There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I would argue that the seeds of today's relative poverty of post-industrial regions were sown when those industries either exhausted their natural resources or ceased to be globally competitive - both of which pre-dated Thatcher. You can blame her for lack of appropriate policies to address that issue, but then you'd have to attach the same blame to every government ever since too, including Labour.
There is that - there were a million fewer miners in 1979 than in 1914 and over a million fewer manufacturing workers in 1979 than a decade earlier.
But the description 'post industrial' gives the wrong impression of many areas. A look on google earth shows vast industrial estates around many northern and midland towns and I'd suggest that they are psychologically industrial even if the numbers employed are much lower. In particular as such work is often well paid by local standards.
And it was Labour's abandonment of such areas, after years of 'Thatcher shut the mines and factories' talk, while simultaneously bailing out London bankers that sowed the seeds of the elections of the 2010s.
People, even supportive ones, can only do so much if someone insists on being an idiot.
Good work by the interviewer though - there are lots who'd have been unsure and let it pass, or just said "Are you sure?" That instant, firm "No, he did not" is impressive.
Trouble is. people only vaguely interested will go away thinking "Maybe Biden wants to abolish the police, there seems to be an argument about it." Without proper libel laws it can be a profitable strategy to just make tuff up and hope that people believe half of it.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".
On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".
On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.
But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.
His daughter (8) who goes to the local primary school has been selected to take part, with other school children, by Bangor University in an investigation over the summer into how much children have lost academically during lockdown and non school attendance
She apparently undertook an on line session this morning
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".
On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.
Sickness rates will be down for the reason you say but also because we aren't mixing with people on public transport, we are getting more sleep. We are less stressed etc
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".
On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.
As others have commented, the "liquid lunch" has gone out of favour in most organisations in the past two or three decades. I still hear tales of Friday afternoons among some of the firms in the West End but I'm less convinced.
"Professional" is an overused word but is generally applicable. Our CEO wears a shirt and tie to meetings but I don't and my colleagues don't. I did feel the "pulled through a hedge backward" look with the beard wasn't ideal but I'm pleased the shirts and ties are in the wardrobe.
As I used to have a long commute, the question was always "could I do the journey?" and while a couple of times I had to turn back en route as I was so poorly it's been a good guide down the years.
Oddly enough, I did have to take a day's sick recently because of bad back pain. Getting the ergonomics (as distinct from economics) of home working isn't always easy - I tell people it's your home not your prison. No one expects you to be chained to the laptop from dawn to dusk and if I need to do some household chores or get some shopping or cook lunch, I will and work can wait.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
PCR testing is not very accurate until about 4-8 days after infection. It is most likely those 6 cases contracted the virus before getting on the flight if there were tested upon disembarkation.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
The big thing to take away from these leader ratings is that effective opposition is so far away that ministers are the benchmark for the PM not opposition leaders.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.
It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.
But why is there month delay in reporting? Get them in within the week if they are to be included in the Covid stats. Government is having to take action based on getting confidence back. It has had to take an unprecedented number of 51:49 decisions. Having people think we've still got triple figure daily deaths will hammer that confidence.
Would this be attributable to the NHS or to the Home Office and the official registration of deaths?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......
Don't call her Nipoleon! She will always be wee Jimmy Krankie!
It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.
Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.
I'm not sure about the first paragraph - a little bit of evidence rather than a sweeping generalisation would help.
Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.
"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.
In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.
As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.
I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......
Surely not insoluabe for a professional sky diver?
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......
Surely not insoluabe for a professional sky diver?
I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".
On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.
As others have commented, the "liquid lunch" has gone out of favour in most organisations in the past two or three decades
It was fun while it lasted.....Full English Breakfast on the Tees-Tyne Pullman, look at a bit of advertising, long lunch, agree a bit of advertising, back for the 17.30 Tees Tyne Pullman north...and dinner on the train....."Gin & Tonic to start?"
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......
Don't call her Nipoleon! She will always be wee Jimmy Krankie!
It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.
Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.
I'm not sure about the first paragraph - a little bit of evidence rather than a sweeping generalisation would help.
Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.
"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.
In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.
As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.
I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.
I think the first is rather easy to demonstrate - phone up your bank or your insurance company. 2 hours later ...
And I have seen scores of websites with just such an announcement.
It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.
Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.
I'm not sure about the first paragraph - a little bit of evidence rather than a sweeping generalisation would help.
Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.
"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.
In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.
As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.
I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.
I think the first is rather easy to demonstrate - phone up your bank or your insurance company. 2 hours later ...
And I have seen scores of websites with just such an announcement.
That is more a product of those firms not being prepared, a good voip call centre system should easily handle staff working from home. I would hazard there was an old fashioned pbx system reliant on internal network. Easy to fix
But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.
