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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Are numpties the new dickheads?
I dare say fashion shopping is massively less attractive as a leisure pursuit when women a) can’t try clothes on and b) have to wear a mask.
How many vulnerable people normally visit boutiques of a Saturday?
I think that's a reasonable statement, but given your strong on record support for Keir people might thing it a bit obsequious
Hell, we had the preposterous comment on here the other week that someone saying Boris is looking worse now than he used to is because they are a supporter of his losing faith, since he must always have looked the same apparently.
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
The shouting match over the usefulness or otherwise of masks will likely be with us for a long time, but one thing that mask wearing probably won't make any difference to one way or another is the behaviour of the terrified. We've lost them. Anybody who still won't leave the house unless they're compelled to go to the GP or the supermarket under current circumstances - it's got about as safe as it's going to get in most of the country until a silver bullet is discovered - isn't going to alter their behaviour based on the percentage of mask wearers amongst the remainder of the population. They're going to sit at home regardless.
While 20% of Covid tests are coming back positive in Florida and Texas, New York’s figure is just 1%. If only a tiny proportion of residents have had, or have immunity to, the virus - as most studies suggest - how is that possible?
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Quite - we do not always agree but this is a no-brainer. Here in Andalucia they have just been made compulsory pretty well everywhere - to avoid the danger of a second wave. Plain common sense - minimal cost for relative security.
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.
His ratings haven't plummeted. He's still polling as well or better than he was in the final pre-election polls which is the reasonable baseline.
While 20% of Covid tests are coming back positive in Florida and Texas, New York’s figure is just 1%. If only a tiny proportion of residents have had, or have immunity to, the virus - as most studies suggest - how is that possible?
Wasn't there some study the other day suggesting that 69% of New yorkers had antibodies?
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Are numpties the new dickheads?
I dare say fashion shopping is massively less attractive as a leisure pursuit when women a) can’t try clothes on and b) have to wear a mask.
How many vulnerable people normally visit boutiques of a Saturday?
For the sake of this argument, apparently old men don't go down the pub, but are frequently seen in shopping malls
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Quite - we do not always agree but this is a no-brainer. Here in Andalucia they have just been made compulsory pretty well everywhere - to avoid the danger of a second wave. Plain common sense - minimal cost for relative security.
I know somebody currently in the South of France who reports that every shop has a sign up saying that wearing masks is mandatory.
And virtually nobody is wearing masks.
Somebody referenced a Matthew Parris article earlier who says that he was in Spain and everyone was carrying masks, but bizarrely only putting them on when they left the shops! Don't know how "anecdotal" that was. Many European countries are loosening mask restrictions.
It is totally understandable to mandate masks when numbers are high and growing. But wearing them as a precaution when numbers are low and falling is more problematic. Not least because if numbers DO begin to rise again, then people will question whether mask wearing has any value, despite the evidence of their effectiveness and limiting the spread of the virus.
Stone: Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican of Utah, described the decision as “unprecedented, historic corruption”.
I don't know why the president even has such power to abuse. I know they designed the system for the president to have a lot of power, but he's not a king.
I'd rather socialise with Boris than Keir. No-one wants to hang out with the headmaster. He won't be PM. At any rate, his job is to sort out the Labour Party so it can become a party of government again.
Stone: Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican of Utah, described the decision as “unprecedented, historic corruption”.
I don't know why the president even has such power to abuse. I know they designed the system for the president to have a lot of power, but he's not a king.
It is peculiar that the US President is normally hemmed in by so many checks and balances that he (or she, when that day arrives) cannot alone change very much, yet there are a few dramatically significant powers that if used (or abused) no-one in the US can do anything about.
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.
His ratings haven't plummeted. He's still polling as well or better than he was in the final pre-election polls which is the reasonable baseline.
I suggest you Google “Boris Johnson ratings plummet” and see how many hits you get...
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Are numpties the new dickheads?
I dare say fashion shopping is massively less attractive as a leisure pursuit when women a) can’t try clothes on and b) have to wear a mask.
