Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How the Government’s handling of the pandemic has impacted on confidence about Brexit – politicalbet

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 22 in General
How the Government’s handling of the pandemic has impacted on confidence about Brexit – politicalbetting.com

New polling from the FT shows the impact the government's handling of COVID has had on confidence about Brexit. https://t.co/YaiyuqkiT7 pic.twitter.com/QPkicplnEL

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • First?


  • Pollsters are fairly united now, slim or no Tory lead. We will see crossover soon.

    Going to catch up on Keir's speech, apparently it's fantastic.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    This is a vital point. If we allow normal treatments to proceed the second time round, the capacity available for Covid treatments is massively curtailed. Covid infections MUST be reduced to allow normal cancers etc to be treated.




  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,140
    Not sure we are seeing much more than confirmation bias here. People who were always opposed to Brexit are "even more" opposed (if that were possible). Those in favour don't see the link.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    edited September 22
    The government refusing to extend the Brexit transition period during a pandemic shows it's serious about neither.

    Mind you, I am struggling with the thought process where most Leavers think the government's (brilliant/not so brilliant?) handling of Covid makes them MORE confident about them delivering a wonderful Brexit.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,207
    I assume this was done last night, but I see the shadow education secretary is a bit dim:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12732344/labour-frontbencher-kate-green-calls-coronavirus-good-crisis/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,096



    Pollsters are fairly united now, slim or no Tory lead. We will see crossover soon.

    Going to catch up on Keir's speech, apparently it's fantastic.
    Adequate, competent, yes. fantastic no but a good start, failed to announce kicking out the corbynites.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,462
    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    I think that's the point - Biden won't rush into making announcements when there are multiple options - term limits and jurisdiction changes both use Republican favoured approaches against them.
  • It doesn't matter whether people are confident or worried about Brexit - we are either going to collapse out of transition without a deal or they are going to capitulate to the EU as they did with Boris's Oven Ready DON'T SWALLOW IT'S POISON!! deal.

    It is what it is. Control the controllables. Brexit is not in our power and we have a rather immediate crisis to deal with. I'm more than happy to distract myself laughing at the clicktivists who insist they are right and the industry experts are wrong. But it doesn't matter one way or another.


  • This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
  • Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    I think that's the point - Biden won't rush into making announcements when there are multiple options - term limits and jurisdiction changes both use Republican favoured approaches against them.
    Which, appropriately enough, was Ginsburg's judicial technique.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,066
    I saw discussion of the rule of six on the previous thread. Aside from @HYUFD ludicrous suggestion that people would socially distance in a household social meeting, is it not the case that pubs and restaurants can set for groups of 6 to be non socially distanced with the social distancing being between the groups ?
    If a group of 6 are non socially distanced within a household, how is a pub enviroment any safer ?
    The household risk is pari passu with the pub and marginally safer even if the groups of 6 are apart in the pub.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,640



    This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
    Fuck the flag. Waving the flag does nothing to address the causes of structural inequality.

    The Forces of Woke are winning the culture war; we shouldn't be lifting our collective foot off the neck of the reactionary scum now.
  • Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    The retaliation bridge has already been reached.

    The Democrats if they act will be acting in retaliation to what the GOP did to Obama's nominee and their hypocrisy now in replacing RBG.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,844
    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,066
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
    Constitutional amendments require 66 senators iirc ?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624

    Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.

    The striking finding though, is that half of Conservative Party voters, presumably Leavers, think government handling of Covid, brilliant or not, indicates a GREATER belief in their success with Brexit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,844
    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691
    Pulpstar said:

    I saw discussion of the rule of six on the previous thread. Aside from @HYUFD ludicrous suggestion that people would socially distance in a household social meeting, is it not the case that pubs and restaurants can set for groups of 6 to be non socially distanced with the social distancing being between the groups ?
    If a group of 6 are non socially distanced within a household, how is a pub enviroment any safer ?
    The household risk is pari passu with the pub and marginally safer even if the groups of 6 are apart in the pub.

    The pub/restaurant has hand sanitiser and tables regularly cleaned down, loos that are properly cleaned, contact details, glasses and plates properly washed etc. How can you be certain that any of this happens in a private home?

  • FF43 said:

    Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.

