Why's Johnson asking Starmer non sequitur questions regarding schools as the answer to almost every question. It might impress others, it doesn't impress me.
It does seem strange that Johnson taunts Starmer on that man's lack of comment on a return to school policy that Johnson himself has screwed up so badly. But it does raise the question of why Starmer is so reluctant to talk about the topic. There is a mini point there.
Key thing though is that the Johnson government is not doing well. We don't need PMQs to tell us that.
Starmer didn't address the question because it's Prime Ministers Questions, not LOTO questions. Starmer asks the questions, Johnson evades them.
Get that, but Starmer could have said something along the lines of, "Of course I support the safe return of children, once your government has worked out a policy where parents and teachers feel it's safe for their children to return. Now if you want swap places so you get to ask questions of me, I am happy to do so ..."
- Using final year students (nurses and doctors) as staff on an emergency basis vs using them on a regular basis would open up issues of liability & standards.
- Assuming that such emergency staff would be suitable for general hospital work may not be correct.
Is the second one really true ? Sounds more like a giant box ticking problem than anything else to me.
Why's Johnson asking Starmer non sequitur questions regarding schools as the answer to almost every question. It might impress others, it doesn't impress me.
It does seem strange that Johnson taunts Starmer on that man's lack of comment on a return to school policy that Johnson himself has screwed up so badly. But it does raise the question of why Starmer is so reluctant to talk about the topic. There is a mini point there.
Key thing though is that the Johnson government is not doing well. We don't need PMQs to tell us that.
Starmer didn't address the question because it's Prime Ministers Questions, not LOTO questions. Starmer asks the questions, Johnson evades them.
But PBs Boris fan boys clearly don't understand that.
Nor Cameron's fans. Nor Blair's fans.
The PM turning the questioning on the LOTO has gone on for as long as I've been following politics. You've been following politics longer than I have, do you know who started that? Because it certainly isn't new to Boris.
Why's Johnson asking Starmer non sequitur questions regarding schools as the answer to almost every question. It might impress others, it doesn't impress me.
It does seem strange that Johnson taunts Starmer on that man's lack of comment on a return to school policy that Johnson himself has screwed up so badly. But it does raise the question of why Starmer is so reluctant to talk about the topic. There is a mini point there.
Key thing though is that the Johnson government is not doing well. We don't need PMQs to tell us that.
Starmer didn't address the question because it's Prime Ministers Questions, not LOTO questions. Starmer asks the questions, Johnson evades them.
But PBs Boris fan boys clearly don't understand that.
Maybe Beth Rigby is in that category then as even she asked why Starmer is against the return of schools
Seema Malhotra getting into a bit of a tangle on labour schools policy with the BBC.
Suspect a suspension for one year due to this technical anomaly wont be too damaging politically.
As long as it is clear it is restored the following year.
If there wasnt a triple lock in place can someone explain the need for one to be created? If we wanted to maintain the gap and keep pensioners richer than workers that could be done by linking pensions just with earnings. Why is there a need to make pensioners even richer than workers?
How is this good for society?
The full state pension is £134.25 per week, seven grand a year, or equivalent to working 15.3 hours per week at minimum wage. Doesn’t sound like state pensioners are particularly rich.
Not against a higher means tested pension at all. The cohort is the richest in society, that is very clear.
LOL, maybe a handful are , lots have only state pension and so in poverty, what a selfish arsehole, typical greedy Tory.
You really get the impression that Boris would enjoy being the leader of the opposition rather than PM. Good to see Starmer slap him down.
Opinion seems to be that this was a better PMQ's for Boris and Starmer made a big error by appearing to be against schools returning
That will be the headline and you know the issue has broken through when even Beth Rigby of Sky queries why Starmer and labour are against schools returning
The clip played will be Starmer offering to take over from Johnson.
Yes that was entertaining and done with good humour.
The "triple lock" is a con. You realise that the basic state pension would be higher now if the Conservatives had persisted with the system of pension uprating it inherited from the previous Labour Government?
The 2.5% minimum increase was there under Labour. Osborne swapped the RPI for CPI which is a lot lower. Often in the past decade RPI has exceeded 2.5% whereas CPI has struggled to do so. Osborne also reinstated the link to average earnings at a point when he knew that the recession he was engineering would lead to depressed real wage growth, which greatly devalued the earnings link.
Yes, it was a short-term con, for exactly those reasons - typical of political short-termism. In the longer term it tends to increase the GDP share of all pensioners, though, and right now I accept that's not a priority. It'd be better to focus support on people with no other significant income.
