I wonder, is OGH's email a plant designed to getting us, and people like us, discussing that and not Johnson's, and his sidekick Williamson's, politicalisation of the post of National Security Adviser in the UK.
Williamson was dire on R4 just now. If Johnson appoints on merit, he should soon be gone.
Why? If Johnson is appointing on merit how many suitable replacements exist on the Backbenchers and junior ranks?
And that works so well. Just read Bolton's book. The opening chapter alone about how a NS Advisor (and other posts) was selected by Trump is an eye opener.
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
(By "masks" here I mean the ordinary surgical face masks or cotton masks that people are wearing. The masks that health care staff are wearing in, eg, Covid wards are sealed against the face & they do offer protection against infection, as one would expect from the physics.)
I'm with the majority view here that this seems a scam e-mail sent by someone who probably wants to make a profit on a bet they have had either that Pence is the nominee and / or that Trump steps down.
Also, in this day and age, when there is so much social media around, I can't imagine this would not have leaked out somewhere else.
One other thought, which is far more outlandish but which I would not be prepared to bet entirely against is that someone is trying to push a story to get the Republicans to move against him. You get a well-renowned betting site in the UK to publish a story (so making it seem more credible than an article on a US news site) which causes movements in the betting markets which then get picked up the US outlets to suggest that the betting markets are losing faith in Trump and so the Republicans need to get rid of him etc. Outlandish but the betting markets are often quoted in stories to suggest where the "smart" money is at....
I can see Trump preferring to resign undefeated than to lose the election. It will certainly be a shame for him and his politics not to be sent packing.
Quite.. and so.marvellous to see Corbyn sent packing...
And yet you validated Boris with his deliberately divisive, unlawful, corrupt and dangerously incompetent politics.
I wonder what % of the population will currently feel that ("this is what they do in the United States" is encouraging or discouraging. 10 years ago, I think that most people would have felt it was probably encouraging - keep up with the Yanks, etc. Gavin may well have his thinking informed by that time. Nowdays, I think Trump has probably poisoned the well, and "Let's make the British Government more like America's Government" will have an ominous ring to most.
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
I wonder, is OGH's email a plant designed to getting us, and people like us, discussing that and not Johnson's, and his sidekick Williamson's, politicalisation of the post of National Security Adviser in the UK.
Williamson was dire on R4 just now. If Johnson appoints on merit, he should soon be gone.
Just dire? Obviously been in for some remedial training and improving.
I can see Trump preferring to resign undefeated than to lose the election. It will certainly be a shame for him and his politics not to be sent packing.
Quite.. and so.marvellous to see Corbyn sent packing...
And yet you validated Boris with his deliberately divisive, unlawful, corrupt and dangerously incompetent politics.
I didn't. I voted Lib Dem.
Much as we appreciate your vote Squareroot2 can I ask why you voted LD? You don't come over as a LD at all.
So another Johnson recovery announcement, £1 billion on schools over ten years (£100m/ year) not really a lot, any idea of the UK annual schools capital budget? and yet again who’s going to build the new schools.
Fact check
760 million over the next academic year
You think a “schools building programme” can be put in place from scratch over that time period?
Fact check - govt do fund schools capital already.
Of course not.
There are many repairs needed to our schools now and especially in poor areas ironically now held by the conservatives
For anyone interested, Queen Mary uni are leading a major study on how the virus effects people, the health of people who have had it (or not had it yet) going forward, the risk factors etc etc. Looking for people to participate.
"Participants will then be contacted every month to check if they have developed any symptoms of coronavirus disease, and to ask some follow-up questions about participants' more general health and social circumstances."
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually, BY SOMEONE ELSE.
Hold on, £1bn for schools over 10 years? They need £6.7bn according to the NAO just to meet the backlog of repairs, this money isn't even a drop in the ocean.
I think its for the year not over the 10. From the guardian "Money for the rest of the nine years of the scheme will be set out at the next government spending review, which is expected this autumn."
I wonder, is OGH's email a plant designed to getting us, and people like us, discussing that and not Johnson's, and his sidekick Williamson's, politicalisation of the post of National Security Adviser in the UK.
Williamson was dire on R4 just now. If Johnson appoints on merit, he should soon be gone.
"If Johnson appoints on merit"?
That's one of the funniest things I have read on PB in a long time.
SKS probably doing his level best not to stick his hand into the meat grinder that is TERF / trans politics, but he’s probably going to have to work out a way to either thread that needle or pick a side (which will have to be the trans side, there’s no way the Labour party will wear anything else) without frightening the horses.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
I think a Labour minority Government in 2024 seems feasible. Starmer must try his best to maintain and extend his small leader in best PM questions. The polling gap will I think continue to narrow over time.
Your second point is interesting and is something I think will naturally come about if Labour goes hard against Independence and kills the idea stone dead they would ever even consider the idea. That's mainly aimed at England but your point is a nice/interesting bonus.
Hold on, £1bn for schools over 10 years? They need £6.7bn according to the NAO just to meet the backlog of repairs, this money isn't even a drop in the ocean.
So? This isn't about the provision of actual functioning schools. This is about the provision of expansive-sounding numbers that Tory MPs can throw at the enthusiastic but dumb.
"They're putting a BILLION into schools" "Yes but schools need 7 times that amount" "You haven't a clue. We won an 80 seat majority. Why are you lefties against spending a Billion Pounds on our kids?"
So another Johnson recovery announcement, £1 billion on schools over ten years (£100m/ year) not really a lot, any idea of the UK annual schools capital budget? and yet again who’s going to build the new schools.
Fact check
760 million over the next academic year
The 50 school building projects, which will be identified later in the year, will start from September 2021, in a 10-year programme with £1bn in funding. So not next academic year. Will it ever happen? Who remembers these promises and tracks and reports back on progress? How do we know it really is new money not just budget redefinition? It would be far more believable if there was a project plan published alongside the announcement identifying which schools and when. Yes I’m cynical but it’s easy to cut something one year and put it back the next year with great fanfare.
