The Govt declares, on the floor of the House of Commons, “we are breaking the law”.
Philip, on here, declares that they are wrong, do not know what they are talking about, and therefore feels free to continue his support of their actions.
You would have thought that if the Govt was not actually breaking the law, or at least if it was open to debate, they might at least have tried to argue along those lines...
It’s one thing to take pride in breaking the law, a special thing to do so when you aren’t actually doing so!
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
It can't dissemble.
If the government intends to overwrite the law they need to do so explicitly. They can't dissemble or play it down because if they did the courts would strike down any new law because the WA would take precedence. The new law must explicitly overwrite the WA and if it does that then dissembling becomes rather impossible.
Of course it can dissemble. And it can choose to play up or play down. Such is the art of communication.
He just said he grew up on a farm? I think that is a lie?
In 1969, the family returned to England and settled into West Nethercote Farm, near Winsford in Somerset, Stanley's remote family home on Exmoor in the West Country.[18
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Hence the no standing rules so larger parties who book larger parties will be separated by the 1m distancing rules.
Isn't there supposed to be 'mitigation' in addition to a 1 metre rule indoors ?
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
As in a house party there is no guarantee they will sit in groups of only 6 people at least 2 metres apart
There are no guarantees people will do that at religious services either.
In churches you have to wear a mask unlike house parties where people are crammed together up the stairs, in the kitchen, the bedroom etc, sitting and standing right next to each other and yes the priest has to set it up so you sit 2 metres apart
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
It feels like just repeating the same mistakes as March.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Hence the no standing rules so larger parties who book larger parties will be separated by the 1m distancing rules.
Isn't there supposed to be 'mitigation' in addition to a 1 metre rule indoors ?
It was surprising that Starmer did not go on the breaching of the treaty but it does make you wonder if he is trying to keep out of the brexit debate
Starmer getting bogged down in Brexit would be an error. Covid is a far more fruitful subject for him.
It may be, but it still seems that they are all getting hung up on the day to day details. Personally I'm more interested in the medium term plans of the government. I'd have preferred Starmer to ask about the government trying to get people to go back to the office. I don't know why he needs to use six questions on people getting a test.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
As in a house party there is no guarantee they will sit in groups of only 6 people at least 2 metres apart
There are no guarantees people will do that at religious services either.
In churches you have to wear a mask unlike house parties where people are crammed together up the stairs, in the kitchen, the bedroom etc, sitting and standing right next to each other and yes the priest has to set it up so you sit 2 metres apart
So you are rejecting the idea that religious services (such as mosques) are vectors for covid?
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
So OGH will be confined back in Smithson towers then under your plan, he can run PB still but not go out otherwise other than for occasional exercise
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
It feels like just repeating the same mistakes as March.
Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. Plus I suspect Starmer knows it's best to let Tory discontent on this stew for a whole longer, by staying off the topic he prevents the Tories from closing ranks. Smart move I say.
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
So OGH will be confined back in Smithson towers then under your plan, he can run PB still but not go out otherwise other than for occasional exercise
Yes. Also, my parents and in-laws. But, if we accept that these groups are high-risk, and that we want to protect them, that is the only sensible course of action. Unless you have any brighter ideas?
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
So OGH will be confined back in Smithson towers then under your plan, he can run PB still but not go out otherwise other than for occasional exercise
It’s workable, just with ‘vulnerable lunches’ shopping times etc, the difficult part will be physical isolation from family but are they willing to give up bingo and quiz nights? I suppose if they aren’t then it’s up to them what risk they take.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Hence the no standing rules so larger parties who book larger parties will be separated by the 1m distancing rules.
Isn't there supposed to be 'mitigation' in addition to a 1 metre rule indoors ?
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Hence the no standing rules so larger parties who book larger parties will be separated by the 1m distancing rules.
Isn't there supposed to be 'mitigation' in addition to a 1 metre rule indoors ?
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
The same one that drove the labour targeting app at the last election.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
She is a local though. It makes no sense that the only testing site in Northumberland is in Berwick, despite a vast majority of the population of Northumberland living within 30 mins of Newcastle.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
Looking at that picture of Margaret Thatcher and now watching our current PM, you have to wonder what the fuck has happened to our political class
Heath and Wilson and Callaghan who preceeded her were hardly titans though.
Nor were most of the other 20th century PMs bar Lloyd George, Attlee and Churchill.