I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
Not being allowed to drink at lunchtime seems like puritanism to me.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
To a degree, yet a number of countries with similar high labour costs have remained bigger manufacturing economies, Germany and Japan obviously, but also Italy and France. Indeed the EU average is 15% of GDP from manufacturing compared to UK 10%.
What has particularly disappeared though is the low skilled manufacturing jobs that were the mainstay of employment in many Northern towns. Value of manufacturing is stable, but employment is low. Even where those jobs persist, such as fish processing, they do not seem particularly in demand by locals.
It was fun while it lasted.....Full English Breakfast on the Tees-Tyne Pullman, look at a bit of advertising, long lunch, agree a bit of advertising, back for the 17.30 Tees Tyne Pullman north...and dinner on the train....."Gin & Tonic to start?"
Strangely, "breakfast" has become more of a social event. One of the main parts of work I do miss is regular breakfasts with colleagues. There are many good places to get a decent unhealthy start to the day.
But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.
I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.
For many people it is nothing to do with moral its the fact if they don't go in they lose a days oay. Many companies have derisory numbers of days sick pay before you are thrown on statuatory sick pay
It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.
Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.
I'm not sure about the first paragraph - a little bit of evidence rather than a sweeping generalisation would help.
Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.
"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.
In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.
As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.
I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.
I think the first is rather easy to demonstrate - phone up your bank or your insurance company. 2 hours later ...
And I have seen scores of websites with just such an announcement.
That is more a product of those firms not being prepared, a good voip call centre system should easily handle staff working from home. I would hazard there was an old fashioned pbx system reliant on internal network. Easy to fix
Yep, modern phone systems allow a desk phone to be anywhere with an internet connection, can also use a ‘soft phone’ on a computer, iPad or mobile phone.
Aside from privacy concerns over people like customer-facing bank staff working in a shared house, it’s technically possible to have your whole call centre work from home.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
The big thing to take away from these leader ratings is that effective opposition is so far away that ministers are the benchmark for the PM not opposition leaders.
Not a worry at this moment in time, still four years out, although as the weeks turn to years and if there is little or no improvement it could be, for those of us not of the Boris faith.
But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.
I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.
I have had to tell people to "F^&k off home" on a number of occasions. As have a number of managers of my aquaintance. Even with regular flu, it is less good for everyone -including the company bottom line - to not infect everyone.
Company provided flu jabs pay for themselves - provably..
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......
Don't call her Nipoleon! She will always be wee Jimmy Krankie!
Saint Nicola?
I can't say I share your exalted opinion of the lady. But hey, whatever floats your boat!
But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.
I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.
I have had to tell people to "F^&k off home" on a number of occasions. As have a number of managers of my aquaintance. Even with regular flu, it is less good for everyone -including the company bottom line - to not infect everyone.
Company provided flu jabs pay for themselves - provably..
I have had that from managers and seen it from managers. I have also seen staff refuse to f^&k off home and insist they are well enough to work because they can't afford the money that will be docked from their pay
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
To a degree, yet a number of countries with similar high labour costs have remained bigger manufacturing economies, Germany and Japan obviously, but also Italy and France. Indeed the EU average is 15% of GDP from manufacturing compared to UK 10%.
What has particularly disappeared though is the low skilled manufacturing jobs that were the mainstay of employment in many Northern towns. Value of manufacturing is stable, but employment is low. Even where those jobs persist, such as fish processing, they do not seem particularly in demand by locals.
A major problem was the endless warfare between the stupid management and the stupid unions. Which always reminded me of the fight-on-an-sinking-ship bit in action movies.
The rigid "trade" and piecework systems meant extremely ossified working practises. The union leadership believed in the Lump Of Work fallacy - all productivity increases meant less jobs, they thought. The management complacently thought that something would turn up - maybe more government support....
A while back, I went for a look round an industrial museum. Talking to the curators - ex-engineers all - I was astonished at the miserable, dangerous, ancient equipment they'd been using in Sheffield steel industry in the 80s. I asked - this was the standard stuff in usage, not special relics for the museum.
A major problem was the endless warfare between the stupid management and the stupid unions. Which always reminded me of the fight-on-an-sinking-ship bit in action movies.
The rigid "trade" and piecework systems meant extremely ossified working practises. The union leadership believed in the Lump Of Work fallacy - all productivity increases meant less jobs, they thought. The management complacently thought that something would turn up - maybe more government support....
A while back, I went for a look round an industrial museum. Talking to the curators - ex-engineers all - I was astonished at the miserable, dangerous, ancient equipment they'd been using in Sheffield steel industry in the 80s. I asked - this was the standard stuff in usage, not special relics for the museum.