To be clear, if the UK had kept the previous system brought in by Brown, that is the higher of 2.5% or RPI only, the GDP share of pensioners would have gone up more. Over the past decadee, the switch to CPI in 2011 has devalued the state pension more than the earnings link has added to it.
I don't deny the fact that todays pensioners have higher incomes than their predecessors, relative to the population in general. Two factors will I think contribute to that: 1. Significant additional benefits outside of the main state pension, such as pension credits and the winter fuel allowance. 2. Pensioners retiring today are more likely than their predecessors to have a private pension rather being reliant mainly on the state pension. Today's private pension scheme benefits were in the main accrued before schemes were revised to make them less generous, so the squeeze on private pension schemes of the last decade or so won't yet have had much effect on current pensioners.
Good points, additionally hundreds of billions of state aid through QE has driven up asset prices which inevitably benefits pensioners at the same time as making life harder for younger workers.
There is little doubt that Boris is becoming stronger and he does seem to have become more visible
I remain very much a Boris critic, but it does seem that he is annoying his opponents with much vigour
A technical point of order but intended more for future reference -
If you were to now stick for many months and possibly years at "I'm very much a critic of Boris" without floating any new actual criticism, there would come a point where people would become skeptical of the phrase.
Offered in my usual warm and constructive spirit.
Follow my posts and you will see plenty of criticism not least yesterday before the u turn following Marcus's fantastic intervention
The "triple lock" is a con. You realise that the basic state pension would be higher now if the Conservatives had persisted with the system of pension uprating it inherited from the previous Labour Government?
The 2.5% minimum increase was there under Labour. Osborne swapped the RPI for CPI which is a lot lower. Often in the past decade RPI has exceeded 2.5% whereas CPI has struggled to do so. Osborne also reinstated the link to average earnings at a point when he knew that the recession he was engineering would lead to depressed real wage growth, which greatly devalued the earnings link.
Yes, it was a short-term con, for exactly those reasons - typical of political short-termism. In the longer term it tends to increase the GDP share of all pensioners, though, and right now I accept that's not a priority. It'd be better to focus support on people with no other significant income.
To be clear, if the UK had kept the previous system brought in by Brown, that is the higher of 2.5% or RPI only, the GDP share of pensioners would have gone up more. Over the past decadee, the switch to CPI in 2011 has devalued the state pension more than the earnings link has added to it.
I don't deny the fact that todays pensioners have higher incomes than their predecessors, relative to the population in general. Two factors will I think contribute to that: 1. Significant additional benefits outside of the main state pension, such as pension credits and the winter fuel allowance. 2. Pensioners retiring today are more likely than their predecessors to have a private pension rather being reliant mainly on the state pension. Today's private pension scheme benefits were in the main accrued before schemes were revised to make them less generous, so the squeeze on private pension schemes of the last decade or so won't yet have had much effect on current pensioners.
We pay tax on those private pensions though. Am about to do my Annual Return.
Yes I know I don't have to until later in the year, but I'd rather get it dealt with. My bank will pay such payments when I tell them to!
OKC, the Tories on here would rather see you shot and your money divvied up between them.
Doesn't packaged effectively mean slaughtered? Or can you import meat - presumably in some form of packaging - and then repackage it in Angus or wherever?
Not an answer in any way. No one knows what is truly happening in China. We should take our lead from the open and free countries and science. Clearly the schools should be open.
Why's Johnson asking Starmer non sequitur questions regarding schools as the answer to almost every question. It might impress others, it doesn't impress me.
It does seem strange that Johnson taunts Starmer on that man's lack of comment on a return to school policy that Johnson himself has screwed up so badly. But it does raise the question of why Starmer is so reluctant to talk about the topic. There is a mini point there.
Key thing though is that the Johnson government is not doing well. We don't need PMQs to tell us that.
Starmer didn't address the question because it's Prime Ministers Questions, not LOTO questions. Starmer asks the questions, Johnson evades them.
Get that, but Starmer could have said something along the lines of, "Of course I support the safe return of children, once your government has worked out a policy where parents and teachers feel it's safe for their children to return. Now if you want swap places so you get to ask questions of me, I am happy to do so ..."
Yep - or even easier: "I don't know Prime Minister, you tell me. You are the one who has failed to reopen them."
Suspect a suspension for one year due to this technical anomaly wont be too damaging politically.
As long as it is clear it is restored the following year.