Even Starmer welcomes the investment and Williamson told Sky this is in addition to the 23 billion already announced
So another Johnson recovery announcement, £1 billion on schools over ten years (£100m/ year) not really a lot, any idea of the UK annual schools capital budget? and yet again who’s going to build the new schools.
Fact check
760 million over the next academic year
You think a “schools building programme” can be put in place from scratch over that time period?
Fact check - govt do fund schools capital already.
Of course not.
There are many repairs needed to our schools now and especially in poor areas ironically now held by the conservatives
In any sane country maintaining the buildings where we educate our children would be something that just happens as a matter of course. The fact that the government feels the need to announce it like they are doing something incredible and magnanimous is pretty revealing of their mindset. They obviously feel like it's something they could get away with not doing if they felt like it. Bizarre.
So another Johnson recovery announcement, £1 billion on schools over ten years (£100m/ year) not really a lot, any idea of the UK annual schools capital budget? and yet again who’s going to build the new schools.
Fact check
760 million over the next academic year
You think a “schools building programme” can be put in place from scratch over that time period?
Fact check - govt do fund schools capital already.
Of course not.
There are many repairs needed to our schools now and especially in poor areas ironically now held by the conservatives
Quite right - all those crumbling school buildings. I blame the party that has been in power for the last 10 years, don't you?
An interesting article and good read. But Bale confuses two sorts of 'liberal'. The sort of social liberal who think liberalism means everyone should think the same sorts of Woke thoughts, and should be required to do so, and tends to be identified with Labour members, is the first. The second is the old fashioned sort, who believe in genuine freedom of thought and speech together with the rule of law. Most centrists believe in something like the second sort (I think) and too few people are speaking up for them.
I think that's true, and another example of why broad terms like "liberal" (and indeed "conservative" and "socialist") are of limited value. Bale does implicitly make the distinction, though, by showing that Lab-Tory switchers are much more egalitarian than Tories but much more in tune on social issues.
I've been reading "Being in time" by Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic Jewish thinker who got Corbyn into trouble by being mates. I was expecting a thoroughly left-wing read going beyond my comfort zone, but actually he turns out to be above all an individualist and allergic to groupthink. A big fan of Orwell (even excusing Orwell's Stasi-like participation in postwar informing to the authorities on colleagues who Orwell suspected might be pro-communist, which was news to me), he excoriates political correctness and suggests the Left is undermined by its attempt to make working-class voters more socially liberal.
A question here is how salient these issues are for voters, though. If the Tories impoverish their new voters but are scathing about trans people and black lives mattering, will the voters forgive them for the Tory economic policies? If you ask people about social values they'll answer the questions, but I doubt if they propel many votes unless a party makes them absolutely central to their appeal.
So who will be paying for all of Johnson's spending plans, I haven't seen any methods of funding them beyond "borrow borrow borrow", which if it has to be paid for by somebody else, we must surely oppose strongly.
Of course, we know full well if Labour announced a literally identical policy under Starmer, we'd have shouts from the usual suspects about how it was irresponsible and would bankrupt the economy.
For what it's worth, I support investment-led growth and I am glad the Tories finally discovered it after so long. But it's not nearly enough.
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: especially as masks dramatically reduce the risk of needing lockdown.
Having thought about this, I think there are two reasons Trump hates masks:
1. It reminds him there is a problem. He's a massive fan of the Power of Positive Thinking (the book), and it has over the years worked for him. Wearing a mask goes against this, because it is in effect negative speech.
2. He's a bit vain. He thinks he looks good, and he thinks he'd look less good (and more scared) in a mask. And if he's not going to wear a mask, other people shouldn't either.
But it's also dumb. Modest mask etiquette reduces R substantially.
Masks are hugely uncomfortable, and a very significant social barrier.
I only wear them in close proximity environments in public (like trains or the tube) and I possibly would in a busy office too.
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
What does "in public" mean? Outdoors, and by yourself? Or whenever you go indoors "in public"? Or anywhere anytime 'just in case' ?
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
An independence vote won by 51/49? What could possibly go wrong?
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Hold on, £1bn for schools over 10 years? They need £6.7bn according to the NAO just to meet the backlog of repairs, this money isn't even a drop in the ocean.
I think its for the year not over the 10. From the guardian "Money for the rest of the nine years of the scheme will be set out at the next government spending review, which is expected this autumn."
Year after next 2021, there are nearly 4200 secondary schools in the UK and this project targets 50 in 10 years, forget the big sounding numbers, whilst welcome, it’s a drop in the ocean. You can’t fix all the problems in one go as, like many public sector facilities, the rot has gone too far but let’s not kid ourselves this is no more than a sticking plaster. People continuously vote for private wealth and public squalor then complain when they get what they voted for.
Of course if Trump were forced to pull out due to illness as he has won the primaries already and has a majority of delegates at the GOP convention in August Pence would almost certainly be GOP nominee to replace him, with Trump delegates moving en masse to Vice President Pence.
Pence would certainly drive up evangelical turnout for the Republican Party if he were nominee but I think some 'Trump Democrats' in the Midwest would also vote for Biden over Pence
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Government spending is always paid for. It’d paid for at the time it’s spent! Either the government uses taxes, or it prints money (OK, actually they borrow it from the BoE who magic it out of thin air in exchange for a debt they hold on their books, but the effect is the same.)
The real question is the state of the labour market & inflationary environment. If the labour market is slack & the money markets are deflationary then the government should spend, spend, spend!
Keynes was right, as always.
(It’s handy to keep the "debt" around as an excuse to raise taxes in the future in order to suck money out of an inflationary economy, but all these things are convenient fictions: the BoE can just hold on to the debt indefinitely if necessary.)
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
An independence vote won by 51/49? What could possibly go wrong?
My post didn't mention a second Indyref, so I'm not sure why you responded with that.
It's possible Labour might grant one to the SNP if they are in a minority at Westminster. But, I'm not sure they will be.