    The striking finding though, is that half of Conservative Party voters, presumably Leavers, think government handling of Covid, brilliant or not, indicates a GREATER belief in their success with Brexit.
    Why shouldn't it? I would be in that camp.

    COVID is a much bigger challenge than Brexit and the country and the Government have been able to surmount those challenges. Brexit will be a piece of cake after this.
  • I reckon anybody within 2 miles of Corbyns house probably heard a lot of screaming and shouting and many bad words a few moments ago.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691
    Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Yes - will watch the speech later. Mind you, given his predecessor and the current incumbent at No 10, the bar for being a competent leader is about as low as it could possibly be.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Yes - will watch the speech later. Mind you, given his predecessor and the current incumbent at No 10, the bar for being a competent leader is about as low as it could possibly be.
    That's our opening
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,844
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
    Constitutional amendments require 66 senators iirc ?
    2/3 of both houses, then 3/4 of the states need to ratify.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
  • Strange only a couple of months ago Labour shadoe chancellor was banging on about extra wealth taxes. Has that gone now?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 78,329
    edited September 22
    Pulpstar said:

    I saw discussion of the rule of six on the previous thread. Aside from @HYUFD ludicrous suggestion that people would socially distance in a household social meeting, is it not the case that pubs and restaurants can set for groups of 6 to be non socially distanced with the social distancing being between the groups ?
    If a group of 6 are non socially distanced within a household, how is a pub enviroment any safer ?
    The household risk is pari passu with the pub and marginally safer even if the groups of 6 are apart in the pub.

    Households are limited to 6 people full stop, inside or outside and you can socially distance at that maximum size.

    However yes in pubs you can theoretically have 100 people in a big pub garden as long as they sit on tables of 6, with those 6 sitting as close together as they would in a household
  • Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
    Constitutional amendments require 66 senators iirc ?
    2/3 of both houses, then 3/4 of the states need to ratify.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
    Pretty much impossible to happen on anything partisan.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,596
    Worth watching our next PM but one:

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691
    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
  • There stands a potential PM and I thought Corbyn would have been a good PM but I think I'd be lying if I truly ever thought he looked like one.

    Keir Starmer, the next David Cameron
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    The retaliation bridge has already been reached.

    The Democrats if they act will be acting in retaliation to what the GOP did to Obama's nominee and their hypocrisy now in replacing RBG.
    Of course.
    I wouldn't reject court packing out of hand (and as I've said, it would be entirely constitutional); I'm merely suggesting that it the long run it might not be the most effective retaliation/remedy.
    And in the short run it might not be politically expedient.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    edited September 22

    FF43 said:

    Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.

    The striking finding though, is that half of Conservative Party voters, presumably Leavers, think government handling of Covid, brilliant or not, indicates a GREATER belief in their success with Brexit.
    Why shouldn't it? I would be in that camp.

    COVID is a much bigger challenge than Brexit and the country and the Government have been able to surmount those challenges. Brexit will be a piece of cake after this.
    Thanks. Clearly lots of people are in your camp of believing Brexit will be a huge success, thanks in no small part to the skill and competence of the government as shown by their success with Covid.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    The idea will go the way of the getting everybody an antibody test and giving those who have had covid an immunity passport.

    Its now 6 months at least of restrictions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,140
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
    I was reading a piece last night which I have not been able to find which suggested that it was open to Congress in terms of the Constitution to determine what issues could come before the SC. My immediate reaction was that if it was as simple as that FDR would have excluded Federal employment schemes, for example, from their consideration. I think his fight with the SC is pretty much the only one he ever lost.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,066
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I saw discussion of the rule of six on the previous thread. Aside from @HYUFD ludicrous suggestion that people would socially distance in a household social meeting, is it not the case that pubs and restaurants can set for groups of 6 to be non socially distanced with the social distancing being between the groups ?
    If a group of 6 are non socially distanced within a household, how is a pub enviroment any safer ?
    The household risk is pari passu with the pub and marginally safer even if the groups of 6 are apart in the pub.

    The pub/restaurant has hand sanitiser and tables regularly cleaned down, loos that are properly cleaned, contact details, glasses and plates properly washed etc. How can you be certain that any of this happens in a private home?

    Yes, and that (If well managed) should be sufficient to prevent transmission between various groups of six. But unless I'm missing something it won't prevent transmission within a group of say six friends all out together.