Boris is also the first Tory PM since Thatcher to have won a big majority
Take the time to watch this interview that Callaghan did with 3 journalists in 1978 and I challenge you not to be impressed at the detail he has of his brief.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
Lots of paths without Florida though. And even in Florida he's still favoured.
Looking at that picture of Margaret Thatcher and now watching our current PM, you have to wonder what the fuck has happened to our political class
Heath and Wilson and Callaghan who preceeded her were hardly titans though.
Nor were most of the other 20th century PMs bar Lloyd George, Attlee and Churchill.
Boris is also the first Tory PM since Thatcher to have won a big majority
Take the time to watch this interview that Callaghan did with 3 journalists in 1978 and I challenge you not to be impressed at the detail he has of his brief.
Then bear in mind that he came from an impoverished background without the slightest privilege or advantage to think of, and think of where he got to.
Then compare this to the current incumbent of No.10...
I never said Callaghan was stupid, clearly he wasn't and he was a decent man.
However that does not mean he was anywhere near the same league as Lloyd George, Attlee, Thatcher and Churchill who were our greatest PMs of the last century and also Callaghan never won a general election either and was PM at the time of the Winter of Discontent. Whatever else you think of Boris he has won a general election and has delivered Brexit
Interesting shifts on PB. As first ultra-Brexitism and then even more assertiive Boris-ism has got underway, all these posters seem to have either completely or partly decoupled from the government recently :
MaxPB, DavidHerdson, Richard Nabavi, TheScreamingEagles, CasinoRoyale, CarlottaVance and BigG.
Still loyally fighting the government's corner are reliable stalwarts Philip, HYUFD, contrarian and a couple of others.
Fine, I am happy to stand with the 40% of voters still voting Tory on the latest poll, the fact PB has a comfortable Starmer Labour/LD majority amongst posters now combined with the TUD and MalcG Nats in Scotland it seems does not change the fact that in the country there is much more support for Boris even if only a small minority on here back him
Is Johnson now the Prime Minister with the least coverage of hair on the top of his head since Attlee?
Perhaps the older electorate these days will counteract the perceived visual importance of a luxurious mop of hair in the TV age, but the transition is fraught with danger for the Bozza image.
Surprising that Sir Keir didn't go with Boris's reneging on international treaties, but it was probably a sound approach. No matter how forensic his questioning in the chamber and no matter how much Boris squirmed, all the news highlights will show is Boris harrumphing 'I stand up for Britain; he sides with the slippery continentals' - just what the Boris base love to hear. No, Sir Keir needs to make Brexit boring.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
They claim to be checking 20% of returnees to see if they have completed the form. With a £100 fine. Apparently You can't even leave home to walk the dog
But you CAN leave the home to go shop. Read the guidance I pasted the link to. BTW how are they checking people for a form they don't have? It is a simple thing to have the UK Border Force collect paper forms or check electronic forms. You can't enter the UK without having done so. Yet they do not.
There aren’t any paper forms; it’s online only, and you are supposed to show your email confirmation of compliance. Your family broke the rules and are lucky they weren’t checked (if being among the 80% counts as luck)
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
So OGH will be confined back in Smithson towers then under your plan, he can run PB still but not go out otherwise other than for occasional exercise
It’s workable, just with ‘vulnerable lunches’ shopping times etc, the difficult part will be physical isolation from family but are they willing to give up bingo and quiz nights? I suppose if they aren’t then it’s up to them what risk they take.
It may work but family and friends would need to keep regular Zoom contact with older relatives and friends to ensure their mental health does not go down and they do not feel isolated
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
If I may venture to suggest. The problem is Northumberland. Almost everywhere it is easier to get to Newcastle than almost anywhere else in Northumberland. But computer says you live in Northumberland. So will find you a test there.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
She is a local though. It makes no sense that the only testing site in Northumberland is in Berwick, despite a vast majority of the population of Northumberland living within 30 mins of Newcastle.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
Different health authority? There is a Northumberland CCG although it is based in Morpeth (which might have been a better place for a testing centre).
Is the Berwick centre testing people in Scotland as well, I wonder?
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Perhaps not at Kirk, but in Leicester some churches have a congregation of hundreds normally. Mosques too, obviously.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
Also WI seems to be moving towards him, PA looked iffy for a couple of days but then these latest polls are pretty strong there as well.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
She is a local though. It makes no sense that the only testing site in Northumberland is in Berwick, despite a vast majority of the population of Northumberland living within 30 mins of Newcastle.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
If she has a high fever, she obviously can’t drive; just say that and a test will arrive in the post.