When the tide turns I expect it to turn very significantly, or not at all.
So another Johnson recovery announcement, £1 billion on schools over ten years (£100m/ year) not really a lot, any idea of the UK annual schools capital budget? and yet again who’s going to build the new schools.
Fact check
760 million over the next academic year
You think a “schools building programme” can be put in place from scratch over that time period?
Fact check - govt do fund schools capital already.
Of course not.
There are many repairs needed to our schools now and especially in poor areas ironically now held by the conservatives
In any sane country maintaining the buildings where we educate our children would be something that just happens as a matter of course. The fact that the government feels the need to announce it like they are doing something incredible and magnanimous is pretty revealing of their mindset. They obviously feel like it's something they could get away with not doing if they felt like it. Bizarre.
It does happen as a matter of course.
What governments are good at is announcing something which was going to happen anyway.
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: especially as masks dramatically reduce the risk of needing lockdown.
Having thought about this, I think there are two reasons Trump hates masks:
1. It reminds him there is a problem. He's a massive fan of the Power of Positive Thinking (the book), and it has over the years worked for him. Wearing a mask goes against this, because it is in effect negative speech.
2. He's a bit vain. He thinks he looks good, and he thinks he'd look less good (and more scared) in a mask. And if he's not going to wear a mask, other people shouldn't either.
But it's also dumb. Modest mask etiquette reduces R substantially.
Masks are hugely uncomfortable, and a very significant social barrier.
I only wear them in close proximity environments in public (like trains or the tube) and I possibly would in a busy office too.
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
What does "in public" mean? Outdoors, and by yourself? Or whenever you go indoors "in public"? Or anywhere anytime 'just in case' ?
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
Simple really wear masks in indoor public space unless eating or drinking and outdoors when within 2 m of other people, make it mandatory to carry one problem solved.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Difficult to say, I think. The Unionist hardcore is about 20% and their natural home is the Tories despite the damage that party does to the Union. Labour won the referendum for No in 2014 but they won't invest in that again and aren't now capable of assembling the coalition. A Labour Westminster government is the best prospect for the Union long term if the independence issue can settle into a modus vivendi. OTOH a minority Labour government will presumably need to cut a deal with the SNP, which has risks.
I wonder, is OGH's email a plant designed to getting us, and people like us, discussing that and not Johnson's, and his sidekick Williamson's, politicalisation of the post of National Security Adviser in the UK.
I’m not sure many people actually knew we had a NSA let alone what he/she does. I thought it was all contained within the inter working of MI5/6 GCHQ etc
The National Security Adviser role is a newish one created by the Cameron government. The new chap used to run the Scotch Whisky Association and negotiate food standards with the EU so I imagine he has been brought in to review army catering.
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Technically, unless one envisages some future point at which government debt is zero, not all spending has to be paid for eventually. But certainly unless you want debt to explode then some semblance of sanity has to return to the public finances at some point. My guess is that Boris Johnson +economic knowledge: zero) is not the best guide to understanding the government's approach.
Hold on, £1bn for schools over 10 years? They need £6.7bn according to the NAO just to meet the backlog of repairs, this money isn't even a drop in the ocean.
So? This isn't about the provision of actual functioning schools. This is about the provision of expansive-sounding numbers that Tory MPs can throw at the enthusiastic but dumb.
"They're putting a BILLION into schools" "Yes but schools need 7 times that amount" "You haven't a clue. We won an 80 seat majority. Why are you lefties against spending a Billion Pounds on our kids?"
Did you read the article on this
760 million is to go to schools in the next academic year
Williamson confirmed this morning it is in addition to the 23 billion already announced for the next 10 years
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Me too.
Agreed, but all that’ll achieve is that the SCons and SLab swap their poor second and poor third placings. Hard to see how six-ish SLab MPs are going to “preserve the Union”. The will of the Scottish nation is becoming increasingly clear. How long is little England planning on sticking their finger in the crumbling dyke? It’s not as though you have other worries to seek.
So who will be paying for all of Johnson's spending plans, I haven't seen any methods of funding them beyond "borrow borrow borrow", which if it has to be paid for by somebody else, we must surely oppose strongly.
Of course, we know full well if Labour announced a literally identical policy under Starmer, we'd have shouts from the usual suspects about how it was irresponsible and would bankrupt the economy.
For what it's worth, I support investment-led growth and I am glad the Tories finally discovered it after so long. But it's not nearly enough.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Hold on, £1bn for schools over 10 years? They need £6.7bn according to the NAO just to meet the backlog of repairs, this money isn't even a drop in the ocean.
So? This isn't about the provision of actual functioning schools. This is about the provision of expansive-sounding numbers that Tory MPs can throw at the enthusiastic but dumb.
"They're putting a BILLION into schools" "Yes but schools need 7 times that amount" "You haven't a clue. We won an 80 seat majority. Why are you lefties against spending a Billion Pounds on our kids?"
Spot on. I find it useful to remember that if there are roughly 50 million adults in the UK:
1 million is 2p each 1 billion is £20 each 1 trillion is £20,000 each.
So confusion between these big sounding numbers is quite useful to politicians.
Another reduction I find useful is this: I live in a community which is about 1 millionth of the world population. So if the current figure of 500,000 people - which sounds a lot - have died of C 19 on average that is half a person in my little town.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
I think a Labour minority Government in 2024 seems feasible. Starmer must try his best to maintain and extend his small leader in best PM questions. The polling gap will I think continue to narrow over time.
Your second point is interesting and is something I think will naturally come about if Labour goes hard against Independence and kills the idea stone dead they would ever even consider the idea. That's mainly aimed at England but your point is a nice/interesting bonus.
So who will be paying for all of Johnson's spending plans, I haven't seen any methods of funding them beyond "borrow borrow borrow", which if it has to be paid for by somebody else, we must surely oppose strongly.
Of course, we know full well if Labour announced a literally identical policy under Starmer, we'd have shouts from the usual suspects about how it was irresponsible and would bankrupt the economy.