    Are groups of six all two (Or even one) metre apart in the pubs within the group itself ?!

    Don't get me wrong, a pub is vastly safer for 3 groups of six rather than a household gathering of say 18 people. But it can only ever be as safe as 3 households of 6 people meeting up
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    (FPT)
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.



    So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
    I don't think that's what's being said at all.

    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay the costs. Margins are too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t pay you will be shut out of normal life.
    And indeed the entire point of mass cheap antigen testing is that it ought to enable the pandemic to be completely halted if used on a mass scale.

    Dido has proven to be as clueless as she was originally caricatured.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    For customers of venues that can't cope with social distancing rules, eg live music venues, then a £5 cover charge in order to get back to normal would not be the end of the world. Many such venues have much more than a £5 cover charge or admission fee already.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,462
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.



    So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
    I don't think that's what's being said at all.

    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay the costs. Margins are too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t pay you will be shut out of normal life.
    And indeed the entire point of mass cheap antigen testing is that it ought to enable the pandemic to be completely halted if used on a mass scale.

    Dido has proven to be as clueless as she was originally caricatured.
    We didn't caricature her as clueless we said she was and provided evidence
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    edited September 22
    Reposting this response from the previous thread, as I think it's important to recognise that even in extremis, constitutions and laws are important.

    Nigelb said:

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
    The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.

    The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.

    What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.

    Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
    History tells us that genocides tend to happen when states break down. There's a reason most of the Nazi genocidal murders happened outside of the German state.

    Consitutions aren't of no use; they are simply on their own insufficient to guarantee anything.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 78,329
    edited September 22

    There stands a potential PM and I thought Corbyn would have been a good PM but I think I'd be lying if I truly ever thought he looked like one.

    Keir Starmer, the next David Cameron

    So no Labour majority in 2024 then!
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,287
    Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Last refuge of the scoundrel ...
  • This is the party of Richard Lennon!!
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.

    The striking finding though, is that half of Conservative Party voters, presumably Leavers, think government handling of Covid, brilliant or not, indicates a GREATER belief in their success with Brexit.
    Why shouldn't it? I would be in that camp.

    COVID is a much bigger challenge than Brexit and the country and the Government have been able to surmount those challenges. Brexit will be a piece of cake after this.
    Thanks. Clearly lots of people are in your camp of believing Brexit will be a huge success, thanks in no small part to the skill and competence of the government as shown by their success with Covid.
    Precisely.

    COVID19 shows the countries ability to rise to a challenge. Take testing for instance, after a sluggish start given we didn't have the capacity we now are in a position where this country is testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet. We are literally world beating. But we don't rest on our laurels and be satisfied with that, as a country we identify where there are issues and demand more.

    That is why we will be a successful independent country.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional..
    Read the article (and more to the point, read Article III of the Constitution itself); it is not.
  • For those wondering whether Starmer is taking on the Corbynites, please note that his speech this morning was introduced by Ruth Smeeth. She's not even an MP any more (lost her Stoke North seat last year), and has no formal role within the party. But she was one of the leading opponents of anti-semitism within the party, and viewed by the Corbynites as a traitor (she got Marc Wadsworth expelled from the party, IIRC). I don't think the message could be clearer.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,244
    Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,096
    It’s amazing how ones financial interests frame your view on how the pandemic should be managed. Apparently pub chain owners think they know more about immunology than people who have actually studied it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,844
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    This won’t be for small pubs, it’ll be for sports grounds, concert venues, theatres, nightclubs, exhibitions, airlines and other venues who charge admission and can eat £5, if it means they can operate as normal before we get a vaccine.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,462
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
    Did you read the article - the argument is that the Constitution is indeterminate on the issue...
  • Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Twelve months ago he was waving the EU flag, leading the charge for a second referendum.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,140

    For those wondering whether Starmer is taking on the Corbynites, please note that his speech this morning was introduced by Ruth Smeeth. She's not even an MP any more (lost her Stoke North seat last year), and has no formal role within the party. But she was one of the leading opponents of anti-semitism within the party, and viewed by the Corbynites as a traitor (she got Marc Wadsworth expelled from the party, IIRC). I don't think the message could be clearer.

