1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Interesting header. I've come to the conclusion though that Boris is political invincible. As a comparison, although other things masked it in the end, the BSE crisis would have destroyed the John Major government on its own. Covid is infinitely more serious, yet the political damage inflicted on Boris is negligible. If that can't hurt him what possibly can?
Not necessarily. Just because having them widely available three months ago could also have helped doesn't mean they won't be helpful now, especially if they can prevent a nightmarish Covid / flu tag team from taking off in the winter. No one likes masks, but if it means we never have to lock down again until a vaccine arrives, it seems a reasonable trade-off.
Well that’s a first a like for Bluest Blue!
It is good to be able to agree with people you often, or even usually disagree with.
It appears the folk that go on about snowflakes and getting back a bit of Blitz spirit & British spunk think that the inconvenience of wearing a cloth mask for short periods is akin to the Gulag.
Interesting that the so-called culture wars seem to be extending to the wearing of masks.
You can't courageously say unwoke things in a mask - so it's perfectly understandable.
@Anabobazina is anti mask and a left wing, quite woke-ish person usually I think, whereas @LadyG would be horrified to be called "woke" but seems very keen on masks to fight Covid, so maybe it isn't really as easy to put people into categories as it seems
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Like everything else in this pandemic, it’s a balancing of risks, costs and benefits. Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Well if you want to lose the votes of the several million voters who don't currently have a tv license and don't want or need one I guess its an idea
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
Not necessarily. Just because having them widely available three months ago could also have helped doesn't mean they won't be helpful now, especially if they can prevent a nightmarish Covid / flu tag team from taking off in the winter. No one likes masks, but if it means we never have to lock down again until a vaccine arrives, it seems a reasonable trade-off.
Not necessarily. Just because having them widely available three months ago could also have helped doesn't mean they won't be helpful now, especially if they can prevent a nightmarish Covid / flu tag team from taking off in the winter. No one likes masks, but if it means we never have to lock down again until a vaccine arrives, it seems a reasonable trade-off.
Sensible, but it highlights a problem with Boris's Big Win. A chunk of it is libertarian right, health and safety is always madness. But a chunk isn't. It's the same as the Brexit coalition; is the aim to open up or close down? The miracle of 2016 and 2019 was keeping both types onboard, but it can't go on forever.
I have plenty of libertarian instincts, but I think on the whole they'll forgive the temporary loss involved in wearing masks if it creates the freedom for society and the economy to operate normally. To govern is to choose - there's no point trying to please every single person at every moment, and you can always win them back later if the strategy is seen to have paid off. Libertarianism is also basically selfish - persuade them they'll be saving their own lives and they'll soon see the logic
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
The masks point probably won't swing that many votes in itself, and the corona con brigade have convinced themselves that the decline in cases would have happened anyway. But it's emblematic of a wider challenge. As you note, to govern is to choose. But the central tenet of Borisism is that you don't have to choose. You can have your cake and eat it, because everything is going to be so much more efficient and productive. Billion dollar bills billowing down the street, just needing a genius to harvest them. But eventually, the government is going to have to upset part of its coalition. Who will it dump? Guido or Unherd? Winchester or Wigan?
Interesting header. I've come to the conclusion though that Boris is political invincible. As a comparison, although other things masked it in the end, the BSE crisis would have destroyed the John Major government on its own. Covid is infinitely more serious, yet the political damage inflicted on Boris is negligible. If that can't hurt him what possibly can?
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Well if you want to lose the votes of the several million voters who don't currently have a tv license and don't want or need one I guess its an idea
You’re saying funding the BBC out of general taxation would lose millions of votes ? Seems an unlikely proposition.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Interesting header. I've come to the conclusion though that Boris is political invincible. As a comparison, although other things masked it in the end, the BSE crisis would have destroyed the John Major government on its own. Covid is infinitely more serious, yet the political damage inflicted on Boris is negligible. If that can't hurt him what possibly can?
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea s....
Sigh.
But reality shows studies and polls to be wrong as they launched britbox and I think last figure I saw from the US was a mere 300,000 subscriptions and even there many were dropping after the free trial month.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea s....
Sigh.
But reality shows studies and polls to be wrong as they launched britbox and I think last figure I saw from the US was a mere 300,000 subscriptions and even there many were dropping after the free trial month.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
It appears the folk that go on about snowflakes and getting back a bit of Blitz spirit & British spunk think that the inconvenience of wearing a cloth mask for short periods is akin to the Gulag.
Interesting that the so-called culture wars seem to be extending to the wearing of masks.
You can't courageously say unwoke things in a mask - so it's perfectly understandable.
@Anabobazina is anti mask and a left wing, quite woke-ish person usually I think, whereas @LadyG would be horrified to be called "woke" but seems very keen on masks to fight Covid, so maybe it isn't really as easy to put people into categories as it seems
No, you're right. There is no clear alignment. I would, however, say there is a big overlap between the more nutty end of the alt right culture warrior types - anti vax, deep state, all of that - and the view that wearing masks is a violation of human dignity and liberty.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
And in pubs they should be socially distanced with no moving of the furniture and not sat with relative strangers, putting mask on as soon as you stand up. It’s simple really!
O/T I don't know what possessed Jonny Depp to bring his libel action against the Sun. This is the Streisand effect dialled up to eleven.
This seems a classic case where, even if he wins, he'll be awarded damages of £5.
Particularly in libel, I'm afraid a lot of claimants go into civil actions looking for "justice" or to pursue a point of principle.
That's not really what the civil courts provide. If you win, you typically get an amount of money in the form of damages, and if you lose you lose an amount of money in the form of costs (and you can lose while winning if the damages are less than the defendent offered to settle for - which could happen here). Nobody really changes their mind, and people almost never apologise for anything.
So the calculation SHOULD simply be whether the expected financial pay-off outweighs the expected costs (both financial and in terms of the stress of the process). If it doesn't, you should just drop it and get on with your life, however much you think it's "unfair". Far too many people just ignore that.