For what it's worth, I support investment-led growth and I am glad the Tories finally discovered it after so long. But it's not nearly enough.
Investment led growth is a euthemism for consumption based growth.
What you will not see is any government choosing wealth creation led growth.
But that will ultimately be forced upon this country.
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: especially as masks dramatically reduce the risk of needing lockdown.
Having thought about this, I think there are two reasons Trump hates masks:
1. It reminds him there is a problem. He's a massive fan of the Power of Positive Thinking (the book), and it has over the years worked for him. Wearing a mask goes against this, because it is in effect negative speech.
2. He's a bit vain. He thinks he looks good, and he thinks he'd look less good (and more scared) in a mask. And if he's not going to wear a mask, other people shouldn't either.
But it's also dumb. Modest mask etiquette reduces R substantially.
Masks are hugely uncomfortable, and a very significant social barrier.
I only wear them in close proximity environments in public (like trains or the tube) and I possibly would in a busy office too.
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
What does "in public" mean? Outdoors, and by yourself? Or whenever you go indoors "in public"? Or anywhere anytime 'just in case' ?
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
Personally, I agree that there’s not a great deal of point in wearing them out-doors. But I would wear them inside any enclosed space - consider that many the shops you go into will have air conditioning that will recirculate the air over and over inside the building.
We know from some individual studies done in the far-east that the air flow from air conditioning has a strong effect on infection patterns & can make the 2m rule completely meaningless (I can dig out the paper if people want, but it was a study on an infection cluster inside a restaurant, where one infectious individual infected half the people inside the air-flow pattern of a single air conditioning unit. Many of them were far more than 2m away.)
The trouble with "common sense" is that we are bad at quantifying small risks with large downsides. Lots of things are "common sense" but we still ended up having to legislate in order to get people to do them.
Hold on, £1bn for schools over 10 years? They need £6.7bn according to the NAO just to meet the backlog of repairs, this money isn't even a drop in the ocean.
I think its for the year not over the 10. From the guardian "Money for the rest of the nine years of the scheme will be set out at the next government spending review, which is expected this autumn."
However, it is essentially reintroducing the Schools for the Future programme that they cut in 2010, so with inflation they’re going to need to commit to many billions per year to be back where we were 10 years ago. Let’s hope they do.
That's a silly baseline. 10 years ago the country was spending far more money than it could afford. That isn't ever able to be repeated sustainably.
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Government spending is always paid for. It’d paid for at the time it’s spent! Either the government uses taxes, or it prints money (OK, actually they borrow it from the BoE who magic it out of thin air in exchange for a debt they hold on their books, but the effect is the same.)
The real question is the state of the labour market & inflationary environment. If the labour market is slack & the money markets are deflationary then the government should spend, spend, spend!
Keynes was right, as always.
(It’s handy to keep the "debt" around as an excuse to raise taxes in the future in order to suck money out of an inflationary economy, but all these things are convenient fictions: the BoE can just hold on to the debt indefinitely if necessary.)
That's a remarkably relaxed attitude to public financing.
There's a certain level of debt (as a % of the economy) that can be sustained indefinitely, but it's not unlimited: that's why Osborne tried so hard to eliminate the deficit from 2010-2016. So our debt as % GDP didn't constantly grow. So it would peak, and then decline. And, we still have to pay interest on that debt - it won't have escaped your attention that we spend £40bn+ a year on interest - almost as much as Defence - and it requires regular re-financing through new bonds.
In other words, it needs to be both under control and sustainable within the medium-long-term capability of the economy.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
USA really struggling to get people to behave, as predicted months ago. Same with India and Brazil, where high population density and poor sanitation combine to make huge infection numbers sadly inevitable.
HYUFD disagrees with you. At least in India, because they do not have enough old people.
India still has a death rate per head below the global average
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Technically, unless one envisages some future point at which government debt is zero, not all spending has to be paid for eventually. But certainly unless you want debt to explode then some semblance of sanity has to return to the public finances at some point. My guess is that Boris Johnson +economic knowledge: zero) is not the best guide to understanding the government's approach.
Boris has always been opposed to austerity (as were most experts). Boris won the 2019 election pledged to increase investment on infrastructure and public services. Since no pb Tories (or Conservative backbenchers for that matter) read their manifesto, this might come as a shock. Boris ran against Cameron and May. Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn. And all of this while Covid-19 was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
I saw the debate and I would say a (benign and totally asymptomatic) plague on both your houses. The 2014 result was an emphatic vote for the Union. It wasn't "No-but-Yes". However the trend to independence in the last year is real.
Yes, the average voter is now slightly left of centre on Bale's polling but also slightly more of an authoritarian traditionalist than a social liberal too
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
I saw the debate and I would say a (benign and totally asymptomatic) plague on both your houses. The 2014 result was an emphatic vote for the Union. It wasn't "No-but-Yes". However the trend to independence in the last year is real.
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: .
Masks
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
What does "in public" mean? Outdoors, and by yourself? Or whenever you go indoors "in public"? Or anywhere anytime 'just in case' ?
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
Simple really wear masks in indoor public space unless eating or drinking and outdoors when within 2 m of other people, make it mandatory to carry one problem solved.
No, that will lead to a new wave of neighbour snitching and busybody policing.
In areas of local lockdown where the risk warrants it, yes: perhaps. But, elsewhere, no. It's disproportionate. And HMG currently agrees with me on that.
Eliminating all transmission risk to virtually zero isn't the only objective. There's also another important one of returning social normality, reducing the feeling of isolation and improving people's mental health and, for that, seeing another human face is important.
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Technically, unless one envisages some future point at which government debt is zero, not all spending has to be paid for eventually. But certainly unless you want debt to explode then some semblance of sanity has to return to the public finances at some point. My guess is that Boris Johnson +economic knowledge: zero) is not the best guide to understanding the government's approach.