    As I said downthread she was excellent. Didn't realise she was no longer an MP.
  • MaxPB said:

    Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
    Hold on there, 45% seems unlikely. Outpolling Blair?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691
    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this response from the previous thread, as I think it's important to recognise that even in extremis, constitutions and laws are important.

    Nigelb said:

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
    The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.

    The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.

    What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.

    Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
    History tells us that genocides tend to happen when states break down. There's a reason most of the Nazi genocidal murders happened outside of the German state.

    Consitutions aren't of no use; they are simply on their own insufficient to guarantee anything.

    Of course. They are necessary but not sufficient. But they do help create the parameters of debate, the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t. They provide a marker against which proposed actions can be tested.

    There is a reason why authoritarian / totalitarian states change laws, destroy independent judges, control law enforcement etc, why they pay lip service to laws and constitutions even while denuding them of any meaning.
  • Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    This won’t be for small pubs, it’ll be for sports grounds, concert venues, theatres, nightclubs, exhibitions, airlines and other venues who charge admission and can eat £5, if it means they can operate as normal before we get a vaccine.
    They won't even necessarily need to eat it, they can pass it or some of it on to their customers who for the sake of £5 to getinto a concert, sports ground, theatre, club etc will pay the cover charge.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,140
    nichomar said:

    It’s amazing how ones financial interests frame your view on how the pandemic should be managed. Apparently pub chain owners think they know more about immunology than people who have actually studied it.

    I think that's a bit unfair. What they want is a set of rules and precautions that still allow themselves to earn a living. That's not an unreasonable aspiration.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,706

    Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Twelve months ago he was waving the EU flag, leading the charge for a second referendum.
    So what? That debate is over.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,066
    Binfire stuff, Starmer needs to sack Kate Green I think.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,513
    Pulpstar said:

    I saw discussion of the rule of six on the previous thread. Aside from @HYUFD ludicrous suggestion that people would socially distance in a household social meeting, is it not the case that pubs and restaurants can set for groups of 6 to be non socially distanced with the social distancing being between the groups ?
    If a group of 6 are non socially distanced within a household, how is a pub enviroment any safer ?
    The household risk is pari passu with the pub and marginally safer even if the groups of 6 are apart in the pub.

    It is easier to police that a pub is sticking to the rules than a household.

    If both stick to the rules, you are correct.
    But too many households don't.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this response from the previous thread, as I think it's important to recognise that even in extremis, constitutions and laws are important.

    Nigelb said:

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
    The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.

    The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.

    What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.

    Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
    History tells us that genocides tend to happen when states break down. There's a reason most of the Nazi genocidal murders happened outside of the German state.

    Consitutions aren't of no use; they are simply on their own insufficient to guarantee anything.

    Of course. They are necessary but not sufficient. But they do help create the parameters of debate, the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t. They provide a marker against which proposed actions can be tested.

    There is a reason why authoritarian / totalitarian states change laws, destroy independent judges, control law enforcement etc, why they pay lip service to laws and constitutions even while denuding them of any meaning.
    But they're also why we should be skeptical of the law if it is being abused. If the law is abused then simply saying "I was only following orders/the law" isn't a reasonable excuse in my eyes for eg shooting an unarmed person seven times in the back.

    And its not the case that it couldn't happen today. It does.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    This won’t be for small pubs, it’ll be for sports grounds, concert venues, theatres, nightclubs, exhibitions, airlines and other venues who charge admission and can eat £5, if it means they can operate as normal before we get a vaccine.
    They won't even necessarily need to eat it, they can pass it or some of it on to their customers who for the sake of £5 to getinto a concert, sports ground, theatre, club etc will pay the cover charge.
    That may work for big venues. A small pub or restaurant simply cannot bear the cost of a £5 charge for each of its customers or charge customers for it. Average price of a meal is about £20 in my daughter’s place. How long do you think her business would last if she suddenly increased the cost by 25%?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,967
    edited September 22



    This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
    Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."

    But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional..
    Read the article (and more to the point, read Article III of the Constitution itself); it is not.
    I'll give it a read but "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" seems pretty unambiguopus to me
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691
    DavidL said:

    For those wondering whether Starmer is taking on the Corbynites, please note that his speech this morning was introduced by Ruth Smeeth. She's not even an MP any more (lost her Stoke North seat last year), and has no formal role within the party. But she was one of the leading opponents of anti-semitism within the party, and viewed by the Corbynites as a traitor (she got Marc Wadsworth expelled from the party, IIRC). I don't think the message could be clearer.