Disputes over wills are just the same.
Yes, and other areas too - people become identified with their grievance. I had a constituent who used to work for Notts County Council. She believed that, 20 years earlier, she had been unreasonably passed over for a normal promotion that had been promised. She had taken it up as a grievance and failed. In due course, she retired, but she continued to fight. Every new County Council leader and every new MP was sent a comprehensive file documenting her case. Everyone involved was retired or dead.
I went to see her - she was by no means unpleasant or obviously deranged - and said gently that even if she was entirely in the right, the chance of getting it fixed now was zero. It was clearly preying on her mind - wouldn't it be better to move on? She said soberly, "Yes, I think it would. But I can't. It's my life now."
It stuck in my mind because it was such a sad waste of what should have been a peaceful retirement.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
I think Starmer has made a good start, and right to promote a new generation. Some will flop but others have some years to develop public recognition. No need for complex policy developments at this point in the electoral cycle, more important to get the internal party structures and discipline functioning.
I am not convinced that Starmer will lead the party next GE. He may step-down in 3 years in favour of a fresher face, once his work is done. I would like it to be Rayner
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Well if you want to lose the votes of the several million voters who don't currently have a tv license and don't want or need one I guess its an idea
You’re saying funding the BBC out of general taxation would lose millions of votes ? Seems an unlikely proposition.
I said there are millions of people who don't have or need a tv licence. Many of them cord cutters who moved away from the BBC as a conscious choice. I am not saying it will cause them all to change vote but any party proposing it they will mark down negatively on it and yes a proportion it will tip over into voting for someone else
It appears the folk that go on about snowflakes and getting back a bit of Blitz spirit & British spunk think that the inconvenience of wearing a cloth mask for short periods is akin to the Gulag.
Interesting that the so-called culture wars seem to be extending to the wearing of masks.
You can't courageously say unwoke things in a mask - so it's perfectly understandable.
@Anabobazina is anti mask and a left wing, quite woke-ish person usually I think, whereas @LadyG would be horrified to be called "woke" but seems very keen on masks to fight Covid, so maybe it isn't really as easy to put people into categories as it seems
No, you're right. There is no clear alignment. I would, however, say there is a big overlap between the more nutty end of the alt right culture warrior types - anti vax, deep state, all of that - and the view that wearing masks is a violation of human dignity and liberty.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
There is no safe/unsafe dividing line. It is a percentage game. A 1 in 100,000 chance against a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance is negligible to the individual, but a big deal when scaled up to 60 million people.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
It appears the folk that go on about snowflakes and getting back a bit of Blitz spirit & British spunk think that the inconvenience of wearing a cloth mask for short periods is akin to the Gulag.
Interesting that the so-called culture wars seem to be extending to the wearing of masks.
You can't courageously say unwoke things in a mask - so it's perfectly understandable.
@Anabobazina is anti mask and a left wing, quite woke-ish person usually I think, whereas @LadyG would be horrified to be called "woke" but seems very keen on masks to fight Covid, so maybe it isn't really as easy to put people into categories as it seems
No, you're right. There is no clear alignment. I would, however, say there is a big overlap between the more nutty end of the alt right culture warrior types - anti vax, deep state, all of that - and the view that wearing masks is a violation of human dignity and liberty.
...and where that crosses over the weirdness on the ultra left - Julian Assange, Chomsky, Deep State (again). Think Piers Corbyn....
Something of a truth to that old saw that politics is a circle - left and right meet at the back, in darkness......
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
And in pubs they should be socially distanced with no moving of the furniture and not sat with relative strangers, putting mask on as soon as you stand up. It’s simple really!
Don't let anyone drink alcohol to make it even safer!
O/T I don't know what possessed Jonny Depp to bring his libel action against the Sun. This is the Streisand effect dialled up to eleven.
This seems a classic case where, even if he wins, he'll be awarded damages of £5.
Particularly in libel, I'm afraid a lot of claimants go into civil actions looking for "justice" or to pursue a point of principle.
That's not really what the civil courts provide. If you win, you typically get an amount of money in the form of damages, and if you lose you lose an amount of money in the form of costs (and you can lose while winning if the damages are less than the defendent offered to settle for - which could happen here). Nobody really changes their mind, and people almost never apologise for anything.
So the calculation SHOULD simply be whether the expected financial pay-off outweighs the expected costs (both financial and in terms of the stress of the process). If it doesn't, you should just drop it and get on with your life, however much you think it's "unfair". Far too many people just ignore that.
Disputes over wills are just the same.
Yes, and other areas too - people become identified with their grievance. I had a constituent who used to work for Notts County Council. She believed that, 20 years earlier, she had been unreasonably passed over for a normal promotion that had been promised. She had taken it up as a grievance and failed. In due course, she retired, but she continued to fight. Every new County Council leader and every new MP was sent a comprehensive file documenting her case. Everyone involved was retired or dead.
I went to see her - she was by no means unpleasant or obviously deranged - and said gently that even if she was entirely in the right, the chance of getting it fixed now was zero. It was clearly preying on her mind - wouldn't it be better to move on? She said soberly, "Yes, I think it would. But I can't. It's my life now."
It stuck in my mind because it was such a sad waste of what should have been a peaceful retirement.
I 'liked' that to acknowledge such an interesting and thoughtful post - despite being such a sad story!
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
How the UK's more right-wing parties are going to reconcile that fundamental strategic need [edit:] (not just space - but things as basic as PPE) with their enthusiasm for free trade and WTO post Brexit I have no idea at all. At the moment they seem to be for free trade one day and the next day agin somr foreigner the Americans don't like.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
I see we're back to blaming the voters for being shite... in your opinion.