1) Brexit - it's permanent form is yet to be delivered 2) Electoral appeal - regardless of his fitness for office he still has personal reasonance in the red wall and keeps the right flank on board, and closely related; 3) Alternatives - who else is there in the Tories who could do better politically?
If he ballses up (1) leading to collapse in (2) whilst there's a credible (3) waiting in the wings then he could be ejected very quickly next year.
But this will not happen this year because right up until midnight on 31st December the new Brexit has yet to take effect and its consequences felt.
For now on (3) it's Sunak's to lose. He has a lot still to learn though and needs to demonstrate (2) as well - because it won't just fall into his lap.
Looking at that picture of Margaret Thatcher and now watching our current PM, you have to wonder what the fuck has happened to our political class
Heath and Wilson and Callaghan who preceeded her were hardly titans though.
Nor were most of the other 20th century PMs bar Lloyd George, Attlee and Churchill.
Boris is also the first Tory PM since Thatcher to have won a big majority
Take the time to watch this interview that Callaghan did with 3 journalists in 1978 and I challenge you not to be impressed at the detail he has of his brief.
Then bear in mind that he came from an impoverished background without the slightest privilege or advantage to think of, and think of where he got to.
Then compare this to the current incumbent of No.10...
I remember thinking the same when the BBC replayed the 1979 vote of no confidence debate. Callahan in particular was impressive, but the standard of the whole debate was way above anything we get nowadays.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
Didn't Boris just tell us NHS staff were being given priority ?
It was surprising that Starmer did not go on the breaching of the treaty but it does make you wonder if he is trying to keep out of the brexit debate
He clearly shares my view. Let Johnson own and run with Brexit. Wish him well with getting a good deal and don't make a massive song & dance about "No Deal is an outrage" and "nobody voted to be poorer" etc etc. Do NOT let him off the hook again like last time.
The Boris Johnson random word generator had another outing at PMQs, a complete contrast to softly spoken questions from Keir Starmer.
A couple of questions on testing might have been enough. Should the SNP try the line of breaking UK law on an Independence referendum, it is hard to see Johnson having the nous or authority to stop it. I wonder how far Tory MPs are thinking we've had enough of him.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
She is a local though. It makes no sense that the only testing site in Northumberland is in Berwick, despite a vast majority of the population of Northumberland living within 30 mins of Newcastle.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
Different health authority? There is a Northumberland CCG although it is based in Morpeth (which might have been a better place for a testing centre).
Is the Berwick centre testing people in Scotland as well, I wonder?
Northumberland again. To get to Morpeth I could not do it except via Newcastle. Indeed at Newcastle I would only be halfway there.
There aren’t any paper forms; it’s online only, and you are supposed to show your email confirmation of compliance. Your family broke the rules and are lucky they weren’t checked (if being among the 80% counts as luck)
1. At the time the guidance was that you could print the form off and complete it. Not every passenger can do online. And even now you absolutely can print it off. On the website despite it saying do not print the form off they will check your print off:
"When you arrive at the UK border you’ll need to show either:
a printed copy of the document attached to your confirmation email the document attached to the confirmation email on your phone Border Force officers will use the QR code at the top of the document to check you have completed the form successfully."
2. You categorically are not supposed to show your email confirmation - if that was true then its a simple test for Border Force to enforce before they let you through. They do not. The website says Border Force will check. Yet Border Force do not check. Why not?
3. At the time no checks at all were being carried out either to ensure forms has been done nor if they were being complied with. Even now, its easy to bin off "quarantine" by telling the person on the phone that you are outside going to the shop.
Its bollocks mate. And absolute cluster fuck. Its no wonder that we were ridden with the pox because we left the door wide open for anyone to come in unhindered and even now can't do basic things like enforce compliance at the point where 100% of people entering the UK have to present their credentials.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
So OGH will be confined back in Smithson towers then under your plan, he can run PB still but not go out otherwise other than for occasional exercise
It’s workable, just with ‘vulnerable lunches’ shopping times etc, the difficult part will be physical isolation from family but are they willing to give up bingo and quiz nights? I suppose if they aren’t then it’s up to them what risk they take.
It may work but family and friends would need to keep regular Zoom contact with older relatives and friends to ensure their mental health does not go down and they do not feel isolated
Sure, and that's really important. I'm not averse to @nichomar 's suggestion that they are allowed out at their own risk – surely some sort of personal responsibility / decision making is acceptable? But in any case, risk segmentation is the only sensible way forward.