Boris has always been opposed to austerity (as were most experts). Boris won the 2019 election pledged to increase investment on infrastructure and public services. Since no pb Tories (or Conservative backbenchers for that matter) read their manifesto, this might come as a shock. Boris ran against Cameron and May. Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn. And all of this while Covid-19 was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
It does not shock me, indeed I support it
And has anyone heard from Alastair Meeks recently
I do hope he is ok and maybe we have not been posting at the same time
Alastair and I do not agree on several issues, but he is a valuable contributor to the site
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Technically, unless one envisages some future point at which government debt is zero, not all spending has to be paid for eventually. But certainly unless you want debt to explode then some semblance of sanity has to return to the public finances at some point. My guess is that Boris Johnson +economic knowledge: zero) is not the best guide to understanding the government's approach.
Boris has always been opposed to austerity (as were most experts). Boris won the 2019 election pledged to increase investment on infrastructure and public services. Since no pb Tories (or Conservative backbenchers for that matter) read their manifesto, this might come as a shock. Boris ran against Cameron and May. Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn. And all of this while Covid-19 was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
Yes, Boris has increased public spending more than any Tory PM since Macmillan
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Interestingly, that article (mainly) doesn't argue that balancing the books isn't important: it just says it should be done with tax rises rather than spending cuts.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
Government spending is always paid for. It’d paid for at the time it’s spent! Either the government uses taxes, or it prints money (OK, actually they borrow it from the BoE who magic it out of thin air in exchange for a debt they hold on their books, but the effect is the same.)
The real question is the state of the labour market & inflationary environment. If the labour market is slack & the money markets are deflationary then the government should spend, spend, spend!
Keynes was right, as always.
(It’s handy to keep the "debt" around as an excuse to raise taxes in the future in order to suck money out of an inflationary economy, but all these things are convenient fictions: the BoE can just hold on to the debt indefinitely if necessary.)
That's a remarkably relaxed attitude to public financing.
There's a certain level of debt (as a % of the economy) that can be sustained indefinitely, but it's not unlimited: that's why Osborne tried so hard to eliminate the deficit from 2010-2016. So our debt as % GDP didn't constantly grow. So it would peak, and then decline. And, we still have to pay interest on that debt - it won't have escaped your attention that we spend £40bn+ a year on interest - almost as much as Defence - and it requires regular re-financing through new bonds.
In other words, it needs to be both under control and sustainable within the medium-long-term capability of the economy.
Keynes would have understood this.
Absolutely!
Keynes didn't think we should spend as much as we could afford at all times. He thought we should spend countercyclically.
When Osborne took over the UK was not undergoing any economic shocks, there was no recession, we were simply spending too much. Cutting the deficit then was necessary.
And thank goodness it was done because now we are undergoing a recession, a shock and thankfully the roof was fixed while the sun was shining. Thankfully we went into this recession with a much smaller deficit than we went into the last one with ... Despite Browns toxic legacy.
So now we can spend. Because we must and because we can afford it. Because we had austerity we can afford it now.
Yes, the average voter is now slightly left of centre on Bale's polling but also slightly more of an authoritarian traditionalist than a social liberal too
It is a misleading distinction. A 'social liberal' is often a person who wants, illiberally, everyone to think the same as them. An 'authoritarian traditionalist' might just be a grim sounding name for believing in the rule of law, along with old fashioned liberals.
Liberalism is a procedure for how to think and interact as a society, not a pre-packaged set of policies dictating right and wrong for others.
USA really struggling to get people to behave, as predicted months ago. Same with India and Brazil, where high population density and poor sanitation combine to make huge infection numbers sadly inevitable.
HYUFD disagrees with you. At least in India, because they do not have enough old people.
India still has a death rate per head below the global average
India's death rate is a complete unknown because even at the best of times most deaths go unreported.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Me too.
Agreed, but all that’ll achieve is that the SCons and SLab swap their poor second and poor third placings. Hard to see how six-ish SLab MPs are going to “preserve the Union”. The will of the Scottish nation is becoming increasingly clear. How long is little England planning on sticking their finger in the crumbling dyke? It’s not as though you have other worries to seek.
There will only be indyref2 allowed if Starmer becomes PM, as long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP could win every MSP at Holyrood in 2021 and Boris would still block it
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: especially as masks dramatically reduce the risk of needing lockdown.
Having thought about this, I think there are two reasons Trump hates masks:
1. It reminds him there is a problem. He's a massive fan of the Power of Positive Thinking (the book), and it has over the years worked for him. Wearing a mask goes against this, because it is in effect negative speech.
2. He's a bit vain. He thinks he looks good, and he thinks he'd look less good (and more scared) in a mask. And if he's not going to wear a mask, other people shouldn't either.
But it's also dumb. Modest mask etiquette reduces R substantially.
Masks are hugely uncomfortable, and a very significant social barrier.
I only wear them in close proximity environments in public (like trains or the tube) and I possibly would in a busy office too.
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
Except that masks do protect the wearer. Your last sentence is correct.
Really? I haven’t read the primary research personally but my impression from the reporting was that the main benefit was to other people
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
An independence vote won by 51/49? What could possibly go wrong?
No won indyref2 in Quebec 51/49 in 1995 and Canada has not had another Quebec referendum on independence since
Yes, the average voter is now slightly left of centre on Bale's polling but also slightly more of an authoritarian traditionalist than a social liberal too
It is a misleading distinction. A 'social liberal' is often a person who wants, illiberally, everyone to think the same as them. An 'authoritarian traditionalist' might just be a grim sounding name for believing in the rule of law, along with old fashioned liberals.
Liberalism is a procedure for how to think and interact as a society, not a pre-packaged set of policies dictating right and wrong for others.
Thats just not what the survey was asking, it was asking do you support the death penalty or film censorship.
Yes, the average voter is now slightly left of centre on Bale's polling but also slightly more of an authoritarian traditionalist than a social liberal too
It does suggest that Conservative MPs are a bit out of touch with their own potential support.
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: especially as masks dramatically reduce the risk of needing lockdown.