Although you seem surprised by the usage of ancient equipment, I'm not.
It's a rare company in the UK that actually invests in productivity, most companies continue using what they've got until the firm inevitably dies due to productivity increases elsewhere rendering the company unprofitable.
Just look at the last 10 years - few firms seem to have been focussed on productivity, most just added cheap workers to meet demand..
I am taking a weekend break in Santorini. Excellent time to visit without the usual throngs of tourists pushing and shoving for the best photo oppoerunity. But I had to fill in an online form staing contact details etc plus travel history in last 14 days, and then wait to get sent an authirisation to travel code. No code no travel. On arrival in Greece everyones codes were checked and a number of people selected for mandatory testing - seems the code had an indicator stating who is to be tested. If you are selected for testing you must self isolate for 24 hours waiting for test result.
It was very efficient and simple - very untypical of Greece. They are trying to reopen their tourist industry but doing it very cautiously. Masks are mandatory in supermarkets and public transport.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
To a degree, yet a number of countries with similar high labour costs have remained bigger manufacturing economies, Germany and Japan obviously, but also Italy and France. Indeed the EU average is 15% of GDP from manufacturing compared to UK 10%.
What has particularly disappeared though is the low skilled manufacturing jobs that were the mainstay of employment in many Northern towns. Value of manufacturing is stable, but employment is low. Even where those jobs persist, such as fish processing, they do not seem particularly in demand by locals.
Very different though. If you look at the Rhur, for example, they have suffered from the loss of heavy industry. In both countries light to medium engineering has thrived but it’s just in different areas (eg in the U.K. the midlands). Germany has an advantage due to its technical education system and the hausbank model.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree with 3.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
A major problem was the endless warfare between the stupid management and the stupid unions. Which always reminded me of the fight-on-an-sinking-ship bit in action movies.
The rigid "trade" and piecework systems meant extremely ossified working practises. The union leadership believed in the Lump Of Work fallacy - all productivity increases meant less jobs, they thought. The management complacently thought that something would turn up - maybe more government support....
A while back, I went for a look round an industrial museum. Talking to the curators - ex-engineers all - I was astonished at the miserable, dangerous, ancient equipment they'd been using in Sheffield steel industry in the 80s. I asked - this was the standard stuff in usage, not special relics for the museum.
Although you seem surprised by the usage of ancient equipment, I'm not.
It's a rare company in the UK that actually invests in productivity, most companies continue using what they've got until the firm inevitably dies due to productivity increases elsewhere rendering the company unprofitable.
Just look at the last 10 years - few firms seem to have been focussed on productivity, most just added cheap workers to meet demand..
I wasn't surprised so much as... surprised by the extent of it. Finding a manual 1930 lathe was in use in 1986 was interesting. Finding that they'd been trying to do aerospace work on it was... a moment.
I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.
For many people it is nothing to do with moral its the fact if they don't go in they lose a days oay. Many companies have derisory numbers of days sick pay before you are thrown on statuatory sick pay
I'm certainly not suggesting that all employers (or all managers) are enlightened (probably most are not), and obviously if you dock pay for being sick a lot of employees are going to turn up ill. My point was that *regardless of the corporate wfh line*, ie even if the company view is "you're free to work from home or just take a sick day, we aren't counting them" some people will turn up in the office anyway.
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......
Don't call her Nipoleon! She will always be wee Jimmy Krankie!
Saint Nicola?
I can't say I share your exalted opinion of the lady. But hey, whatever floats your boat!
Try to imagine it being said in an ironic tone of voice
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
Yes, they were quite explicit that they weren't going to update the death figures. Yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand's doing.
Because they are adding Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 tests together, the massive Pillar 2 testing in hotspots is driving the positives number. They are caching large numbers of asymptomatic cases doing this.
There is also the reporting delay.
The following is cases by specimen date, rather than reporting date
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
Do you not see the inconsistency with 98 deaths occurred in the previous couple of weeks, and "was indeed 16 yesterday". If the figure for Wednesday can increase on Friday. The Figure for Friday can increase on Monday.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
Could you include the overall total for each day please.
It would show the level of concentration of each area compared to England as a whole.
The problem with that is that the level of testing is dependent on the area. For example, in Leicester, they were going door to door, trying to test everyone i some areas. So they found lots of "hidden" cases.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Yes, they were quite explicit that they weren't going to update the death figures. Yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand's doing.
The dashboard is automatic on the data being present in the database behind. So someone would have to physically change it. At the moment, all the development seems to be going into the beta site - https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk
Which is also showing the daily total - since, again, it is dependent on the data.
That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.
The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.
What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.