How many vulnerable people normally visit boutiques of a Saturday?
There's far more to shopping than boutiques.
One benefit of making masks compulsory on public transport is that it makes it so much easier to spot the selfish idiots that don't give a shit. It would be a distinct improvement if it were possible to apply that to shopping so you can give them a wide berth.
As Nick Palmer was saying in respect of barbers earlier on people will be able to choose the places that take precautions seriously and those that don't. We have tried 2 previously popular restaurants for lunch last week. In one none of the staff were wearing face coverings - we were the only customers. In the second all the staff had a mask on and there were about 30 people in there. Same with coffee shops, by far the busiest is the one where all the staff have visors.
Stone: Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican of Utah, described the decision as “unprecedented, historic corruption”.
I don't know why the president even has such power to abuse. I know they designed the system for the president to have a lot of power, but he's not a king.
It is peculiar that the US President is normally hemmed in by so many checks and balances that he (or she, when that day arrives) cannot alone change very much, yet there are a few dramatically significant powers that if used (or abused) no-one in the US can do anything about.
There have been lots of examples in history of Presidents arguably abusing their power to pardon. But what is almost unprecedented is a President doing so when still in a first term and seeking future election. Or even in a second term, until their successor has been determined and the actions won't undermine their party's chances in the election. I suppose one could argue that by doing that, at least Trump is giving the voters a chance to express judgement on his actions...
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.
His ratings haven't plummeted. He's still polling as well or better than he was in the final pre-election polls which is the reasonable baseline.
I suggest you Google “Boris Johnson ratings plummet” and see how many hits you get...
Not sure of the relevance of that to Philip's argument.
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.
His ratings haven't plummeted. He's still polling as well or better than he was in the final pre-election polls which is the reasonable baseline.
I suggest you Google “Boris Johnson ratings plummet” and see how many hits you get...
Not sure of the relevance of that to Philip's argument.
Rather strange. Maybe people should take these things with a pinch of salt
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Quite - we do not always agree but this is a no-brainer. Here in Andalucia they have just been made compulsory pretty well everywhere - to avoid the danger of a second wave. Plain common sense - minimal cost for relative security.
I know somebody currently in the South of France who reports that every shop has a sign up saying that wearing masks is mandatory.
And virtually nobody is wearing masks.
Somebody referenced a Matthew Parris article earlier who says that he was in Spain and everyone was carrying masks, but bizarrely only putting them on when they left the shops! Don't know how "anecdotal" that was. Many European countries are loosening mask restrictions.
It is totally understandable to mandate masks when numbers are high and growing. But wearing them as a precaution when numbers are low and falling is more problematic. Not least because if numbers DO begin to rise again, then people will question whether mask wearing has any value, despite the evidence of their effectiveness and limiting the spread of the virus.
I live in SE Spain near a tourist town - mask wearing in shops has been compulsory from the start - I go to different supermarkets most days and I never seen anyone without a mask. We have had very few cases from day 1 and I guess people must be pretty bright here because they understand that it is a verys simple measure to reduce the risk of infection spreads. There is concern here abour a second wave and the need to avoid it. I find your arguments and those of others on here utterly baffling and bizarre. Certainly not typical of friends and family both here in Spain and back in the UK. I'm astonished that it is a bone of contention after what people have been through.
I'd rather socialise with Boris than Keir. No-one wants to hang out with the headmaster. He won't be PM. At any rate, his job is to sort out the Labour Party so it can become a party of government again.
I reckon Keir would at least get his round in though.
I would wager Johnson would be first out of the taxi and last to the bar, and when it came to his round, he would conveniently have left his wallet at home. He looks the type!
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.
His ratings haven't plummeted. He's still polling as well or better than he was in the final pre-election polls which is the reasonable baseline.
I suggest you Google “Boris Johnson ratings plummet” and see how many hits you get...
And it will show what? How many delusional people say nonsense?
Pre election polls show the baseline for how things stood as we voted last time. How far have they changed since then?