It appears the folk that go on about snowflakes and getting back a bit of Blitz spirit & British spunk think that the inconvenience of wearing a cloth mask for short periods is akin to the Gulag.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
And in pubs they should be socially distanced with no moving of the furniture and not sat with relative strangers, putting mask on as soon as you stand up. It’s simple really!
Don't let anyone drink alcohol to make it even safer!
Well Im off for my afternoon drink in an hour, it will be outside and will be socially distanced, nobody wants to risk the owner being hit with a €6000 fine so we comply. If I need the loo, on with the mask, sanitize hands otherwise quite relaxed. Suspicious of holiday makers though and strictly no hugging and kissing. Doesn’t stop the Spanish slobbering all over each other though. Stil a worrying number of outbreaks country wide, 76 active currently with two major ones resulting in significant lockdowns.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
How the UK's more right-wing parties are going to reconcile that fundamental strategic need [edit:] (not just space - but things as basic as PPE) with their enthusiasm for free trade and WTO post Brexit I have no idea at all. At the moment they seem to be for free trade one day and the next day agin somr foreigner the Americans don't like.
It was traditional on the right to be more interested in such things - hence the Defense industry being run as "industrial support".
It was Mrs T who went free trade (largely)...
Given that the Chinese are busy tearing up the agreement on HK - what would you do?
I think Starmer has made a good start, and right to promote a new generation. Some will flop but others have some years to develop public recognition. No need for complex policy developments at this point in the electoral cycle, more important to get the internal party structures and discipline functioning.
I am not convinced that Starmer will lead the party next GE. He may step-down in 3 years in favour of a fresher face, once his work is done. I would like it to be Rayner
Paragraph 1, Absolutely!
Paragraph 2, Can't see that. Gone if he loses the GE. PM if he wins.
He's a spring chicken! Younger than me at any rate- by a few months!
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
How the UK's more right-wing parties are going to reconcile that fundamental strategic need [edit:] (not just space - but things as basic as PPE) with their enthusiasm for free trade and WTO post Brexit I have no idea at all. At the moment they seem to be for free trade one day and the next day agin somr foreigner the Americans don't like.
The moron at the space seminar was hating on SpaceX, by the way - apparently they were succeeding against the Rules of Business....
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
How the UK's more right-wing parties are going to reconcile that fundamental strategic need [edit:] (not just space - but things as basic as PPE) with their enthusiasm for free trade and WTO post Brexit I have no idea at all. At the moment they seem to be for free trade one day and the next day agin somr foreigner the Americans don't like.
It was traditional on the right to be more interested in such things - hence the Defense industry being run as "industrial support".
It was Mrs T who went free trade (largely)...
Given that the Chinese are busy tearing up the agreement on HK - what would you do?
I was just thinking that surely the left were too - e.g the coal industry in Scotland versus imports of coal to Hunterston Quay, as an example.
As you said, funny how things change. Hardly anyone worries about the balance of payments (someone mentioned it on PB the other day). Food miles thinking seems to be a (still minor) replacement for the Buy British of yore. And food supply in the UK is of course a key strategic issue, none more so than now with Brexit threatening to strangle the ports. Very strange how it's been neglected by the Brexiters given their propaganda and how crucial food supply both by sea and from the nation's farms was to survival in WW2 - just as much as the Spitfires were.
And to return to the specific point of masks, I'm still a bit surprised the state didn't set up Royal PPE Factories at the start of the crisis. That might yet be the simpler option than relying on thr world's spivs and ferry firms sans ferries.
Anyway have a nice afternoon all - I'm off to mess around in my new workshed.
O/T I don't know what possessed Jonny Depp to bring his libel action against the Sun. This is the Streisand effect dialled up to eleven.
This seems a classic case where, even if he wins, he'll be awarded damages of £5.
Particularly in libel, I'm afraid a lot of claimants go into civil actions looking for "justice" or to pursue a point of principle.
That's not really what the civil courts provide. If you win, you typically get an amount of money in the form of damages, and if you lose you lose an amount of money in the form of costs (and you can lose while winning if the damages are less than the defendent offered to settle for - which could happen here). Nobody really changes their mind, and people almost never apologise for anything.
So the calculation SHOULD simply be whether the expected financial pay-off outweighs the expected costs (both financial and in terms of the stress of the process). If it doesn't, you should just drop it and get on with your life, however much you think it's "unfair". Far too many people just ignore that.
Disputes over wills are just the same.
Yes, and other areas too - people become identified with their grievance. I had a constituent who used to work for Notts County Council. She believed that, 20 years earlier, she had been unreasonably passed over for a normal promotion that had been promised. She had taken it up as a grievance and failed. In due course, she retired, but she continued to fight. Every new County Council leader and every new MP was sent a comprehensive file documenting her case. Everyone involved was retired or dead.
I went to see her - she was by no means unpleasant or obviously deranged - and said gently that even if she was entirely in the right, the chance of getting it fixed now was zero. It was clearly preying on her mind - wouldn't it be better to move on? She said soberly, "Yes, I think it would. But I can't. It's my life now."
It stuck in my mind because it was such a sad waste of what should have been a peaceful retirement.
It would be enough for most people to live to be an icon for just one great nation. BUT to be an sporting hero and national treasure for TWO great nations is something VERY special.
AND when the two nations are ENGLAND and IRELAND - well, that says it all.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
My guess is that it is too late to start saying everyone should be wearing masks when shopping.
Yet again, Johnson has made an horlicks of a virus issue and announcement.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
How the UK's more right-wing parties are going to reconcile that fundamental strategic need [edit:] (not just space - but things as basic as PPE) with their enthusiasm for free trade and WTO post Brexit I have no idea at all. At the moment they seem to be for free trade one day and the next day agin somr foreigner the Americans don't like.
The problem the free trade obsessives have is that while they say that we don't need to produce X because we can trade for it they never say what we are going to actually trade.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
My guess is that it is too late to start saying everyone should be wearing masks when shopping.