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
She is a local though. It makes no sense that the only testing site in Northumberland is in Berwick, despite a vast majority of the population of Northumberland living within 30 mins of Newcastle.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
Someone can be an excellent learner driver, but they can't drive on their own until they have passed a test, dispite a member of his/her family claiming that he/she would easily pass the driving test.
I think this is sensible. It is not being able to get tested that is the problem.
Looking at that picture of Margaret Thatcher and now watching our current PM, you have to wonder what the fuck has happened to our political class
Heath and Wilson and Callaghan who preceeded her were hardly titans though.
Nor were most of the other 20th century PMs bar Lloyd George, Attlee and Churchill.
Boris is also the first Tory PM since Thatcher to have won a big majority
Take the time to watch this interview that Callaghan did with 3 journalists in 1978 and I challenge you not to be impressed at the detail he has of his brief.
Then bear in mind that he came from an impoverished background without the slightest privilege or advantage to think of, and think of where he got to.
Then compare this to the current incumbent of No.10...
I remember thinking the same when the BBC replayed the 1979 vote of no confidence debate. Callahan in particular was impressive, but the standard of the whole debate was way above anything we get nowadays.
The Callaghans were friends and neighbours of my grandparents. I remember meeting Lord Jim as he was referred to in our household at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary party and he asked me about my interest in trains. The word avuncular could have been invented for him, although beneath that facade he was clearly extremely shrewd. Of course there is a degree of rose-tinted spectacles about this, and the fact that I am now older than some senior politicians, but it does feel as if our current crop is somehow not quite as grown up as their predecessors. SKS a welcome exception.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
My girlfriend, who lives in Ashington, was told by the COVID test booking system that her closest drive through was in Berwick, a 70 minute drive, yet for me who lives in Newcastle, I have the choice of North Shields or Sunderland. Both of which are closer to Ashington than Berwick.
Great system.
Did she have lesser symptoms or was it a self-referral? They might be trying to make sure more important cases do attend.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
She is a local though. It makes no sense that the only testing site in Northumberland is in Berwick, despite a vast majority of the population of Northumberland living within 30 mins of Newcastle.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
In all fairness, if you two are carrying a fever you are probably better off recovering in bed – you are unwell. The fact that it's very unlikely to be covid doesn't negate the fact that you aren't well enough for work.
The take from Die Welt here in Germany, where I have just enjoyed a very nice lunch overlooking the river in Tubingen:
Apparently, Johnson wants to calm his own cohorts with his pithy words, who have recently become more and more restless about his dodging in domestic politics. On the other hand, with so much brinkmanship, the unease among the population increases. No-deal, the outcome that most observers consider to be the worst, and on top of that the Corona crisis - what is flourishing under such conditions? Optimism or nagging doubt?
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
As in a house party there is no guarantee they will sit in groups of only 6 people at least 2 metres apart
There are no guarantees people will do that at religious services either.
In churches you have to wear a mask unlike house parties where people are crammed together up the stairs, in the kitchen, the bedroom etc, sitting and standing right next to each other and yes the priest has to set it up so you sit 2 metres apart
So you are rejecting the idea that religious services (such as mosques) are vectors for covid?
Not everyone will accept the guidance is nonsense on stilts. But it is. The issue is large gatherings of people both indoors and outdoors. Indoors is apparently simple - people from more than 6 households should not meet. Unless they're at work. Or on a bus. Or in the pub. Or at school. Then its fine to have people from more than 6 households together.
Outdoors is also simple. Kids can't meet in the park to play football. Thats not safe. Unless its "organised" in which case the pox isn't interested in you. Or if its horse racing where its definitely safe to have 3,000 people in the stands.
If gatherings of people is too high a risk then its too high a risk. Being on licensed premises doesn't mitigate the risk. Having someone organise the football doesn't mitigate the risk. And we're all clear that people absolutely shouldn't break these laws in a specific and very limited way.
It was surprising that Starmer did not go on the breaching of the treaty but it does make you wonder if he is trying to keep out of the brexit debate
He clearly shares my view. Let Johnson own and run with Brexit. Wish him well with getting a good deal and don't make a massive song & dance about "No Deal is an outrage" and "nobody voted to be poorer" etc etc. Do NOT let him off the hook again like last time.
Absolutely. Starmer is not going to fall into the Tories' trap on Brexit. It's amusing to read the reactions on here from PB Tories outraged that he won't play ball.