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.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
The tragedy of the BBC was that they had a perfect opportunity.
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Sigh.
Last paragraph. Bloody excellent idea. Can't think why that has not been done.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
I have been saying this for weeks, but wiser heads than me on here are saying DOJ, SCOTUS and AG will all rise above partisanship. Maybe not AG Batt, but we shall see!
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.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
The tragedy of the BBC was that they had a perfect opportunity.
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Sigh.
Last paragraph. Bloody excellent idea. Can't think why that has not been done.
It hasn't been done because its frankly bollocks. There is no huge audience out their clamouring for the bbc. Even people in this country are more and more dropping the license fee and going online to the likes of Netflix
Reading the comments on here, you would think Keir Starmer has slowly but surely become more popular as the public get to know him etc, but looking at his net approval ratings, he hasn't really had any impact at all. - he is where he was when he took over.
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Quite - we do not always agree but this is a no-brainer. Here in Andalucia they have just been made compulsory pretty well everywhere - to avoid the danger of a second wave. Plain common sense - minimal cost for relative security.
I know somebody currently in the South of France who reports that every shop has a sign up saying that wearing masks is mandatory.
And virtually nobody is wearing masks.
Somebody referenced a Matthew Parris article earlier who says that he was in Spain and everyone was carrying masks, but bizarrely only putting them on when they left the shops! Don't know how "anecdotal" that was. Many European countries are loosening mask restrictions.
It is totally understandable to mandate masks when numbers are high and growing. But wearing them as a precaution when numbers are low and falling is more problematic. Not least because if numbers DO begin to rise again, then people will question whether mask wearing has any value, despite the evidence of their effectiveness and limiting the spread of the virus.
I live in SE Spain near a tourist town - mask wearing in shops has been compulsory from the start - I go to different supermarkets most days and I never seen anyone without a mask. We have had very few cases from day 1 and I guess people must be pretty bright here because they understand that it is a verys simple measure to reduce the risk of infection spreads. There is concern here abour a second wave and the need to avoid it. I find your arguments and those of others on here utterly baffling and bizarre. Certainly not typical of friends and family both here in Spain and back in the UK. I'm astonished that it is a bone of contention after what people have been through.
Out of all the things we have been asked to do, it is curious that masks is the one with most resistance. I dont really get it, spouses who lived in different homes were banned from having sex (unless outdoors or for the exchange of money!) with less protests!
Students of Scottish politics on here (a smaller number than the experts) may know of Effie Deans and her valiant if deranged work in defence of the Union. The 'big' news is G.Galloway is making a return to Scotpol, and Effie is on board.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
He is worried about the shops/restaurants etc who are struggling due to the absence of office workers, etc.
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
It is why I have once again exited the market like a flighty SeanT. The GOP have proven, by enabling Trump, that they are willing to do anything to win the election.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
Reading the comments on here, you would think Keir Starmer has slowly but surely become more popular as the public get to know him etc, but looking at his net approval ratings, he hasn't really had any impact at all. - he is where he was when he took over.
From the minute he won there has been an enormous amount of wishful thinking promulgated on here - you just need to look at all the headers for the past few weeks.
Students of Scottish politics on here (a smaller number than the experts) may know of Effie Deans and her valiant if deranged work in defence of the Union. The 'big' news is G.Galloway is making a return to Scotpol, and Effie is on board.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
I think that there probably is a reasonable economic benefit to people working from the office. Lunchtime and after work trade and all that. But probably it’s more about trying to convey a message of returning to normality. And also if you return to a daily practice of mingling with people outside of your immediate household network, you are less likely to be fearful of extending that to frequenting shops and places if business etc.
Perhaps they should instead put out more stats in adverts about the current estimated prevalence of the virus in the population, and the realistic comparative risks compared to other activities which people didn’t used to think twice about engaging. Whilst continuing to emphasise that if the situation does working the government remains ready to tighten restrictions as required.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
And how many people happily working at home are going to willingly return to a 1 hour commute
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
Hardly unthinkable, if he is within any plausible chance of winning he will certainly contest it pushing the boundaries of law as fair as it is willing to go. Whether he will succeed or not is harder to know and very scenario dependent but he is, and has always obviously been, quite likely to contest it.