    As I said downthread she was excellent. Didn't realise she was no longer an MP.
    It’s very well worth listening to her interview on the podcast “Corbynism: A Post-Mortem”.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 4,319
    Andy_JS said:
    ✔️ The exponential-takeoff scaremongering propaganda was a disgrace.
  • Seems Starmer might be on to something, twitter has gone into meltdown about Nandy saying Labour will put "Britain First".
  • Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    This won’t be for small pubs, it’ll be for sports grounds, concert venues, theatres, nightclubs, exhibitions, airlines and other venues who charge admission and can eat £5, if it means they can operate as normal before we get a vaccine.
    They won't even necessarily need to eat it, they can pass it or some of it on to their customers who for the sake of £5 to getinto a concert, sports ground, theatre, club etc will pay the cover charge.
    That may work for big venues. A small pub or restaurant simply cannot bear the cost of a £5 charge for each of its customers or charge customers for it. Average price of a meal is about £20 in my daughter’s place. How long do you think her business would last if she suddenly increased the cost by 25%?
    To the best of my knowledge your daughter's venue has found a way to work with social distancing has it not?

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone who has been able to operate in a secure socially distanced manner should suddenly need to start doing this. I think the idea is this is an alternative to social distancing for those venues you yourself called the socially undistanceables: https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/09/the-social-undistanceables-a-plan/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,244

    MaxPB said:

    Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
    Hold on there, 45% seems unlikely. Outpolling Blair?
    Boris is just that awful, once Brexit is done and dusted loads of support will fall away and Starmer is making all of the right noises on what kind of PM he would be. Also, no Lib Dems splitting the vote on the centre left and centre. If the Tories are all the way out to the right on 35% Labour can easily get 45% assuming the Lib Dems are stuck under 10% (which is probably fair). If Starmer is as smart as everyone thinks then he needs to find a way to get 10-12 MPs in Scotland. I'm not sure how that happens but it will be the difference between a Labour majority and Labour minority government.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,004
    labour's problem

    Apart from carping from the sidelines here and there, labour are on very board with what the tories are doing. And that means they own the coming catastrophe.

    When this carnage is eventually over, voters will be looking for new parties to support. Ed Davey sort of realises this. So does Nigel Farage. Not sure about Starmer.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,891

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.

    The striking finding though, is that half of Conservative Party voters, presumably Leavers, think government handling of Covid, brilliant or not, indicates a GREATER belief in their success with Brexit.
    Why shouldn't it? I would be in that camp.

    COVID is a much bigger challenge than Brexit and the country and the Government have been able to surmount those challenges. Brexit will be a piece of cake after this.
    Thanks. Clearly lots of people are in your camp of believing Brexit will be a huge success, thanks in no small part to the skill and competence of the government as shown by their success with Covid.
    Precisely.

    COVID19 shows the countries ability to rise to a challenge. Take testing for instance, after a sluggish start given we didn't have the capacity we now are in a position where this country is testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet. We are literally world beating. But we don't rest on our laurels and be satisfied with that, as a country we identify where there are issues and demand more.

    That is why we will be a successful independent country.
    Do you do a lot of CNS stimulants?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,462

    Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Twelve months ago he was waving the EU flag, leading the charge for a second referendum.
    12 months ago we hadn't left the EU. You may not have noticed it but Boris won an election on Britain leaving the EU and we've now left. Starmer has accepted the fact but Boris and co really haven't as they keep on talking about it.
  • Andy_JS said:
    One thing that has also been overlooked in the criticism is the two eggheads said they would lay out what is happening across Europe and how if we follow that trend here...then they only showed Spain and France, who just happen to be the absolute worst by a country mile.

    That is rather naughty sleight of hand.

    I know why they did it, but as scientists they shouldn't he doing it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,065
    kinabalu said:



    This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
    Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."

    But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
    Excellent. The best of both worlds for them.

    They are turning people like you off but you will still vote for anyone with a red rosette - you are the Lab equivalent of @HYUFD - plus they are likely to pick up centrists, such as @MaxPB as well.

    I am going to back a Lab govt right now!
  • kinabalu said:



    This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
    Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."