This latest botched attempt by government to "do something" is another way attempt at deflection.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
So OGH will be confined back in Smithson towers then under your plan, he can run PB still but not go out otherwise other than for occasional exercise
It’s workable, just with ‘vulnerable lunches’ shopping times etc, the difficult part will be physical isolation from family but are they willing to give up bingo and quiz nights? I suppose if they aren’t then it’s up to them what risk they take.
It may work but family and friends would need to keep regular Zoom contact with older relatives and friends to ensure their mental health does not go down and they do not feel isolated
It's trickier than that. I, for example, have two family members who are vulnerable:
One is undergoing chemotherapy to hold back terminal cancer but is otherwise physically fit. She is highly sociable, and found the 12-week self-isolation very hard to bear, but bear it she did. Allowing covid to spread unchecked would force her to spend her remaining days is sad seclusion or risk an even earlier death.
The other is elderly and housebound, but she is mentally alert and also sociable. She is dependent on multiple daily visits from carers, so it would actually be impossible for her to be isolated from the outside world.
I'm sure others are in similar situations. The idea that we can allow covid to spread while isolating the vulnerable is both infeasible and inhuman.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
The Govt declares, on the floor of the House of Commons, “we are breaking the law”.
Philip, on here, declares that they are wrong, do not know what they are talking about, and therefore feels free to continue his support of their actions.
You would have thought that if the Govt was not actually breaking the law, or at least if it was open to debate, they might at least have tried to argue along those lines...
It’s one thing to take pride in breaking the law, a special thing to do so when you aren’t actually doing so!
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
I think this is right. "International law" is better understood as "contracts between nations". Anyone who has run a business knows how this works. It's not "breaking the law" in the same way that throwing a brick through someone's window is breaking the law.
Bunch of welchers, you can trust a thief but you cannot ever trust a liar.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Professor Carl Heneghan suggests locking in the staff in a bubble and paying them very handsomely – reckons that 40% of all Covid deaths could be prevented this way.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
It is annoying when the Leader of the Opposition has an IQ above room temperature - a sad departure from a glorious tradition.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
Fine, I am happy to stand with the 40% of voters still voting Tory on the latest poll, the fact PB has a comfortable Starmer Labour/LD majority amongst posters now combined with the TUD and MalcG Nats in Scotland it seems does not change the fact that in the country there is much more support for Boris even if only a small minority on here back him.
Plus a few of the first, including TSE voted LD last year anyway
Which Cons policies particularly attract you, given that you disagree with their flagship policy of Brexiting (yes and I know you respect the democratic imperative to get it done)?
The Govt declares, on the floor of the House of Commons, “we are breaking the law”.
Philip, on here, declares that they are wrong, do not know what they are talking about, and therefore feels free to continue his support of their actions.
You would have thought that if the Govt was not actually breaking the law, or at least if it was open to debate, they might at least have tried to argue along those lines...
It’s one thing to take pride in breaking the law, a special thing to do so when you aren’t actually doing so!
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
It can't dissemble.
If the government intends to overwrite the law they need to do so explicitly. They can't dissemble or play it down because if they did the courts would strike down any new law because the WA would take precedence. The new law must explicitly overwrite the WA and if it does that then dissembling becomes rather impossible.
Philip, I think a fair few people are misunderstanding you. Can we nail this down a bit more?
The government sets policy for the UK, with the consent of Parliament, which is sovereign. No external body can force the UK to adopt any law or policy without Parliamentary consent (leaving aside prerogative powers and so on). If the UK Parliament passes a law, it is the law, end of story.
The government can enter into treaties - agreements - with other nations or international bodies. When people talk about "international law", it is these agreements that they are referring to. Such treaties cannot force a change in UK law or policy, for the reasons given above - Parliamentary sovereignty rules. If the government agrees a treaty, and Parliament subsequently passes a law which conflicts with the treaty, then the law passed by Parliament takes priority.
There is, therefore, no sense in which "international law" can override Parliament. Agreements with other nations are just that - agreements. They are, in principle, not much different from contracts between firms. In much the same way, the existence of a contract with a customer or supplier cannot compel a company's board or executive to behave in any particular way ("specific performance", in the jargon). Do we agree?
This leaves us with a hopefully much simpler conversation about the costs and benefits of making and breaking agreements, without the tedious armchair constitutional scholarship. This should be seen as a political question: was it right to agree the WA? Is it right, having made the agreement, to break it?
Yes that is a very reasonable summary.
I take issue with people referring to "the rule of law" as if international law is the rule of law. The rule of law is the law set out by Westminster, of which international law can be an element. If Westminster changes the law then the old law is no longer law.