While 20% of Covid tests are coming back positive in Florida and Texas, New York’s figure is just 1%. If only a tiny proportion of residents have had, or have immunity to, the virus - as most studies suggest - how is that possible?
(1) How many tests relative to the size of population are there? (2) How much - if at all - has New York re-opened? (3) How long did the lockdown go on for, and to what extent did it reduce incidence of the virus?
I suspect the answers are:
(1) NY is doing more (2) Not as much as Florida (3) NY had a much longer and more severe lockdown
Plus, there is some evidence that parts of NYC actually have quite high levels of immunity.
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
I have been saying this for weeks, but wiser heads than me on here are saying DOJ, SCOTUS and AG will all rise above partisanship. Maybe not AG Batt, but we shall see!
Barr is complicit with much Trump malfeasance, so I think there’s little doubt which way he’ll roll. By biggest concern is the a significant delay in counting millions of postal votes. There’ll likely be a very large partisan split in some states between postal and absentee balloting, so it’s quite possible that Trump is some way ahead the morning after the election.
The SC has shown before that they can make very bad decisions under pressure (cf Bush/Gore). I don’t think they’ll attempt to throw the election to Trump, particularly Roberts, but I can’t be 100% certain.
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Are numpties the new dickheads?
I dare say fashion shopping is massively less attractive as a leisure pursuit when women a) can’t try clothes on and b) have to wear a mask.
How many vulnerable people normally visit boutiques of a Saturday?
For the sake of this argument, apparently old men don't go down the pub, but are frequently seen in shopping malls
I'd rather socialise with Boris than Keir. No-one wants to hang out with the headmaster. He won't be PM. At any rate, his job is to sort out the Labour Party so it can become a party of government again.
I reckon Keir would at least get his round in though.
I would wager Johnson would be first out of the taxi and last to the bar, and when it came to his round, he would conveniently have left his wallet at home. He looks the type!
And he'd privately slate you after, and make a pass at your girlfriend, but he'd get away with it.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
Or alternatively you look at it as the money currently spent on the newagent, the lunchtime pub, afterwork drink gets spread more evenly around the country. The trains and carparks I give you. There are huge advantages to encouraging work from home not least the reduction in air pollution and road congestion but the levelling up aspect it would have as people dont have to congregate in the South East. Hell we probably won't need hs2 anymore either so thats 100 billion saved right there
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
I have been saying this for weeks, but wiser heads than me on here are saying DOJ, SCOTUS and AG will all rise above partisanship. Maybe not AG Batt, but we shall see!
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.
It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.
The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
Yes but as has been said over and again, it shouldn’t be all or nothing. A 2:3 model is clearly the way forward, while allowing people to dovetail shifts so they don’t all crowd on to the tubes/roads at 0801 every bloody morning.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
And how many people happily working at home are going to willingly return to a 1 hour commute
I will, a day or two a week. I miss people, and miss town. It need not be all or nothing.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
Or alternatively you look at it as the money currently spent on the newagent, the lunchtime pub, afterwork drink gets spread more evenly around the country. The trains and carparks I give you. There are huge advantages to encouraging work from home not least the reduction in air pollution and road congestion but the levelling up aspect it would have as people dont have to congregate in the South East. Hell we probably won't need hs2 anymore either so thats 100 billion saved right there
There will be some economic shift back to suburbs and villages but people will naturally go out less if they work from home, especially in the winter. These trends are going to happen whatever the govt wants, Boris slogans are only going to be effective on the margins on this one.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
And how many people happily working at home are going to willingly return to a 1 hour commute
Workers probably won’t. But I think it’s probably important that employers have the power to compel some level of office attendance if they feel that it is beneficial to their businesses. I am perfectly fine working from home at the moment (albeit all that is really happening is I am spending my commute hours working) but I don’t think the current situation can endure in the longer term. I work in local govt. it’s easy to see how lack of travelling to work will remove connection from the local area, and also it’s ok whilst you have a static workforce where everyone knows each other and their roles. I don’t know how you can manage any level of staff turnover or organisational change in current operating circumstances.