If there wasnt a triple lock in place can someone explain the need for one to be created? If we wanted to maintain the gap and keep pensioners richer than workers that could be done by linking pensions just with earnings. Why is there a need to make pensioners even richer than workers?
How is this good for society?
The full state pension is £134.25 per week, seven grand a year, or equivalent to working 15.3 hours per week at minimum wage. Doesn’t sound like state pensioners are particularly rich.
Not against a higher means tested pension at all. The cohort is the richest in society, that is very clear.
LOL, maybe a handful are , lots have only state pension and so in poverty, what a selfish arsehole, typical greedy Tory.
One week you moan Im a radical leftist, the next week its Im a greedy Tory. As said downthread no problem whatsoever with higher means tested pensions or spending on care instead, why do the many well off pensioners get rises faster than workers?
PMQs is question to the PM not LOTO. Johnson's little tactic should have been stopped by the Speaker.
Grammatically, 'Prime Minister's Questions' is wonderfully ambiguous. It all depends on whether one interprets 'Prime Minister's' as an objective or a subjective genitive. As a Brackenbury Scholar, Boris has as much right as anyone to an opinion on the subject...
There is little doubt that Boris is becoming stronger and he does seem to have become more visible
I remain very much a Boris critic, but it does seem that he is annoying his opponents with much vigour
A technical point of order but intended more for future reference -
If you were to now stick for many months and possibly years at "I'm very much a critic of Boris" without floating any new actual criticism, there would come a point where people would become skeptical of the phrase.
Offered in my usual warm and constructive spirit.
Follow my posts and you will see plenty of criticism not least yesterday before the u turn following Marcus's fantastic intervention
Well I DO follow your posts. And I did indeed see that. All in order at the moment.
There's a sense Boris is getting his mojo back a bit. The illness clearly grounded him and once you get into your 50s it probably takes a while to recover mentally and physically. I imagine he'll be a more visible prescence in future weeks.
Wishful thinking
By the way its the Premier League not the Premiership - the latter is in Scotland.
Good to see Boris having the measure of Mr Forensic this time.
If Starmer fails to get a knockout within six questions PB Tories give a points win for Johnson. Predictable!
I love how Starmer being 'forensic' is framed as a negative.
PMQs is question to the PM not LOTO. Johnson's little tactic should have been stopped by the Speaker.
He's hardly the first PM to do this. Besides - the PM asking a question seems to fall in to Prime Minister's Questions...
I remember the glory days of every question on health from a Labour LOTO being answered with "what about Wales?" and the considered reply to any and every question on anything to do with anything being "you can't have great public services without a strong economy and the party opposite would ruin ours."
There's a sense Boris is getting his mojo back a bit. The illness clearly grounded him and once you get into your 50s it probably takes a while to recover mentally and physically. I imagine he'll be a more visible prescence in future weeks.
Wishful thinking
By the way its the Premier League not the Premiership - the latter is in Scotland.
Good to see Boris having the measure of Mr Forensic this time.
If Starmer fails to get a knockout within six questions PB Tories give a points win for Johnson. Predictable!
I love how Starmer being 'forensic' is framed as a negative.
It's largely pointless reading the comments on here unless you know which posters' reviews to filter out.
It leaves about three of four posters that are worth a look, e.g. @DavidL and the small coterie of PBers who are Tories but not blinded by the unthinking partisanship of the PB Tory dullards.
There's a sense Boris is getting his mojo back a bit. The illness clearly grounded him and once you get into your 50s it probably takes a while to recover mentally and physically. I imagine he'll be a more visible prescence in future weeks.
Wishful thinking
By the way its the Premier League not the Premiership - the latter is in Scotland.
Good to see Boris having the measure of Mr Forensic this time.
If Starmer fails to get a knockout within six questions PB Tories give a points win for Johnson. Predictable!
I love how Starmer being 'forensic' is framed as a negative.
It's largely pointless reading the comments on here unless you know which posters' reviews to filter out.
It leaves about three of four posters that are worth a look, e.g. @DavidL and the small coterie of PBers who are Tories but not blinded by the unthinking partisanship of the PB Tory dullards.
If you look downthread I initially gave it to SKS. PB is down to about its last two blind Johnson loyalists so it's tiresome to tar half the site with the same brush
And this thread has frittered away its 6th and final question
Quite content with Starmer track record of holding the government to account so far.
The fact that Tories prefer to deflect attention from the govt and want to move focus on the opposition says more about the weakness of their position than it does about Starmer.