Whether its wise to break an agreement is a very, very good question. Whether its legal to do so is a much simpler one.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
I haven't seen it. So Johnson was back on top form?
Fine, I am happy to stand with the 40% of voters still voting Tory on the latest poll, the fact PB has a comfortable Starmer Labour/LD majority amongst posters now combined with the TUD and MalcG Nats in Scotland it seems does not change the fact that in the country there is much more support for Boris even if only a small minority on here back him.
Plus a few of the first, including TSE voted LD last year anyway
Which Cons policies particularly attract you, given that you disagree with their flagship policy of Brexiting (yes and I know you respect the democratic imperative to get it done)?
I disagreed with it at the time but I support it now given rejoining would likely require joining the Euro etc which if that was a requirement of membership in 2016 would have led me to vote Leave.
If the EU still want to keep control of our fishing waters etc then No Deal unfortunately looks inevitable
In pillar 1 testing - that’s tests carried out by Public Health England labs and NHS hospitals - 89% of tests were completed within 24 hours of receipt at the lab.
For pillar 2 testing - which is most other testing - the median turnaround time for regional test sites was 24 hours, which means half of tests took more than a day and half took less.
For mobile testing units the figure was 22 hours, satellite testing centres took 76 hours and home testing kits took 86 hours.
-------
Getting 90% of pillar 1 tests turned around in 24hrs is pretty good, but still very slow on satellite testing. In the past week something has clearly gone tits up, but either the government is unwilling to say or don't know.
Remember back a few months ago when getting it done in < 3 days you were lucky for any test.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Professor Carl Heneghan suggests locking in the staff in a bubble and paying them very handsomely – reckons that 40% of all Covid deaths could be prevented this way.
That sounds totally unrealistic. Most of my elderly relative's carers have children of their own, for example.
There aren’t any paper forms; it’s online only, and you are supposed to show your email confirmation of compliance. Your family broke the rules and are lucky they weren’t checked (if being among the 80% counts as luck)
1. At the time the guidance was that you could print the form off and complete it. Not every passenger can do online. And even now you absolutely can print it off. On the website despite it saying do not print the form off they will check your print off:
"When you arrive at the UK border you’ll need to show either:
a printed copy of the document attached to your confirmation email the document attached to the confirmation email on your phone Border Force officers will use the QR code at the top of the document to check you have completed the form successfully."
2. You categorically are not supposed to show your email confirmation - if that was true then its a simple test for Border Force to enforce before they let you through. They do not. The website says Border Force will check. Yet Border Force do not check. Why not?
3. At the time no checks at all were being carried out either to ensure forms has been done nor if they were being complied with. Even now, its easy to bin off "quarantine" by telling the person on the phone that you are outside going to the shop.
Its bollocks mate. And absolute cluster fuck. Its no wonder that we were ridden with the pox because we left the door wide open for anyone to come in unhindered and even now can't do basic things like enforce compliance at the point where 100% of people entering the UK have to present their credentials.
You misunderstand if you think I am defending it. It is a complete mess, and an arbitrary mess at that. It’s only being done to try and obscure the fact that we should have done the same back in March, when there was lots of virus abroad and very little here. Now if anything we have more virus here and it is more remarkable that other countries are still letting us in.
I predicted the "notwithstanding" clause here, not surprised at all to see it.
This surely settles any "rule of law" debate under UK law does it not? If Parliament approves this law then it will be lawful and any objections by prior laws and regulations mentioned in the notwithstanding element are surely overriden by statute.
In pillar 1 testing - that’s tests carried out by Public Health England labs and NHS hospitals - 89% of tests were completed within 24 hours of receipt at the lab.
For pillar 2 testing - which is most other testing - the median turnaround time for regional test sites was 24 hours, which means half of tests took more than a day and half took less.
For mobile testing units the figure was 22 hours, satellite testing centres took 76 hours and home testing kits took 86 hours.
-------
Getting 90% of pillar 1 tests turned around in 24hrs is pretty good. In the past week something has clearly gone tits up, but either the government is unwilling to say or don't know.
Remember back a few months ago when getting it done in < 3 days you were lucky.
Mine was collected by courier Saturday lunchtime and I got my result by SMS and email Monday lunchtime. That’s pretty efficient.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
It is annoying when the Leader of the Opposition has an IQ above room temperature - a sad departure from a glorious tradition.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
You clearly don’t get it, it’s your teams brexit, get on with it and reap the plaudits or otherwise, nothing anyone says outside small number of policy makers will have any impact. Your brexit now deliver.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
It is annoying when the Leader of the Opposition has an IQ above room temperature - a sad departure from a glorious tradition.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
Yes but. The government gains less latitude on the question of world beating testing. Which is, I venture to suggest, rather more salient to folk than the niceties of international law. The government desperately wants a barney about Brexit. Which is reason enough not to give it.