I'd rather socialise with Boris than Keir. No-one wants to hang out with the headmaster. He won't be PM. At any rate, his job is to sort out the Labour Party so it can become a party of government again.
I reckon Keir would at least get his round in though.
I would wager Johnson would be first out of the taxi and last to the bar, and when it came to his round, he would conveniently have left his wallet at home. He looks the type!
And he'd privately slate you after, and make a pass at your girlfriend, but he'd get away with it.
No wives or girlfriends. It was just Me, Keir, Boris and the lads!
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
I have been saying this for weeks, but wiser heads than me on here are saying DOJ, SCOTUS and AG will all rise above partisanship. Maybe not AG Batt, but we shall see!
Barr is complicit with much Trump malfeasance, so I think there’s little doubt which way he’ll roll. By biggest concern is the a significant delay in counting millions of postal votes. There’ll likely be a very large partisan split in some states between postal and absentee balloting, so it’s quite possible that Trump is some way ahead the morning after the election.
The SC has shown before that they can make very bad decisions under pressure (cf Bush/Gore). I don’t think they’ll attempt to throw the election to Trump, particularly Roberts, but I can’t be 100% certain.
The most convincing “outrageous” scenario I’d read was republican governors in key swing states refusing to certify the results before the deadlines (to investigate “irregularities”). But this wouldn’t actually keep Trump in power as any prospective President has to reach a 50% threshold of electors, not 50% of those certified. Could prevent Biden getting elected though and pass the decision to Congress.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
Or alternatively you look at it as the money currently spent on the newagent, the lunchtime pub, afterwork drink gets spread more evenly around the country. The trains and carparks I give you. There are huge advantages to encouraging work from home not least the reduction in air pollution and road congestion but the levelling up aspect it would have as people dont have to congregate in the South East. Hell we probably won't need hs2 anymore either so thats 100 billion saved right there
This is a very good point. In the immediate future, economic activity is going to be sucked out of London and relocated to the Home Counties. In the longer term, many knowledge economy workers will be able to disperse through the rest of the country. If you're employed in work that can be done entirely remotely then, from the work point of view, all you require of your home is a decent broadband connection. Location becomes irrelevant. Thus, if you can obtain that from a four bedroom detached house in Rothbury, rather than an equally dear shoebox flat in Godalming, then why not simply up sticks and head North?
Regarding HS2, the line from London to Birmingham is probably baked in now because of the optics around the work that's already been done, the attendant sunk costs and the fact that the Tories control the West Midlands mayoralty, but I can see the rest of the scheme being taken somewhere quiet and humanely put down. Advocates of HS2 have already stopped talking about the modest speed advantages and begun to talk up a necessary increase in capacity - but if most of the passengers have suddenly been removed from the rail network then that argument disappears in a puff of smoke too.
You're then down to asserting that the whole, vastly expensive project is essential simply to accommodate increases in rail freight. That doesn't seem particularly convincing.
Reading the comments on here, you would think Keir Starmer has slowly but surely become more popular as the public get to know him etc, but looking at his net approval ratings, he hasn't really had any impact at all. - he is where he was when he took over.
Boris has just gone back to where he was too. I think people are getting confused/excited because Boris' ratings have come down as Starmer became Labour leader, but they are missing the fact that they had risen to a very high mark just before that, and Covid has brought them back down to earth. I'd wager they would look exactly the same had Labour still been deciding who their leader was. As you can see from the previous graph, Starmer's ratings are the same as they were in April.
Students of Scottish politics on here (a smaller number than the experts) may know of Effie Deans and her valiant if deranged work in defence of the Union. The 'big' news is G.Galloway is making a return to Scotpol, and Effie is on board.