Yet again, Johnson has made an horlicks of a virus issue and announcement.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Like everything else in this pandemic, it’s a balancing of risks, costs and benefits. Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
For millions of people it will destroy the 'things are getting safer' message with the consequent economic damage.
Making people wear masks in shops will reduce their likelihood of going to shops and thus more economic damage.
And once people have to wear masks in shops at what point will they be told they no longer need to ?
Its the sort of thing people who are trying to be too clever by half but are only half as clever as they think they are would come up with.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
I guess you just have a preference for blue flavoured fruit cake.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
My guess is that it is too late to start saying everyone should be wearing masks when shopping.
It does seem like it would have been an easier 'sell' to frame it as "we can start to open up and do more things, and the tradeoff is that we'll all have to wear masks in most public enclosed spaces", rather than trying to do the two parts out of sync.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
If the shops enforce it they will lose a lot of customers, for a couple of days. Then the numpties will realise, that if they want to eat that they need to wear masks to a supermarket.
My wife, like many women (and some men!), shops for pleasure to some extent. It’s not something that appeals to me as a leisure activity, in fact I can barely think of anything worse. Yet I recognise that lots of people like it. Yet you cannot try on clothes in shops, and may now have to wear a mask.
What’s the point of going shopping then? Might as well order online.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
My guess is that it is too late to start saying everyone should be wearing masks when shopping.
Yet again, Johnson has made an horlicks of a virus issue and announcement.
It would be an admittance that previous advice was wrong.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
I see we're back to blaming the voters for being shite... in your opinion.
Quite. As long as floating voters think that Labour believe the floaters who voted Tory are an immoral shower of rogues they will not go back to Labour.
You cannot win elections by telling the people you need votes from that they don't care. They do.
The Tories won in 2019 for many reasons, including the unelectability of the Labour leadership. A Tory government under a deeply flawed leader was the more decent and competent choice. Sadly.
My wife, like many women (and some men!), shops for pleasure to some extent. It’s not something that appeals to me as a leisure activity, in fact I can barely think of anything worse. Yet I recognise that lots of people like it. Yet you cannot try on clothes in shops, and may now have to wear a mask.
What’s the point of going shopping then? Might as well order online.
And if you don't go to the physical shops then you are less likely to go to a cafe, restaurant or pub on the same trip.
Also discouraging people from going to physical shops reduces the physical exercise they get with negative consequences for public health.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
I guess you just have a preference for blue flavoured fruit cake.
Ah if you aren't with us you must be with the enemy trope. Nope not a blue either and I spend time poking hyufd here quite a bit
He could have also mentioned that she had to repay £4000 for trying to cheat the electorate. So I think he's been rather lenient. Really.
Her contribution to the political debate on its own was worth countless votes to the Tories, including those of her own electors. She cannot see the moral worth of her political opponents and despised the people whose votes she needed. She has talent and is young enough to re-learn. She could study Jess Phillips or Liz Kendall to see how it can be done.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
I will wait and see there are still plenty of corbynite mp's and supporters. While they are their labour won't be getting a vote from me
My wife, like many women (and some men!), shops for pleasure to some extent. It’s not something that appeals to me as a leisure activity, in fact I can barely think of anything worse. Yet I recognise that lots of people like it. Yet you cannot try on clothes in shops, and may now have to wear a mask.
What’s the point of going shopping then? Might as well order online.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Like everything else in this pandemic, it’s a balancing of risks, costs and benefits. Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
For millions of people it will destroy the 'things are getting safer' message with the consequent economic damage.
Making people wear masks in shops will reduce their likelihood of going to shops and thus more economic damage.
And once people have to wear masks in shops at what point will they be told they no longer need to ?
Its the sort of thing people who are trying to be too clever by half but are only half as clever as they think they are would come up with.
In Maryland, mask wearing in shops is mandatory and ubiquitous. The rate of spread here has fallen considerably (unlike other parts of the States where mask-wearing is not mandatory and re-opening proceeded early in the curve and more quickly than here), but there is no signs of either shop-owners, shop personnel, nor shoppers wanting to ease up on the requirement. I suspect people will be happy to continue wearing masks until either their is a vaccine or a cure, or we have gone months with no new cases.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
Hope your right. Floating voters are waiting and seeing. But the left don't seem to see that thinking that the hard left is only a pressure group in Labour is like saying (if it were the case, which it is not) that NF/BNP is only a small group within the Tories. Anti democratic, illiberal totalitarians are not an acceptable part of a mainstream party. Labour was led by one of their strong and uncritical sympathisers only a few weeks ago.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
I guess you just have a preference for blue flavoured fruit cake.
Ah if you aren't with us you must be with the enemy trope. Nope not a blue either and I spend time poking hyufd here quite a bit
Fair enough. Cakes minus redcurrants, blueberries, raisins or sultanas for all.
My wife, like many women (and some men!), shops for pleasure to some extent. It’s not something that appeals to me as a leisure activity, in fact I can barely think of anything worse. Yet I recognise that lots of people like it. Yet you cannot try on clothes in shops, and may now have to wear a mask.
What’s the point of going shopping then? Might as well order online.
And if you don't go to the physical shops then you are less likely to go to a cafe, restaurant or pub on the same trip.
Also discouraging people from going to physical shops reduces the physical exercise they get with negative consequences for public health.
Exactly right. We are in danger of encouraging people never to leave their homes. The consequences of that in terms of health and fitness are terrifying.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Like everything else in this pandemic, it’s a balancing of risks, costs and benefits. Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
For millions of people it will destroy the 'things are getting safer' message with the consequent economic damage.
Making people wear masks in shops will reduce their likelihood of going to shops and thus more economic damage.
And once people have to wear masks in shops at what point will they be told they no longer need to ?
Its the sort of thing people who are trying to be too clever by half but are only half as clever as they think they are would come up with.
