it gives the industry a fighting chance to get itself set up to survive on a sunny / outdoors only model with furlough covering the rest
The classic anti metropolitan elite location.
STAY HOME
PROTECT THE NHS
SAVE LIVES
The pub trade’s best hope is to get Dominic Cummings to come to a pub for the sake of his eyesight or wife or because it’s the only place he can write his blogs or something.
There should be a blanket change to permit off trade. As well as a blanket change in lockdown to permit outdoors trade. It simply isn't good enough to ignore these issues. Companies that rely on the summer won't survive this year if they lose all of the summer and there's no need to lose all of it.
Or have they finally learnt to shut up and let me win my bet?
Clearly not, but they soon will when the economy completely fails to bounce back in the way they expect.
The government had an easy out. Dom - "I'm sorry that I broke the rules. I acted on instinct out of panic and fear for my child. I will voluntarily speak to Durham Police and accept any sanction they impose. Its important that the government aren't seen to be above the rules, we all know how critical these rules are, I got it wrong, I'm sorry". Followed by smoke blown up his arse by the Mail and the Sun. He'd still be in a job, the calls for his resignation would be "he's submitted himself to the law don't judge the man", he disappears into the undergrowth, the story moves on.
Simple. Except that Dom can't say sorry. Its not in his nature. And Johnson cannot bear to be without him for some reason. And so we have this circus.
Its not about Brexit. Its not about conspiracy. Its about hypocrisy and arrogance combined with incompetence.
These just sound like excuses not to help a sector that will otherwise die and which employs a hell of a lot of jobs in areas which don’t have many alternatives.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1265610735897530373
He criticised me several times for contending that they are the backbone of Britain – core to our national heritage – and argued that they could be replaced by dinner parties.
So, I wouldn't waste your pixels on him on this particular debate.
He may have more to offer on other discussions.
Wonderful to see Boris following the Master's dictum.
It's just none of the rest of us are.
He isn't going anywhere. Dom doesn't quit. Dom can't be sacked. A massive dead cat effort is needed, perhaps Tory activists need to wheel out more infographics about the real story here, namely that Diane Abbott is stupid.
No doubt many people quietly thanking Dom Cummings for allowing them to go out in the sunshine - and not have to worry about being sacked by Boris....
What I don't know isn't knowledge."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if you dig into Cummings background even in a perfunctory way, you can see he is rather like many people who have become famous on the new media platforms - very good at what he does, because he tells us he is! Famous for being famous. He actually has very little actual substance - rather like his boss and the lightweight acolytes. He has no media background like the people that have carried out his function in the past, and as far as I can see no corporate training or qualifications in PR or communications. He is a super-SPAD and no more than that. Johnson has been suckered into believing he is good because "Dom" tells him it is so.
The UK problems is will some sectors of society play by the rules or turn it into a free for all.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1265602091378192387?s=20
Lol, the twitter bio from one of the people defending DC in the replies.
'Rangers ... so much more than a club.'
The "family day out to test my eyes" is the bit that's cutting through most (e.g. today's Star) because of it's four-year-old-with-hand-in-the-cookie-jar absurdity.
Activists are a different breed. You need passion to put in the time and people are more likely to feel passionate about a policy platform they feel will really change the country rather than tinkering around within narrow centrist parameters.
Does the passion of some Labour activists spill over into hating the Tories? You bet it does. Not great. But I'm not sure how it can ever be much different. Parties need activists and when you're very strongly for one side it tends to mean you are very anti the other. It works both ways. Look at some of the more strident PB Tories. They hate Labour and 'hate' is the word.
End the mad ban on pubs doing stuff.
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1265616039280345088
Same type of people that were trying to ramp up the Dorries doctored-video smear against Starmer. It only stopped when she had to delete it and scarper with her tail between her legs.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1264637541401202689?s=20