I've just come in with a bowl of olives and a glass of Aussie red and my first reaction on reading this was - help ma boab, the wine must be strong as I can't compute this, ED supporting Mr Galloway ...
Trump is preparing the ground to contest any loss to Joe Biden and remain president, aided, no doubt, by Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
I have been saying this for weeks, but wiser heads than me on here are saying DOJ, SCOTUS and AG will all rise above partisanship. Maybe not AG Batt, but we shall see!
Barr is complicit with much Trump malfeasance, so I think there’s little doubt which way he’ll roll. By biggest concern is the a significant delay in counting millions of postal votes. There’ll likely be a very large partisan split in some states between postal and absentee balloting, so it’s quite possible that Trump is some way ahead the morning after the election.
The SC has shown before that they can make very bad decisions under pressure (cf Bush/Gore). I don’t think they’ll attempt to throw the election to Trump, particularly Roberts, but I can’t be 100% certain.
The most convincing “outrageous” scenario I’d read was republican governors in key swing states refusing to certify the results before the deadlines (to investigate “irregularities”). But this wouldn’t actually keep Trump in power as any prospective President has to reach a 50% threshold of electors, not 50% of those certified. Could prevent Biden getting elected though and pass the decision to Congress.
The current Congress or the one which will be elected in November, cleansed of a lot of Trumpites in the Senate?
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.
The bigger problem right now is that people won't go out because they don't feel safe because of the numpties. The number of people who won't go out because they have to wear in mask would be tiny by proportion.
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
Quite - we do not always agree but this is a no-brainer. Here in Andalucia they have just been made compulsory pretty well everywhere - to avoid the danger of a second wave. Plain common sense - minimal cost for relative security.
I know somebody currently in the South of France who reports that every shop has a sign up saying that wearing masks is mandatory.
And virtually nobody is wearing masks.
Somebody referenced a Matthew Parris article earlier who says that he was in Spain and everyone was carrying masks, but bizarrely only putting them on when they left the shops! Don't know how "anecdotal" that was. Many European countries are loosening mask restrictions.
It is totally understandable to mandate masks when numbers are high and growing. But wearing them as a precaution when numbers are low and falling is more problematic. Not least because if numbers DO begin to rise again, then people will question whether mask wearing has any value, despite the evidence of their effectiveness and limiting the spread of the virus.
From my perspective that’s rubbish, if you don’t wear a mask and sanitize your hands you will be thrown out of the shop. You have to have one with you or risk a €1000 fine. You can’t go into an open air market without one on and in some parts now you need to wear them at all times when outside of your house. If sat at a bar or restaurant table you can obviously remove it but you will be 2m away from the next table.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
From an economic perspective if you take out the train journey, the station car park, the newsagent, the lunchtime office pub, the office itself, an after work drink you are going to lose a hell of a lot of trade, jobs and GDP even if the employers business is fine.
Or alternatively you look at it as the money currently spent on the newagent, the lunchtime pub, afterwork drink gets spread more evenly around the country. The trains and carparks I give you. There are huge advantages to encouraging work from home not least the reduction in air pollution and road congestion but the levelling up aspect it would have as people dont have to congregate in the South East. Hell we probably won't need hs2 anymore either so thats 100 billion saved right there
There will be some economic shift back to suburbs and villages but people will naturally go out less if they work from home, especially in the winter. These trends are going to happen whatever the govt wants, Boris slogans are only going to be effective on the margins on this one.
I don't think they will though, for example if I no longer have to commute I would probably take up martial arts again. The thing currently stopping me is the sort of things I would do in my area all have start times of around 7pm. If I have the commute I am just not getting home in time to go along. I am sure there are many in that situation whereby the time they get home makes things prohibited. Now cafe's are open when I knock off for lunch if its a nice day I like to go sit at an outdoor one. Gives me a break from home. When working I used to make sandwiches and eat at my desk. Now I don't pay train fare I can repurpose that money to a couple of coffees at lunch time with a good book
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.
It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.
The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?
But that's the paradox.
The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.
What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?
There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.
It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.
The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?
But that's the paradox.