The Govt declares, on the floor of the House of Commons, “we are breaking the law”.
Philip, on here, declares that they are wrong, do not know what they are talking about, and therefore feels free to continue his support of their actions.
You would have thought that if the Govt was not actually breaking the law, or at least if it was open to debate, they might at least have tried to argue along those lines...
It’s one thing to take pride in breaking the law, a special thing to do so when you aren’t actually doing so!
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
It can't dissemble.
If the government intends to overwrite the law they need to do so explicitly. They can't dissemble or play it down because if they did the courts would strike down any new law because the WA would take precedence. The new law must explicitly overwrite the WA and if it does that then dissembling becomes rather impossible.
Of course it can dissemble. And it can choose to play up or play down. Such is the art of communication.
Now the statute is public domain (which it was going to be) it was never going to be possible to dissemble that notwithstanding clause. It is there in black and white.
It is now up to our sovereign Parliament to decide whether it wants to authorise that or not. If our sovereign Parliament authorises that and puts it in statute then it is the law and the rule of law is maintained.
@FrancisUrquhart the problem does not appear to be the testing turnaround time, but the number of available tests vs demand.
A 24 hour turnaround doesn’t matter if you’ve had to wait 2 weeks for a test slot.
I understand. My point was that it does look like the system has become much more efficient while handling greater numbers, but clearly has broken down over the past week. Nobody seems to know exactly why. They say much greater demand, but the numbers being tested have never reached the alleged capacity.
Comments
If he intervened, he risks uniting the Tory party against him.
They just don't want to face the truth: that the only viable strategy for society and the economy is risk segmentation.
Sure, this will mean that the elderly, obese and vulnerable will have very limited opportunities to leave their homes.
However, as the entire policy is designed to protect these groups, it is hard to see any other sensible option.
I realise that this is unpopular on PB, and am ready for the usual ill-informed attacks, but what other choice do we have?
Stopping the entire country living their lives, with the attendant risks to mental (and physical) health, is not sensible given that the risks to most people from Covid-19 are low.
Great system.
Agreed. Brexit is one to avoid; let the government shoot itself in the foot rather than aim its gun elsewhere.
As was mooted recently re Indyref, if those proposing it had to agree in advance what it looked like they couldn't win the vote.
Having won the vote refusing to say exactly what it looks like, they can now be asked why whatever is delivered is not what was promised.
For ever.
Otherwise it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps there is a quota for locals and non-locals at each centre?
Be useful to know what the algorithm is.
And she has a high fever, same as me, but her employer (the NHS) wont let her back to work unless she gets a negative test, even with my negative test and same symptoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bhqnk602I
Then bear in mind that he came from an impoverished background without the slightest privilege or advantage to think of, and think of where he got to.
Then compare this to the current incumbent of No.10...
He could easily have said that it wasn't a good idea without being quite so incendiary.
SKS manages to be simultaneously bored and boring. Geoff Holhurst.
Score draw.
However that does not mean he was anywhere near the same league as Lloyd George, Attlee, Thatcher and Churchill who were our greatest PMs of the last century and also Callaghan never won a general election either and was PM at the time of the Winter of Discontent. Whatever else you think of Boris he has won a general election and has delivered Brexit
Perhaps the older electorate these days will counteract the perceived visual importance of a luxurious mop of hair in the TV age, but the transition is fraught with danger for the Bozza image.
Almost everywhere it is easier to get to Newcastle than almost anywhere else in Northumberland.
But computer says you live in Northumberland. So will find you a test there.
Is the Berwick centre testing people in Scotland as well, I wonder?
"You said you'd get Brexit done so get it done. Preferably a deal but if you can't manage that, well that's disappointing but so be it."
Then watch how he twists in the wind.
'What do we do?’: Trump gains rattle Miami Dems
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-miami-florida-support-410362
2020 .... 10.02 (net) BetfairEx
2021 .... 4.5 Boylesport
2022 .... 8.0 BETFRED:
1) Brexit - it's permanent form is yet to be delivered
2) Electoral appeal - regardless of his fitness for office he still has personal reasonance in the red wall and keeps the right flank on board, and closely related;
3) Alternatives - who else is there in the Tories who could do better politically?