In Maryland, mask wearing in shops is mandatory and ubiquitous. The rate of spread here has fallen considerably (unlike other parts of the States where mask-wearing is not mandatory and re-opening proceeded early in the curve and more quickly than here), but there is no signs of either shop-owners, shop personnel, nor shoppers wanting to ease up on the requirement. I suspect people will be happy to continue wearing masks until either their is a vaccine or a cure, or we have gone months with no new cases.
By saying people in shops have to wear masks you discourage people from going out anywhere with the consequent economic, social and health damage.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
If the shops enforce it they will lose a lot of customers, for a couple of days. Then the numpties will realise, that if they want to eat that they need to wear masks to a supermarket.
Wait. It’s not just eating though is it? What about clothes shops? As I say above, I never go clothes shopping but you might find that many people do (mostly of a different sex to you) and that that industry is or was worth several billions to the economy.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
Interesting, and @HYUFD has been saying this all along.
I think people forget that, while the Tories are 10 years in power, Boris won their first big majority during that time.
People were obviously enthused, and while Covid looks like a disaster from one angle, millions of people have also been able to have a few months off work fully paid. While we've missed all the holidays, shopping, restaurants, It's such a bizarre situation that initially had nothing to do with the Tories, that a lot of people really don't know what to think about it all.
Starmer has only been in power a few months, and I would expect polling to be similar to previous landslides, where the incoming govt gets a LONG period before the opposition went ahead.
He's probably ahead of where he expected to be in the Boris v Keir polling, but I wouldn't expect a Labour lead for a while, maybe the middle of next year.
I have to say Starmer looks very good for his age, Johnson I am afraid to say doesn't look well at all. I don't like to see anyone unwell even somebody I despise so I say that in kind. Hope he is able to loose some weight and develop a healthier lifestyle.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Yes, it makes very little sense. If it's too unsafe to shop without wearing a mask, then pubs etc shouldn't really be open, as mask wearing in them is a bit of a NR
Reopening pubs is a calculated risk - and far fewer vulnerable people are likely to be in pubs than going shopping. Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
Oh well in that case sorry I queried it!
The other point, if course, is that making masks in shop compulsory will ensure most people will get hold if them. That makes us far better prepared for a resurgence, should it happen.
An excellent point. We might actually get some sort of standardised quality control of face masks in the UK, too.
It was not so very long ago, that advocating UK made products was Racist Little Engladerism
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
To be fair, the supply chain and the number of different components needed for space and for face masks are several orders of magnitude apart.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
There is no safe/unsafe dividing line. It is a percentage game. A 1 in 100,000 chance against a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance is negligible to the individual, but a big deal when scaled up to 60 million people.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
Hope your right. Floating voters are waiting and seeing. But the left don't seem to see that thinking that the hard left is only a pressure group in Labour is like saying (if it were the case, which it is not) that NF/BNP is only a small group within the Tories. Anti democratic, illiberal totalitarians are not an acceptable part of a mainstream party. Labour was led by one of their strong and uncritical sympathisers only a few weeks ago.
I think another big purge is coming when the EHRC report is released. A lot of voters will be listening and watching the response to that report.
I have to say Starmer looks very good for his age, Johnson I am afraid to say doesn't look well at all. I don't like to see anyone unwell even somebody I despise so I say that in kind. Hope he is able to loose some weight and develop a healthier lifestyle.
I've heard he's been a bit under the weather recently
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Like everything else in this pandemic, it’s a balancing of risks, costs and benefits. Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
For millions of people it will destroy the 'things are getting safer' message with the consequent economic damage.
Making people wear masks in shops will reduce their likelihood of going to shops and thus more economic damage.
And once people have to wear masks in shops at what point will they be told they no longer need to ?
Its the sort of thing people who are trying to be too clever by half but are only half as clever as they think they are would come up with.
In Maryland, mask wearing in shops is mandatory and ubiquitous. The rate of spread here has fallen considerably (unlike other parts of the States where mask-wearing is not mandatory and re-opening proceeded early in the curve and more quickly than here), but there is no signs of either shop-owners, shop personnel, nor shoppers wanting to ease up on the requirement. I suspect people will be happy to continue wearing masks until either their is a vaccine or a cure, or we have gone months with no new cases.
Maryland is running at 5-600 positive tests a day, on a population of around 6million. The UK is running at about that level with a population of 10 times that much. In large parts of the UK the virus basically doesn't exist to the extent that anyone taking basic precautions has more than a miniscule chance of catching it.
Now there's two ways of seeing the mask thing. One is that large parts of the population are still too terrified to go anywhere, and need the reassurance of everyone else wearing masks to do so. But for that to be successful the message has to be clearly and loudly communicated that it is a precaution, and not because the Govt thinks there is a high risk.
Because the flip side is that the Govt are sending a potential message that things aren't safe and this fundamentally undermines any "confidence building" measures that masks might send.
Somehow the Government needs to get out the message that the situation is basically under control, there is very low risk BUT they are prepared to tighten restrictions if necessary at a local level. The problem is that one of those "tightenings" could be mandating masks. Go with that too early and you are left shutting things down again, at huge economic cost.
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction 2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
Like everything else in this pandemic, it’s a balancing of risks, costs and benefits. Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
For millions of people it will destroy the 'things are getting safer' message with the consequent economic damage.
Making people wear masks in shops will reduce their likelihood of going to shops and thus more economic damage.
And once people have to wear masks in shops at what point will they be told they no longer need to ?
Its the sort of thing people who are trying to be too clever by half but are only half as clever as they think they are would come up with.
In Maryland, mask wearing in shops is mandatory and ubiquitous. The rate of spread here has fallen considerably (unlike other parts of the States where mask-wearing is not mandatory and re-opening proceeded early in the curve and more quickly than here), but there is no signs of either shop-owners, shop personnel, nor shoppers wanting to ease up on the requirement. I suspect people will be happy to continue wearing masks until either their is a vaccine or a cure, or we have gone months with no new cases.