The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.
And they're fluffing it.
I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)
Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.
Comments
Really what is the big deal? How bloody hard is it to temporarily wear a mask in a shop in order to try to stop the virus spreading? Seems to me some people just enjoy being bloody minded for the sake of it. The people moaning will be the first to moan when the economy and the pubs lock down again
I dare say fashion shopping is massively less attractive as a leisure pursuit when women a) can’t try clothes on and b) have to wear a mask.
How many vulnerable people normally visit boutiques of a Saturday?
Hell, we had the preposterous comment on here the other week that someone saying Boris is looking worse now than he used to is because they are a supporter of his losing faith, since he must always have looked the same apparently.
If anything good came out of the fall of the red wall it was that this bird brain lost her opportunity to become LOTO!
And virtually nobody is wearing masks.
Somebody referenced a Matthew Parris article earlier who says that he was in Spain and everyone was carrying masks, but bizarrely only putting them on when they left the shops! Don't know how "anecdotal" that was. Many European countries are loosening mask restrictions.
It is totally understandable to mandate masks when numbers are high and growing. But wearing them as a precaution when numbers are low and falling is more problematic. Not least because if numbers DO begin to rise again, then people will question whether mask wearing has any value, despite the evidence of their effectiveness and limiting the spread of the virus.
One benefit of making masks compulsory on public transport is that it makes it so much easier to spot the selfish idiots that don't give a shit. It would be a distinct improvement if it were possible to apply that to shopping so you can give them a wide berth.
As Nick Palmer was saying in respect of barbers earlier on people will be able to choose the places that take precautions seriously and those that don't. We have tried 2 previously popular restaurants for lunch last week. In one none of the staff were wearing face coverings - we were the only customers. In the second all the staff had a mask on and there were about 30 people in there. Same with coffee shops, by far the busiest is the one where all the staff have visors.
I know, it’s unthinkable. So was the Reichstag fire.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/opinion/trump-nationalism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I would wager Johnson would be first out of the taxi and last to the bar, and when it came to his round, he would conveniently have left his wallet at home. He looks the type!
Pre election polls show the baseline for how things stood as we voted last time. How far have they changed since then?
https://twitter.com/daveylittle/status/1281981790178115587?s=20
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/647784209856221184?s=19
Perhaps they should instead put out more stats in adverts about the current estimated prevalence of the virus in the population, and the realistic comparative risks compared to other activities which people didn’t used to think twice about engaging. Whilst continuing to emphasise that if the situation does working the government remains ready to tighten restrictions as required.
(2) How much - if at all - has New York re-opened?
(3) How long did the lockdown go on for, and to what extent did it reduce incidence of the virus?
I suspect the answers are:
(1) NY is doing more
(2) Not as much as Florida
(3) NY had a much longer and more severe lockdown
Plus, there is some evidence that parts of NYC actually have quite high levels of immunity.
By biggest concern is the a significant delay in counting millions of postal votes. There’ll likely be a very large partisan split in some states between postal and absentee balloting, so it’s quite possible that Trump is some way ahead the morning after the election.
The SC has shown before that they can make very bad decisions under pressure (cf Bush/Gore). I don’t think they’ll attempt to throw the election to Trump, particularly Roberts, but I can’t be 100% certain.
Edited extra bit: Perez also under investigation.
It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.
The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?
Jeez. America.
Regarding HS2, the line from London to Birmingham is probably baked in now because of the optics around the work that's already been done, the attendant sunk costs and the fact that the Tories control the West Midlands mayoralty, but I can see the rest of the scheme being taken somewhere quiet and humanely put down. Advocates of HS2 have already stopped talking about the modest speed advantages and begun to talk up a necessary increase in capacity - but if most of the passengers have suddenly been removed from the rail network then that argument disappears in a puff of smoke too.
You're then down to asserting that the whole, vastly expensive project is essential simply to accommodate increases in rail freight. That doesn't seem particularly convincing.
It's barely credible, isn't it!
The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.
And they're fluffing it.
Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.