Having thought about this, I think there are two reasons Trump hates masks:
1. It reminds him there is a problem. He's a massive fan of the Power of Positive Thinking (the book), and it has over the years worked for him. Wearing a mask goes against this, because it is in effect negative speech.
2. He's a bit vain. He thinks he looks good, and he thinks he'd look less good (and more scared) in a mask. And if he's not going to wear a mask, other people shouldn't either.
But it's also dumb. Modest mask etiquette reduces R substantially.
Masks are hugely uncomfortable, and a very significant social barrier.
I only wear them in close proximity environments in public (like trains or the tube) and I possibly would in a busy office too.
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Interesting to contrast differing approaches to masks, when the evidence is that they’re something that works if everyone does it, so long as there’s sufficient supply. Public attitudes seem to follow along the authoritarian/libertarian axis.
Here in the UAE, masks are compulsory to wear in public, even outside and in cars, with large fines (£600) for non-compliance. Supermarkets also make you wear gloves, shops and malls have temperature scanners at entrances.
As expected, and at the other extreme, it’s almost impossible to persuade Americans to do anything, with large groups arguing against them as a point of principle, but most other countries are somewhere in the middle.
The UAE is one country where a herd immunity strategy was probably the right approach, given its low over 65 population. Instead it will have constant outbreaks even if everyone is dressed like they are performing an alien autopsy.
Despite having one of the highest test rates in the world through out, the UAE has a case rate around that of the UK's.
Do the massive fines also apply to the low paid workers?
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Me too.
Agreed, but all that’ll achieve is that the SCons and SLab swap their poor second and poor third placings. Hard to see how six-ish SLab MPs are going to “preserve the Union”. The will of the Scottish nation is becoming increasingly clear. How long is little England planning on sticking their finger in the crumbling dyke? It’s not as though you have other worries to seek.
There will only be indyref2 allowed if Starmer becomes PM, as long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP could win every MSP at Holyrood in 2021 and Boris would still block it
Does bullying make you feel good? I feel sorry for folk like you.
Go to church and pray for guidance. You have allowed darkness to infect your soul.
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: .
Masks
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
What does "in public" mean? Outdoors, and by yourself? Or whenever you go indoors "in public"? Or anywhere anytime 'just in case' ?
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
Simple really wear masks in indoor public space unless eating or drinking and outdoors when within 2 m of other people, make it mandatory to carry one problem solved.
No, that will lead to a new wave of neighbour snitching and busybody policing.
In areas of local lockdown where the risk warrants it, yes: perhaps. But, elsewhere, no. It's disproportionate. And HMG currently agrees with me on that.
Eliminating all transmission risk to virtually zero isn't the only objective. There's also another important one of returning social normality, reducing the feeling of isolation and improving people's mental health and, for that, seeing another human face is important.
You can see the other person's face past a face mask. I rather think there'd be somewhat less objection if it was called a mouth covering or something else.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Me too.
Agreed, but all that’ll achieve is that the SCons and SLab swap their poor second and poor third placings. Hard to see how six-ish SLab MPs are going to “preserve the Union”. The will of the Scottish nation is becoming increasingly clear. How long is little England planning on sticking their finger in the crumbling dyke? It’s not as though you have other worries to seek.
There will only be indyref2 allowed if Starmer becomes PM, as long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP could win every MSP at Holyrood in 2021 and Boris would still block it
Does bullying make you feel good? I feel sorry for folk like you.
Go to church and pray for guidance. You have allowed darkness to infect your soul.
It is not bullying but respecting the 2019 Tory election winning manifesto to respect the fact the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation referendum' in Salmond's own words
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
Me too.
Agreed, but all that’ll achieve is that the SCons and SLab swap their poor second and poor third placings. Hard to see how six-ish SLab MPs are going to “preserve the Union”. The will of the Scottish nation is becoming increasingly clear. How long is little England planning on sticking their finger in the crumbling dyke? It’s not as though you have other worries to seek.
There will only be indyref2 allowed if Starmer becomes PM, as long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP could win every MSP at Holyrood in 2021 and Boris would still block it
Does bullying make you feel good? I feel sorry for folk like you.
Go to church and pray for guidance. You have allowed darkness to infect your soul.
Oh diddums what bullying?
Besides having an independence referendum denied is great for you. This way you don't lose it, resentment simmers and when it's finally held you might actually win.
Yes, the average voter is now slightly left of centre on Bale's polling but also slightly more of an authoritarian traditionalist than a social liberal too
It does suggest that Conservative MPs are a bit out of touch with their own potential support.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
Every Scottish constituency can be modeled as a simplistic linear model based on national voteshare.
In the North and North East of Scotland the swings available are Labour-SNP and LD-Con. The only constituency where that didn't happen was Banff where Lab vote went Con.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
There is fluidity between SNP and Labour and also between SNP and Conservatives. The Tories had their relative success under Ruth Davidson in significant part because of switchers from SNP to Tory. These people had voted SNP after the 2014 referendum and presumably don't object to independence in principle. (I think we discussed this before and you disputed my claim).
Back to SNP/Labour supporters. A chunk of these previous SNP supporters may switch to Labour in a 2024 election if they prefer a Labour rather than a Conservative government at Westminster and if they are dissatisfied with the SNP at the time of the election.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
The overall spending envelope went up (“no austerity”)
Because of the political decision to protect healthcare, the pensions triple lock and DfID increases there was a huge amount of reduction in other areas to compensate (which in practical terms felt like austerity for many).
Ultimately the term was just political air cover for Cameron and Osborne’s spending choices
For comparison, on the worst day of the outbreak in the UK, we recorded 8,600 cases, and then it fell away quite steeply. Florida is still going up fast.
A disaster is potentially unfolding there
I wonder if it's too late for Trump to get behind masks. Perhaps if they were red masks, with Make America Great Again on them.
I'm really not clear on the right wing objection to masks. You protect yourself with a gun, why not protect yourself with a mask? It has the added benefit of stopping the deep state from applying facial recognition software on you successfully. Lockdown - I completely see the objection to. Masks, not so much.