Maryland is running at 5-600 positive tests a day, on a population of around 6million. The UK is running at about that level with a population of 10 times that much. In large parts of the UK the virus basically doesn't exist to the extent that anyone taking basic precautions has more than a miniscule chance of catching it.
Now there's two ways of seeing the mask thing. One is that large parts of the population are still too terrified to go anywhere, and need the reassurance of everyone else wearing masks to do so. But for that to be successful the message has to be clearly and loudly communicated that it is a precaution, and not because the Govt thinks there is a high risk.
Because the flip side is that the Govt are sending a potential message that things aren't safe and this fundamentally undermines any "confidence building" measures that masks might send.
Somehow the Government needs to get out the message that the situation is basically under control, there is very low risk BUT they are prepared to tighten restrictions if necessary at a local level. The problem is that one of those "tightenings" could be mandating masks. Go with that too early and you are left shutting things down again, at huge economic cost.
Making masks compulsory in local lockdown areas might be the optimal balance, simultaneous encouraging mask usage outside the lockdown area, without it being mandatory.
Am recently back from my first trip out of town in months, so thought I'd chip in with a few observations.
Went up to Cambridge by train. The trains are still very quiet: myself and husband almost had the carriage to ourselves on the way up, and entirely to ourselves on the way back. Looks like people are still not using public transport unless they have no alternative, although for those of us obliged to it does make the experience a lot more pleasant.
Cambridge was by no means dead but, relative to a typical Saturday pre-catastrophe, it was really rather quiet; people going into the city centre perhaps at mid-morning levels for a Wednesday rather than a Saturday. A short wait to get into John Lewis; queues outside other shops few and far between. I would say that about 75% of premises are now trading again; of the remainder, half (including the recently rebuilt University Arms hotel, along with many of the restaurants) aren't yet ready, and the other half have already gone to the wall. If custom continues at the level I observed for any significant length of time then I reckon I'll be proved right and that the numbers of retailers and hospitality businesses will continue to shrink and shrink, until the survivors match the remaining numbers of customers.
In terms of the tremendous mask-wearing argument, evidence suggests that the public is going to take a lot of convincing. A substantial minority of railway passengers, both on the platforms and on the trains themselves, were either making totally half-arsed attempts (wearing mask over mouth but not nose, or wearing it as a necklace) or hadn't bothered at all. At no point did I witness any attempt being made by the staff to challenge anybody over this, which I ascribe to two things: firstly a desire to avoid violent confrontation (I doubt that telling the party of eight maskless youths that we passed on the way out to vacate the premises would've ended well,) and secondly the fact that just as many of the staff as of the passengers were also making half-arsed attempts or not bothering.
After leaving the station, we found ourselves part of the small minority (probably 5%, certainly no more than 10%) who were wearing masks and again some of the few who did so too were wearing them incorrectly or using them as necklaces. I saw it reported just the other day that a quarter of the UK population claims to wear masks to go out, but clearly the survey that came up with that figure was either asking a very skewed sample or most of the respondents were lying: the overwhelming majority of the population really cannot be bothered with the things. Once you take into account the proportion of users who are, in all probability, not washing their reusable masks when they get home, or using disposable ones repeatedly because they're so expensive to buy, then masks are not only being used by far too small a proportion of the population to be of any conceivable use, but may well be doing more harm than good.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
I will wait and see there are still plenty of corbynite mp's and supporters. While they are their labour won't be getting a vote from me
It will become clear, I'm sure.
Anyway - your proposed new constitution - I can see what you're aiming for. Rigour and accountability. But I think it's too atomized and restrictive. For example - if I wanted to promote a policy of bringing the banking sector under public ownership I don't see how I could do that. Or maybe that's a strength iyo.
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
Here we are at about 25%, but that is boosted by the Korean ex-pat community (some of whom where masks normally)
Mask compliance on the Red Funnel was 100%, and Waitrose in East Cowes does well with people coming off the ferry, so perhaps atypical.
Just went in Tescos (Herts). I'd say I saw about 20 people out of a good couple of hundred wearing masks. I don't think many people will comply if it is made compulsory and if the shops enforce it they are going to lose a lot of customers.
If the shops enforce it people won't hold out for long. How are you going to eat? If you go online the shops still get your money
I have to say Starmer looks very good for his age, Johnson I am afraid to say doesn't look well at all. I don't like to see anyone unwell even somebody I despise so I say that in kind. Hope he is able to loose some weight and develop a healthier lifestyle.
I've heard he's been a bit under the weather recently
But bouncebackability is a key quality. Iain Dowie told us that years ago and he was right.
Interesting, and @HYUFD has been saying this all along.
I think people forget that, while the Tories are 10 years in power, Boris won their first big majority during that time.
People were obviously enthused, and while Covid looks like a disaster from one angle, millions of people have also been able to have a few months off work fully paid. While we've missed all the holidays, shopping, restaurants, It's such a bizarre situation that initially had nothing to do with the Tories, that a lot of people really don't know what to think about it all.
Starmer has only been in power a few months, and I would expect polling to be similar to previous landslides, where the incoming govt gets a LONG period before the opposition went ahead.
He's probably ahead of where he expected to be in the Boris v Keir polling, but I wouldn't expect a Labour lead for a while, maybe the middle of next year.
I think that's spot on; it's a long game, not a short one. As you say, although many people recognise government errors with the pandemic, and are fearful of it, there are also swathes of people who have rather enjoyed the last 4 months. Respite from work, tranquility, not spending oodles of money, resting, reading and watching the time go by. We hear a lot about the detrimental effect on mental health of lockdown. I accept this fully, but also think that it's had a beneficial impact on other people's mental well-being, especially those not working who normally have either stressful or boring jobs.
Because of all this, it's almost impossible to make judgements about Starmer/Labour at the moment - normal politics really have been suspended. These have been extraordinary times, and Starmer has had to be careful not to be seen just moaning about everything. At the same time, the response to Covid, led by the government, has dominated everything, with little room for opposition manoeuvre.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
I will wait and see there are still plenty of corbynite mp's and supporters. While they are their labour won't be getting a vote from me
It will become clear, I'm sure.