If he ballses up (1) leading to collapse in (2) whilst there's a credible (3) waiting in the wings then he could be ejected very quickly next year.
But this will not happen this year because right up until midnight on 31st December the new Brexit has yet to take effect and its consequences felt.
For now on (3) it's Sunak's to lose. He has a lot still to learn though and needs to demonstrate (2) as well - because it won't just fall into his lap.
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
A couple of questions on testing might have been enough. Should the SNP try the line of breaking UK law on an Independence referendum, it is hard to see Johnson having the nous or authority to stop it. I wonder how far Tory MPs are thinking we've had enough of him.
"When you arrive at the UK border you’ll need to show either:
a printed copy of the document attached to your confirmation email
the document attached to the confirmation email on your phone
Border Force officers will use the QR code at the top of the document to check you have completed the form successfully."
2. You categorically are not supposed to show your email confirmation - if that was true then its a simple test for Border Force to enforce before they let you through. They do not. The website says Border Force will check. Yet Border Force do not check. Why not?
3. At the time no checks at all were being carried out either to ensure forms has been done nor if they were being complied with. Even now, its easy to bin off "quarantine" by telling the person on the phone that you are outside going to the shop.
Its bollocks mate. And absolute cluster fuck. Its no wonder that we were ridden with the pox because we left the door wide open for anyone to come in unhindered and even now can't do basic things like enforce compliance at the point where 100% of people entering the UK have to present their credentials.
I think this is sensible. It is not being able to get tested that is the problem.
Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally.
Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one)
Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
Get well soon.
Apparently, Johnson wants to calm his own cohorts with his pithy words, who have recently become more and more restless about his dodging in domestic politics. On the other hand, with so much brinkmanship, the unease among the population increases. No-deal, the outcome that most observers consider to be the worst, and on top of that the Corona crisis - what is flourishing under such conditions? Optimism or nagging doubt?
Outdoors is also simple. Kids can't meet in the park to play football. Thats not safe. Unless its "organised" in which case the pox isn't interested in you. Or if its horse racing where its definitely safe to have 3,000 people in the stands.
If gatherings of people is too high a risk then its too high a risk. Being on licensed premises doesn't mitigate the risk. Having someone organise the football doesn't mitigate the risk. And we're all clear that people absolutely shouldn't break these laws in a specific and very limited way.
One is undergoing chemotherapy to hold back terminal cancer but is otherwise physically fit. She is highly sociable, and found the 12-week self-isolation very hard to bear, but bear it she did. Allowing covid to spread unchecked would force her to spend her remaining days is sad seclusion or risk an even earlier death.
The other is elderly and housebound, but she is mentally alert and also sociable. She is dependent on multiple daily visits from carers, so it would actually be impossible for her to be isolated from the outside world.
I'm sure others are in similar situations. The idea that we can allow covid to spread while isolating the vulnerable is both infeasible and inhuman.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
I take issue with people referring to "the rule of law" as if international law is the rule of law. The rule of law is the law set out by Westminster, of which international law can be an element. If Westminster changes the law then the old law is no longer law.
Whether its wise to break an agreement is a very, very good question. Whether its legal to do so is a much simpler one.
If the EU still want to keep control of our fishing waters etc then No Deal unfortunately looks inevitable
In pillar 1 testing - that’s tests carried out by Public Health England labs and NHS hospitals - 89% of tests were completed within 24 hours of receipt at the lab.
For pillar 2 testing - which is most other testing - the median turnaround time for regional test sites was 24 hours, which means half of tests took more than a day and half took less.
For mobile testing units the figure was 22 hours, satellite testing centres took 76 hours and home testing kits took 86 hours.
-------
Getting 90% of pillar 1 tests turned around in 24hrs is pretty good, but still very slow on satellite testing. In the past week something has clearly gone tits up, but either the government is unwilling to say or don't know.
Remember back a few months ago when getting it done in < 3 days you were lucky for any test.
A 24 hour turnaround doesn’t matter if you’ve had to wait 2 weeks for a test slot.
This surely settles any "rule of law" debate under UK law does it not? If Parliament approves this law then it will be lawful and any objections by prior laws and regulations mentioned in the notwithstanding element are surely overriden by statute.
Which is, I venture to suggest, rather more salient to folk than the niceties of international law.
The government desperately wants a barney about Brexit. Which is reason enough not to give it.
It is now up to our sovereign Parliament to decide whether it wants to authorise that or not. If our sovereign Parliament authorises that and puts it in statute then it is the law and the rule of law is maintained.