It's almost is they don't really want to govern at all.
If schools are safe, why has the government failed to reopen them?
Its up to local councils and the various other bodies invested and the result has been patchy and disappointing. Williamson should be getting twitchy about his position. Much more leadership is required.
In Scotland East Renfrew managed to open some schools but no other public authority even tried. East Renfrew are the only education authority who seem to take education seriously. They get excellent results.
Interesting. If its so clear then why the instructions from government to schools not to reopen? A couple of school years doing a few days a week is not the schools being open. And thats all they are allowed to do.
This is beyond pathetic. People are trying to plan. They have nothing to plan with. Breweries don’t know whether to start brewing. The grants are running out. Landlords are demanding rent. Furlough is running out. Costs are continuing. Losses continue to be made.
If July 4 is the date bloody tell us. If it isn’t also bloody tell us.
Long chat with Daughter last night and she is in despair. Her last throw of the dice is a GoFundMe appeal to see if that will help. If it doesn’t then she will be closing the doors for the last time, to add to the steady drip drip announcements round here of redundancies. There are families round here where both breadwinners are facing unemployment. Even Sellafield is cutting jobs.
Meanwhile the government’s big announcement is about DiFiD. FFS!
To be fair this is following the same timetabling system as previous lockdown lifts. The date has been announced as July 4 but subject to confirmation closer to the date depending upon the data closer to the date.
Final confirmation likely won't come in until days before - the equivalent date for shops was announced weeks ago but the final confirmation for shops being able to open on the announced date only came a few days before the opening.
Plan for July 4 is the statement as it stands.
Pubs and the like cannot open on the basis of knowing a few days before. It takes 2 -3 weeks to get ready, to get stock in, etc. It’s not just a question of turning up and switching on the lights. And getting ready costs money, money which most don’t have. And if the date is delayed, then some of that money is wasted and cannot be recovered.
FFS! I wish all those opining on this actually took the trouble to find out what it is like having to run a business like this, what is actually needed. There is little or no guidance available specific to this sector. Every decision costs money. The uncertainty is killing businesses which might otherwise have a chance.
These places and all those that depend on them are on a knife edge. Quite a few are not even going to make it to July. The government does not have a clue about what is involved, is not bothering to listen to those who do and is just pratting about.
All the news locally here is about redundancies. “Levelling up”? What a fucking joke.
It’s a nightmare for everyone, including those who want to make a decision once and be able to stick by it, not have to close things again later. Government and health authorities are going to be watching closely for any spike as a result of retail opening.
There’s going to be a point where a decision is firmly made, and everyone moves quickly after that point. The point about notice is valid, but the decision date is going to be the same in both cases - would you daughter prefer to be told on 1st July that she can open on 4th July, or be told on 1st July that she can open on 1st August?
Precisely.
A decision will only be able to be made on around 1 July either way when the data comes in following the prior stage on lockdown unwind that only took effect the day before yesterday.
Businesses have been given the date to plan for opening from 4 July but no guarantee. If they want a guarantee they can wait until 1 August but then a very valuable summer month of trade will be lost.
It's easy to want a good, right decision. There are no good, right decisions here that avoid harm.
Either have more uncertainty but potentially open for more of the summer or lose the uncertainty but lose the summer. I suspect losing the summer, losing July's trade, would be far more damaging. May and June have already been lost and that isn't coming back. Why guarantee losing July too?
July 4th is the earliest date. Nothing stopping anyone opening July 11th if they need some guaranteed notice and preparation time.
Silly me. Of course. Businesses that have had little or no income since mid-March while costs continue can afford to wait, while losing money and trying to find extra money for all the Covid safe measures they need to pay for, even though they haven’t been told about them yet.
For crying out loud. There is enough uncertainty as there is because of the virus. The government have one job - not to add to that by prattling about talking out of their arse. If they can’t give a date or have to wait for evidence then say so and provide continuing support which takes into account the nature of this sector. Instead of which they are withdrawing support and seem utterly clueless about the nature of the sector.
Because of course foreign aid is exactly what people here have been worrying about since March.
You seem to want both a swift decision, early opening and time certainty to plan. Do you understand those are contradictory aims? The government can either announce that businesses can open and give time and space for certainty, or they can get businesses opened up as soon as possible?
They have said they can't give a date. They have said they are waiting for evidence. They have said they are continuing support until October. They have said this sector in particular is getting some of its support kept until next year already.