Indeed: .
Masks
Otherwise, it's a rather dystopian placebo.
Masks are not really to protect you (they’re pretty crap at that role, although there is weak evidence is they do have some effect). What masks are very effective at is protecting everybody else from you, should you happen to be infected & not realise it.
So masks are essentially communitarian. We wear them & accept a certain mild level of discomfort in order to protect those around us from the possibility of being infected by a horrible disease. The more pro-social a society is, the more likely it is that people will wear masks & the less affected by Covid-19 that society will be.
(An aside: I bet the anti-vaxx conspiracy groups are full of anti-mask types.)
Sweden is essentially communitarian and a pro-social society, but I can tell you that mask-wearing is extremely unusual here.
Admittedly I almost never use public transport so I’m missing that environment, but I do work in a busy office and visit libraries, shops, hospital, tourist attractions and other public spaces, and I see a mask-wearer maybe once a week. Still taken aback every time I see one.
Jeez. I'm not repeating Phil's erroneous message which should be banned for spreading false virus info.
Face masks are clearly helpful for preventing the spread of this respiratory borne illness, both for those who have the virus and those who don't wish to catch it.
There will always be nay'sayers. There are some who think the moon landings never happened and that if you sail out beyond California you fall off the edge of the earth.
Spreading such nonsense in this case kills people.
Isn’t that what Phil is saying?
Wearing a mask protects other people not you. If everyone wears a mask everyone is safer
This is exactly what I was saying. They do protect you as well, but that protection is limited - the (weak) evidence is that you benefit from a reduction in exposure that’s worth having, but not enough to expose yourself unnecessarily.
The available evidence suggests that masks are of little to maybe limited benefit at protecting you, but pretty good at protecting others if you’re infected. Everyone should wear them when in public in order to protect the community from asymptomatic infection.
What does "in public" mean? Outdoors, and by yourself? Or whenever you go indoors "in public"? Or anywhere anytime 'just in case' ?
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
Simple really wear masks in indoor public space unless eating or drinking and outdoors when within 2 m of other people, make it mandatory to carry one problem solved.
No, that will lead to a new wave of neighbour snitching and busybody policing.
In areas of local lockdown where the risk warrants it, yes: perhaps. But, elsewhere, no. It's disproportionate. And HMG currently agrees with me on that.
Eliminating all transmission risk to virtually zero isn't the only objective. There's also another important one of returning social normality, reducing the feeling of isolation and improving people's mental health and, for that, seeing another human face is important.
When you live in a fairly closed community with little movement in or out then masks are over the top but when you face mass influx of holiday makers from areas with higher infection rates it’s a sensible precaution. I wear mine in the hospital, doctors and supermarket, where on entry one must sanitize hands, not over bearing. I keep my mask in my pocket, many people wear them on their arm again not an imposition. On the beach we have beach marshals maintaining distancing and monitoring behavior so no need for masks there.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
It would be useful to know what these differences are, not in terms of labels but in terms of concrete policies and examples without using useless words like 'left' and 'right'.
Comments
No one sane goes into politics nowadays.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1277500809350131718
I'm with the majority view here that this seems a scam e-mail sent by someone who probably wants to make a profit on a bet they have had either that Pence is the nominee and / or that Trump steps down.
Also, in this day and age, when there is so much social media around, I can't imagine this would not have leaked out somewhere else.
One other thought, which is far more outlandish but which I would not be prepared to bet entirely against is that someone is trying to push a story to get the Republicans to move against him. You get a well-renowned betting site in the UK to publish a story (so making it seem more credible than an article on a US news site) which causes movements in the betting markets which then get picked up the US outlets to suggest that the betting markets are losing faith in Trump and so the Republicans need to get rid of him etc. Outlandish but the betting markets are often quoted in stories to suggest where the "smart" money is at....
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1277187529436004357
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/06/28/electoral-commission-should-abolished/
I told you a few months ago, they are going to do some creative re-branding.
Which is hardly unsurprising in the New Statesman.
The point is that all spending has to be paid for, eventually.
If Labour look like they'll do well in England, Scottish Unionists will switch from Tory to Labour as their best hope of getting Scottish representation into the UK Government more in tune politically with most Scots and thus preserving the Union.
There are many repairs needed to our schools now and especially in poor areas ironically now held by the conservatives
"Participants will then be contacted every month to check if they have developed any symptoms of coronavirus disease, and to ask some follow-up questions about participants' more general health and social circumstances."
https://www.qmul.ac.uk/covidence/
That's one of the funniest things I have read on PB in a long time.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
Your second point is interesting and is something I think will naturally come about if Labour goes hard against Independence and kills the idea stone dead they would ever even consider the idea. That's mainly aimed at England but your point is a nice/interesting bonus.
"They're putting a BILLION into schools"
"Yes but schools need 7 times that amount"
"You haven't a clue. We won an 80 seat majority. Why are you lefties against spending a Billion Pounds on our kids?"
"Leave or Remain?"
"Is there a magic money tree?"
"Do you believe Dom Cummings is God?"
"Will you obey God at all times?"
I've been reading "Being in time" by Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic Jewish thinker who got Corbyn into trouble by being mates. I was expecting a thoroughly left-wing read going beyond my comfort zone, but actually he turns out to be above all an individualist and allergic to groupthink. A big fan of Orwell (even excusing Orwell's Stasi-like participation in postwar informing to the authorities on colleagues who Orwell suspected might be pro-communist, which was news to me), he excoriates political correctness and suggests the Left is undermined by its attempt to make working-class voters more socially liberal.
A question here is how salient these issues are for voters, though. If the Tories impoverish their new voters but are scathing about trans people and black lives mattering, will the voters forgive them for the Tory economic policies? If you ask people about social values they'll answer the questions, but I doubt if they propel many votes unless a party makes them absolutely central to their appeal.
Of course, we know full well if Labour announced a literally identical policy under Starmer, we'd have shouts from the usual suspects about how it was irresponsible and would bankrupt the economy.