I'd be interested to know what's driving the mysteriously high figures in Northampton. I know just from a bit of digging on Google that they've had a major care home outbreak there recently, but that's still not nearly enough to account for the numbers.
Yes, they were quite explicit that they weren't going to update the death figures. Yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand's doing.
The dashboard is automatic on the data being present in the database behind. So someone would have to physically change it. At the moment, all the development seems to be going into the beta site - https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk
Which is also showing the daily total - since, again, it is dependent on the data.
Ah, it's automated and nobody has switched the feature off, that explains all. Thanks.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
I don't dispute your point about Corbyn, however getting rid of the barsteward can only be a good thing.
As to the banks. I believe Brown and Darling had seen what had happened with the run on Northern Rock in 2007 and didn't fancy the mega version of that a year later. One could argue it the Bush administration had intervened with Lehmann Brothers, and underwritten some of the sub prime mortgage debt the crisis would not have been quite so bad. I wouldn't argue if you said the bail out of ungrateful bankers allowed them back at the trough with immediacy and impunity without penalty, quite how that could have worked I couldn't say.
What of the future? I am not sure how Starmer or his successors can beat Johnson by returning the blue collar classes to the Labour fold. I was confident up until last week that any economic crash would be to Labour's benefit, but it might work for Johnson instead if he can scapegoat groups that Labour are seen as soft on. Mainly "foreigners" of any creed, colour and religion.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.
There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
I don't dispute your point about Corbyn, however getting rid of the barsteward can only be a good thing.
As to the banks. I believe Brown and Darling had seen what had happened with the run on Northern Rock in 2007 and didn't fancy the mega version of that a year later. One could argue it the Bush administration had intervened with Lehmann Brothers, and underwritten some of the sub prime mortgage debt the crisis would not have been quite so bad. I wouldn't argue if you said the bail out of ungrateful bankers allowed them back at the trough with immediacy and impunity without penalty, quite how that could have worked I couldn't say.
What of the future? I am not sure how Starmer or his successors can beat Johnson by returning the blue collar classes to the Labour fold. I was confident up until last week that any economic crash would be to Labour's benefit, but it might work for Johnson instead if he can scapegoat groups that Labour are seen as soft on. Mainly "foreigners" of any creed, colour and religion.
There was perhaps no good, certainly no perfect, option available for the government in 2008.
But the imagery remains of Labour bailing out the 'London bankers' while letting the local factories and steelworks close.
And the imagery passes into the common mindset until something replaces it.
Ed Miliband couldn't replace that image - he was too obviously London establishment. Corbyn for a brief period came close though by representing 'old Labour'. Starmer we will have to see.
That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.
The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.
What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.
Leicester is saturated by pop up test centres, and going door to door. Even so the numbers are dropping, indeed the peak was before the extended lockdown.
@Malmesbury does a good chart, but the figures do need normalising for population. Birmingham is obviously quite a lot bigger than Oadby and Wigston for example.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
Sure - but your own figures show both Cameron and Boris got 45% with ABs.
So Boris didn't lose any ABs vs Cameron.
It's just that all his gains came elsewhere.
Yes but the original point was '..even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM' which as I showed was not correct. It was middle class voters who made Cameron PM, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband beat Cameron with working class voters.
It was only under Boris that the Tories won working class C2 and DE voters
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
The Conservatives didn't have to get a majority of working class votes but rather to get enough of them.
Its noticeable that in 2015 that the Conservatives gained the likes of Morley, Telford and Southampton Itchen from Labour while Chester, Hove and Ealing went the other way.
That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.
The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.
What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.
I'd be interested to know what's driving the mysteriously high figures in Northampton. I know just from a bit of digging on Google that they've had a major care home outbreak there recently, but that's still not nearly enough to account for the numbers.
They did have a major episode of within hospital transmission a few weeks back, it could be a secondary effect of that.
This happened in Desborough, but would appear as Kettering I think:
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
I don't dispute your point about Corbyn, however getting rid of the barsteward can only be a good thing.
As to the banks. I believe Brown and Darling had seen what had happened with the run on Northern Rock in 2007 and didn't fancy the mega version of that a year later. One could argue it the Bush administration had intervened with Lehmann Brothers, and underwritten some of the sub prime mortgage debt the crisis would not have been quite so bad. I wouldn't argue if you said the bail out of ungrateful bankers allowed them back at the trough with immediacy and impunity without penalty, quite how that could have worked I couldn't say.
What of the future? I am not sure how Starmer or his successors can beat Johnson by returning the blue collar classes to the Labour fold. I was confident up until last week that any economic crash would be to Labour's benefit, but it might work for Johnson instead if he can scapegoat groups that Labour are seen as soft on. Mainly "foreigners" of any creed, colour and religion.