Anyway - your proposed new constitution - I can see what you're aiming for. Rigour and accountability. But I think it's too atomized and restrictive. For example - if I wanted to promote a policy of bringing the banking sector under public ownership I don't see how I could do that. Or maybe that's a strength iyo.
Of course you could propose it. You would have to outline the costs and the benefits and outline what measured success. Then all you have to do is convince people to vote you into that role. The last probably being tricky. That which I posted however is just a part of the changes I would make. However rest easy it will never happen because it would make traditional parties meaningless
I have to say Starmer looks very good for his age, Johnson I am afraid to say doesn't look well at all. I don't like to see anyone unwell even somebody I despise so I say that in kind. Hope he is able to loose some weight and develop a healthier lifestyle.
Interesting header. I've come to the conclusion though that Boris is political invincible. As a comparison, although other things masked it in the end, the BSE crisis would have destroyed the John Major government on its own. Covid is infinitely more serious, yet the political damage inflicted on Boris is negligible. If that can't hurt him what possibly can?
Funny sort of negligible; his ratings have plummeted and most of what the government now does on the virus attracts mirth rather than respect (Rishi excepted, of course). And people are actively talking of when he might go.
The choice is stark. If you rate decency and competence you vote for Starmer. If you vote for the corrupt and incompetent charlatan, it's because you don't actually care. Not enough people care, so Johnson sits pretty.
While Starmer may be a decent man you aren't voting for him you are voting for labour with all the corbynite fruit cakes in. I have yet to see any sign of Starmer being competent either, merely more competent than Corbyn and lets face it not even an ant could limbo under that bar
The party has changed. The hard left is once again a pressure group. All happened quite quickly.
Hope your right. Floating voters are waiting and seeing. But the left don't seem to see that thinking that the hard left is only a pressure group in Labour is like saying (if it were the case, which it is not) that NF/BNP is only a small group within the Tories. Anti democratic, illiberal totalitarians are not an acceptable part of a mainstream party. Labour was led by one of their strong and uncritical sympathisers only a few weeks ago.
That is unfair imo. There's no equivalence between Richard Burgon and Tommy Robinson.
I have to say Starmer looks very good for his age, Johnson I am afraid to say doesn't look well at all. I don't like to see anyone unwell even somebody I despise so I say that in kind. Hope he is able to loose some weight and develop a healthier lifestyle.
I've heard he's been a bit under the weather recently
Greetings from the sunny Isle of Wight. Things a bit patchy here in terms of opening. Had lunch at one of our regular haunts, outside with a view. Quite busy. Our favourite restaurant is yet to re open, but doing takeaway Sunday roasts. Have ordered two to encourage them.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
Impressive. My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
As is mine, and I live on the island.
We have however turned on our best weather for Mr Fox.
Interesting header. I've come to the conclusion though that Boris is political invincible. As a comparison, although other things masked it in the end, the BSE crisis would have destroyed the John Major government on its own. Covid is infinitely more serious, yet the political damage inflicted on Boris is negligible. If that can't hurt him what possibly can?
Funny sort of negligible; his ratings have plummeted and most of what the government now does on the virus attracts mirth rather than respect (Rishi excepted, of course). And people are actively talking of when he might go.
Comments
1) Telling people its safe to go out and then putting on an increased restriction
2) Telling people to go to pubs and restaurants without masks but shops with masks
I'll get my coat.
Of course we ought to have had a default in favour of masks much earlier. It’s not a particularly costly intervention (far less so than most others), and is probably very effective.
For now, far more people shop regularly than go to pubs - and while requiring masks in pubs would make it very difficult for them to operate, that’s simply bit true of shops.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
Headline - 38
7 days - 31
Yesterday - 0
I am wondering if there is a mistake in the spreadsheet - will ask for confirmation.
For those that don't know - the bulk of the number for a day tends to be reported the day before yesterday. In this case the 9th. With 18.
But nothing for yesterday.
Reducing risk in one area and increasing it another isn’t necessarily stupid; the government is trying to reopen the economy while doing what it can to mitigate risk of resurgence. It might or might not work, but I approve of such an effort.
The masks point probably won't swing that many votes in itself, and the corona con brigade have convinced themselves that the decline in cases would have happened anyway. But it's emblematic of a wider challenge.
As you note, to govern is to choose. But the central tenet of Borisism is that you don't have to choose. You can have your cake and eat it, because everything is going to be so much more efficient and productive. Billion dollar bills billowing down the street, just needing a genius to harvest them.
But eventually, the government is going to have to upset part of its coalition. Who will it dump? Guido or Unherd? Winchester or Wigan?
Seems an unlikely proposition.
Lots of older people and dogs about, but shops and attractions still mostly closed. Social distancing being adhered to, even on the beach, maskwearing in supermarket and other stores looks about 50%.
I went to see her - she was by no means unpleasant or obviously deranged - and said gently that even if she was entirely in the right, the chance of getting it fixed now was zero. It was clearly preying on her mind - wouldn't it be better to move on? She said soberly, "Yes, I think it would. But I can't. It's my life now."
It stuck in my mind because it was such a sad waste of what should have been a peaceful retirement.
My local anecdotal experience is that it’s currently around 10%.
https://twitter.com/BogochIsaac/status/1281910005311180801
I am not convinced that Starmer will lead the party next GE. He may step-down in 3 years in favour of a fresher face, once his work is done. I would like it to be Rayner
Funny how things change.
I still remember that chap at the Space seminar - he was practically spitting at the nasty, stupid, ignorant idea of vertical integration and on-shoring.
A 1 in 100,000 chance against a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance is negligible to the individual, but a big deal when scaled up to 60 million people.
Something of a truth to that old saw that politics is a circle - left and right meet at the back, in darkness......