    But "proportion" is the operative word here - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this bloc. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
    Thought it was a good solid speech and a good pitch for voters to give Labour a chance. He's not a great orator or even as good a speaker as Blair but I think he will lead Labour to victory, which I haven't really felt in my gut of any leader since Blair.
    On flag waving, it's not my thing either, but since Labour is a patriotic party there is no harm in expressing it in ways that people understand and that don't create openings for our opponents.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,004
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    This won’t be for small pubs, it’ll be for sports grounds, concert venues, theatres, nightclubs, exhibitions, airlines and other venues who charge admission and can eat £5, if it means they can operate as normal before we get a vaccine.
    They won't even necessarily need to eat it, they can pass it or some of it on to their customers who for the sake of £5 to getinto a concert, sports ground, theatre, club etc will pay the cover charge.
    That may work for big venues. A small pub or restaurant simply cannot bear the cost of a £5 charge for each of its customers or charge customers for it. Average price of a meal is about £20 in my daughter’s place. How long do you think her business would last if she suddenly increased the cost by 25%?
    I saw a tweet this morning from a person whose father is losing his restaurant business after 45 years of hard work and paying taxes (and I suspect from her name coming to this country from overseas?).

    First time was bad, this time terminal.

    There must be thousands of stories like this.

    When this is over and when we have left the EU, I reckon a new politics is going to emerge. And that is not going to be good for the tories or a labour party that has effectively given them Carte Blanche.
  • kinabalu said:



    This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
    Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."

    But "proportion" is the operative word here - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this bloc. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
    Thought it was a good solid speech and a good pitch for voters to give Labour a chance. He's not a great orator or even as good a speaker as Blair but I think he will lead Labour to victory, which I haven't really felt in my gut of any leader since Blair.
    On flag waving, it's not my thing either, but since Labour is a patriotic party there is no harm in expressing it in ways that people understand and that don't create openings for our opponents.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
    Hold on there, 45% seems unlikely. Outpolling Blair?
    Boris is just that awful, once Brexit is done and dusted loads of support will fall away and Starmer is making all of the right noises on what kind of PM he would be. Also, no Lib Dems splitting the vote on the centre left and centre. If the Tories are all the way out to the right on 35% Labour can easily get 45% assuming the Lib Dems are stuck under 10% (which is probably fair). If Starmer is as smart as everyone thinks then he needs to find a way to get 10-12 MPs in Scotland. I'm not sure how that happens but it will be the difference between a Labour majority and Labour minority government.
    If there is one thing the Tories are world class at, knifing leaders when they have outlived their use. Boris is going to get removed once Brexit and COVID have passed.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,462
    geoffw said:

    Andy_JS said:
    ✔️ The exponential-takeoff scaremongering propaganda was a disgrace.
    I take it maths isn't your strongest suit. The important figure he is the rate of transmission and that rate of transmission has suddenly shoot up well past an R of 1.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Looks like a rather partisan split that doesn't really show anything at all besides what people already thought about party politics and Brexit before the crisis. I'm actually surprised as many SNP, Green and Labour voters would say more likely as do, but they're probably people who largely already supported Brexit.

    The fact the LDs are the only ones to not have a singificant percentage to agree with the statement is probably down to their being a party of remainers.

    The striking finding though, is that half of Conservative Party voters, presumably Leavers, think government handling of Covid, brilliant or not, indicates a GREATER belief in their success with Brexit.
    Why shouldn't it? I would be in that camp.

    COVID is a much bigger challenge than Brexit and the country and the Government have been able to surmount those challenges. Brexit will be a piece of cake after this.
    Thanks. Clearly lots of people are in your camp of believing Brexit will be a huge success, thanks in no small part to the skill and competence of the government as shown by their success with Covid.
    Precisely.

    COVID19 shows the countries ability to rise to a challenge. Take testing for instance, after a sluggish start given we didn't have the capacity we now are in a position where this country is testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet. We are literally world beating. But we don't rest on our laurels and be satisfied with that, as a country we identify where there are issues and demand more.

    That is why we will be a successful independent country.
    Do you do a lot of CNS stimulants?
    Only coffee. Lots of coffee.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    edited September 22
    Andy_JS said:
    I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,691

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT


    If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?

    Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.