If the decision can't be made until 1 July then which would you prefer of the following two options:
Government announces on 1 July whether or not pubs can open from 1 August with certainty and time to get stuff arranged attached to the decision.
Government announces on 1 July whether or not pubs can open from 4 July with no time for certainty and planning but businesses able to open ASAP when they are ready?
I have not seen anywhere that the support is being kept until next year. Do you have the details please?
Some of it, not all of it, furlough is ending in October. Specifically your daughter's NNDR may have already been scrapped until 2021 so at least once she has reopened she has no NNDR to pay for the rest of the year and early next year: That is specific support to the sector.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something this in the next budget to be applied to next year too.
Thanks. She does not pay business rates anyway because of rural business and small business relief. This was in place before the virus struck so this does not provide additional help though I accept that it will help others.
Look this is a business which made profits in its first year from a standing start, which created 4 additional jobs and increased turnover by 62% from the previous owner/manager.
Since March there has been a 76% drop in turnover. At 24% of previous turnover she is losing money. That cannot continue indefinitely. She is running a business not a charity. If she can reopen and do business as normal she feels that she can make it. Just.
But she does not know when, she does not know the conditions of reopening - there is talk of removing the 2 metre rule (true? When? Sustainable?) - and she has no idea whether such reopening will be temporary or not.
She faces increased costs and withdrawal of furlough and a very very curtailed summer season. The government cannot magic all this away.
But what it can do what is adapt its support programme for the particular issues which face socially undistanceable businesses like hers (and others) which are heavily reliant on seasonal trade. Instead it is ignoring this, adopting a one size fits all policy and giving out contradictory and confusing messages.
I know this will be very cold comfort but I'm impressed she's kept as much as 24% of her turnover. That's better than a lot have done I'm sure!
I agree 100% this can't continue forever but there is an element that it is what it is at the minute. The priority has to be getting things back to normal as fast as reasonably possible, so if the decision on whether its safe to open can only be made on 1 July then an ability to open from 4 July is better than announcing you can open but only from 1 August.
Even if it takes a fortnight to get operations back up to normal, better to get back to normal as fast as you're able to do so rather than set on Whitehall's timeline on what is reasonable.
I agree completely that one size fits all is awful. That is why IMO the government needs to do as little as possible other than provide support and get out of the way. Your daughter knows better her business than any of us do, or anyone from Whitehall. The government needs to be offering support to your daughter not telling her what to do.
There’s certainly data to support Osborne cutting the top rate from 50% to 45% post-2012 worked with raising more revenue.
I disagree with your analysis though. I’m on the cusp of 100k right now and, from 100k to 125k, I will be taxed at an effective rate of 60%.
It’s a huge disincentive for me to get another promotion or salary rise to the next level. Why bother with a 15k rise to 115k and a director role when I’ll only scoop an extra £500 a month for all the extra stress and effort?
I’d rather stay where I am for the easy life. Unless I can jump straight to £150k+ year with a huge promotion and salary rise.
That’s what happens when you overtax: people can’t be bothered.
Per my abacus, that promo to director and a £15k salary rise would deliver an extra £500 a month to you if taxed at 60% and £687 per month if taxed at 45%.
So you are saying that this difference would lead to you wanting the job at 45% tax and NOT wanting it at 60%?
This seems surprising. I sense you might be rolling the pitch a little here. Are you sure that's not what you're doing?
Alot of this stuff is psychological.
In the case of my relative who ditched his complex tax status when rates went to 40% - "If I keep less than half my money that feels really unfair."
That was my point. I think it is psychological. 48% tax versus 52% tax is not objectively enormously different (unlike, say, in share ownership or in EU referendums) but it feels that way to many people.
This does not make the objection to higher top rate tax less difficult to navigate. The opposite if anything. Feelings tend to be stronger than thoughts. Brexit demonstrates that very well.
Suspect a suspension for one year due to this technical anomaly wont be too damaging politically.
As long as it is clear it is restored the following year.
If there wasnt a triple lock in place can someone explain the need for one to be created? If we wanted to maintain the gap and keep pensioners richer than workers that could be done by linking pensions just with earnings. Why is there a need to make pensioners even richer than workers?
How is this good for society?
The full state pension is £134.25 per week, seven grand a year, or equivalent to working 15.3 hours per week at minimum wage. Doesn’t sound like state pensioners are particularly rich.
Not a pensioner so no expert. AgeUK says the full pension is £175.20. can anyone adjudicate?