There was perhaps no good, certainly no perfect, option available for the government in 2008.
But the imagery remains of Labour bailing out the 'London bankers' while letting the local factories and steelworks close.
And the imagery passes into the common mindset until something replaces it.
Ed Miliband couldn't replace that image - he was too obviously London establishment. Corbyn for a brief period came close though by representing 'old Labour'. Starmer we will have to see.
I don't dispute the morality issue of bailing out the banks, but a run on the banks would have seen more businesses fail, so arguably the situation could have been much, much worse.
I can't do much about the optics of bailing out the banks.Either way Corbyn wasn't the answer.
Labour (and dare I say the equally do-gooding LDs) do have a massive problem against Johnson. The proles love him, and whatever Guardianista knob-heads like me think of the great man it changes nothing. He is electoral gold.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.
There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation
Its all blah, blah, blah.
People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Didn't the Govt end up making a profit from the whole thing?
That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.
The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.
What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.
Leicester is saturated by pop up test centres, and going door to door. Even so the numbers are dropping, indeed the peak was before the extended lockdown.
@Malmesbury does a good chart, but the figures do need normalising for population. Birmingham is obviously quite a lot bigger than Oadby and Wigston for example.
But the overall national level of testing isn't increasing.
So if more is being doing in Leicester etc is that because fewer are being done elsewhere and if so is that because there is now less demand for testing elsewhere ?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
Sure - but your own figures show both Cameron and Boris got 45% with ABs.
So Boris didn't lose any ABs vs Cameron.
It's just that all his gains came elsewhere.
Yes but the original point was '..even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM' which as I showed was not correct. It was middle class voters who made Cameron PM, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband beat Cameron with working class voters.
It was only under Boris that the Tories won working class C2 and DE voters
It was the increase in working class votes that made Cameron PM.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
The Conservatives didn't have to get a majority of working class votes but rather to get enough of them.
Its noticeable that in 2015 that the Conservatives gained the likes of Morley, Telford and Southampton Itchen from Labour while Chester, Hove and Ealing went the other way.
Maybe but the Tories also won seats like Enfield Southgate, Canterbury, Warwick and Leamington and Oxford West and Abingdon and Richmond Park and Putney and St Albans and Twickenham and Kingston and Surbiton in 2015, all wealthy middle class seats now held by Labour or the LDs.
It was also only Boris who was able to actually win working class voters outright, Cameron and May both won C2s in 2010 and 2017 (Miliband and Cameron each got 32% of C2s in 2015) but it was only Boris who was able to win DEs as well as C2s and really break Labour's Red Wall in the North and Midlands
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
I don't dispute your point about Corbyn, however getting rid of the barsteward can only be a good thing.
As to the banks. I believe Brown and Darling had seen what had happened with the run on Northern Rock in 2007 and didn't fancy the mega version of that a year later. One could argue it the Bush administration had intervened with Lehmann Brothers, and underwritten some of the sub prime mortgage debt the crisis would not have been quite so bad. I wouldn't argue if you said the bail out of ungrateful bankers allowed them back at the trough with immediacy and impunity without penalty, quite how that could have worked I couldn't say.
What of the future? I am not sure how Starmer or his successors can beat Johnson by returning the blue collar classes to the Labour fold. I was confident up until last week that any economic crash would be to Labour's benefit, but it might work for Johnson instead if he can scapegoat groups that Labour are seen as soft on. Mainly "foreigners" of any creed, colour and religion.
There was perhaps no good, certainly no perfect, option available for the government in 2008.
But the imagery remains of Labour bailing out the 'London bankers' while letting the local factories and steelworks close.
And the imagery passes into the common mindset until something replaces it.
Ed Miliband couldn't replace that image - he was too obviously London establishment. Corbyn for a brief period came close though by representing 'old Labour'. Starmer we will have to see.
I don't dispute the morality issue of bailing out the banks, but a run on the banks would have seen more businesses fail, so arguably the situation could have been much, much worse.
I can't do much about the optics of bailing out the banks.Either way Corbyn wasn't the answer.
Labour (and dare I say the equally do-gooding LDs) do have a massive problem against Johnson. The proles love him, and whatever Guardianista knob-heads like me think of the great man it changes nothing. He is electoral gold.
Though I often agree with you, I think you're over-egging the pudding here with regard to the popularity of BJ with the "proles" - presumably the (white) working class. You're far too gloomy - these people can be won back by the left.