It was Mrs T who went free trade (largely)...
Given that the Chinese are busy tearing up the agreement on HK - what would you do?
Paragraph 2, Can't see that. Gone if he loses the GE. PM if he wins.
He's a spring chicken! Younger than me at any rate- by a few months!
As you said, funny how things change. Hardly anyone worries about the balance of payments (someone mentioned it on PB the other day). Food miles thinking seems to be a (still minor) replacement for the Buy British of yore. And food supply in the UK is of course a key strategic issue, none more so than now with Brexit threatening to strangle the ports. Very strange how it's been neglected by the Brexiters given their propaganda and how crucial food supply both by sea and from the nation's farms was to survival in WW2 - just as much as the Spitfires were.
And to return to the specific point of masks, I'm still a bit surprised the state didn't set up Royal PPE Factories at the start of the crisis. That might yet be the simpler option than relying on thr world's spivs and ferry firms sans ferries.
Anyway have a nice afternoon all - I'm off to mess around in my new workshed.
It would be enough for most people to live to be an icon for just one great nation. BUT to be an sporting hero and national treasure for TWO great nations is something VERY special.
AND when the two nations are ENGLAND and IRELAND - well, that says it all.
Yet again, Johnson has made an horlicks of a virus issue and announcement.
Harsh.
Making people wear masks in shops will reduce their likelihood of going to shops and thus more economic damage.
And once people have to wear masks in shops at what point will they be told they no longer need to ?
Its the sort of thing people who are trying to be too clever by half but are only half as clever as they think they are would come up with.
What’s the point of going shopping then? Might as well order online.
You cannot win elections by telling the people you need votes from that they don't care. They do.
The Tories won in 2019 for many reasons, including the unelectability of the Labour leadership. A Tory government under a deeply flawed leader was the more decent and competent choice. Sadly.
Also discouraging people from going to physical shops reduces the physical exercise they get with negative consequences for public health.
People were obviously enthused, and while Covid looks like a disaster from one angle, millions of people have also been able to have a few months off work fully paid. While we've missed all the holidays, shopping, restaurants, It's such a bizarre situation that initially had nothing to do with the Tories, that a lot of people really don't know what to think about it all.
Starmer has only been in power a few months, and I would expect polling to be similar to previous landslides, where the incoming govt gets a LONG period before the opposition went ahead.
He's probably ahead of where he expected to be in the Boris v Keir polling, but I wouldn't expect a Labour lead for a while, maybe the middle of next year.
Now there's two ways of seeing the mask thing. One is that large parts of the population are still too terrified to go anywhere, and need the reassurance of everyone else wearing masks to do so. But for that to be successful the message has to be clearly and loudly communicated that it is a precaution, and not because the Govt thinks there is a high risk.
Because the flip side is that the Govt are sending a potential message that things aren't safe and this fundamentally undermines any "confidence building" measures that masks might send.
Somehow the Government needs to get out the message that the situation is basically under control, there is very low risk BUT they are prepared to tighten restrictions if necessary at a local level. The problem is that one of those "tightenings" could be mandating masks. Go with that too early and you are left shutting things down again, at huge economic cost.
Went up to Cambridge by train. The trains are still very quiet: myself and husband almost had the carriage to ourselves on the way up, and entirely to ourselves on the way back. Looks like people are still not using public transport unless they have no alternative, although for those of us obliged to it does make the experience a lot more pleasant.
Cambridge was by no means dead but, relative to a typical Saturday pre-catastrophe, it was really rather quiet; people going into the city centre perhaps at mid-morning levels for a Wednesday rather than a Saturday. A short wait to get into John Lewis; queues outside other shops few and far between. I would say that about 75% of premises are now trading again; of the remainder, half (including the recently rebuilt University Arms hotel, along with many of the restaurants) aren't yet ready, and the other half have already gone to the wall. If custom continues at the level I observed for any significant length of time then I reckon I'll be proved right and that the numbers of retailers and hospitality businesses will continue to shrink and shrink, until the survivors match the remaining numbers of customers.
In terms of the tremendous mask-wearing argument, evidence suggests that the public is going to take a lot of convincing. A substantial minority of railway passengers, both on the platforms and on the trains themselves, were either making totally half-arsed attempts (wearing mask over mouth but not nose, or wearing it as a necklace) or hadn't bothered at all. At no point did I witness any attempt being made by the staff to challenge anybody over this, which I ascribe to two things: firstly a desire to avoid violent confrontation (I doubt that telling the party of eight maskless youths that we passed on the way out to vacate the premises would've ended well,) and secondly the fact that just as many of the staff as of the passengers were also making half-arsed attempts or not bothering.
After leaving the station, we found ourselves part of the small minority (probably 5%, certainly no more than 10%) who were wearing masks and again some of the few who did so too were wearing them incorrectly or using them as necklaces. I saw it reported just the other day that a quarter of the UK population claims to wear masks to go out, but clearly the survey that came up with that figure was either asking a very skewed sample or most of the respondents were lying: the overwhelming majority of the population really cannot be bothered with the things. Once you take into account the proportion of users who are, in all probability, not washing their reusable masks when they get home, or using disposable ones repeatedly because they're so expensive to buy, then masks are not only being used by far too small a proportion of the population to be of any conceivable use, but may well be doing more harm than good.
Anyway - your proposed new constitution - I can see what you're aiming for. Rigour and accountability. But I think it's too atomized and restrictive. For example - if I wanted to promote a policy of bringing the banking sector under public ownership I don't see how I could do that. Or maybe that's a strength iyo.
Because of all this, it's almost impossible to make judgements about Starmer/Labour at the moment - normal politics really have been suspended. These have been extraordinary times, and Starmer has had to be careful not to be seen just moaning about everything. At the same time, the response to Covid, led by the government, has dominated everything, with little room for opposition manoeuvre.
We have however turned on our best weather for Mr Fox.