I get £169 a week state pension (so it's more than £134.25). I retired very early (25 years ago) so the full pension is probably more than £169 as I probably didn't pay enough years NI. Can't remember.
I get £167.66. The basic pension of 134.25, 23.78 for pre 97 additional pension less contracted out deduction, 1.85 post 1997 additional state pension, and 7.78 graduated retirement benefit. I'm glad HMRC have good records!
I am probably overwhelmed by PB Tory propaganda, as I have come to the conclusion, the country may be on its knees from government incompetence by the next GE,, but the Tories might still win.
The "triple lock" is a con. You realise that the basic state pension would be higher now if the Conservatives had persisted with the system of pension uprating it inherited from the previous Labour Government?
The 2.5% minimum increase was there under Labour. Osborne swapped the RPI for CPI which is a lot lower. Often in the past decade RPI has exceeded 2.5% whereas CPI has struggled to do so. Osborne also reinstated the link to average earnings at a point when he knew that the recession he was engineering would lead to depressed real wage growth, which greatly devalued the earnings link.
Yes, it was a short-term con, for exactly those reasons - typical of political short-termism. In the longer term it tends to increase the GDP share of all pensioners, though, and right now I accept that's not a priority. It'd be better to focus support on people with no other significant income.
To be clear, if the UK had kept the previous system brought in by Brown, that is the higher of 2.5% or RPI only, the GDP share of pensioners would have gone up more. Over the past decadee, the switch to CPI in 2011 has devalued the state pension more than the earnings link has added to it.
I don't deny the fact that todays pensioners have higher incomes than their predecessors, relative to the population in general. Two factors will I think contribute to that: 1. Significant additional benefits outside of the main state pension, such as pension credits and the winter fuel allowance. 2. Pensioners retiring today are more likely than their predecessors to have a private pension rather being reliant mainly on the state pension. Today's private pension scheme benefits were in the main accrued before schemes were revised to make them less generous, so the squeeze on private pension schemes of the last decade or so won't yet have had much effect on current pensioners.
We pay tax on those private pensions though. Am about to do my Annual Return.
Yes I know I don't have to until later in the year, but I'd rather get it dealt with. My bank will pay such payments when I tell them to!
OKC, the Tories on here would rather see you shot and your money divvied up between them.
I've just received my fortnightly Private Eye. I regret to report that it is considerably less than impressed with both the Governments and the Post Office's response to the recent Parliamentary exposure of the Post Offices disgusting treatment of (apparently) over 1000 sub-postmaster, quoting an MP with a longstanding interest in the case as saying that it is 'totally inappropriate that the PO have appointed the firm it has to investigate the matter.
Comments
Nor Blair's fans.
The PM turning the questioning on the LOTO has gone on for as long as I've been following politics. You've been following politics longer than I have, do you know who started that? Because it certainly isn't new to Boris.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1273221970990153728
https://www.ft.com/content/8ea1c992-89f8-11ea-a109-483c62d17528
Beth Rigby - Boris is 'good at raw politics'
I love how Starmer being 'forensic' is framed as a negative.
Excellent.
Perhaps they are coming back.
It leaves about three of four posters that are worth a look, e.g. @DavidL and the small coterie of PBers who are Tories but not blinded by the unthinking partisanship of the PB Tory dullards.
And this thread has frittered away its 6th and final question
The fact that Tories prefer to deflect attention from the govt and want to move focus on the opposition says more about the weakness of their position than it does about Starmer.
It's almost is they don't really want to govern at all.
In Scotland East Renfrew managed to open some schools but no other public authority even tried. East Renfrew are the only education authority who seem to take education seriously. They get excellent results.
I agree 100% this can't continue forever but there is an element that it is what it is at the minute. The priority has to be getting things back to normal as fast as reasonably possible, so if the decision on whether its safe to open can only be made on 1 July then an ability to open from 4 July is better than announcing you can open but only from 1 August.
Even if it takes a fortnight to get operations back up to normal, better to get back to normal as fast as you're able to do so rather than set on Whitehall's timeline on what is reasonable.
I agree completely that one size fits all is awful. That is why IMO the government needs to do as little as possible other than provide support and get out of the way. Your daughter knows better her business than any of us do, or anyone from Whitehall. The government needs to be offering support to your daughter not telling her what to do.
This does not make the objection to higher top rate tax less difficult to navigate. The opposite if anything. Feelings tend to be stronger than thoughts. Brexit demonstrates that very well.
Hacker: Opposition is about asking difficult questions.
Sir Humphrey: And government is about not answering them.