Just because you see a load of patriotic flags in the north doesn't mean that people have been won over to the right-wing cause. The silent majority, who don't fly flags, of the white w/c are not racist, and won't respond to dog whistles - though some of course will, and others are concerned about immigration levels. But there's also a significant proportion of the white w/c that are decent, relaxed about social change, and recognise that immigration doesn't particularly affect their own communities. The Labour tradition hasn't died for many communities and parts of communities. And in particular, w/c women are much less enamoured by the charms of BJ than men. So, to repeat, don't be so gloomy. BJ's appeal could well be transitory.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Didn't the Govt end up making a profit from the whole thing?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.
There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation
Its all blah, blah, blah.
People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.
The point is they didn’t.
Applegarth made about £5m after tax in his career at Northern Rock. A decent amount of money but no more than a partner in an accountancy or law firm would have made. Do you think that should have been taken away from him retrospectively?
Goodwin struck a deal to give up half his pension. He had a good legal case to give up none of it but chose to in return for an end to the legal cases. Should RBS have rejected that settlement deal?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Didn't the Govt end up making a profit from the whole thing?
It's not only time to ban Americans: it's time to ban 90 percent of all airplane hopping. Climate change is the biggest threat to our tenuous civilization.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.
There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation
Its all blah, blah, blah.
People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.
The point is they didn’t.
Applegarth made about £5m after tax in his career at Northern Rock. A decent amount of money but no more than a partner in an accountancy or law firm would have made. Do you think that should have been taken away from him retrospectively?
Goodwin struck a deal to give up half his pension. He had a good legal case to give up none of it but chose to in return for an end to the legal cases. Should RBS have rejected that settlement deal?
Objectively speaking you are wrong.
A quick look on google or wiki shows that I am right.
For example:
The executives at HBOS, RBS, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley amassed huge nest eggs despite catastrophic performances. Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said: “These are mind-boggling rewards for failure. They are all greed and no shame.
“Britain’s bank bosses with their mink-lined pension pots will never have to work again. But millions of their customers fear they will never work again.
“Bank lending has dried up and thousands of sound businesses are going down.”
Former Northern Rock boss Adam Applegarth will retire on at least £200,000 a year thanks to his pension fund of £2.5million.
The chief executive blamed for the demise of Bradford & Bingley after 157 years, Steven Crawshaw, is only 46 but has come away with a £1.8million pension fund.
The man behind the multi-billion pound losses at Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, has £8.4million for his retirement – nearly £800,000 a year.
Others to hit the pension jackpot include the bosses of Halifax Royal Bank of Scotland, now owned by Lloyds, which had to be bailed out in October.
Former chief executive of HBOS Sir James Crosby walked away with a pension fund worth £10.4million.
His right-hand man Peter Cummings, 52, who oversaw £109billion of loans, can retire with a £5.2million pot.
Crosby, 52, now sits on the Financial Services Authority, the body responsible for policing the City. His successor at the bank Andy Hornby, 41, left with a pension fund of £2million.
Now you can babble on as much as you like about pension rights but to the average person it gets translated as "there's one law for them and another law for you".
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Good riddance, I say. Aside from his financial misdemeanours, his turning everything around to Hitler all the time was becoming annoying.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.
There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation
Its all blah, blah, blah.
People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.
The point is they didn’t.
Applegarth made about £5m after tax in his career at Northern Rock. A decent amount of money but no more than a partner in an accountancy or law firm would have made. Do you think that should have been taken away from him retrospectively?
Goodwin struck a deal to give up half his pension. He had a good legal case to give up none of it but chose to in return for an end to the legal cases. Should RBS have rejected that settlement deal?
Objectively speaking you are wrong.
Eh? Your own email shows that, quite literally, both gentlemen were left with assets worth millions in the case of Mr Applegarth and presumably also Mr Goodwin.
Comments
The total death count has been suspended whilst PHE gets its house in order, which can only be a good thing.
But the description 'post industrial' gives the wrong impression of many areas. A look on google earth shows vast industrial estates around many northern and midland towns and I'd suggest that they are psychologically industrial even if the numbers employed are much lower. In particular as such work is often well paid by local standards.
And it was Labour's abandonment of such areas, after years of 'Thatcher shut the mines and factories' talk, while simultaneously bailing out London bankers that sowed the seeds of the elections of the 2010s.
Trouble is. people only vaguely interested will go away thinking "Maybe Biden wants to abolish the police, there seems to be an argument about it." Without proper libel laws it can be a profitable strategy to just make tuff up and hope that people believe half of it.
The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”
On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.
His daughter (8) who goes to the local primary school has been selected to take part, with other school children, by Bangor University in an investigation over the summer into how much children have lost academically during lockdown and non school attendance
She apparently undertook an on line session this morning
However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.
The Aussies are very good at highlighting flights where people have later tested positive.