For what it's worth, I support investment-led growth and I am glad the Tories finally discovered it after so long. But it's not nearly enough.
They are useless in protecting you or anyone else from infection unless you are within 2-3m of someone else in a confined environment. Personally, when I go shopping, I'm there for 15-20 minutes max (once or twice a week) and never go at peak times, nor get within 2m of anyone.
It's sensible risk balancing: in an area where there have been no new cases for weeks (East Hampshire, for example) and population density is low wearing them makes virtually no difference. Against that, you have the social and emotional effects of not being able to see another human smile or face, read someone's lips and body language, breathe properly, or understand them clearly. And they upset children too.
So on balance, no: I won't wear them *everywhere* in public. I wear them in a medical environment, around vulnerable people (like care homes, or doctor's surgeries) or on the tube or train. But, no: not elsewhere.
There is no need for zealotry on masks. Just common sense.
Pence would certainly drive up evangelical turnout for the Republican Party if he were nominee but I think some 'Trump Democrats' in the Midwest would also vote for Biden over Pence
The problem with it is that it is bland and unworkable
Just words
The real question is the state of the labour market & inflationary environment. If the labour market is slack & the money markets are deflationary then the government should spend, spend, spend!
Keynes was right, as always.
(It’s handy to keep the "debt" around as an excuse to raise taxes in the future in order to suck money out of an inflationary economy, but all these things are convenient fictions: the BoE can just hold on to the debt indefinitely if necessary.)
It's possible Labour might grant one to the SNP if they are in a minority at Westminster. But, I'm not sure they will be.
When the tide turns I expect it to turn very significantly, or not at all.
What governments are good at is announcing something which was going to happen anyway.
760 million is to go to schools in the next academic year
Williamson confirmed this morning it is in addition to the 23 billion already announced for the next 10 years
Agreed, but all that’ll achieve is that the SCons and SLab swap their poor second and poor third placings. Hard to see how six-ish SLab MPs are going to “preserve the Union”. The will of the Scottish nation is becoming increasingly clear. How long is little England planning on sticking their finger in the crumbling dyke? It’s not as though you have other worries to seek.
I find it useful to remember that if there are roughly 50 million adults in the UK:
1 million is 2p each
1 billion is £20 each
1 trillion is £20,000 each.
So confusion between these big sounding numbers is quite useful to politicians.
Another reduction I find useful is this: I live in a community which is about 1 millionth of the world population. So if the current figure of 500,000 people - which sounds a lot - have died of C 19 on average that is half a person in my little town.
What you will not see is any government choosing wealth creation led growth.
But that will ultimately be forced upon this country.
We know from some individual studies done in the far-east that the air flow from air conditioning has a strong effect on infection patterns & can make the 2m rule completely meaningless (I can dig out the paper if people want, but it was a study on an infection cluster inside a restaurant, where one infectious individual infected half the people inside the air-flow pattern of a single air conditioning unit. Many of them were far more than 2m away.)
The trouble with "common sense" is that we are bad at quantifying small risks with large downsides. Lots of things are "common sense" but we still ended up having to legislate in order to get people to do them.
There's a certain level of debt (as a % of the economy) that can be sustained indefinitely, but it's not unlimited: that's why Osborne tried so hard to eliminate the deficit from 2010-2016. So our debt as % GDP didn't constantly grow. So it would peak, and then decline. And, we still have to pay interest on that debt - it won't have escaped your attention that we spend £40bn+ a year on interest - almost as much as Defence - and it requires regular re-financing through new bonds.
In other words, it needs to be both under control and sustainable within the medium-long-term capability of the economy.
Keynes would have understood this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/europeans-trust-in-us-as-world-leader-collapses-during-pandemic
In areas of local lockdown where the risk warrants it, yes: perhaps. But, elsewhere, no. It's disproportionate. And HMG currently agrees with me on that.
Eliminating all transmission risk to virtually zero isn't the only objective. There's also another important one of returning social normality, reducing the feeling of isolation and improving people's mental health and, for that, seeing another human face is important.
And has anyone heard from Alastair Meeks recently
I do hope he is ok and maybe we have not been posting at the same time
Alastair and I do not agree on several issues, but he is a valuable contributor to the site
Keynes didn't think we should spend as much as we could afford at all times. He thought we should spend countercyclically.
When Osborne took over the UK was not undergoing any economic shocks, there was no recession, we were simply spending too much. Cutting the deficit then was necessary.
And thank goodness it was done because now we are undergoing a recession, a shock and thankfully the roof was fixed while the sun was shining. Thankfully we went into this recession with a much smaller deficit than we went into the last one with ... Despite Browns toxic legacy.
So now we can spend. Because we must and because we can afford it. Because we had austerity we can afford it now.
Liberalism is a procedure for how to think and interact as a society, not a pre-packaged set of policies dictating right and wrong for others.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
Despite having one of the highest test rates in the world through out, the UAE has a case rate around that of the UK's.
Do the massive fines also apply to the low paid workers?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F24BlPxjI_qqhY_aevu_2b0vDRTaJQHj/view
Go to church and pray for guidance. You have allowed darkness to infect your soul.
Besides having an independence referendum denied is great for you. This way you don't lose it, resentment simmers and when it's finally held you might actually win.
In the North and North East of Scotland the swings available are Labour-SNP and LD-Con. The only constituency where that didn't happen was Banff where Lab vote went Con.
Back to SNP/Labour supporters. A chunk of these previous SNP supporters may switch to Labour in a 2024 election if they prefer a Labour rather than a Conservative government at Westminster and if they are dissatisfied with the SNP at the time of the election.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Because of the political decision to protect healthcare, the pensions triple lock and DfID increases there was a huge amount of reduction in other areas to compensate (which in practical terms felt like austerity for many).
Ultimately the term was just political air cover for Cameron and Osborne’s spending choices
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1277495568101781505?s=20
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1277495569548816386?s=20
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.