    There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
    https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
    Hospitality venues will not pay these costs. Margins are far too tight. Customers will pay. And if you can’t afford it, you will be shut out of normal life.
    This won’t be for small pubs, it’ll be for sports grounds, concert venues, theatres, nightclubs, exhibitions, airlines and other venues who charge admission and can eat £5, if it means they can operate as normal before we get a vaccine.
    They won't even necessarily need to eat it, they can pass it or some of it on to their customers who for the sake of £5 to getinto a concert, sports ground, theatre, club etc will pay the cover charge.
    That may work for big venues. A small pub or restaurant simply cannot bear the cost of a £5 charge for each of its customers or charge customers for it. Average price of a meal is about £20 in my daughter’s place. How long do you think her business would last if she suddenly increased the cost by 25%?
    To the best of my knowledge your daughter's venue has found a way to work with social distancing has it not?

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone who has been able to operate in a secure socially distanced manner should suddenly need to start doing this. I think the idea is this is an alternative to social distancing for those venues you yourself called the socially undistanceables: https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/09/the-social-undistanceables-a-plan/
    It has. But whether at the end of the year it has been profitable is another question. To operate profitably any pub needs people to be at the bar chatting and ordering drinks. If the cost of doing that is a £5 charge per person that is simply unfeasible. So this will not help at all and continuing to operate on the basis that half your business is stopped is not feasible.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,066
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting these links FPT.

    While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.

    Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;

    Introduction of term limits:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
    Legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954

    Number two is blatantly unconstitutional..
    Read the article (and more to the point, read Article III of the Constitution itself); it is not.
    I'll give it a read but "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" seems pretty unambiguopus to me
    If it's clear to you, it'll be clear to Gorsuch as well. I've got the court down as follows right now

    Alito, Thomas - Absolute Trump toadies, Thomas in particular might be the most partisan justice ever.
    Kavanaugh - Very conservative, not as much of a Trump toady as Trump hoped.
    Gorsuch - Strict constitutionalist, literal textual interpretation. (Lends itself to conservatism)
    Roberts - Leans GOP, acknowledges his kingmaker role (That he had previously)
    Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor - Liberal justices, obviously in the minority so none has to consider a conservative kingmaker role.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,038



    Pollsters are fairly united now, slim or no Tory lead. We will see crossover soon.

    Going to catch up on Keir's speech, apparently it's fantastic.
    The more the public see of Sir Keir, the duller they find him - personality rating down from 32 to 25 in today’s IPSOS-MORI.

    Maybe COVID has changed everything, but leaders of the opposition who the public find this in charismatic, especially compared to the PM, don’t get the top job,
  • FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter, even if the ultimate destination remains the same.
    No, Ed Conway keeps putting out shit charts. Remeber the excessive death ones that used z score, so basically it was measuring not relative excessive deaths but how a country was doing compared to previous years and different European countries were hit significantly differently over the past 5.

    He also keeps using date of announcement and 7 day average on that, not actual date of death or test.
  • Sandpit said:

    Looks like Starmer is giving a good account of himself. Nice to have a non-racist opposition happy to wave their own country’s flag with pride.

    Twelve months ago he was waving the EU flag, leading the charge for a second referendum.
    I don't see any contradiction here. We are out of the EU now, but you can be patriotic within the EU. Many of the French, for example, are quite comfortable with waving both the French and the EU flag.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this response from the previous thread, as I think it's important to recognise that even in extremis, constitutions and laws are important.

    Nigelb said:

    The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.

    This all smacks of Last Rites.

    The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.

    And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
    The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.

    The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.

    What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.

    Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
    History tells us that genocides tend to happen when states break down. There's a reason most of the Nazi genocidal murders happened outside of the German state.

    Consitutions aren't of no use; they are simply on their own insufficient to guarantee anything.

    Of course. They are necessary but not sufficient. But they do help create the parameters of debate, the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t. They provide a marker against which proposed actions can be tested.

    There is a reason why authoritarian / totalitarian states change laws, destroy independent judges, control law enforcement etc, why they pay lip service to laws and constitutions even while denuding them of any meaning.
    Agreed.
    My further point was that even in the most extreme of states (Nazi Germany was an example) laws and constitutions, however perverted, are not entirely without meaning.
    Places where there is neither state nor law (Nazi occupied Polish territories, for example) are more perilous places still than those where the state still exists.
This discussion has been closed.