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/flights.aspx
Cutting back to one free beer at lunchtime led to strikes not so long ago!
"Professional" is an overused word but is generally applicable. Our CEO wears a shirt and tie to meetings but I don't and my colleagues don't. I did feel the "pulled through a hedge backward" look with the beard wasn't ideal but I'm pleased the shirts and ties are in the wardrobe.
As I used to have a long commute, the question was always "could I do the journey?" and while a couple of times I had to turn back en route as I was so poorly it's been a good guide down the years.
Oddly enough, I did have to take a day's sick recently because of bad back pain. Getting the ergonomics (as distinct from economics) of home working isn't always easy - I tell people it's your home not your prison. No one expects you to be chained to the laptop from dawn to dusk and if I need to do some household chores or get some shopping or cook lunch, I will and work can wait.
I work to live, I don't live to work.
Half hear Trump doesnt know what he is talking about.
Half hear Biden is a threat to law and order?
The volume is amplified by Trump's mistake so if the message still gets through it is better for him than an accurate remark with lower reach.
Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.
"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.
In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.
As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.
I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.
And I have seen scores of websites with just such an announcement.
What has particularly disappeared though is the low skilled manufacturing jobs that were the mainstay of employment in many Northern towns. Value of manufacturing is stable, but employment is low. Even where those jobs persist, such as fish processing, they do not seem particularly in demand by locals.
Aside from privacy concerns over people like customer-facing bank staff working in a shared house, it’s technically possible to have your whole call centre work from home.
Company provided flu jabs pay for themselves - provably..
And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.
Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.
The rigid "trade" and piecework systems meant extremely ossified working practises. The union leadership believed in the Lump Of Work fallacy - all productivity increases meant less jobs, they thought. The management complacently thought that something would turn up - maybe more government support....
A while back, I went for a look round an industrial museum. Talking to the curators - ex-engineers all - I was astonished at the miserable, dangerous, ancient equipment they'd been using in Sheffield steel industry in the 80s. I asked - this was the standard stuff in usage, not special relics for the museum.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public#number-of-cases-and-deaths
Another Gov.uk website does give the number of deaths for yesterday - 40, very low for a weekday. Same day last week was 148.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.240353223.557347567.1594998097-334965128.1579540533
High number of positive tests yesterday - 827.
It's a rare company in the UK that actually invests in productivity, most companies continue using what they've got until the firm inevitably dies due to productivity increases elsewhere rendering the company unprofitable.
Just look at the last 10 years - few firms seem to have been focussed on productivity, most just added cheap workers to meet demand..
It was very efficient and simple - very untypical of Greece. They are trying to reopen their tourist industry but doing it very cautiously. Masks are mandatory in supermarkets and public transport.
I'm curious as to whether there has been a shift in the testing strategy in order to concentrate on high risk areas.
NHS England case data
The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.
But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.
There is also the reporting delay.
The following is cases by specimen date, rather than reporting date
The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.
What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.
It would show the level of concentration of each area compared to England as a whole.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
By 2019 Boris had totally reversed that, doing better with skilled working class voters than middle class voters. Last year the Tories got 47% with C2s but only 45% with ABs and C1s and even got 41% with DEs
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
Total failure
No clue on any of the key statistics
How many active cases - No clue since March
How many have recovered - No clue since March
How many people tested lost count at the end of April by pure coincidence the same date as the Government testing target
How many dead - No clue. Highest in Europe but now trying to find a method to under count deaths by even more than they are already under counted
When did we lockdown? Said it was a week earlier than it actually was this week. If only it had been we would have saved 000's of lives
What will it take to rid us of this clueless, corrupt, inept SoS?
By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.
And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.
Which is also showing the daily total - since, again, it is dependent on the data.
The impression of infection rates in Blackburn would vary greatly if we knew that there was 100 tests yesterday or 10,000 tests.
As to the banks. I believe Brown and Darling had seen what had happened with the run on Northern Rock in 2007 and didn't fancy the mega version of that a year later. One could argue it the Bush administration had intervened with Lehmann Brothers, and underwritten some of the sub prime mortgage debt the crisis would not have been quite so bad. I wouldn't argue if you said the bail out of ungrateful bankers allowed them back at the trough with immediacy and impunity without penalty, quite how that could have worked I couldn't say.
What of the future? I am not sure how Starmer or his successors can beat Johnson by returning the blue collar classes to the Labour fold. I was confident up until last week that any economic crash would be to Labour's benefit, but it might work for Johnson instead if he can scapegoat groups that Labour are seen as soft on. Mainly "foreigners" of any creed, colour and religion.
And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.
Orange shows the change from the figures yesterday.
What will happen on Monday/Tuesday is big headline numbers to "fill in" the weekend reporting gap.
Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?
So Boris didn't lose any ABs vs Cameron.
It's just that all his gains came elsewhere.
There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation
But the imagery remains of Labour bailing out the 'London bankers' while letting the local factories and steelworks close.
And the imagery passes into the common mindset until something replaces it.
Ed Miliband couldn't replace that image - he was too obviously London establishment. Corbyn for a brief period came close though by representing 'old Labour'. Starmer we will have to see.
@Malmesbury does a good chart, but the figures do need normalising for population. Birmingham is obviously quite a lot bigger than Oadby and Wigston for example.
https://twitter.com/CovidLeics/status/1284514237663125511?s=19
It was only under Boris that the Tories won working class C2 and DE voters
Its noticeable that in 2015 that the Conservatives gained the likes of Morley, Telford and Southampton Itchen from Labour while Chester, Hove and Ealing went the other way.
This happened in Desborough, but would appear as Kettering I think:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53144440
I can't do much about the optics of bailing out the banks.Either way Corbyn wasn't the answer.
Labour (and dare I say the equally do-gooding LDs) do have a massive problem against Johnson. The proles love him, and whatever Guardianista knob-heads like me think of the great man it changes nothing. He is electoral gold.
People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.
So if more is being doing in Leicester etc is that because fewer are being done elsewhere and if so is that because there is now less demand for testing elsewhere ?
He didn't need to get a majority of them.
It was also only Boris who was able to actually win working class voters outright, Cameron and May both won C2s in 2010 and 2017 (Miliband and Cameron each got 32% of C2s in 2015) but it was only Boris who was able to win DEs as well as C2s and really break Labour's Red Wall in the North and Midlands
Just because you see a load of patriotic flags in the north doesn't mean that people have been won over to the right-wing cause. The silent majority, who don't fly flags, of the white w/c are not racist, and won't respond to dog whistles - though some of course will, and others are concerned about immigration levels. But there's also a significant proportion of the white w/c that are decent, relaxed about social change, and recognise that immigration doesn't particularly affect their own communities. The Labour tradition hasn't died for many communities and parts of communities. And in particular, w/c women are much less enamoured by the charms of BJ than men. So, to repeat, don't be so gloomy. BJ's appeal could well be transitory.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-budget-banks/british-taxpayers-face-27-billion-pound-loss-from-bank-bailout-idUKKBN13I1FJ
This explains the figure in more detail:
https://fullfact.org/economy/1-trillion-not-spent-bailing-out-banks/
Applegarth made about £5m after tax in his career at Northern Rock. A decent amount of money but no more than a partner in an accountancy or law firm would have made. Do you think that should have been taken away from him retrospectively?
Goodwin struck a deal to give up half his pension. He had a good legal case to give up none of it but chose to in return for an end to the legal cases. Should RBS have rejected that settlement deal?
Objectively speaking you are wrong.
For example:
The executives at HBOS, RBS, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley amassed huge nest eggs despite catastrophic performances. Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said: “These are mind-boggling rewards for failure. They are all greed and no shame.
“Britain’s bank bosses with their mink-lined pension pots will never have to work again. But millions of their customers fear they will never work again.
“Bank lending has dried up and thousands of sound businesses are going down.”
Former Northern Rock boss Adam Applegarth will retire on at least £200,000 a year thanks to his pension fund of £2.5million.
The chief executive blamed for the demise of Bradford & Bingley after 157 years, Steven Crawshaw, is only 46 but has come away with a £1.8million pension fund.
The man behind the multi-billion pound losses at Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, has £8.4million for his retirement – nearly £800,000 a year.
Others to hit the pension jackpot include the bosses of Halifax Royal Bank of Scotland, now owned by Lloyds, which had to be bailed out in October.
Former chief executive of HBOS Sir James Crosby walked away with a pension fund worth £10.4million.
His right-hand man Peter Cummings, 52, who oversaw £109billion of loans, can retire with a £5.2million pot.
Crosby, 52, now sits on the Financial Services Authority, the body responsible for policing the City. His successor at the bank Andy Hornby, 41, left with a pension fund of £2million.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bank-greed-30million-pensions-scandal-789269
Now you can babble on as much as you like about pension rights but to the average person it gets translated as "there's one law for them and another law for you".
“They’re saying, ‘We’d like to see Biden crush Trump,’” he continued, adding that he doesn’t want Democrats to take control of the Senate. In his world, legislative gridlock is a good thing and voting for Republicans to keep the Senate is basically “making sure nothing radical happens.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/wall-street-bankers-well-gladly-pay-higher-taxes-to-get-rid-of-the-existential-threat-that-is-trump/ar-BB16LoN6